Martina Rosenberger wrote: > So in my opinion there is no need of battling about the theory of the > English Guittar responsible for producing the Portuguese Guitar for example.
I wonder why you think there is a 'battle' going on! I think the tiny minority of those people interested in the instrument have their own firmly-held theories about it. I suppose Rob has been quite combative about the name 'English' guitar because, right from the beginning (in the 1750s) , the instrument had Scottish connections. Curiously, the only people I have ever heard of who now play the instrument in public are Scottish, American, Japanese and Portuguese. English people don't seem interested in the English guitar at all. > I think the modern tuning especially in Portugal shows, that every country > has its own musical needs for an instrument. And the Portuguese perhaps > happily welcomed the English Guittar because IT WAS ALREADY FAMILIAR, known > from a still existing renaissance cittern tradition. I'm sure this is true, but a distinctive new kind of chordally-tuned, fat-bodied cittern appeared in the eighteenth century. And (although this seems to raise hackles) the people a the time, in different parts of Europe, were determined to refer to the instrument as a sort of guitar. So there is a story to be told. > It is not a contradiction between theories but an exchange between two root > lines. So the seeds of exchange make different flowers given the > circumstances. That's natural for human culture, isn't it? > Martina > -- > > Yes indeed. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
