----- Original Message ----- From: bill kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 6:33 pm Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: What is the historical vihuela?
> wouldn't it stand to reason that those vihuela/guitar > manifestations which are not considered guitars might > therefore be considered as vihuelas? Why not consider them to be whatever their makers and users consider them to be: charango, ukulele, timple, whatever? Again, the relationships to other, earlier things are evident (as in the modern classical guitar), but each of these things is still its own conceptual entity. There is no reason to seek pseudo-validation of these things by onceptualizing them AS their ancestry. > 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. ..But they did call their guitars "guitars" (in whatever language was appropriate). > the most plausible answer, it seems to me (grovel > grovel) is their acknowledgment of the number 5. > > 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? I don't really understand what point you're trying to make in this contemplation on the number five. I think the concept and name "vihuela" just happened to be absorbed by guitar-like things; however many strings or courses they carried is incidental. As you've implied, folk musics are not so codified as academic music. It would stand to reason that the instruments to evolve around folk music in the absence of academic music would be hugely diverse in regional construction, naming conventions, tunings, playing techniques, etc. in having not being dictated by service to the set scores of academic music. Consider all the diverse modern things to be called "guitar" compared to the typical expectations of what one expects to be called a "violin"...or even "guitar" in general compared to "classical guitar." > 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. That's silly. As evidence of my personal lack of prejudice against aboriginal Americans, I used to date a Sioux...and I like a whole lot of folk musics. Why not just respect the names that the users of instruments have given them? The conceptual roots of those instruments are evident, whatever their names. Trying to rename those instruments as their ancestors seems to be much more a semi-disrespectful application of "inherent and traditional prejudice" against the tools of informal music making to me. Best, Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
