Re: Vihuela stringing

[bill kilpatrick]

i was taught that one of the major factors in bringing
down the spanish empire was the hyper inflation
created in spain by its monopoly of cheap, new world
gold.

--- Howard Posner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Martyn Hodgson wrote:
> 
> > The grounds for Eph's view seems to be that only
> the very wealthy (ie the
> > 16thC Spanish) could afford firsts which had been
> through rigorous quality
> > checks (with high wastage) to ensure uniformity -
> we know that this was
> 
> Is the underlying assumption that because there was
> a lot of gold coming
> into Spain from the New World, all Spaniards were
> wealthy?
> 
> HP
> 
> 
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 


"and thus i made...a small vihuela from the shell of a creepy crawly..." - Don 
Gonzalo de Guerrero (1512), "Historias de la Conquista del Mayab" by Fra Joseph 
of San Buenaventura.  go to:  http://www.charango.cl/paginas/quieninvento.htm





___ 
Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Re: Vihuela stringing

[Howard Posner]

Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> The grounds for Eph's view seems to be that only the very wealthy (ie the
> 16thC Spanish) could afford firsts which had been through rigorous quality
> checks (with high wastage) to ensure uniformity - we know that this was

Is the underlying assumption that because there was a lot of gold coming
into Spain from the New World, all Spaniards were wealthy?

HP



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia

[EUGENE BRAIG IV]

- Original Message -
From: bill kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:08 pm
Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia
>
> this vihuela is a folk instrument, not one for the
> conservatory.  there is a south american cathedral -
> the name and location escapes me at the moment - with
> figures holding a charango sized instrument.  it's
> called "la charanguista" and it used to be called "la
> vihuelista."


Very interesting.  Where did you come by these names?


> if speculation is dubious, why do you think they're
> related more to guitars than vihuelas?  the south
> americans called them vihuelas - who was the first to
> tell them they got it wrong?


The concept of vihuela was so thoroughly absorbed by guitar, it just isn't at 
all likely that vihuela-like things persisted without being influenced by 
guitars.  Still, this is only speculation.  Without documentation, I would 
never endeavor to publish "Charango is a small guitar."

We all know, the naming of instruments is terribly plastic and not necessarily 
related to organology.  If I'd had my way, the Vinaccias would not have named 
their instruments "mandolino" at all, but they did (in reference to the old and 
recognizable) and it stuck.  I would rather Sobell had not named his largish 
mandolas "cittern" and "bouzouki," but he did and the names have become popular 
amongst Irish and Scottish players.  An instrument is not necessarily its name.

Best,
Eugene



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia

[bill kilpatrick]

this vihuela is a folk instrument, not one for the
conservatory.  there is a south american cathedral -
the name and location escapes me at the moment - with
figures holding a charango sized instrument.  it's
called "la charanguista" and it used to be called "la
vihuelista."

there are 4,5 and 6 course charangos of varying size -
to me, size is the distinguishing characteristic
between guitars and vihuelas of this type.

if speculation is dubious, why do you think they're
related more to guitars than vihuelas?  the south
americans called them vihuelas - who was the first to
tell them they got it wrong?

kindest regards to you all - bill

--- EUGENE BRAIG IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Greetings Bill et al.
> 
> - Original Message -
> From: bill kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:59 am
> Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia
> >
> > vihuelas - in one or two of the many forms in
> which
> > they were introduced into the new world, hundreds
> of
> > years ago - continue to exist today.  
> 
> 
> Nobody can make this statement because nobody has a
> good idea of what the vihuela was.  There is
> iconography, but without accepting some degree of
> speculation, there simply isn't a body of surviving
> instruments.  I don't believe any modern instrument
> survives exactly in the form of the 16th-c. vihuela
> (certainly no currently active instrument looks
> particularly close to the iconography),  If any
> active instrument has persisted as an exact
> preservation of some form of vihuela, nobody has any
> way of knowing it from the lack of 16th-c.
> instruments that have survived.
> 
> 
> > the only reason
> > they're not recognized as such - i maintain - is
> > because the vihuela, as something distinct from
> the
> > guitar, fell out of favor here in europe and only
> a
> > few examples survive.
> 
> 
> ..And whatever was left of the concept was entirely
> absorbed/influenced by the burgeoning popularity of
> guitars, in Europe and the Americas.  Nobody could
> have continued to build new instruments without
> being influenced by the popularity of guitar.
> 
> 
> > i loose heart.
> 
> 
> You shouldn't.  Just enjoy.
> 
> 
> > instead of judging what is or isn't a vihuela with
> > reference to the very few examples which remain,
> isn't
> > it possible - valid - to reverse the process and
> > simply ask where instruments like the charango,
> > cuatro, tiple, etc. came from?
> 
> 
> Of course.  Whatever their conceptual origins,
> however, modern instruments with distinct entities
> are their own entities, not their conceptual
> ancestors.  Early Neapolitan mandolins didn't come
> to be until the mid 18th c. when the concepts of the
> lute-like mandolins of the time were hybridized with
> chitarra battente construction and violin tuning,
> but my Neapolitan mandolins are not chitarre.
> 
> 
> > imagine what your guitar would look and sound like
> if
> > it had made the journey with cortez and back. 
> would
> > it have become something other than a guitar in
> the
> > process? 
> 
> 
> The ancestors of my guitars did, and the "fossil
> record" of the subsequent evolution to my 5-courser
> or various era 6-stringers is relatively whole with
> relatively little speculation required.  No matter
> how good speculation is, it is no substitute for
> solid documentation.  ...And my 6-course
> "reproduction" 16th-c. vihuela is purely
> speculative, but still good fun.
> 
> Best,
> Eugene
> 
> 
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
> 






___ 
Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Re: Vihuela stringing

[Alexander Batov]

Hello Martyn,

> I've done a search of the literature to hand  and, in addition to the
Bermudo extract and Ward's 1953 thesis, can only find a relevant reference
in two FoMRHI Comms (30 and 1483) by Eph Segerman.
>
> None of these sources are convincing either way:
>
> 1. On unison/octave basses
>
> Segerman understands the Bermudo extract as ' When describing the octaved
fourth course of the new guitar, he (Bermudo) likens it to the lute or
"vihuela de Flanders", implying that the vihuela de mano which he described
throroughly at the same time did not have octave stringing'.  In my view Eph
overstates his case (again) here - all this tells us is that the fourth
course MAY have been unison on the vihuela de mano (as you've already
pointed out).
>

I wonder if the following passage from Sebatian Orosco's "Tesoro de la
lengua Castellana o Espanola" (Madrid, 1611) can add anything in _defence_
of a unison stringing on the vihuela. I doubt if it can, but here it is
(taken from " Notes on the Guitarra, Laud and Vihuela" by  Diana Poulton,
JLS, vol. 18, p.47):

(quote) "... The guitar is a vihuela, small in size and also of less
strings, since it has no more that five, and sometimes only four. These
strings are *requintadas*, not in unisons as are those of the vihuela, but
they are tuned in fifths(1), except for the first, which in both instruments
is single ..."

Footnote (1): Frey Juan Bermudo in _Declaration de Instrumentos musicales_
(1555) ... expresses a different opinion: 'They used to put another string
to the fourth of the guitar which they called *requinta*. I do not know
whether, when they gave this name to the string, it formed, with the said
fourth, a diapente which is a perfect fifth, and for this reason it took the
name *requinta*. Nowadays we do not have this tuning: but both strings form
an octave, as on the lute or *vihuela de Flandes*' (end of quote).

> 2. On expense of unison stringing
>
> I now see that the business about rich Spaniards affording unison
stringing raised by Eph in Comm 30 (1976) relates to a unison doubled first
course (not the basses).  The grounds for Eph's view seems to be that only
the very wealthy (ie the 16thC Spanish) could afford firsts which had been
through rigorous quality checks (with high wastage) to ensure uniformity -
we know that this was sometimes given as the reason for single firsts and,
indeed, seconds eg Burwell LB).
>

Strings were indeed rather expensive in the 16th century Spain but this
"rich Spaniards" phenomenon seems a bit overstretched. I also think there is
no ground to doubt the skills of ancient string makers; they could have been
much more skilful at achieving uniformity in strings than modern gut string
manufacturers. It seems rather "unjust" to treat old craftsmen with the
minds and skills of the present. Besides, if the first double course was
ever(?!) used on the vihuela, both strings consisting it would really have
to be at a lower tension which, in turn, would make them last longer.  I
wonder if anybody who plays vihuela professionally have tried to put double
first course (say at 2 X 3.6N tension) and play some demanding vihuela
pieces? It would certainly feel quite uncomfortable against the second
course (say at 2 x 2.8N), ... unless, perhaps, it is  ... strummed(?) ...
which brings us to:

> 3. Viola comparison
>
> It's interesting to note that iconography of the Italian viola (some very
good unlike that of the Spanish instrument) generally seems to show only
sufficient pegs for a single first. Representations of the contemporary
small four course guitar also shows instruments with pegs just for a single
first.  It would not, therefore, be unreasonable to expect the Spanish 16thC
vihuela with sufficient pegs to have a doubled first.  The 17thC guitar
perhaps retained a spare peg for the option of loud strumming music in the
same way bourdons cld be employed on both the 4th and 5th for such music.
>

To this I can only add that the 5-course Spanish  guitar was described by
Joan Carles Amat in his "Guitarra espanola ... (first edition 1596) as "The
five-course Spanish guitar has nine strings: one on the first course, called
first, and two on the other courses, ..." (Esta Guitarra Espanola de cinco
ordenes esta compuesta de nueve cuerdas: una en el orden primero, llamada
prima, y en los demas ordenes dos, ...). Chapter nine of the same book is
dedicated to the 4-course guitar (Trata de la Guitarra de siete ordenes) and
it starts: Para que los musicos de la Guitarra de quatro ordenes (que es la
de siete cuerdas) ... i.e. "of seven strings". This is indeed quite
consistent with the existing representations of the 4-course guitars (both
with a flat- and a viol-type of the peg head) where only seven pegs are
shown - the point you have also stressed. There are also iconographical
evidences (so far I was able to trace six but there might be more; the
earliest is c.1615) that show 5-course 9-string / peg guitars plus one
surviving 17th century

Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia

[EUGENE BRAIG IV]

Greetings Bill et al.

- Original Message -
From: bill kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:59 am
Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia
>
> vihuelas - in one or two of the many forms in which
> they were introduced into the new world, hundreds of
> years ago - continue to exist today.  


Nobody can make this statement because nobody has a good idea of what the 
vihuela was.  There is iconography, but without accepting some degree of 
speculation, there simply isn't a body of surviving instruments.  I don't 
believe any modern instrument survives exactly in the form of the 16th-c. 
vihuela (certainly no currently active instrument looks particularly close to 
the iconography),  If any active instrument has persisted as an exact 
preservation of some form of vihuela, nobody has any way of knowing it from the 
lack of 16th-c. instruments that have survived.


> the only reason
> they're not recognized as such - i maintain - is
> because the vihuela, as something distinct from the
> guitar, fell out of favor here in europe and only a
> few examples survive.


..And whatever was left of the concept was entirely absorbed/influenced by the 
burgeoning popularity of guitars, in Europe and the Americas.  Nobody could 
have continued to build new instruments without being influenced by the 
popularity of guitar.


> i loose heart.


You shouldn't.  Just enjoy.


> instead of judging what is or isn't a vihuela with
> reference to the very few examples which remain, isn't
> it possible - valid - to reverse the process and
> simply ask where instruments like the charango,
> cuatro, tiple, etc. came from?


Of course.  Whatever their conceptual origins, however, modern instruments with 
distinct entities are their own entities, not their conceptual ancestors.  
Early Neapolitan mandolins didn't come to be until the mid 18th c. when the 
concepts of the lute-like mandolins of the time were hybridized with chitarra 
battente construction and violin tuning, but my Neapolitan mandolins are not 
chitarre.


> imagine what your guitar would look and sound like if
> it had made the journey with cortez and back.  would
> it have become something other than a guitar in the
> process? 


The ancestors of my guitars did, and the "fossil record" of the subsequent 
evolution to my 5-courser or various era 6-stringers is relatively whole with 
relatively little speculation required.  No matter how good speculation is, it 
is no substitute for solid documentation.  ...And my 6-course "reproduction" 
16th-c. vihuela is purely speculative, but still good fun.

Best,
Eugene



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia

[Roman Turovsky]

> My personal opinion ( which isn't worth much ), is that the Spanish luthiers
> may
> have added a 7th course to enable musicians to play the lute repertoire on the
> vihuela de mano, but eventually, the (legendary?) prejudice against the lute (
> "It's Moorish - Yuck!" ) dissipated and more Spaniards began playing the lute
> in
> its 8+ course variants.
Legendary indeed. No more than that. Long/medium-necked lutes were common in
Eastern Mediterranean since at least Roman times. They are still around, as
Quitras.
RT
-- 
http://polyhymnion.org/torban




To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

RE: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia

[Garry Bryan]

Well, 

As far as the origin of the tiple, cuatro, charango, and assorted other
instruments, I think someone could present a strong argument that they evolved
from the 16th century Spanish guitar. Of course, they could have evolved from
the cittern, or even the medieval lute.

If they evolved from the vihuela de mano, then why did they possess only 4 or 5
courses? The available repertoire for the vihuela de mano seems to require at
least 6 courses. I have difficulty believing that someone who played the vihuela
de mano, would come to the new world and  construct ( or have constructed ) an
instrument with which he couldn't play the music written for that instrument.

Of course, you could still argue that they're vihuelas de manos ( hands of fate
>:) ), but you would need to surmount the problem of the repertoire requiring 6
courses and not 5 or 4.

My personal opinion ( which isn't worth much ), is that the Spanish luthiers may
have added a 7th course to enable musicians to play the lute repertoire on the
vihuela de mano, but eventually, the (legendary?) prejudice against the lute (
"It's Moorish - Yuck!" ) dissipated and more Spaniards began playing the lute in
its 8+ course variants. The body of the vihuela was pretty petite, after all,
and I wouldn't think those additional basses required for the later lute
repertoire would sound terribly pretty on it, Although, I have an eerie feeling
that Alexander Batov is going to inform me shortly that there is evidence of a
vihuela de mano with the same body dimensions of a bass viol >:)  .


I still find it easier to believe that the cuatro, et al, were variants of the
renaissance guitar.

Which still leads me back to my original question: Why are there no fragments (
at least ) of vihuela de manos found in St. Augustine, Florida ( or other North
American Spanish colonies )? Is it just because no one is looking? Or is it
possibly because the evidence is catalogued and archived somewhere but that no
one really knows what it points to? 

Interesting points about South and Central America, James. Thanks for sharing
them!



> -Original Message-
> From: bill kilpatrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 2:00 AM
> To: James A Stimson; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
> Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia
> 
> vihuelas - in one or two of the many forms in which
> they were introduced into the new world, hundreds of
> years ago - continue to exist today.  the only reason
> they're not recognized as such - i maintain - is
> because the vihuela, as something distinct from the
> guitar, fell out of favor here in europe and only a
> few examples survive.
> 
> i loose heart.
> 
> instead of judging what is or isn't a vihuela with
> reference to the very few examples which remain, isn't
> it possible - valid - to reverse the process and
> simply ask where instruments like the charango,
> cuatro, tiple, etc. came from?
> 
> imagine what your guitar would look and sound like if
> it had made the journey with cortez and back.  would
> it have become something other than a guitar in the
> process?
> 
> 
> --- James A Stimson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Thomas and All:
> >  The Mexican musicologist Eloy Cruz has made an
> > extensive study of the
> > musical life of the early Spanish settlers. His
> > theory is that as soon as
> > substantial towns were established, the Spanish
> > brought with them many of
> > the trappings of Spanish urban life, including
> > musical instruments. He also
> > thinks it likely that instrument makers traveled to
> > the New World fairly
> > early on.
> >  I once asked Alejandro Planchart why there are so
> > few traces of vihuelas
> > in Central America and northern South America. One
> > theory is that the
> > wholesale destruction that accompanied wars of
> > independence (Venezuela, for
> > example, lost an estimated one-third of its
> > population) took a heavy toll
> > on the more fragile trappings of civilization such
> > as music.
> > Cheers,
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
> >   elec.com To:
> > vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
> >
> >cc:
> >
> >
> >   05/13/2005 11:45
> > Subject:  Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia
> >
> >   AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure spaniards of the 16th century
> > considered music as luxury. They
> > must have had a different approach to what luxury is
> > and what is necessary.
> > The question could be: *if* one took a musical
> > instrument with him would it
> > be a vihuela? As far as I understand the vihuela
> > would be rather played by
> > the nobility and therefor the number of people who
> > *could* have taken a
> > vihuela with them would be very limited. To stress
> > Jon's picture of the
> > "Master" -movie: It woul

Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia

[Monica Hall]

This seems like the right moment to mention that Eloy has made a brilliant
CD of music combining baroque sources with son jarocho.  It's called

Laberinto en la guitarra : el espiritu barroco del son jarocho.  It's on
the Urtext label (which I think is Mexican), maker's number is UMA 2018.
The web site is given as www.urtext.com.mx or  www.urtextonline.com.

Monica



- Original Message -
From: James A Stimson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: 
Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia


>
>
>
>
> Dear Thomas and All:
>  The Mexican musicologist Eloy Cruz has made an extensive study of the
> musical life of the early Spanish settlers. His theory is that as soon as
> substantial towns were established, the Spanish brought with them many of
> the trappings of Spanish urban life, including musical instruments. He
also
> thinks it likely that instrument makers traveled to the New World fairly
> early on.
>  I once asked Alejandro Planchart why there are so few traces of vihuelas
> in Central America and northern South America. One theory is that the
> wholesale destruction that accompanied wars of independence (Venezuela,
for
> example, lost an estimated one-third of its population) took a heavy toll
> on the more fragile trappings of civilization such as music.
> Cheers,
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   elec.com To:
vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
>cc:
>   05/13/2005 11:45 Subject:  Antwort: Re: S.
de Murcia
>   AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not sure spaniards of the 16th century considered music as luxury.
They
> must have had a different approach to what luxury is and what is
necessary.
> The question could be: *if* one took a musical instrument with him would
it
> be a vihuela? As far as I understand the vihuela would be rather played by
> the nobility and therefor the number of people who *could* have taken a
> vihuela with them would be very limited. To stress Jon's picture of the
> "Master" -movie: It would rather be recorders, drums in all forms and that
> kind of instruments played by the common sailors and soldiers. But I would
> *not* tell it impossible that the one or the other nobleman took his
> favorite instrument with him which also could have been a vihuela
(although
> I doubt it would be considered practical for life on board).
> BUT: Later, when colonies were established I am rather sure that among the
> first things they imported from spain would have been musical instruments.
> There must have been records surviving telling us about what was ordered
> from the colonies. Did anyone make a research about that?
>
> Best wishes
> Thomas
>
>
>
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> am 13.05.2005 18:00:03
>
> An:Garry Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'VihuelaList'"
>
> Kopie:
>
> Thema: Re: S. de Murcia
>
> >
> > When the Spanish colonized the new world, did they pack light? Would
they
> have
> > carried any musical instruments, or were they so militaristic that the
> finer
> > things had no place in the baggage train of the first wave?
> Music is a luxury, and generally the thugs of the first wave are unlikely
> to
> have time for such a leisurely pursuit.
> RT
>
>
>
> ___
> $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer
> 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more.
> Signup at www.doteasy.com
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
>
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY : This  e-mail  and  any attachments are confidential and
> may be privileged. If  you are not a named recipient, please notify the
> sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to another person, use
> it for any purpose or store or copy the information in any medium.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Vihuela stringing

[Martyn Hodgson]

Thanks Lex/Martin,
 
I've done a search of the literature to hand  and, in addition to the Bermudo 
extract and Ward's 1953 thesis, can only find a relevant reference in two 
FoMRHI Comms (30 and 1483) by Eph Segerman.
 
None of these sources are convincing either way:
 
1. On unison/octave basses 
 
Segerman understands the Bermudo extract as ' When describing the octaved 
fourth course of the new guitar, he (Bermudo) likens it to the lute or "vihuela 
de Flanders", implying that the vihuela de mano which he described throroughly 
at the same time did not have octave stringing'.  In my view Eph overstates his 
case (again) here - all this tells us is that the fourth course MAY have been 
unison on the vihuela de mano (as you've already pointed out).
 
2. On expense of unison stringing
 
I now see that the business about rich Spaniards affording unison stringing 
raised by Eph in Comm 30 (1976) relates to a unison doubled first course (not 
the basses).  The grounds for Eph's view seems to be that only the very wealthy 
(ie the 16thC Spanish) could afford firsts which had been through rigorous 
quality checks (with high wastage) to ensure uniformity - we know that this was 
sometimes given as the reason for single firsts and, indeed, seconds eg Burwell 
LB).
 
Eph gives no historical source in support of a doubled first (other than, of 
course, the existence of sufficient pegs - however,  the later 17thC guitar 
generally also had sufficient pegs fr a doubled first but here there IS 
historical evidence for using a single first).
 
 
3. Viola comparison
 
It's interesting to note that iconography of the Italian viola (some very good 
unlike that of the Spanish instrument) generally seems to show only sufficient 
pegs for a single first. Representations of the contemporary small four course 
guitar also shows instruments with pegs just for a single first.  It would not, 
therefore, be unreasonable to expect the Spanish 16thC vihuela with sufficient 
pegs to have a doubled first.  The 17thC guitar perhaps retained a spare peg 
for the option of loud strumming music in the same way bourdons cld be employed 
on both the 4th and 5th for such music.
 
 
In short, my take on all this is that a doubled first may well have been used 
on the 16thC(or even 4th) was employed and, indeed, it's probably more likely 
that the general stringing found in contemporary lutes and violas elsewhere 
would have been the norm.   But
 
rgds
 
Martyn
 
 
 
 
 
 
Martin Shepherd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Martyn,

Like you I have never been very convinced by the "rich Spaniard" 
hypothesis. I also share your observation that the music looks just 
like lute music - both include many intabulations of great polyphonists 
like Josquin, just the sort of music which octaves are supposed to ruin 
(which of course they don't).

As far as I know, the evidence for unison stringing is sparse, to say 
the least. John Ward's (1955) PhD thesis makes some statement to the 
effect that unisons were used and this has become established "fact", 
even though I have never seen the evidence (if any) on which he based 
this assertion.

Pisador's tuning instructions imply a unison 4th course, but say nothing 
about the rest.

If anyone has more evidence, please share it!

Best wishes,

Martin

Martyn Hodgson wrote:

> 
>Not so much controversial perhaps but I'd be grateful for views on 16thC 6 
>course vihuela stringing. There's some evidence that the basses were, unlike 
>the contemporary lute, tuned in unisons but I wonder.. 
> 
>Eph Segerman believes it was partly because the Spanish were so very rich in 
>the 16thC that they could afford expensive bass strings in pairs whereas 
>mortals in lesser favoured countries (ie everywhere else) had to make do with 
>octaves; this has always seemed a pretty rum explanation to me to me. If they 
>did, indeed, favour unison basses then perhaps the clue is in the music but, 
>to be frank, the texture etc seems much the same as contemporary Italian 
>tabulatures which employed octaves..
> 
>Finally, what precise historical evidence is there for single or double firsts?
> 
>Martyn
> 
>
>
>Monica Hall wrote:
>I think everyone must have left the list in a huff.
>
>Pity really!
>
>Can't we think of some controversial comment to revive it?
>
>Monica
>
>- Original Message -
>From: Garry Bryan 
>To: 
>Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 6:12 PM
>Subject: RE: gee, it's cold in here ...
>
>
> 
>
>>Croatan was the name of a local Indian tribe. Roanoke was the "Lost
>> 
>>
>Colony".
> 
>
>>I doubt that the colonists possessed vihuelas, but I keep wondering if
>> 
>>
>someday,
> 
>
>>someone might unearth evidence of one in St. Augustine, Florida, which was
>>founded ( by the Spanish ) in the same time period the vihuela
>> 
>>
>flourished.
> 
>
>>Garry
>>
>>P.S. The story is that the colony vanished and that the word "CROATAN" was
>> 
>>
>found
> 
>
>>carved on a tree or somethin