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/
