Are we talking about flat-topped mandolins, or flat-backed mandolins  
(relatively speaking)?

On 20 Oct 2006, at 18:13, KEVIN LAWTON wrote:

> Fair enough. We all sometimes mislay our sources, me
> too !
> I know the Mandolin was quite popular in Victorian
> England as a 'parlour' instrument. I recall reading
> somewhere, and seeing pictures too, but I cannot for
> the life of me remember where, that a version of the
> Mandolin known as 'Portugese style' was seen in
> Victorian times on account of it being both cheaper to
> build and easier for a novice player to hold. These
> were just about as 'flat' a top as you'd ever see on a
> Mandolin, and the back was arched - often made from
> around five (or so) panels. Side ribs were about two
> inches deep or maybe a little more so it was an easy
> instrument to handle and move around.
> Quite when the 'Portugese' design of Mandolin emerged
> I'm not too sure, but it seems to have been known in
> the nineteenth century and was still popular in the
> twentieth. I'd reckon that what is now termed the
> 'Celtic' mandolin is just a development of the
> 'Portugese' variety which is itself derrived from the
> Neapolitan one.
> I wouldn't be too surprised if citterns were
> occasionally referred to as 'Mandolas' in seventeenth
> century France - by visiting Italians and, perhaps,
> Aurtrians inluenced by the Italian 'music scene' of
> the time.
> Kevin.
>
> --- Frank Nordberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> KEVIN LAWTON wrote:
>>> 'The earliest confirmed occurence of flattops
>> they've
>>> come up with, is the C. F. Martin model introduced
>> in 1914.'
>>> Frank. The statement above does not seem to be up
>> to your usual levels
>>> of accuracy and intelligence. Would you care to
>> review it - or should I
>>> just argue anyway ?
>>
>> Well, I don't really feel my usual "levels of
>> accuracy and intelligence"
>>   on this list is particularly high. ;-) (That's
>> sometimes on purpose
>> actually. Stupid questions sometimes bring good
>> answers.)
>>
>> In this case though, I'm just referring to info I've
>> received from
>> others. Even so, there really doesn't seem to be any
>> instruments
>> classified as "flattop mandolins" before the 20th
>> century.
>>
>> But perhaps I ought to explain a little more:
>> The term "flattop mandolin" means a bit more than
>> just an instrument
>> with flat soundboard. It's also tacitly implied that
>> the instrument has
>> a rounded body shape with a flat or arched back. In
>> other words: it's a
>> cittern that's not called a cittern. In fact, some
>> of the early flattop
>> mandolins didn't even have a flat top but rather a
>> bent one like
>> Neapolitan mandolins used to have!
>> Thus 19th C. inventions like the lyra-mandolin, the
>> harp-mandolin, the
>> mandolinetto and the archtop mandolin are not
>> included here but rather
>> regarded as separate variants. Anything with a
>> bowled back is by
>> definition not a flattop mandolin regardless of the
>> shape of the soundboard.
>>
>> I'm sure everybody here notice one basic problem
>> right away: In addition
>> to the criteria I've already mentioned there's
>> obviously one more
>> condition required for an instrument to be called a
>> flattop mandolin: It
>> has to be called a mandolin. If it isn't, it's just
>> yet another cittern.
>> ;-) It also has to be tuned in fifths - or at least
>> intended to be tuned
>> in fifths.
>> This of course causes a great deal of problems when
>> it comes to
>> determing when this instrument was invented. Very
>> similar instruments
>> have been around in Europe for centuries but they
>> were never regarded as
>> mandolins. (I was sure I read somewhere that
>> citterns were occasionally
>> reffered to as mandolas in 17th C. France but I
>> can't figure out where I
>> got that from so I guess it's just my memory playing
>> tricks on me.)
>>
>>
>> Frank Nordberg
>> http://www.musicaviva.com
>> http://www.tablatvre.com
>> http://www.mandolin-player.com
>>
>>
>>
>> To get on or off this list see list information at
>>
> http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
>>
>
>
>


Reply via email to