just gave your reply a good reading and in the time honored tradition of the nonplused i'll have to say we agree to disagree.
you see the charango from a modern academic prospective with more knowledge than i'll ever have. i see it from an earlier prospective with what i imagine would be the reaction of an itinerant musician from the renaissance or baroque. in any case, as everyone has pointed out, there's no historic repertoire for a 5c. instrument in the present charango tuning and the list seems to be geared toward what the "magnificent seven" wrote and the few examples which remain of the instrument they played on. it's a shame though. as beautiful as the music is, the charango deserves more than just melodies from the andes. regards - bill --- "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 09:26 PM 5/15/2005, bill kilpatrick wrote: > >- twin mermaid sculptures holding vihuelas on the > >portico of the church of san lorenzo (1547 - 1744) > in > >potosi - "las sirenas petreas vihuelistas o > >charanguistas de la portada de la iglesia de San > >Lorenzo de Potosí." > > > The latter article gives this portion of the carving > to 1728-1744, > comfortably beyond the designated literature for > vihuela and proliferation > of guitars. It also uses "guitarrillas" as an > alternate term for charango. > > > >if charango iconography pre-dates the documented > use > >of the word "charango" then what do you suppose > these > >instruments were called? > > > I have no idea, but I will remain skeptical without > documentation. Since > no 16th-c. charangos and few-to-no vihuelas > (certainly none of such > diminutive stature) have survived, I don't need to > concern myself with > naming such things, and "charango" will do for the > modern instruments I > encounter > > > >this amounts to nothing however, if you believe the > >spanish colonists to the new world didn't know the > >proper name for their instruments and you do. in > >which case, no amount of documentation will alter > your > >opinion. > > > I hope you know that I would never be so > presumptuous, Bill. What I did > say was that the names of instruments are highly > plastic and not > necessarily reflective of organology. Names of > instruments are established > through repetition and precedent, and in all such > cases--including > mandolin, charango, viola da terra, etc.--are what > they are with > legitimacy. Latin-American strummers of folk music > are perfectly legit in > naming their vihuela "vihuela," but the name does > not necessarily imply > direct lineage. > > "Vihuela" is a Spanish derivative of "viola." > Nobody here is at risk of > confusing the alto strings of the modern orchestra > (i.e., the violas) with > the 16th-c. vihuela da mano. There is still a folk > guitar in use in > Portugal known as "viola da terra." For all the > world, it looks like a ca. > 1750 5-course guitar was plucked from its home and > deposited in the modern > day. In spite of the similar name, it is not a > 16th-c. vihuela da mano. > > You know I am a great fan of mandolins, Bill. Most > of the things in my > stable that I call "mandolin" would be utterly > unrecognizable as such to > Stradivari, Vivaldi, or Scarlatti. My instruments > are still mandolins and > not of the same conceptual entity of the mandolini > Stradivari built. > > > At 01:09 AM 5/16/2005, bill kilpatrick wrote: > >at this point however, i'd be > >pleased if someone on the list would acknowledge > the > >link between the charango and any one of its > possible > >progenitors. > > > Of course. I've done so with some frequency. The > venerable Galpin, famed > organologist, certainly didn't get everything > exactly right, but he claimed > all chordophones owe their conceptual ancestry to > the musical bow, and I'd > wager he's right. Of course, charango is derived > from the plucked > chordophones that came before, whether guitars or > vihuela da > mano. However, none of these things are musical > bows. > > > >once that gets established it's > >relatively easy, i think, to quash the notion of it > >being somehow different than its earlier relation > >simply by asking what modifications were made to > >warrant the name change. after all, a pedal steel > >guitar looks nothing like the original but it's > still > >called a guitar. > > > This assumes that one arrives at modern charango by > making direct > modifications to its ancestral forms, that there is > a biological-like > evolution occurring. This just doesn't happen with > musical > instruments. Once again, working luthiers are going > to be influenced by > the instruments around them and can concoct chimeras > at whim. Who knows > what prompted a succession of luthiers to begin > calling their wee, waisted > chordophones "charango," but when the precedent was > established, charango > became its own conceptual entity. > > Whatever one calls a thing, a thing is not its > ancestor. I like guitars, > and the evolution of the instruments to carry that > name is pretty well > documented as far as such things go. However, my > modern 6-string guitar is > not particularly like anything Mudarra would have > recognized as a > guitar. If anything, a surprise introduction of > Mudarra to my modern > guitar might have been confused him into speculating > it to be an odd, > heavy, single-strung vihuela. Still, I'm not about > to claim my guitar IS a > 16th-c. vihuela da mano. > > > >as for historically informed performance, i believe > i > >would be more accurate in that regard if i call my > >instrument a vihuela - that's what they would have > >called it. > > > You might have a case, Bill, if your charango had > been built in 1548 and > you had found it accompanied by a bill of sale that > said "vihuela, wooden > bowl: qty. 1" or similar. However, whatever > charangos you own were not > around in the 16th c., so I have no idea what "they" > would have called > them. Whatever its ancestors, the modern charango > is not a 16th-c. > vihuela. Your luthier built to the concept of > charango that had been > established by generations of precedent, long after > the notion of vihuela > da mano became the domain of early-music geeks; > i.e., your luthier built a > thing he knew as "charango," not "vihuela." ...And > there is no designated > 16th-c. repertoire for vihuela that is notated with > fewer than six > courses. Play whatever repertoire you'd like on > charango and enjoy to the > fullest, but unless you are playing music known to > have been played at some > time on charangos similar to yours, it just isn't > what the purists could or > should call HIP. There's nothing wrong with that. > > Please don't take offense, Bill, but instrument > organology is messy and > confusing enough as it is. I feel obliged to defend > what little we can > know of it. > > Best, > Eugene > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > ___________________________________________________________ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
