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.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > ___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
