Thank you for this Alexander,
As I previously said, much of this is speculation (or as you would have it
'imaginings'). My concern is that you appear to be certain that such
instruments did not exist before the mid 18thC whereas I'm prepared to accept
that we just do not know at the present the time and am prepared to accept that
an instrument MAY be 17thC if there is equivocal evidence. I would be grateful
to have the firm evidence on which you base your belief that these instruments
didn't exist before the Neopolitan mandolin (as said earlier, there's no
dispute that some instruments were converted but, of course, this does not mean
that earlier wire string/folded top/end-fastening guitars did not exist).
The most relevant evidence for suggesting that such instruments may have
existed before the 18thC is:
- extant 17thC instruments (eg that shown in Baines to which I drew your
attention - incidentally I don't recall mentioning the text, I simply
identified the illustrations);
- known use of wire strings/end fastening on a number of plucked instruments
in 17thC (eg cittern).
Other things like changes in musical styles (eg towards a more 'modern' tonal
based system favouring block chords) and performance requirements (eg opera)
are more indirect but may present a reason for such instruments (or 'need' as
you put it).
Martyn
-
Alexander Batov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martyn Hodgson"
To: "Alexander Batov" ; "Cittern NET"
; "Vihuela Net"
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2006 8:24 AM
Subject: [VIHUELA] Re: Why re-entrant tuning? (battente guitar)
> However, I'm still puzzled why you are so certain that folded top guitars
> were not introduced until the mid 18thC: that some/many instruments were
> converted in the 18thC does not, of course, mean that they were not known
> earlier.
I'm neither certain nor uncertain! May I quote again what I've said in my
previous posting: "If there is such evidence (perhaps you know), then we can
deal with it ... instead of doing so with imaginings".
> Regarding evidence for earlier instruments might I respectfully suggest
> you look at a wider range of instruments: the instrument illustrated in
> Baines (possibly the most widely known and readily available standard
> illustrated reference work) is just one that might be a 17thC instrument
> in original state.
Thanks for your suggestion. May I also in return respectfully suggest you
either not to read the texts that accompany such illustrations in Baines,
including the naming of the instruments, or at least do this with a pinch of
salt. Perhaps then we can move on a bit further from the dead point. And we
can't seriously discuss things applying a 'might be a 17thC instrument' sort
of definitions and build our conclusions based on such presumptions. We
either know that it is a 17th century instrument or it is not.
> P's Theatrum Instrumentorum (Barenreiter facsimile 1976) has on plate XVI
> an instrument P calls 'Laute mit Abzugem oder Testudo Theorbato' which
> looks very similar to an archlute but with end fastening strings passing
> over (ie not ending on) a bridge.
I'm glad that we've finally established what we are talking about! So, can
you actually see the fold where the bridge is situated?
> Finally, I'm not the only one who thinks the instrument may have been
> around earlier than you suppose (see Peter Forrester's recent
> communication).
I know you aren't. And that's what keeps us going ;))
Alexander
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
---------------------------------
Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail . "The New Version is radically easier to use"
The Wall Street Journal
--
