[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Philippe Mottet]

 
> It may be heard (and seen)  in Olav Chris Henriksen's CD, "La Guitarra
> Royalle" Museum Music MM109 (distr. MFA Boston).  Also heard on the CD is a
> guitar (ca. 1790) by Jean-Baptiste Champion. Chris plays pieces by Corbetta,
> deVisee, Lully, Grenerin, Lemoine, L'Hoyer et al.
> 
> The current issue of the Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society 31
> (2005) has an article  (pp. 5-66) and listing of some forty guitars built by
> the Voboam dynasty between 1641 and 1730:  Beth Bullard, "Recent Research
> about the Voboam Family and their Guitars."
> 
Thanks for mentioning this important publication.
Philippe



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Roman Turovsky]

>> Happy Thanksgiving Day to all.  Charlotte's been in
>> the kitchen since five a.m. Cooking!
>
> yams? ...
>
> happy thanksgiving to you - bill
Altrettanto.
Polenta taragna, red bean pate' with walnuts, garlic, coriander and chilli 
pepper, lamb cooked in pomegranate juice. Starting now, might be done in 4-5 
hrs.
Amarone. Calvados for desert.
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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[bill kilpatrick]

--- Arthur Ness <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> One of the Voboams (Nicolas Alexandre II) built a
> guitar out of at tortoise shell.   The instrument
> (now in Paris) was exhibited at that Boston MFA show
> "Dangerous Curves: Art of the Guitar." That
> exhibition drew a whopping 140,000 viewers.

what did they call it?  ... how did they label it? 
.. surely, nothing so provocative as "guitar."
 
> Happy Thanksgiving Day to all.  Charlotte's been in
> the kitchen since five a.m. Cooking!

yams? ...

happy thanksgiving to you - bill 



___ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! 
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Arthur Ness]

Here is the Alexandre Voboam II guitar (1680) in the Boston Museum of Fine 
Arts.   (The back and side views are at the bottom to be clicked.) The 
decorations  resemble the instrument in the Nattier portrait.  

Shortcut to: 
http://www.mfa.org/collections/search_art.asp?recview=true&id=51471&coll_keywords=&coll_accession=&coll_name=&coll_artist=&coll_place=&coll_medium=&coll_culture=&coll_classification=&coll_credit=&coll_provenance=&coll_location=&coll_has_images=&coll_on_view=&;


It may be heard (and seen)  in Olav Chris Henriksen's CD, "La Guitarra Royalle" 
Museum Music MM109 (distr. MFA Boston).  Also heard on the CD is a guitar (ca. 
1790) by Jean-Baptiste Champion. Chris plays pieces by Corbetta, deVisee, 
Lully, Grenerin, Lemoine, L'Hoyer et al.

The current issue of the Journal of the American Musical Instrument Society 31 
(2005) has an article  (pp. 5-66) and listing of some forty guitars built by 
the Voboam dynasty between 1641 and 1730:  Beth Bullard, "Recent Research about 
the Voboam Family and their Guitars."

For the most part the string lengths varied from 710 mm to 578 mm.  One had 
760. A double guitar had lengths of 441 and 711 mm. Many of the instruments are 
pictured in the article.

One of the Voboams (Nicolas Alexandre II) built a guitar out of at tortoise 
shell.   The instrument (now in Paris) was exhibited at that Boston MFA show 
"Dangerous Curves: Art of the Guitar." That exhibition drew a whopping 140,000 
viewers.

Happy Thanksgiving Day to all.  Charlotte's been in the kitchen since five a.m. 
Cooking!

ajn
- Original Message - 
  From: Alexander Batov 
  To: vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu 
  Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 12:07 PM
  Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?


  Philippe have just sent me the rather intriguing accounts from the biography 
  of Mademoiselle de Charolais (see below). After all this ... she must have 
  been able to play the guitar!

  I hope Philippe won't be against my sharing his email with the other 
  vihuela-list subscribers.

  Alexander

  - Original Message - 
  From: "Philippe Mottet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  To: "Alexander Batov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:37 PM
  Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?


  >> It is a nice picture.  Who painted it and when?  It is difficult to judge
  >> the string length - and the strings of the courses look rather far apart!
  >> My dainty fingure would fit in between them.
  >
  > Yes, the painter didn't seem to care about arranging strings more orderly.
  > Otherwise it is a fairly accurate picture of the guitar. I've put another
  > picture on the same page:
  >
  > www.vihuelademano.com/current/pages/large-guitar.htm
  >
  > Supposedly, they both represent the same person - Mademoiselle de 
  > Charolais
  > (no idea who she is). The one in colour is of unknown painter c. 1715 and
  > the other in black and white is attributed to J. -M. Nattier, c. 1730.
  > The main point about these paintings (apart from the looks of course!) is
  > that the depicted guitars are very likely to be identified as being made 
  > by
  > the renowned Voboam family of makers in Paris. Some of their surviving
  > guitars (the point that is more relevant to our discussion) have just over
  > 71cm string length.

  Louise-Anne de Bourbon-Conde will keep to her death her envied title of =AB
  Mademoiselle =BB : a scandalous, free and absolutely independant Princess. Her
  long collection of lovers was famous, as she changed and abandonned the one
  after the other, and never maried.
  Grand-daughter of Louis XIV and Madame de Montespan, Mlle de Charolais used
  to choose the mistresses of her cousin Louis XV,  as she =AB wanted him to
  avoid the life of a burgher =BB.
  She was a close friend of Voltaire.
  The two guitars carefully painted on the portraits (cf. Alexander=B9s website)
  are two different instruments, but surely both from the Voboam dynasty. I
  would say both of Jean.
  The first portrait, (Musee des Beaux-Arts de Tours) shows an heavily
  decorated guitar, with a double black and white =AB pistagne =BB around the
  table and the rosette. The decoration of the fingerboard is the negative of
  the famous =AB Rizzio =BB Voboam of the RCM in London. The other guitar seen 
on
  the wonderful portrait by Nattier is more simple, close to the =AB classic =BB
  model of Alexandre (1676, Paris E.1532) or Jean (1690, Paris 2087). I would
  personnaly attribute this instrument to Jean, considering the very end of
  the XVIIth century more plausible  as a date of construction / commission,
  considering also the detail of decoration of the head. Another guitar of
  Jean Voboam (Paris 1687) is still preserved in Paris

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Alexander Batov]

Philippe have just sent me the rather intriguing accounts from the biography 
of Mademoiselle de Charolais (see below). After all this ... she must have 
been able to play the guitar!

I hope Philippe won't be against my sharing his email with the other 
vihuela-list subscribers.

Alexander

- Original Message - 
From: "Philippe Mottet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alexander Batov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?




>> It is a nice picture.  Who painted it and when?  It is difficult to judge
>> the string length - and the strings of the courses look rather far apart!
>> My dainty fingure would fit in between them.
>
> Yes, the painter didn't seem to care about arranging strings more orderly.
> Otherwise it is a fairly accurate picture of the guitar. I've put another
> picture on the same page:
>
> www.vihuelademano.com/current/pages/large-guitar.htm
>
> Supposedly, they both represent the same person - Mademoiselle de 
> Charolais
> (no idea who she is). The one in colour is of unknown painter c. 1715 and
> the other in black and white is attributed to J. -M. Nattier, c. 1730.
> The main point about these paintings (apart from the looks of course!) is
> that the depicted guitars are very likely to be identified as being made 
> by
> the renowned Voboam family of makers in Paris. Some of their surviving
> guitars (the point that is more relevant to our discussion) have just over
> 71cm string length.

Louise-Anne de Bourbon-Condé will keep to her death her envied title of «
Mademoiselle » : a scandalous, free and absolutely independant Princess. Her
long collection of lovers was famous, as she changed and abandonned the one
after the other, and never maried.
Grand-daughter of Louis XIV and Madame de Montespan, Mlle de Charolais used
to choose the mistresses of her cousin Louis XV,  as she « wanted him to
avoid the life of a burgher ».
She was a close friend of Voltaire.
The two guitars carefully painted on the portraits (cf. Alexander¹s website)
are two different instruments, but surely both from the Voboam dynasty. I
would say both of Jean.
The first portrait, (Musée des Beaux-Arts de Tours) shows an heavily
decorated guitar, with a double black and white « pistagne » around the
table and the rosette. The decoration of the fingerboard is the negative of
the famous « Rizzio » Voboam of the RCM in London. The other guitar seen on
the wonderful portrait by Nattier is more simple, close to the « classic »
model of Alexandre (1676, Paris E.1532) or Jean (1690, Paris 2087). I would
personnaly attribute this instrument to Jean, considering the very end of
the XVIIth century more plausible  as a date of construction / commission,
considering also the detail of decoration of the head. Another guitar of
Jean Voboam (Paris 1687) is still preserved in Paris (E.1411) with its
original case, engraved with the Blason of Marie-Thérèse de Bourbon-Condé,
another Princess of the same family.
Though these two Princesses were not giants, the hands rather chubby ( ?),
their guitars had a good diapason ! The average length of all preserved
guitars by Jean and Alexandre Voboam is just over 690 mm, with some at 710
and 711 by Alexandre.
In my experience, that I would appreciate to share with other makers, the
long diapasons Voboam, with a chanterelle tuned in d, are particularly
sweet, free, less « geometric » than shorter (650mm) models.
Philippe 



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Howard Posner]

  Monica Hall wrote:

> But we are not talking about the theorbo

Perhaps you didn't notice that I was responding only to your remark 
that you didn't see the advantage of longer strings in accompanying.



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Monica Hall]

But we are not talking about the theorbo - which consists mostly of
unstopped strings anyway and in the 17th century would more often have been
played by professional players who would have been men, rather  than by nuns
or young ladies in general.

Still - Alexander has dispelled most of my doubts.

Monica

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Alexander Batov]

> I think you have answered most of my queries very thoroughly!

Thank you!

> It is a nice picture.  Who painted it and when?  It is difficult to judge
> the string length - and the strings of the courses look rather far apart!
> My dainty fingure would fit in between them.

Yes, the painter didn't seem to care about arranging strings more orderly. 
Otherwise it is a fairly accurate picture of the guitar. I've put another 
picture on the same page:

www.vihuelademano.com/current/pages/large-guitar.htm

Supposedly, they both represent the same person - Mademoiselle de Charolais 
(no idea who she is). The one in colour is of unknown painter c. 1715 and 
the other in black and white is attributed to J. -M. Nattier, c. 1730.
The main point about these paintings (apart from the looks of course!) is 
that the depicted guitars are very likely to be identified as being made by 
the renowned Voboam family of makers in Paris. Some of their surviving 
guitars (the point that is more relevant to our discussion) have just over 
71cm string length.

> Well - even I would be happy with that string length.

I suppose me too, however I would still prefer to play certain pieces on a 
vihuela with longer string length and it is often not an extra stretch that 
bothers me but the rather wide spread of courses over the fingerboard (i.e. 
if they are spaced more to the 'standards' of a modern reproduction of 
Renaissance lute).

> This is what puzzles me a bit as I can't see the advantage of having a 
> long
> string length for accompanying.  Maybe I am mistaken, but I would have
> thought the purpose of a long string length would be to tune to a lower
> pitch.  Such an instrument would play the lowest part in consort as in the
> Valderrabano as you say.

Tuning to a lower pitch is obviously one of the reasons. Longer string 
length however leads to greater sonority, power, and greater physical 
sensation of the sound. We have to remember that musicians in the 16th and 
most of the 17th centuries have only one string material to rely on - gut 
(talking about gut-strung instruments of course) and no other means of 
amplification of the sound as only by changing the size and shape of their 
instrument's resonating body and the string length accordingly. And how all 
this drastically started to change from the mid-18th century!

For instance, somebody asked another day about the purpose of doubling 
strings in courses and this was another way to boost up the sonority by 
creating, so to say, a richer 'harmonic environment', the sort of 'fullness' 
of the sound (the phenomenon that happens when two strings are tuned to 
unison / octave but the higher partials of their vibrating modes can never 
totally coincide neither in frequency nor in phase, they are a bit out of 
tune). Interesting that Spanish seem to continue to cling to double courses 
on their guitars longer than others!

> Still, maybe St. Mariana didn't have a choice - she just had to make do 
> with
> whatever the convent could provide her with!

Or had a secret accompanist .

Alexander

(Sorry of repeating what Howard has already said. I've only just read his 
email. Reinforces my point in a way .) 



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Howard Posner]

  Monica Hall wrote:

> This is what puzzles me a bit as I can't see the advantage of having a 
> long
> string length for accompanying.

Interesting that you're saying this a few days after Benjamin Narvey 
posted Linda Sayce's article arguing, in essence, that theorbos with 
short string lengths are musically inferior anachronisms.  I'm 
skeptical about her conclusions, but I'm not sure what puzzles you, 
since you certainly know that (all other things being equal) the 
greater the string mass, the greater the volume of sound, and (whether 
all other things are equal or not) the greater the string mass, the 
longer the decay.  An instrument capable of greater volume and greater 
sustain may not strike you as presenting advantages in accompaniment, 
but someone must have thought so in the years around 1600.  I can 
assure you that the theorbo was not invented for convenience.



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Alexander Batov]

- Original Message - 
From: "Edward Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alexander Batov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Monica Hall" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; 
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:25 PM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?


>I have a friend, Tyler Kaiser, who owns a Dan Larson replica of the 74 cm
> guitar.  He has absolutely no problems at this length for the solo 
> literature.
>
> ed
>
> At 07:19 PM 11/10/2005 +, Alexander Batov wrote:
>> > I am aware that a number of baroque guitars have long string lengths. 
>> > I
>> > don't know how people manage to play them.I understand that Linda
>> > Sayce
>> > had an exact copy of the Stradivarius guitar made which has a string
>> > length
>> > of 74.1 and she found it unplayable.

Thank you for this information, Edward. Only what you quoted as my words are 
actually not my (they were in the context of my reply to Monica), or perhaps 
you didn't >: ...
I know rather well that guitars with this sort of length are playable.

Alexander 



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Edward Martin]

I have a friend, Tyler Kaiser, who owns a Dan Larson replica of the 74 cm 
guitar.  He has absolutely no problems at this length for the solo literature.

ed

At 07:19 PM 11/10/2005 +, Alexander Batov wrote:
> > I am aware that a number of baroque guitars have long string lengths.  I
> > don't know how people manage to play them.I understand that Linda
> > Sayce
> > had an exact copy of the Stradivarius guitar made which has a string
> > length
> > of 74.1 and she found it unplayable.



Edward Martin
2817 East 2nd Street
Duluth, Minnesota  55812
e-mail:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice:  (218) 728-1202




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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Alexander Batov]

On 05 Nov 2005 14:17 Monica Hall wrote:

> Yes.  The question in my mind was whether the instrument could be
> confidently dated from the  1620s or whether it might actually date from 
> the
> second half of the 18th century.

It would be most unusual for a guitar from the second half of the 18th 
century to have its string length as long as the Quito. As you probably 
know, with virtually universal adaptation of open-wound and close-wound 
strings for plucked and bowed instruments in the second part of the 18th 
century the tendency was heading in the opposite direction - to shorter 
string length on guitars. In absolute figures, anything longer than 67cm 
would be rather unusual. The earliest recorded use of overspun strings I 
have come across so far in Spanish sources is in the 'Inventory of Theodosio 
Dalp's property ...'  of 26 February 1715 that lists "One lathe to wind 
strings with silver ..." (Un torno de torzer cuerdas de plata thasado todo 
en cuarenta ...)

At least one of the ways to date the Quito instrument more precisely is to 
conduct dendrological analysis of its soundboard wood; looking for wear 
marks on the bridge can also give some idea how the instrument was used etc 
.. A similar research that was conducted with the Chambure and 
Jaquemart-Andre instruments in Paris would be ideal (the results are 
published in 'Aux origines de la guitare: la vihuela de mano', Cite de la 
Museque, 2004) would be ideal. And not only for the Quito but for the Dias 
too but I'd better not start ...

> The string length however is only really relevant in so far as this has 
> any
> bearing on its authenticity.  I would question whether a female player, 
> who
> probably didn't have the technical ability of Rolf Lislevand, would have
> been able to play anything meaningful on an instrument of that size.

I've put an image of a lady here who plays a rather large guitar:
www.vihuelademano.com/current/pages/large-guitar.htm
However, whether she was able to play anything meaningful or just posing is 
hardly possible to assess.

> In the mean time I have had a lengthy and very helpful reply from Antonio
> which has answered all my questions in so far as this is possible.

???

> I am aware that a number of baroque guitars have long string lengths.  I
> don't know how people manage to play them.I understand that Linda 
> Sayce
> had an exact copy of the Stradivarius guitar made which has a string 
> length
> of 74.1 and she found it unplayable.

Apparently there is at least one more guitar by Stradivarius (made in 1681) 
with the same body dimensions as the one in Oxford (i.e. made on the same 
mould as is often the case with other instruments of Stradivarius) and so 
would have been its original string length (the guitar have been altered to 
6 strings with subsequent shortening of the neck). It was commissioned by 
the Guistiliani, aristocratic Venetian family, so it may perhaps give some 
idea what sort of music was played on it (hopefully it wasn't only used to 
pose with).

> It would be interesting to hear the views of the gentlemen on this list as
> to the optimum string lengths for vihuelas and guitars.

Not a problem. As for the string lengths of modern reproductions of 
vihuelas, common sense would be the best guide, supposedly this was also the 
case in 16th century Spain.

Most vihuela  players nowadays will be happy with c. 60cm string length for 
the most demanding vihuela repertoire although some might prefer c.56 - 58cm 
depending I suppose on their skills. The vast majority of the vihuela solo 
pieces can be played on c.64 - 66cm but this can go up to 70cm and more for 
fairly basic song accompaniments. Considering that this was one of the main 
uses of the instrument during the 16th century, c.68 - 72cm could well be 
the string length range for a typical 16th century vihuela. I personally 
feel comfortable with a good number of vihuela pieces, for instance, on my 
66cm string vihuela in E and it still remains in my plans to make a 72 - 73 
cm string vihuela, to use it for a larger instrument in Valderrabano duets 
(a fifth apart).

Nobody can ever be sure of the precise figures for the string lengths of 
historic vihuelas but it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect a great deal of 
discrepancy in the sizes of the consort of 16th century vihuelas (for 
example of the four sizes which are needed to perform the above mentioned 
Valderrabano duets) from that of mid - late 16th century Italian lutes. So 
the upper limit could well be extended to c.80cm or more (i.e. close to 
the-would-be original string length of the Jaquemart-Andre vihuela). 
Although largely speculative, there is at least one important reason (apart 
from similarity in repertoire and functions of the two instruments) that led 
me to such a broad speculation: that the makers and players of 16th vihuelas 
and lutes (either in Italy or in Spain) could well have been relying on the 
same string suppliers, from places such as M

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Alexander Batov]

> I have been trying to get hold of  a copy of "Aux origines de la guitare"
> published by Cite de la musique - so far without success.  It doesn't seem
> to be possible to order it via their web site.   Has anyone else seen it 
> or
> got a copy of it?
>
> Monica

Don't know if you managed to succeed but I ordered my copy back in June and 
it was OK. To order through their web site (it would probably be wiser to 
use Internet Explorer as it seems that's what they prefer in order to 
succeed in shopping):

1) go to http://www.cite-musique.fr/
2) click "welcome"
3) on the left menu click "bookshop / order online"
4) this will open a "la booutique" window in which under "la musee de la 
musique" button choose "colloque et sciences"
5) the desired publication is fifth from the top of the list
6) click consecutively "commander", "ma commander", "valider ma commande"
7) fill in your card details et voila!

Important: If at any time prompted to install ActiveX controls, click yes. I 
suppose your Internet Explorer should be up to date.



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Roman Turovsky]

> Very interesting, Phiippe. Can you say more about why you think Valencia 
> is
> the birthplace of the vihuela?
>
> Rob
I don't have the exact quote handy, but the first record of any 
vihuela/viola in Italy unequivocally said "brought over here by the Catalan 
musicians of Borgia" as I recall. Considering all Catalan Beatus of Lieban 
iconography replete with these things from the 7th-11th centuries...
RT

>
>
>
> Objet : Re: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?
>
>> For those interested, there is a picture of this guitar on this page:
>>
>> http://www.musicintime.co.uk/vihuelaIntro.htm
>>
>> Rob
>>
>
> There is also now the "Pinturicchio" lion's head viola at the end of your
> page: the interresting thing with that instrument - apart from its long
> string length! - is that it has been ordered and painted for Pope
> Borgia'appartments in Roma. This Pope was Archbishop of Valencia, Spain,
> before he moved to Italy, where he came with his complete "maison" (I 
> don't
> know the word in english). Valencia is considered to be the place of birth
> for the vihuela, probably as a development of arabic instruments of the
> rebab type. Several names of cities and villages of the coast of Valencia
> still has arabic resonances today, the most famous beeing Benicasim.
> Concerning the Valencian origins of the vihuela, see the "incontournable"
> Early History of the Viol by Ian Woodfield.
> So do I consider the model of Pinturrichio as an interresting 
> vihuela-viola,
> as the vogue of the viola in Italy was in part imported from Valencia by 
> the
> Borgia.
> Philippe
>
>
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>
>
>
>
> 

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Stuart Walsh]

>There is also now the "Pinturicchio" lion's head viola at the end of your
>page: the interresting thing with that instrument - apart from its long
>string length! - is that it has been ordered and painted for Pope
>Borgia'appartments in Roma. This Pope was Archbishop of Valencia, Spain,
>before he moved to Italy, where he came with his complete "maison" (I don't
>know the word in english). Valencia is considered to be the place of birth
>for the vihuela, probably as a development of arabic instruments of the
>rebab type. Several names of cities and villages of the coast of Valencia
>still has arabic resonances today, the most famous beeing Benicasim.
>Concerning the Valencian origins of the vihuela, see the "incontournable"
>Early History of the Viol by Ian Woodfield.
>So do I consider the model of Pinturrichio as an interresting vihuela-viola,
>as the vogue of the viola in Italy was in part imported from Valencia by the
>Borgia.
>Philippe 
>
>
>  
>
I've seen this instrument described as a 'vihuela de penola' (not viola 
da penola) on another website:

http://www.renesenn.de/

Then go to Alte Gitarren & Lautenmsusik and then 'vihuela'.

(It's also described as a 'guitarre morisca' here too. A bit too 
speculative, perhaps.)

There is another 'vihuela de penola' ,evidently from Valencia, from the 
late 15th century here 



*
I
*

--

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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Rob MacKillop]

Another interesting observation with the Pinturicchio viola da mano player
is his very noticeable use of right hand thumb over technique - in 1492...
(and left hand thumb over as well).

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Philippe Mottet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 05 November 2005 12:34
To: vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?



Objet : Re: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

> For those interested, there is a picture of this guitar on this page:
> 
> http://www.musicintime.co.uk/vihuelaIntro.htm
> 
> Rob
> 

There is also now the "Pinturicchio" lion's head viola at the end of your
page: the interresting thing with that instrument - apart from its long
string length! - is that it has been ordered and painted for Pope
Borgia'appartments in Roma. This Pope was Archbishop of Valencia, Spain,
before he moved to Italy, where he came with his complete "maison" (I don't
know the word in english). Valencia is considered to be the place of birth
for the vihuela, probably as a development of arabic instruments of the
rebab type. Several names of cities and villages of the coast of Valencia
still has arabic resonances today, the most famous beeing Benicasim.
Concerning the Valencian origins of the vihuela, see the "incontournable"
Early History of the Viol by Ian Woodfield.
So do I consider the model of Pinturrichio as an interresting vihuela-viola,
as the vogue of the viola in Italy was in part imported from Valencia by the
Borgia.
Philippe 




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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Rob MacKillop]

Very interesting, Phiippe. Can you say more about why you think Valencia is
the birthplace of the vihuela?

Rob

PS You have a very musical surname!



-Original Message-
From: Philippe Mottet [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: 05 November 2005 12:34
To: vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?



Objet : Re: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

> For those interested, there is a picture of this guitar on this page:
> 
> http://www.musicintime.co.uk/vihuelaIntro.htm
> 
> Rob
> 

There is also now the "Pinturicchio" lion's head viola at the end of your
page: the interresting thing with that instrument - apart from its long
string length! - is that it has been ordered and painted for Pope
Borgia'appartments in Roma. This Pope was Archbishop of Valencia, Spain,
before he moved to Italy, where he came with his complete "maison" (I don't
know the word in english). Valencia is considered to be the place of birth
for the vihuela, probably as a development of arabic instruments of the
rebab type. Several names of cities and villages of the coast of Valencia
still has arabic resonances today, the most famous beeing Benicasim.
Concerning the Valencian origins of the vihuela, see the "incontournable"
Early History of the Viol by Ian Woodfield.
So do I consider the model of Pinturrichio as an interresting vihuela-viola,
as the vogue of the viola in Italy was in part imported from Valencia by the
Borgia.
Philippe 




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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Howard Posner]

Monica Hall wrote:

> The string length however is only really relevant in so far as this 
> has any
> bearing on it's authenticity.  I would question whether a female 
> player, who
> probably didn't have the technical ability of Rolf Lislevand, would 
> have
> been able to play anything meaningful on an instrument of that size.

Meaningful being the key word here.  Our concept of what's worth 
playing is conditioned by the music on paper that has survived, but 
that may have little to do with what someone might have played on the 
instrument then.  She may have  accompanied simple songs with simple 
chords, and used whatever shapes were convenient. 
  



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Philippe Mottet]

Objet : Re: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

> For those interested, there is a picture of this guitar on this page:
> 
> http://www.musicintime.co.uk/vihuelaIntro.htm
> 
> Rob
> 

There is also now the "Pinturicchio" lion's head viola at the end of your
page: the interresting thing with that instrument - apart from its long
string length! - is that it has been ordered and painted for Pope
Borgia'appartments in Roma. This Pope was Archbishop of Valencia, Spain,
before he moved to Italy, where he came with his complete "maison" (I don't
know the word in english). Valencia is considered to be the place of birth
for the vihuela, probably as a development of arabic instruments of the
rebab type. Several names of cities and villages of the coast of Valencia
still has arabic resonances today, the most famous beeing Benicasim.
Concerning the Valencian origins of the vihuela, see the "incontournable"
Early History of the Viol by Ian Woodfield.
So do I consider the model of Pinturrichio as an interresting vihuela-viola,
as the vogue of the viola in Italy was in part imported from Valencia by the
Borgia.
Philippe 




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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[James A Stimson]

Dear All:
 Has anyone had a look at the Sardinian altar piece depiction of a vihuela?
Cheers,
Jim



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Alexander Batov]

I don't quite understand why the string length on the Quito instrument 
became such an issue. There is a number of surviving early 17th century 
Italian guitars with string length between 72 - 73 cm. A rare vaulted-back 
guitar by Magno Grail c.1630, for example, was sold recently on one of the 
musical instrument auctions in France and it has string length of 73.5cm. 
Some surviving guitars of the Voboam family have string length of c. 71cm. 
Are stretches across the fingerboard really so problematic for a skilful 
player (Rolf Lislevand and the like ...)? Does it really matter who the 
Quito vihuela belonged to (as regards of its string length of course ... not 
the saint!)?

Alexander

- Original Message - 
From: "Rob MacKillop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'vihuela'" 
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005 7:44 PM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?


> For those interested, there is a picture of this guitar on this page:
>
> http://www.musicintime.co.uk/vihuelaIntro.htm
>
> Rob 



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Stuart Walsh]

Rob MacKillop wrote:

>For those interested, there is a picture of this guitar on this page:
>
>http://www.musicintime.co.uk/vihuelaIntro.htm
>
>Rob
>
>-
>
Do you think the Girolamo 'viola' was the forerunner of the modern 
'silent' guitar?



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Rob MacKillop]

For those interested, there is a picture of this guitar on this page:

http://www.musicintime.co.uk/vihuelaIntro.htm

Rob

-Original Message-
From: Monica Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> I would agree with you regarding the stretches in chords such as N and 
> L, but, while they might have been favourites of Corbetta,  they are 
> not necessary for simple chordal accompaniments as one would presume 
> Santa Mariana might have played. I would be tempted to imagine that 
> the Saint would not have needed to venture beyond some run-of-the-mill 
> chords such as C, I, A, B, +, etc. As a matter of fact, this is 
> precisely what most of the Mexican amateur guitar-players do (surely 
> you must know that all Mexicans play the guitar )

Yes - indeed...!   I don't want to quibble too much about this but actually
chords A and B are not that simple to finger and  involve stretches across
the fingerboard, particularly chord B.  With a sixth course all chords would
need to be re-fingered. Of course we don't know how the instrument was tuned
- if as Bermudo suggests in one place, it was simple tuned to a major common
chord she could just have strummed the same chord on the open courses...
over and over again.

But what I am really asking is - what proof is there, other than oral
tradition, that the instrument really belonged to her, that it was built in
the early 17th century, and has never been altered since?  Holy relics can
often be of dubious authenticity!

Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the book you refer too.  Only have
various articles published earlier.

Monica






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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Monica Hall]

> > On reflection, as a member of the fair sex I am a bit sceptical about
> > this
> > (as with everthing else!).I would find it impossible to play even
> > the
> > simplest of music on an instrument with a string length of 72.7.
>
> You need to have a chat with Lynda Sayce.

I understood that she had an exact copy of the Stradivarius guitar in the
Ashmolean Museum made - which has a string length of 74.1cms, and found it
unplayable.  I don't know what she tried to play on it or whether anyone
else tried to play it.

In any event she is a professional player, which presumably Sr. Mariana was
not.

Monica







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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Howard Posner]

  Monica Hall wrote:

> On reflection, as a member of the fair sex I am a bit sceptical about 
> this
> (as with everthing else!).I would find it impossible to play even 
> the
> simplest of music on an instrument with a string length of 72.7.

You need to have a chat with Lynda Sayce.



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Rob MacKillop]

>>>I wonder how big you think the thing is?
The modern reproduction looks like a  G- or maybe  A-tuned  instrument. 
But Giralamo's instrument in the painting looks much smaller.<<<

I have no idea. I guess you could have one made to any size you wanted. For
my large hands, I prefer a G instrument. But with smaller hands, it could
probably go up to a C. It would be fun for a while, but would eventually
drive me crazy. 

Rob





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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[bill kilpatrick]

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


> you are simply 
> asking me to accept that the word Art means whatever
> you wish it to 
> mean; but I do not accept it.

point taken.  i like stoppard's plays as well.  i
don't like being called a crank but being considered
as eccentric, " ... not concentric to other circles"
certainly applies.

too bad ... it was shaping up to be such a bumper
week:  vihuela was mentioned in authoritative terms as
having 4 and 5 courses ... repertoire was accepted as
not being the deciding factor ... distinction between
vihuela and guitar was acknowledged as variable ...
accuracy of documentation open to question ... figure
8 shape a deciding factor ...

patience - bill 




"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



___ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! 
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

At 01:40 PM 11/2/2005, bill kilpatrick wrote:
>outside of honolulu, is there a recognized repertoire
>for the renaissance guitar?


Mudarra, Morlaye, Le Roy, etc.

Eugene 



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

At 12:23 PM 11/2/2005, bill kilpatrick wrote:
>as with the europeans in south america who referred to
>their instruments as "vihuelas."  on what basis do
>musicologists today justify their reclassification of
>the instrument and say they - the south americans -
>were wrong?


I'm not sure what you mean here, bill.  The name of an instrumental concept 
is whatever people are/were calling it.  There is no inherent, 
biological-like lineage with musical instruments, so what is called vihuela 
today is "vihuela," but obviously of a slightly different concept than what 
was called vihuela by Mudarra et al.


>in which case, i presume the musician tuned his
>instrument accordingly and played the piece.  what's
>the fuss?


Go right ahead and enjoy...but retuning my guitar that is patterned after 
the 1937 Hauser does not make it a vihuela.  It is what its maker called 
it: guitar.


>with darwin in mind, i don't see how slight variations
>in the size and individual markings of a seagull - for
>example - outweighs its essential, inherent
>"gullness."


Indeed, but a herring gull is not a ring-billed gull in spite of the fact 
that only folks who are really into such stuff can tell them 
apart.  Charango is even more different from whatever we know of 16th-c. 
vihuela than those gulls are from each other.  As herring and ring-billed 
are both species of gull, charango and the thing called vihuela in the 16th 
c. are waisted, necked chordophones, but not of the very same concept.


>if you're contemplating a "separate but
>equal" thesis, beware ...


I'm not sure what this means.  These named concepts are all slightly, 
quantifiably different with a little overlap at the fringe.  Whatever 
qualitative notion you lay on them to consider them equal or not is personal.


>if what we're talking about is retuning, i couldn't
>agree with you more.  what's in name? ... retune and
>pluck on - it's the thing itself that counts.


Absolutely, and enjoy.  ...So why be so hell-bent to name the thing that 
most of the world (minus one) calls "charango" something that nobody (plus 
one) calls "vihuela" as vihuela?  The names are only there to describe 
concepts, and the concepts are clearly different, even if only slightly in 
some cases.  The appropriate names for these things are still what their 
contemporary users and makers call them.


>i find it hard to believe that musicians around the
>world dropped their 4 or 5 course "vihuelas" or
>guitars immediately in favor of a 6 course model -
>especially in places where "many rude husbandmen and
>artificers ..." strutted their stuff.  i suggest there
>was a gradual change - and in the case of south
>america - 5 course instruments continued on as before.


I am aware of precious little 16th-c. literature to address 5-course 
vihuela and none to address 4-course.  Still, of course, you're right in 
that any such conceptual shifts in the application of a term would spread 
gradually across regions.  There is plenty more recent, relatively 
well-documented evidence in "guitar" shifting from describing a 5-course 
thing to a 6-string thing, and the transition progressed very differently 
in different places.


>if they hadn't disappeared altogether here in europe
>we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.


I'm still mighty into 5-course guitars as are a number of early-music 
buffs.  There still is a currently active instrument in Portuguese folk 
styles called viola da terra.  I've mentioned it before.  Look into it; 
you'll find it interesting.


>your scholarship is as impressive as ever.  i don't
>think i'll ever get you to acknowledge the historic
>validity of my cute little chordaphone of choice but
>i'm learning more about it - through you and many
>others on the list - than i ever would have on my own.


Please don't mistake me for a scholar of such stuff.  I'm just a fish guy 
with an unhealthy passion for plucky music.  For scholarship, ask me about 
the freshwater fish assemblages...or almost anybody else on this list about 
vihuela.

Best,
Eugene 



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Howard Posner]

bill kilpatrick wrote:

> crank? ... pummeling the baroque guitar supporters?
> ... wuffing up the renaissance guitar list? ... crank,
> (something) and wanton wiles? ...
>
> calm down.

I'm perfectly calm, I assure you.  I said you were a crank because you 
fit the dictionary definition.  The other remarks, from other posters, 
were all in good fun, since there's no perceived need around here to 
take you seriously, particularly since your settings are stuck on send. 
  But, as long as I'm wasting bandwidth, here's a final comment, from 
Tom Stoppard, in Act I of Travesties:

Tzara:  Nowadays, an artist is someone who makes art mean the things he 
does.  A man may be an artist by exhibiting his hindquarters.  He may 
be a poet by drawing words out of a hat.  In fact some of my best poems 
have been drawn out of my hat which I afterwards exhibited to general 
acclaim at the Dada Gallery in Bahnhofstrasse.
Carr:   But that is simply to change the meaning of the word Art.
Tzara:  I see I have made myself clear.
Carr:   Then you are not actually an artist at all?
Tzara:  On the contrary.  I have just told you I am.
Carr:  But that does not make you an artist. An artist is someone who 
is gifted in some way that enables him to do something more or less 
well which can only be done badly or not at all by someone who is not 
thus gifted. If there is any point in using language at all it is that 
a word is taken to stand for a particular fact or idea and not for 
other facts or ideas. I might claim to be able to fly... Lo, I say, I 
am flying. But you are not propelling yourself about while suspended in 
the air, someone may point out. Ah no, I reply, that is no longer 
considered the proper concern of people who can fly. In fact, it is 
frowned upon. Nowadays, a flyer never leaves the ground and wouldn't 
know how. I see, says my somewhat baffled interlocutor, so when you say 
you can fly you are using the word in a purely private sense. I see I 
have made myself clear, I say. Then, says, this chap in some relief, 
you cannot actually fly after all? On the contrary, I say, I have just 
told you that I can. Don't you see my dear Tristan you are simply 
asking me to accept that the word Art means whatever you wish it to 
mean; but I do not accept it.



--

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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Stuart Walsh]

Rob MacKillop wrote:

>That is a beautiful instrument, Stuart. I would LOVE to a have a copy. It
>was on the cover of Early Music magazine some months ago. I fell in love
>with it then. Alexander Batov considered making a copy, but I don't have the
>cash. BTW, Alexander is a viol maker also. I would like one of those too!
>
>Rob
>
>  
>
>>http://www.anselmus.ch/images/icon_dai_libri.jpg
>>
>>
>
>  
>
Yes, I think it's a very striking instrument. Maybe this is a daft 
question (gven that it's some sort of allegorical painting) but I wonder 
how big you think the thing is?
The modern reproduction looks like a  G- or maybe  A-tuned  instrument. 
But Giralamo's instrument in the painting looks much smaller.

Here's the painting:

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_Art/viewOnezoom.asp?dep=11&zoomFlag=0&viewmode=1&item=20%2E92

Looks more like a treble instrument, do you think, and that's part of 
its attractiveness?



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

At 10:33 AM 11/2/2005, Roman Turovsky wrote:
>>and don't necessarily have anything at all to do with willful efforts to
>>perpetuate an ugly, elitist Eurocentric bias.
>Are you trying to say that american farmed catfish is philosophically 
>equal to mediterranean red mullet??


It's all a matter of taste.  I tend to favor wild salmonids...but wouldn't 
be so bold as to deny the US south its ictalurids.

Best,
Eugene



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[bill kilpatrick]

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


 
> Nobody here has said that the charango doesn't have
> historical 
> validity, although we do have one crank on the list
> who seems to have 
> such a low opinion of the charango's position in the
> musical world that 
> he keeps insisting that it's the "vihuela" that
> Mudarra and Milan wrote 
> for.

i would never suggest such a thing.  i never have. 
the charango is "a" vihuela, one of ... who knows how
many ... 4c. and 5c. variations on the way to being
its acknowledged but ill-defined, historical self.  it
is not "the" vihuela which so impedes your senses to
the extent you are incapable of recognizing any other.

crank? ... pummeling the baroque guitar supporters?
.. wuffing up the renaissance guitar list? ... crank,
(something) and wanton wiles? ...

calm down.

- bill

"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 - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail 
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Howard Posner]

  bill kilpatrick wrote:

> playing this music on a charango - or ukulele
> if it comes to that - is not useless.  nor are single
> voice melodies from more complex compositions played
> on whatever comes to hand.

My point is that if you can't play vihuela music on it, it's not a 
vihuela.  This is self-evident.  Your being able pluck out bits of a 
Milan vihuela fantasia on your charango--if indeed, you've ever tried 
it--is wonderful, but it doesn't amount to playing vihuela music on a 
vihuela.  I can sing the themes of a Beethoven symphony, but that 
doesn't make me an orchestra.

> what is useless - of very
> little use to anyone - is to shackle a composition to
> a particular instrument, exclusive of any other, and
> insist on it being so for ever.

It's certainly useless, and it's also not what anyone is talking about. 
  The subject is whether a charango is a vihuela, not whether you can 
play vihuela music on a harp or a modern guitar or a piano.

> am i to infer from your
> implication that 16th cent. vihuela music should never
> be played on any instrument other than the one the
> composer intended?

Good lord, play it on a kazoo if you want to.  Just don't call your 
kazoo a vihuela.

> outside of honolulu, is there a recognized repertoire
> for the renaissance guitar?

Yes.  Mudarra and Fuenllana, who published books of music for vihuela, 
included some pieces for guitar in those books.  In Mudarra's book, 
they are labelled "guitarra" and written on tablature staves of four 
lines instead of six.  I've actually played some of the pieces on a 
ukulele, but since the characteristic ukulele re-entrant tuning didn't 
work, I had to restring it, which demonstrates that the modern ukulele 
and the renaissance guitar are not one and the same.



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Howard Posner]

  bill kilpatrick wrote:

> i don't
> think i'll ever get you to acknowledge the historic
> validity of my cute little chordaphone of choice

Nobody here has said that the charango doesn't have historical 
validity, although we do have one crank on the list who seems to have 
such a low opinion of the charango's position in the musical world that 
he keeps insisting that it's the "vihuela" that Mudarra and Milan wrote 
for.



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[bill kilpatrick]

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

> bill kilpatrick wrote:
> 
> > do you mean to infer that repertoire is the
> deciding
> > factor?
> 
> The word you're looking for is "imply," and I'd say
> the answer to your 
> question is no.  Garry was not implying, but rather
> assuming, that an 
> instrument useless for playing vihuela music is not
> a vihuela.  

i'd say that's an awfully narrow minded point of view,
howard.  playing this music on a charango - or ukulele
if it comes to that - is not useless.  nor are single
voice melodies from more complex compositions played
on whatever comes to hand.  what is useless - of very
little use to anyone - is to shackle a composition to
a particular instrument, exclusive of any other, and
insist on it being so for ever.

you drove me to the dictionary - which is no bad thing
- but, more to the point, am i to infer from your
implication that 16th cent. vihuela music should never
be played on any instrument other than the one the
composer intended?  if so, would you certify that as
being historically informed? 

i wouldn't presume to instruct you but here's a brief
lecture by james whistler which someone of your
discernment might find to be a bit of a challenge:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa257/10_oclock.html

he talks about painting but what he says applies to
every art.
   
That 
> is, whatever else constitutes the definition of the
> 16th-century 
> vihuela, part of that definition is that vihuela
> music can be played on 
> it.  It's an essential part of the definition for
> anyone interested in 
> playing music instead of playing word games.
> 

outside of honolulu, is there a recognized repertoire
for the renaissance guitar?  

- bill 

"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



___ 
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday 
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[bill kilpatrick]

--- "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> That line becomes indistinct only if you
> intentionally select the quotes 
> that makes it appear so.  

selective quotation works both ways.


> The concepts to which such names applied may have 
> changed over time and across boundaries, but any one
> time and place that 
> used different names to refer to different
> instrumental concepts had a 
> reason to do so.

as with the europeans in south america who referred to
their instruments as "vihuelas."  on what basis do
musicologists today justify their reclassification of
the instrument and say they - the south americans -
were wrong?


> Mudarra felt obliged distinguish between guitar and 
> vihuela in his compositional efforts, even if the
> line had become a bit 
> more blurry by 1611 when standard guitars were being
> built larger and with 
> more strings.
> 
> Of course tuning is adaptable, you can retune any
> instrument you have on 
> hand, but tablature has to assume a standard tuning
> and stringing 
> configuration to be functional.  In some times and
> places, that conceptual 
> distinction could be made--in many cases was
> made--by designating guitar or 
> vihuela.

in which case, i presume the musician tuned his
instrument accordingly and played the piece.  what's
the fuss?
   
> Of course these things are related and the concepts
> interacted through 
> time, but there's a reason we don't refer to all
> chordophones as bow, arc, 
> arco, etc.  Even if you could unearth a "fossil
> record" that proves 
> charango is the direct descendant of 16th-c. vihuela
> de mano and cuatro the 
> direct descendent of viola da mano as in the
> recently circulated bit of 
> iconography (which is an impossibility without the
> transfer of genetic 
> info; instrumental paradigms are not constrained to
> the laws of Darwinian 
> evolution); a charango is no more a 16th-c. vihuela
> and a cuatro no more 
> a16th-c. viola than a crow is an archaeopteryx. 
> Distinctions between 
> instrumental concepts as drawn by those who used and
> made them are useful 
> and don't necessarily have anything at all to do
> with willful efforts to 
> perpetuate an ugly, elitist Eurocentric bias.  

again, as with luthiers who made "vihuelas" in the new
world.

with darwin in mind, i don't see how slight variations
in the size and individual markings of a seagull - for
example - outweighs its essential, inherent
"gullness."  if you're contemplating a "separate but
equal" thesis, beware ... 

> I consider the revisionist 
> renaming of chordophones more disrespectful and even
> potentially dangerous 
> in threatening to isolate instruments from their
> traditions and repertoire.

disrespectful!? ... dangerous!?! ... threatening?!?
.. steady on mate. 
 
> Consider the names as no more than descriptive of a
> concept in 
> time.  Whatever its origins, you cannot pick up a
> charango in standard 
> tuning and play 16th-c. vihuela tablature without
> modification.  

if what we're talking about is retuning, i couldn't
agree with you more.  what's in name? ... retune and
pluck on - it's the thing itself that counts.  

Writing an 
> instrumental designation on a score does not cause
> the existence of an 
> instrument to be, but the score's designation is
> descriptive of a specific 
> concept.  What Mudarra designated by guitar is a
> different but related 
> concept to what Mertz designated by guitar; the
> concept Mudarra designated 
> by vihuela is different but related to that which
> mariachi bands 
> conceptualize as vihuela.

i find it hard to believe that musicians around the
world dropped their 4 or 5 course "vihuelas" or
guitars immediately in favor of a 6 course model -
especially in places where "many rude husbandmen and
artificers ..." strutted their stuff.  i suggest there
was a gradual change - and in the case of south
america - 5 course instruments continued on as before.
 

if they hadn't disappeared altogether here in europe
we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.


 I really don't
> understand the recent 
> obsession with five.

5 is all i've got ... and judging by their continued
popularity and success, 5 is all the europeans who
stepped off the boat in south america had ...

your scholarship is as impressive as ever.  i don't
think i'll ever get you to acknowledge the historic
validity of my cute little chordaphone of choice but
i'm learning more about it - through you and many
others on the list - than i ever would have on my own.

regards - bill 

"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



___ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! 
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Howard Posner]

bill kilpatrick wrote:

> do you mean to infer that repertoire is the deciding
> factor?

The word you're looking for is "imply," and I'd say the answer to your 
question is no.  Garry was not implying, but rather assuming, that an 
instrument useless for playing vihuela music is not a vihuela.  That 
is, whatever else constitutes the definition of the 16th-century 
vihuela, part of that definition is that vihuela music can be played on 
it.  It's an essential part of the definition for anyone interested in 
playing music instead of playing word games.

HP



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Garry Bryan]

bill kilpatrick wrote:

>--- Garry Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Well, not exactly. The one thing you still have yet
>>to get past is:
>>The Charango , with its 5 courses, cannot play the
>>repertoire written in 
>>the early to mid 16th century for a 6 course 
>>Vihuela de mano without 
>>omitting one of the strings.
>>
>>
>
>do you mean to infer that repertoire is the deciding 
>factor?
>

No. I'm saying that repertoire is a  filter: "Can the  repertoire of the 
vihuela de mano be played on a 5c charango with no omission of notes?" .

It's either yes or no. In this case it's "No".

It's not important that the Charango may be a variant/descendant of the 
vihuela de mano.The charango is not the vihuela de mano for which the 
16th century repertoire was written. That's all that's important in the 
context of this list.

Gonzalo de Guerrero may have said, "and thus i made...a small vihuela 
from the shell of a creepy crawly..." , but I don't recall that  I've 
read anything where he says, " ...and then I taught them to play on it 
several Pavanas and Fantasias by Milan ".

Go beat up the renaissance guitar people. You're one course up on them >:)



>
>  
>
>a trifle heavy for wit, perhaps but halfway there.
>  
>

Subtle. Very subtle >:))



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Roman Turovsky]

> and don't necessarily have anything at all to do with willful efforts to
> perpetuate an ugly, elitist Eurocentric bias.
Are you trying to say that american farmed catfish is philosophically equal 
to mediterranean red mullet??
RT





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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

At 03:35 AM 11/2/2005, bill kilpatrick wrote:
>it would seem that the line separating vihuela from
>guitar becomes more indistinct with each quoted,
>historical source.  tunings are adaptable to both; the
>repertoire is easily shared; number of courses during
>its development are variable; decorative motif is
>incidental - dimensions as well ...


I'd stewed on crafting a bit of satire, but didn't want to be taken the 
wrong way, so...

That line becomes indistinct only if you intentionally select the quotes 
that makes it appear so.  The concepts to which such names applied may have 
changed over time and across boundaries, but any one time and place that 
used different names to refer to different instrumental concepts had a 
reason to do so.  Mudarra felt obliged distinguish between guitar and 
vihuela in his compositional efforts, even if the line had become a bit 
more blurry by 1611 when standard guitars were being built larger and with 
more strings.

Of course tuning is adaptable, you can retune any instrument you have on 
hand, but tablature has to assume a standard tuning and stringing 
configuration to be functional.  In some times and places, that conceptual 
distinction could be made--in many cases was made--by designating guitar or 
vihuela.

Of course these things are related and the concepts interacted through 
time, but there's a reason we don't refer to all chordophones as bow, arc, 
arco, etc.  Even if you could unearth a "fossil record" that proves 
charango is the direct descendant of 16th-c. vihuela de mano and cuatro the 
direct descendent of viola da mano as in the recently circulated bit of 
iconography (which is an impossibility without the transfer of genetic 
info; instrumental paradigms are not constrained to the laws of Darwinian 
evolution); a charango is no more a 16th-c. vihuela and a cuatro no more 
a16th-c. viola than a crow is an archaeopteryx.  Distinctions between 
instrumental concepts as drawn by those who used and made them are useful 
and don't necessarily have anything at all to do with willful efforts to 
perpetuate an ugly, elitist Eurocentric bias.  I consider the revisionist 
renaming of chordophones more disrespectful and even potentially dangerous 
in threatening to isolate instruments from their traditions and repertoire.

Consider the names as no more than descriptive of a concept in 
time.  Whatever its origins, you cannot pick up a charango in standard 
tuning and play 16th-c. vihuela tablature without modification.  Writing an 
instrumental designation on a score does not cause the existence of an 
instrument to be, but the score's designation is descriptive of a specific 
concept.  What Mudarra designated by guitar is a different but related 
concept to what Mertz designated by guitar; the concept Mudarra designated 
by vihuela is different but related to that which mariachi bands 
conceptualize as vihuela.


>given the basic figure "8" shape, fingerboard and
>tuning apparatus, couldn't the distinction be thought
>of as purely subjective? ... as much today as it ever
>was?  ... a potato vs potato discourse?


Not necessarily subjective, but descriptive, per above.


>btw - i'm thinking of having some charango bumper
>stickers printed up in luminous day-glo pink:
>
>"5 is HIP"
>
>waddayathink? any takers?  got to be something of a
>plus, stuck there on the bumper of the ol' bentley.


Go for it and enjoy.  3 is HIP to colascione, rebec, etc; 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 
10, etc. was HIP at different times to things called names related to 
"guitar;" in general, 6 is HIP to 16th-c. vihuela repertoire and 5 to the 
vihuela of Latin America; 4, 5, and 6 to mandolini; there are too many HIP 
lute configurations to count; etc.  I really don't understand the recent 
obsession with five.

Best,
Eugene 



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[bill kilpatrick]

--- Garry Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Well, not exactly. The one thing you still have yet
> to get past is:
> The Charango , with its 5 courses, cannot play the
> repertoire written in 
> the early to mid 16th century for a 6 course 
> Vihuela de mano without 
> omitting one of the strings.

do you mean to infer that repertoire is the deciding
factor?
 
> So, as far as the "Charango is Vihuela de mano"
> argument goes: 5 is jive.
> 
> But don't despair! Besides pummeling the baroque
> guitar supporters on 
> this list with your Charango, you can probably
> attempt to convince the 
> good folks on BANJO-L that the Charango is closely
> related to the 5 
> string banjo.  Earl Scruggs will be most pleased,
> I'm sure.  >:)

a trifle heavy for wit, perhaps but halfway there.

- bill 

"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



___ 
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday 
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Garry Bryan]

bill kilpatrick wrote:

>re: the viola like instrument illustrated here:
>
>http://www.anselmus.ch/images/icon_dai_libri.jpg
> 
>strummers 'n pluckers ... stringfellows all ... isn't
>it also called a puertorican cuatro?
>
>it would seem that the line separating vihuela from
>guitar becomes more indistinct with each quoted,
>historical source.  tunings are adaptable to both; the
>repertoire is easily shared; number of courses during
>its development are variable; decorative motif is
>incidental - dimensions as well ... 
>
>given the basic figure "8" shape, fingerboard and
>tuning apparatus, couldn't the distinction be thought
>of as purely subjective? ... as much today as it ever
>was?  ... a potato vs potato discourse? 
>  
>
Well, not exactly. The one thing you still have yet to get past is:
The Charango , with its 5 courses, cannot play the repertoire written in 
the early to mid 16th century for a 6 course  Vihuela de mano without 
omitting one of the strings.
 
So, as far as the "Charango is Vihuela de mano" argument goes: 5 is jive.

But don't despair! Besides pummeling the baroque guitar supporters on 
this list with your Charango, you can probably attempt to convince the 
good folks on BANJO-L that the Charango is closely related to the 5 
string banjo.  Earl Scruggs will be most pleased, I'm sure.  >:)











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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[bill kilpatrick]

re: the viola like instrument illustrated here:

http://www.anselmus.ch/images/icon_dai_libri.jpg
 
strummers 'n pluckers ... stringfellows all ... isn't
it also called a puertorican cuatro?

it would seem that the line separating vihuela from
guitar becomes more indistinct with each quoted,
historical source.  tunings are adaptable to both; the
repertoire is easily shared; number of courses during
its development are variable; decorative motif is
incidental - dimensions as well ... 

given the basic figure "8" shape, fingerboard and
tuning apparatus, couldn't the distinction be thought
of as purely subjective? ... as much today as it ever
was?  ... a potato vs potato discourse? 

btw - i'm thinking of having some charango bumper
stickers printed up in luminous day-glo pink:

"5 is HIP"

waddayathink? any takers?  got to be something of a
plus, stuck there on the bumper of the ol' bentley.

high five - bill



"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



___ 
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! 
Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Rob MacKillop]

That is a beautiful instrument, Stuart. I would LOVE to a have a copy. It
was on the cover of Early Music magazine some months ago. I fell in love
with it then. Alexander Batov considered making a copy, but I don't have the
cash. BTW, Alexander is a viol maker also. I would like one of those too!

Rob

>http://www.anselmus.ch/images/icon_dai_libri.jpg




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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Stuart Walsh]

>) but there is also vihuela's earlier
>"companion" - the viola da mano that seems to have had a rather shallow body
>and this might have been transferred on to the vihuela (whether in its five-
>or six-course configuration).
>
>
>  
>


>http://www.anselmus.ch/images/icon_dai_libri.jpg
>
This isn't so shallow.



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Alexander Batov]

On Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:43 PM Rob MacKillop wrote:

> Seriously, If Alexander is saying (and I may have misunderstood him) that
> the vihuela and the guitar are one and the same, is Fuenllana's 5c vihuela
> music (in baroque guitar tuning) the earliest 5c guitar music?

Can't see why not. Acoustically the vihuela and the guitar at that
particular time were serving the same purpose (i.e. were both used for
playing polyphonic music). In fact as it was the case with the four-course
guitar. I don't think there is anything new in this.

 > And should it
> therefore be played on a 5c guitar? [I am avoiding using the term 'baroque
> guitar' as the word 'baroque' is misleading and is of course a modern
> name,
> which should be dropped from the nomenclature.] If you were to make a 5c
> vihuela, Alexander, how might it differ from a 5c guitar? I'm not trying
> to
> catch you out - I am still a wee bit confused.

This is where, as I see it, the crucial difference between the two guitars
occurs. The early 17th century 5-course guitar is a strummed instrument with
a larger size body volume (as it indeed appears on its earliest
representations, such as Lionello Spada's painting c.1615) while its earlier
predecessor (for the music of Fuenllana for instance) could have had
shallower body (much in lines with the Dias). The lower body volume allows
to shift the frequency response towards the mid-range of the instrument,
thus making it more suitable for polyphonic music where clear voice leading
is essential. This is of course my speculation (with only one historical
instrument surviving - the Dias) but there is also vihuela's earlier
"companion" - the viola da mano that seems to have had a rather shallow body
and this might have been transferred on to the vihuela (whether in its five-
or six-course configuration).

Alexander

www.vihuelademano.com



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Yates, Stanley]

Hi Rob,

I'd suggest that in 1609, whether in Mexico or Spain itself, the term
"vihuela" still haeld a primary association with the high art, lute-like
repertoire of the Spanish Golden Age, while by 1730, the term had returned
to one of its more generic meanings (although in Portugal at that time, as
still today in Brazil, the term viola seems to have been associated
particularly with what we would call the guitar).

Stanley 


On 11/1/05 4:43 PM, "Rob MacKillop" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Here are a couple of late quotes from Corona's thesis:
> 
> "Vihuela or lute, they are the same although not in the shape, whether they
> are of four, five, six or more courses"
> Mateo Aleman, Ortografia castellana (Mexico City, 1609)
> 
> "Vihuela fn. Stringed musical instrument which according to Covarrubias was
> the lyre of antiquity, but today it commonly means the same as the guitar"
> Diccionario de Autoridades, Madrid 1726-39
> 
> In other words, a vihuela is both a lute and a guitar. Take your pick - or
> fingers.
> 
> Seriously, If Alexander is saying (and I may have misunderstood him) that
> the vihuela and the guitar are one and the same, is Fuenllana's 5c vihuela
> music (in baroque guitar tuning) the earliest 5c guitar music? And should it
> therefore be played on a 5c guitar? [I am avoiding using the term 'baroque
> guitar' as the word 'baroque' is misleading and is of course a modern name,
> which should be dropped from the nomenclature.] If you were to make a 5c
> vihuela, Alexander, how might it differ from a 5c guitar? I'm not trying to
> catch you out - I am still a wee bit confused.
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Rob MacKillop]

Here are a couple of late quotes from Corona's thesis:

"Vihuela or lute, they are the same although not in the shape, whether they
are of four, five, six or more courses"
Mateo Aleman, Ortografia castellana (Mexico City, 1609)

"Vihuela fn. Stringed musical instrument which according to Covarrubias was
the lyre of antiquity, but today it commonly means the same as the guitar"
Diccionario de Autoridades, Madrid 1726-39 

In other words, a vihuela is both a lute and a guitar. Take your pick - or
fingers.

Seriously, If Alexander is saying (and I may have misunderstood him) that
the vihuela and the guitar are one and the same, is Fuenllana's 5c vihuela
music (in baroque guitar tuning) the earliest 5c guitar music? And should it
therefore be played on a 5c guitar? [I am avoiding using the term 'baroque
guitar' as the word 'baroque' is misleading and is of course a modern name,
which should be dropped from the nomenclature.] If you were to make a 5c
vihuela, Alexander, how might it differ from a 5c guitar? I'm not trying to
catch you out - I am still a wee bit confused.

Rob




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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Eugene C. Braig IV]

At 05:07 PM 11/1/2005, bill kilpatrick wrote:
>--- Alexander Batov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Corrubias  (1611) sums it up rather neatly as "the
> > guitar is a vihuela,
> > small in size and also of less strings, since it has
> > no more than five and
> > sometimes only four."
>
>there's quite a lot in your answer - but for now,
>thanks heaps for the above.


This quote, of course, is a very late perception in the life of the 16th c. 
(and a little beyond) vihuela, and I'm pretty certain it's been cited here 
before, Bill.  I believe there was a more clear distinction between the two 
concepts early on, before burgeoning guitar popularity began to swallow up 
the concept of vihuela.

Best,
Eugene 



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[bill kilpatrick]

--- Alexander Batov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 
> Corrubias  (1611) sums it up rather neatly as "the
> guitar is a vihuela,
> small in size and also of less strings, since it has
> no more than five and
> sometimes only four."

there's quite a lot in your answer - but for now, 
thanks heaps for the above.

- bill

"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



___ 
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday 
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Alexander Batov]

On 26 October 2005 13:47 Monica Hall wrote:

> I think we need to be very cautious about all the illustrations in the
> vihuela books as the engravers are often incompetant and unreliable,
> Mudarra's vihuelista is playing left handed - presumably because the
> engraver got it the wrong way round, and the Narvaez one with the long
> neck
> and small body is also.

Being cautious is undoubtedly a good idea. What is important though is that
most of the illustrations agree on at least one point - the figure of eight
body shape. And this is already a good sign!

> Of the surviving instruments the Quito is just as
likely to be a baroque guitar.

To my knowledge, there aren't any surviving early 17th century 6-course
guitars, or iconographical representations and / or musical sources
confirming the existence of a 6-course guitar at that date. However, taking
one course off and changing the tuning (and some strings perhaps) will turn
it into baroque guitar. You are quite right about that.
Even if it was conceived as a 6-course guitar (which is however rather
unlikely), it would still count as a valid vihuela at the beginning of the
17th century, as the 1619 account about the examination of Francisco de
Lipuste suggests, "... one instrument which at the moment is strung as a
guitar but was constructed by Francisco de Lipuste as a vihuela ... It has
ebony ribs, back and soundboard in white wood, a rose with three black and
white rings ... etc" (In other words, surely not a lute :))

> Likewise the Diaz.

For those who adhere to the Dias' attribution to a guitar, one's got to
reverse the above procedure, with only one major inconvenience of accepting
its "third eye" for a peg hole. It would certainly help if more
musicologists (who largely write about the vihuela) could get to grips with
organology.

>> Every now and then, Bill stumbles on an important fundamental question,
>> So asking what is a vihuela is a good question.

> It is a good question - but one to which there is probably no answer.

It depends, I suppose, what sort of answer a person is looking for and at
least a few words of explanation why you think so would be useful. However,
having the pragmatic mind of a maker (as I'm sure most makers do) I find it
really strange to see such statements. Even if we do not have, in the views
of many people, a good representative of a vihuela surviving, there is
plenty of evidence confirming its constructional similarity with its
contemporary and follower - the guitar, the difference is merely in size and
number of strings.

Corrubias  (1611) sums it up rather neatly as "the guitar is a vihuela,
small in size and also of less strings, since it has no more than five and
sometimes only four." (JLS, 1976). From the surviving accounts starting
from the 1570s it is fairly clear that the guitar and the vihuela shared the 
same
constructional features, such as flat, vaulted or vaulted and fluted backs 
and
types of roses. For example, the certificate of the examination of Juan 
Rodriguez
of 1587 states that he, as a journeyman, was examined, "in the making of a
vihuela with a sunken rose and a guitar in the same manner".

In the time of Bermudo, the vihuela was, so to say, a consort family
instrument (as was its contemporary the lute in Italy) and so the
guitar was its smaller family member (in the same way that the five- /
six-string pardessus and the quinton, for example, are both tuned
differently from the viol but, from the point of view of the construction,
mirror the larger members of the viol family). One doesn't have to invent a
different "acoustical body" to serve the very same purpose of re-enforcing
vibrating strings and it is exactly this idea that is repeatedly stated in
the vihuela books and Bermudo and Corrubias which are all likening the
vihuela and the guitar. (Number of strings, tuning, size and name can differ
but the underlying constructional idea remains the same.)

The guitar evolved by the early 17th century not only as a differently tuned
instrument from the vihuela but also serving a different musical purpose -
strummed music (makes one wonder if this could have been initiated by the
way vihuelas were played?). However, its essential constructional structure
remained the same and it would be foolish to believe that it would have been
much different from the earlier vihuela. This is not to say that many of the
vihuelas would have found their second life as guitars, as the
above-mentioned account suggests. There is one point though that deserves
more exploration - the size (or rather volume) of the body and its
relationship with the instrument's range. And here the surviving instruments
(the four "suspected" vihuelas) and the iconography (including all known
depictions of the 4-course guitar) can help. This is also why the acoustical
parameters of the Dias instrument are so important in this respect and it
doesn't matter at all in the end whether one sees a guitar or vihuela in it!

To resume, it is 

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Stephan . Olbertz]

Am 26 Oct 2005 um 8:48 hat Howard Posner geschrieben:

> In the 1970's, a record company put out a re-issue of some of Bream's 
> recordings entitled " the Spanish Guitar" or "the Classical Guitar."  
> Its front cover consisted of the title and a large picture of a 
> standard-issue American-style 12-string guitar.  What would a 
> musicologist make of that four centuries down the road?


I've seen that even nowadays. A nice classical guitar CD  with a well-made 
photo of a 
steelstring neck with a plectrum sticking between the strings...

Stephan



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Howard Posner]

Monica Hall wrote:

> I think we need to be very cautious about all the illustrations in the
> vihuela books as the engravers are often incompetant and unreliable,

Or not paid enough to make it worthwhile or just not interested in 
putting a lot of accuracy and detail into a tiny picture.  The 
instrument in the Mudarra illustration (page 245 of the Chantarelle 
facsimile) is as long as my thumb is wide, and it's very sparse.   I'm 
not even sure it's supposed to be a vihuela.  Far more prominence is 
given to the tortoise-shell lyre (complete with tortoise) that Hermes 
(?) is holding in the front of the book.  If you didn't know better, 
you'd assume the tortoise-shell lyre is the vihuela.

In the 1970's, a record company put out a re-issue of some of Bream's 
recordings entitled " the Spanish Guitar" or "the Classical Guitar."  
Its front cover consisted of the title and a large picture of a 
standard-issue American-style 12-string guitar.  What would a 
musicologist make of that four centuries down the road?

HP



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Monica Hall]

> None of the other images of so-called vihuelas look much like the Milan
(El
> Maestro) version, in fact they don't resemble each other much either. Nor
do
> any of the surviving instruments which we label vihuelas or possible
> vihuelas. I have pictures of the most 'important' ones on my site:
> http://www.musicintime.co.uk/vihuelaIntro.htm

I think we need to be very cautious about all the illustrations in the
vihuela books as the engravers are often incompetant and unreliable,
Mudarra's vihuelista is playing left handed - presumably because the
engraver got it the wrong way round, and the Narvaez one with the long neck
and small body is also.  Of the surviving instruments the Quito is just as
likely to be a baroque guitar.  Likewise the Diaz.

> Every now and then, Bill stumbles on an important fundamental question,
So asking what is a vihuela is a good
question.

It is a good question - but one to which there is probably no answer.

> academic, technical term) into the baroque guitar. Fuenllana's five-course
> 'vihuela' (1554!) is tuned the same way as a 5c guitar. What was the
> difference?

That's another good question - to which there is no answer!

Monica




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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[EUGENE BRAIG IV]

- Original Message -
From: bill kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 6:33 pm
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

> wouldn't it stand to reason that those vihuela/guitar
> manifestations which are not considered guitars might
> therefore be considered as vihuelas?  

Why not consider them to be whatever their makers and users consider them to 
be: charango, ukulele, timple, whatever?   Again, the relationships to other, 
earlier things are evident (as in the modern classical guitar), but each of 
these things is still its own conceptual entity.  There is no reason to seek 
pseudo-validation of these things by onceptualizing them AS their ancestry.

> roman also points out - rightly - that european
> settlers in the new world never called their vihuelas
> "charangos."  i would point out that to the best of my
> knowledge - for hundreds of years, in some areas -
> they didn't call their vihuelas "guitars" either.

..But they did call their guitars "guitars" (in whatever language was 
appropriate).

> the most plausible answer, it seems to me (grovel
> grovel) is their acknowledgment of the number 5.
>
> isn't it possible that in europe the distinction
> between vihuela and guitar was decided in favor of the
> number 6 and in the new world by the number 5?  isn't
> it plausible that there's a family of vihuela
> instruments, some of which have 5 courses - the
> charango included?

I don't really understand what point you're trying to make in this 
contemplation on the number five.  I think the concept and name "vihuela" just 
happened to be absorbed by guitar-like things; however many strings or courses 
they carried is incidental.  As you've implied, folk musics are not so codified 
as academic music.  It would stand to reason that the instruments to evolve 
around folk music in the absence of academic music would be hugely diverse in 
regional construction, naming conventions, tunings, playing techniques, etc. in 
having not being dictated by service to the set scores of academic music.  
Consider all the diverse modern things to be called "guitar" compared to the 
typical expectations of what one expects to be called a "violin"...or even 
"guitar" in general compared to "classical guitar."

> the only reason i can see for denying this possibility
> - if absence of written material and modifications in
> its development are no longer precluding factors - is
> an inherent and traditional prejudice against
> informal, "people's" music on the part of academics,
> on the one hand and feelings of national pride and
> solidarity with the indian population of south america
> on the other.

That's silly.  As evidence of my personal lack of prejudice against aboriginal 
Americans, I used to date a Sioux...and I like a whole lot of folk musics.  Why 
not just respect the names that the users of instruments have given them?  The 
conceptual roots of those instruments are evident, whatever their names.  
Trying to rename those instruments as their ancestors seems to be much more a 
semi-disrespectful application of "inherent and traditional prejudice" against 
the tools of informal music making to me.

Best,
Eugene



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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[Roman Turovsky]

> roman quite rightly said - in my uriah heap-like
> opinion - that the mexicans probably named their
> mariachi vihuela out of a dim recollection of the real
> thing - the "real thing" being varied, ill-defined and
> prone to subjective consideration.
>
> in a previous thread it was generally agreed that
> written compositions for an instrument shouldn't
> prejudice its importance or previous existence, even,
> prior to documentation of material written for it.
However: written compositions prejudice instrument consequent existence. 
Make no mistake about it.
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

[VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?

[bill kilpatrick]

that's really good.  i don't see how anyone could or
even want to argue with any of what you said.  

one more point and i'm off to bed:

roman quite rightly said - in my uriah heap-like
opinion - that the mexicans probably named their
mariachi vihuela out of a dim recollection of the real
thing - the "real thing" being varied, ill-defined and
prone to subjective consideration.  

in a previous thread it was generally agreed that
written compositions for an instrument shouldn't
prejudice its importance or previous existence, even,
prior to documentation of material written for it.

in another recent thread it was established that the
vihuela probably passed through a series of
modifications before being eclipsed altogether by the
guitar.

wouldn't it stand to reason that those vihuela/guitar
manifestations which are not considered guitars might
therefore be considered as vihuelas?  

mariachi music is a people's dance music - it came
from poor, illiterate people whose main access to
history is via the oral tradition.  given that the
mariachi vihuela looks like a guitar and is played as
accompaniment to guitars, why would they choose to
call it a vihuela?

the most plausible answer, it seems to me (grovel
grovel) is their acknowledgment of the number 5.

roman also points out - rightly - that european
settlers in the new world never called their vihuelas
"charangos."  i would point out that to the best of my
knowledge - for hundreds of years, in some areas -
they didn't call their vihuelas "guitars" either.

isn't it possible that in europe the distinction
between vihuela and guitar was decided in favor of the
number 6 and in the new world by the number 5?  isn't
it plausible that there's a family of vihuela
instruments, some of which have 5 courses - the
charango included?

the only reason i can see for denying this possibility
- if absence of written material and modifications in
its development are no longer precluding factors - is
an inherent and traditional prejudice against
informal, "people's" music on the part of academics,
on the one hand and feelings of national pride and
solidarity with the indian population of south america
on the other.

AND FURTHERMORE ... IN CONCLUSION !!! ...

this list is not my personal blog and i sincerely
apologize if i was ever seen to treat it as such.

- bill 

--- Rob MacKillop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>  
> >>> what is the historical vihuela, howard?
> 
> >>An instrument on which vihuela music can be
> played, and which resembles
> the instrument Orpheus holds on the cover of El
> Maestro.
> 
> 'Resembles' can cover a multitude of forms,
> methinks. I'm not criticising
> what Howard has said, just expanding on it...
> 
> None of the other images of so-called vihuelas look
> much like the Milan (El
> Maestro) version, in fact they don't resemble each
> other much either. Nor do
> any of the surviving instruments which we label
> vihuelas or possible
> vihuelas. I have pictures of the most 'important'
> ones on my site:
> http://www.musicintime.co.uk/vihuelaIntro.htm
> 
> Every now and then, Bill stumbles on an important
> fundamental question, and
> I think he has done so here. The fact is that none
> of the 16th-century
> illustrations (from vihuela publications and
> elsewhere) match each other,
> and none of the surviving so-called vihuelas match
> each other or the
> 16th-century illustrations. So asking what is a
> vihuela is a good question.
> We know that camps have been set up by some luthiers
> and academics, some
> prefering one instrument over another. For me, I'm
> happy to accept such
> variety. Just go into a guitar shop today and see
> the array of models which
> everyone is happy to call a guitar. Apparently the
> same was happening in the
> 16th century. 
> 
> I like to keep life simple (I seem to be in a
> minority), so for me a vihuela
> is a guitar-like instrument of the viol family which
> drifted (OK, not a very
> academic, technical term) into the baroque guitar.
> Fuenllana's five-course
> 'vihuela' (1554!) is tuned the same way as a 5c
> guitar. What was the
> difference? 
> 
> Most of you know I play one of Alexander Batov's
> Dias-based instruments. He
> also makes the Chambure type and others. I chose the
> Dias, not because I
> believe it to be the perfect vihuela, but because it
> sounds great despite my
> worst efforts, and it falls within the parameters of
> what I consider a
> vihuela to be. 
> 
> Bill, there is no one vihuela. Doesn't the Narvaez
> instrument (see above
> link) look like it would have a place in South
> American music at some point?
> However, 99 per cent of the people who have signed
> up to this site are of
> the conviction that a vihuela is the instrument that
> played the music in the
> 16th-century vihuela publications (despite there
> being a different picture
> in each one!).
> 
> Rob
> www.musicintime.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To get on or off this list see list information at
>
http://www.cs.dartmouth.