Re: Re: Royal College Dias
Martyn Hodgson wrote (Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:39 PM): Further to this, I forgot to mention that I do so agree with you that was clearly a continuum of instruments between the 'classical' 16thC vihuela (whatever that was - will we ever know in view of the irritating lack of Spanish iconography) and the 17thC 5 course guitar. In particular, as you say, the Dias is a very good shape to base an instrument on. Perhaps you have your own explanation of the evolution of musical instruments ... something like the Big Bang theory. I can't see a continuum between, say, the classical Oud (whatever that was) and the Chinese pi-pa but at least I can explain why, well ... because I don't know very much about it. But if the available iconography and all the passages (often mentioned on this list) from Bermudo, Covarrubias, vihuelistas' books and the historical accounts (two of them are quoted at the beginning of my last article) are not enough for you to get an idea of the continuum it is simply beyond my reason to understand your point. So maybe next time when I see 17th century hapsichord converted in the mid-18th century into hammered clavier I will just pretend that it was in fact originally a harp with the soundboard attached horisontally ... Regarding arched/fluted back vihuelas, I recall there's a passage in, I think Bermudo, where he says the depth of a vihuela is 2 or three fingers ie very shallow - has this anything to tell us - perhaps not arched/fluted? Or perhaps his fingers too fat? ... Finally, I'm still not convinced that the Chambure instrument is such a good model: even if it was a vihuela its very odd body shape must surely make it attypical. However unconvinced you are, important thing to remember though is that the maker of the Chambure knew what he was doing. Regards, Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
RE: Royal College Dias
Hi Martin, I admit that my comments had nothing to do with your current debate. And the 'angry and argumentative' part was not directed at you. Just take a look at Stephen Barber's website for an example of what I was referring to. Ditto Corona's comments on the lute list. Nor was I trying to defend Alexander, who seems more than capable of doing that himself. I guess I was just wanting to enthuse a bit. Not much of that goes on here... Rob _ From: Martyn Hodgson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 June 2005 11:37 To: Rob MacKillop; Vihuela Net Cc: Vihuela Net Subject: RE: Royal College Dias Rob, Thank you for this. I do, however, think you misunderstand the debate: it is not about criticism or attempting to impose any uniformity; it is merely scholarly questioning and suggesting other possibilities which may, or may not, have some validity. Much less is it about being 'angry and argumentative' - where do you get this from? If serious debate is quashed by fear of seeming 'argumentative' we'll never get anywhere. Finally, I'm pleased you like Alexander's very fine instruments but what precise relevance is this to the particular debate? regards, Martyn -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
RE: Royal College Dias
Dear Rob and Martyn, Yes, I agree. This vihuela list has not been argumentative, but in the past there has been some heated discussion of appropriate instrumentation for vihuelas. One could compare this to lutes. I have heard some fantastic lutes, that were not exact replicas of an original instrument, and to me, it does not really matter all that much. What matters is if the instrument plays and sounds well. I have heard your instrument, Rob, on your web site, and I must say, it sounds fabulous. I have a vaulted back vihuela that also sounds wonderful, and I could care less if it is an authentic reproduction. By any accounts, it is a successful instrument. So, for the Dias, I do not think it is critical whether or not if it had been a guitar or vihuela. If it is successful, that is what counts. ed At 11:36 AM 6/8/2005 +0100, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Rob, Thank you for this. I do, however, think you misunderstand the debate: it is not about criticism or attempting to impose any uniformity; it is merely scholarly questioning and suggesting other possibilities which may, or may not, have some validity. Much less is it about being 'angry and argumentative' - where do you get this from? If serious debate is quashed by fear of seeming 'argumentative' we'll never get anywhere. Finally, I'm pleased you like Alexander's very fine instruments but what precise relevance is this to the particular debate? regards, Martyn Rob MacKillop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not a maker or an organologist, so... It appears to be a unsatisfactory situation for all concerned. There are quite a number of images of what we assume are vihuelas - and no two of them are the same in all relevant details. We also have a few surviving instruments which we assume are vihuelas (not everyone agrees). Not only do none of these surviving instruments look like any of the others, but they also look unlike the iconographic images. What conclusions can we draw from this state of affairs? It seems to me obvious that there were as many interpretations then about what a vihuela was as there are now over the modern acoustic guitar. Each maker did 'his own thing', adapting, experimenting, etc. I find this a wholly positive thing! Why some people get angry and argumentative over all this, seems to me crazy. There is no one vihuela which we must all copy and play. The bottom line is that any roughly guitar or viola-shaped instrument with six courses, tuned like a lute (pitch varies) is suitable for the printed repertoire. Some people in the 16th century played this stuff on a lute...The Dias is a perfectly good base model. For what it's worth: I play one of Alexander's vihuelas for one good reason: it is a great musical instrument, suitable for the repertoire. Rob To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html - Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail -- Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202
Re: Royal College Dias
Dear all, I fully support Ed's view, which is the view of a practioner (is there such a word in english?). I also understand Martyn's point. While it's of no importance for a player if the instrument is historically correct (if the repertoire is appropriatly reproduceable on it). On the other hand: from a scientific point of view it is very important what reasons we have to prefer this model over another. I enjoy the discussions on both levels - there are surely weak points in Alexander's argumentation postulating the Diaz-guitar would be a vihuela which doesn't have anything to do with the practical use of his replica as appropriate instruments for the vihuela repertoire. An inconsistance? I don't think so. The vihuela is special. We don't have any surviving certified instruments and I don't know of any instrument in discussion on which no objections exist. So I think there is a certain freedom for builders and in this case any argument and practical experiment will bring us closer what could have been the original sound of the instrument. Just my 2 cent on this Best wishes Thomas Am Mittwoch, 8. Juni 2005 17:12 schrieben Sie: Dear Rob and Martyn, Yes, I agree. This vihuela list has not been argumentative, but in the past there has been some heated discussion of appropriate instrumentation for vihuelas. One could compare this to lutes. I have heard some fantastic lutes, that were not exact replicas of an original instrument, and to me, it does not really matter all that much. What matters is if the instrument plays and sounds well. I have heard your instrument, Rob, on your web site, and I must say, it sounds fabulous. I have a vaulted back vihuela that also sounds wonderful, and I could care less if it is an authentic reproduction. By any accounts, it is a successful instrument. So, for the Dias, I do not think it is critical whether or not if it had been a guitar or vihuela. If it is successful, that is what counts. ed At 11:36 AM 6/8/2005 +0100, Martyn Hodgson wrote: Rob, Thank you for this. I do, however, think you misunderstand the debate: it is not about criticism or attempting to impose any uniformity; it is merely scholarly questioning and suggesting other possibilities which may, or may not, have some validity. Much less is it about being 'angry and argumentative' - where do you get this from? If serious debate is quashed by fear of seeming 'argumentative' we'll never get anywhere. Finally, I'm pleased you like Alexander's very fine instruments but what precise relevance is this to the particular debate? regards, Martyn Rob MacKillop [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am not a maker or an organologist, so... It appears to be a unsatisfactory situation for all concerned. There are quite a number of images of what we assume are vihuelas - and no two of them are the same in all relevant details. We also have a few surviving instruments which we assume are vihuelas (not everyone agrees). Not only do none of these surviving instruments look like any of the others, but they also look unlike the iconographic images. What conclusions can we draw from this state of affairs? It seems to me obvious that there were as many interpretations then about what a vihuela was as there are now over the modern acoustic guitar. Each maker did 'his own thing', adapting, experimenting, etc. I find this a wholly positive thing! Why some people get angry and argumentative over all this, seems to me crazy. There is no one vihuela which we must all copy and play. The bottom line is that any roughly guitar or viola-shaped instrument with six courses, tuned like a lute (pitch varies) is suitable for the printed repertoire. Some people in the 16th century played this stuff on a lute...The Dias is a perfectly good base model. For what it's worth: I play one of Alexander's vihuelas for one good reason: it is a great musical instrument, suitable for the repertoire. Rob To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html - Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail -- Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 -- Thomas Schall Niederhofheimer Weg 3 D-65843 Sulzbach 06196/74519 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lautenist.de http://www.lautenist.de/bduo/ http://www.lautenist.de/gitarre/ http://www.tslaute.de/weiss/
Re: Royal College Dias
Thanks Martyn,
Most of the points that you mention were already discussed earlier so I'd
find it rather unnecessary to start it all over again. And it seems that
you've made your choice for a strap/ribbon thing ... Why not indeed(?!)
.. ):-)
Just to add to the list of the curiosities, here is a similar way of
arrangement of pegs (to that on the Dias) but this time on one of the
Russian mid-19th century guitar that I came across:
http://www.vihuelademano.com/current/pages/7strings.htm
I wonder what the central peg hole would look like if for the next 200 years
this guitar is used as a 6-string one (i.e. with the central peg taken out
etc and with the strap put through)?
---
Just a bit of comments to your last point. I tend to look at the feature of
string spacing of the 16-th century 6-course lutes / vihuelas (note, not
11 - 13-course instruments!) in a slightly different perspective. Perhaps
the very thought that we grew a bit bigger that our ancestors seems to me
rather spooky :~)
Vihuelas, as well as contemporary to them lutes and viols came in different
sizes, i.e. families (How many vihuela sizes does Bermudo refer to? Can't
remember.) So regardless of the time scale, the logic of the instruments'
set-up parameters within the family would remain consistent in relation to
their sizes. On modern violin family instruments, for example (which is,
strictly speaking, the only surviving family of string instruments), the
difference in body size of the two neighbouring members of, say, 4/4 and 3/4
viola or cello is about 8 - 8.5%. This results in approximately the same
percentage difference in the string spacing on their nuts and bridges. You
may agree or not with this analogy but if a 60 - 64 cm string length vihuela
had, for example, 40 mm between the outer strings on the nut, the one with
56 cm could have had a few mm less than that. By the way, on the last
vihuela that I've made the outer string spacing on the nut is 37.5 mm and it
doesn't feel uncomfortable at all. It is only a matter of getting used to
it.
Regards,
Alexander
- Original Message -
From: Martyn Hodgson
To: Alexander Batov ; Lute Net ; Vihuela Net
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Royal College Dias
Thanks fr yr thougt provoking paper Alexander. You asked for comments:
Firstly, congrats on marshalling new information and perpectives. I was
particularly struck with the Daret painting when you introduced to me some
months ago and I agree that the Diaz MAY have been built as a 6 course
vihuela but think that the weight of evidence is rather less conclusive than
you and on balance I still think it more likely to have been built as a 5
course guitar. A few points:
1. Decoration (presumably original) on the face of the Diaz peghead
specifically makes a feature of all the pegholes, except for the 'extra'
one; indeed, it even cuts through part of the decorative line. This
suggests to me that the instrument was not originally built with this
additional peghole.
2. Plate1 second from left (17thC guitar) shows an extra peghole in another
instrument. I wonder if this extra hole was not made to allow for an extra
string in the late 18thC to convert to a 6 course guitar (as you'll know
many early guitars were converted around 1800, but mostly to 6 single
strings so did not require additional pegs). Unfortunately, the absence of a
bridge ( Plate 4) does not allow us to date it on stylistic grounds and say
wether it was contemporary with the body of the instrument or a later
addition.
6-course guitar conversion is certainly a possibility
3. The very small ('pin') hole in the top of the Diaz peghead is very close
to the edge: do you really think it could have been made significantly
larger without splitting out at the top? This risk might have prevented it
from being used for a strap/ribbon and thus requiring another hole which did
not breach the makers cartouche or interfere with other pegs.
4. Small string spacing at the BRIDGE on multi course instruments is to do
with keeping the extreme courses within a reasonable span (it is, for
example, interesting that most 13 course lutes have significantly smaller
inter course separation than on 11 course instruments made around the same
time). With only 5 (or 6) courses the physical span of the extreme courses
is not an issue.
Having said this, it is clear that many extant early lutes (some of which
you note) do seem to have smaller inter course separation at the NUT; a
feature which, as you mention, we need to come to terms with. Do we know the
size of earlier hands? - were they smaller than present day (say, in
proprtion to overall height) or are they more indepedent (like inter-occular
distance which seems to have remained surprisingly constant inspite of
overall stature increase - I recall an overall figure of 15% increase from
16thC being quoted by Segerman). In short, do we need larger separation at
the nut because we have bigger/thicker fingers or because
RE: Royal College Dias
I am not a maker or an organologist, so... It appears to be a unsatisfactory situation for all concerned. There are quite a number of images of what we assume are vihuelas - and no two of them are the same in all relevant details. We also have a few surviving instruments which we assume are vihuelas (not everyone agrees). Not only do none of these surviving instruments look like any of the others, but they also look unlike the iconographic images. What conclusions can we draw from this state of affairs? It seems to me obvious that there were as many interpretations then about what a vihuela was as there are now over the modern acoustic guitar. Each maker did 'his own thing', adapting, experimenting, etc. I find this a wholly positive thing! Why some people get angry and argumentative over all this, seems to me crazy. There is no one vihuela which we must all copy and play. The bottom line is that any roughly guitar or viola-shaped instrument with six courses, tuned like a lute (pitch varies) is suitable for the printed repertoire. Some people in the 16th century played this stuff on a lute...The Dias is a perfectly good base model. For what it's worth: I play one of Alexander's vihuelas for one good reason: it is a great musical instrument, suitable for the repertoire. Rob To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
Re: Royal College Dias
Thanks fr yr thougt provoking paper Alexander. You asked for comments:
Firstly, congrats on marshalling new information and perpectives. I was
particularly struck with the Daret painting when you introduced to me some
months ago and I agree that the Diaz MAY have been built as a 6 course vihuela
but think that the weight of evidence is rather less conclusive than you and
on balance I still think it more likely to have been built as a 5 course
guitar. A few points:
1. Decoration (presumably original) on the face of the Diaz peghead
specifically makes a feature of all the pegholes, except for the 'extra' one;
indeed, it even cuts through part of the decorative line. This suggests to me
that the instrument was not originally built with this additional peghole.
2. Plate1 second from left (17thC guitar) shows an extra peghole in another
instrument. I wonder if this extra hole was not made to allow for an extra
string in the late 18thC to convert to a 6 course guitar (as you'll know many
early guitars were converted around 1800, but mostly to 6 single strings so did
not require additional pegs). Unfortunately, the absence of a bridge ( Plate 4)
does not allow us to date it on stylistic grounds and say wether it was
contemporary with the body of the instrument or a later addition.
3. The very small ('pin') hole in the top of the Diaz peghead is very close to
the edge: do you really think it could have been made significantly larger
without splitting out at the top? This risk might have prevented it from being
used for a strap/ribbon and thus requiring another hole which did not breach
the makers cartouche or interfere with other pegs.
4. Small string spacing at the BRIDGE on multi course instruments is to do with
keeping the extreme courses within a reasonable span (it is, for example,
interesting that most 13 course lutes have significantly smaller inter course
separation than on 11 course instruments made around the same time). With only
5 (or 6) courses the physical span of the extreme courses is not an issue.
Having said this, it is clear that many extant early lutes (some of which you
note) do seem to have smaller inter course separation at the NUT; a feature
which, as you mention, we need to come to terms with. Do we know the size of
earlier hands? - were they smaller than present day (say, in proprtion to
overall height) or are they more indepedent (like inter-occular distance which
seems to have remained surprisingly constant inspite of overall stature
increase - I recall an overall figure of 15% increase from 16thC being quoted
by Segerman). In short, do we need larger separation at the nut because we have
bigger/thicker fingers or because we are not doing something right?
In short, I still think the most likely reason for the extra hole in the Diaz
peghead is for a strap/ribbon, but..
regards,
Martyn
Alexander Batov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've just published a full version of the talk The Royal College Dias - guitar
or vihuela? that I gave at the Lute Society meeting (16 April) including all
the information I had to omit because of the time limit. Your views and
opinions are always appreciated.
http://www.vihuelademano.com/rcmdias.htm
Alexander Batov
www.vihuelademano.com
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
-
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail
--
