this vihuela is a folk instrument, not one for the conservatory. there is a south american cathedral - the name and location escapes me at the moment - with figures holding a charango sized instrument. it's called "la charanguista" and it used to be called "la vihuelista."
there are 4,5 and 6 course charangos of varying size - to me, size is the distinguishing characteristic between guitars and vihuelas of this type. if speculation is dubious, why do you think they're related more to guitars than vihuelas? the south americans called them vihuelas - who was the first to tell them they got it wrong? kindest regards to you all - bill --- EUGENE BRAIG IV <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Greetings Bill et al. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: bill kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Saturday, May 14, 2005 1:59 am > Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: S. de Murcia > > > > vihuelas - in one or two of the many forms in > which > > they were introduced into the new world, hundreds > of > > years ago - continue to exist today. > > > Nobody can make this statement because nobody has a > good idea of what the vihuela was. There is > iconography, but without accepting some degree of > speculation, there simply isn't a body of surviving > instruments. I don't believe any modern instrument > survives exactly in the form of the 16th-c. vihuela > (certainly no currently active instrument looks > particularly close to the iconography), If any > active instrument has persisted as an exact > preservation of some form of vihuela, nobody has any > way of knowing it from the lack of 16th-c. > instruments that have survived. > > > > the only reason > > they're not recognized as such - i maintain - is > > because the vihuela, as something distinct from > the > > guitar, fell out of favor here in europe and only > a > > few examples survive. > > > ..And whatever was left of the concept was entirely > absorbed/influenced by the burgeoning popularity of > guitars, in Europe and the Americas. Nobody could > have continued to build new instruments without > being influenced by the popularity of guitar. > > > > i loose heart. > > > You shouldn't. Just enjoy. > > > > instead of judging what is or isn't a vihuela with > > reference to the very few examples which remain, > isn't > > it possible - valid - to reverse the process and > > simply ask where instruments like the charango, > > cuatro, tiple, etc. came from? > > > Of course. Whatever their conceptual origins, > however, modern instruments with distinct entities > are their own entities, not their conceptual > ancestors. Early Neapolitan mandolins didn't come > to be until the mid 18th c. when the concepts of the > lute-like mandolins of the time were hybridized with > chitarra battente construction and violin tuning, > but my Neapolitan mandolins are not chitarre. > > > > imagine what your guitar would look and sound like > if > > it had made the journey with cortez and back. > would > > it have become something other than a guitar in > the > > process? > > > The ancestors of my guitars did, and the "fossil > record" of the subsequent evolution to my 5-courser > or various era 6-stringers is relatively whole with > relatively little speculation required. No matter > how good speculation is, it is no substitute for > solid documentation. ...And my 6-course > "reproduction" 16th-c. vihuela is purely > speculative, but still good fun. > > Best, > Eugene > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - want a free and easy way to contact your friends online? http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
