[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > You didn't expect to post that link and not get shot down in flames, did > you? ;-)
Of course not. I'm a bit surprised to get feedback about the articles the family tree links to right away though. I had expected that the tree itself would keep people occupied for a while. > Two points in your "introduction" to the renaissance cittern worry me a bit. Me too. A complete rewrite of that article is long overdue. > The first point: > > "The original cittern is the direct ancestor to .. I'll remove that paragraph. No matter what is right or wrong, the article doesn't really need it. > -> I would regard the flat-backed mandolin as a variant (not even a > descendent!) of the lute-shaped Neapolitan mandolin. Just look at them > and try to play them! Done that. I agree that historically the flat/arched top mandolisn owe more to the neaploitan mandolin than to any cittern. As for playing style there isn't that much difference between a mandolin and a cittern anyway. Constructionwise, it's a different story though. > In that case, the Neapolitan mandolin would be > descended from the cittern, too...? Wellll... A neapolitan mandolin has a floating bridge and is played with a plectrum. I'm sure that when it first appeared, back in the late 18th century, some people would have argued it was a cittern with a bowlback. The neapolitan mandolin *is* a hybrid: body of the mandolin, string attachments and playing technique of the cittern, strings of all kinds and tuning of the violin. (Yes, I know that is a very simplified picture but I hope you see my point.) > And why does a flat back and double courses make a mandolin a cittern, > whereas the same features do not make an Irish cittern (which is a > variant of the Irish bouzouki, which is a variant of the lute-shaped > Greek bouzouki) a cittern? I don't see the essence of this distinction :-( Me neither. It's just that I haven't gotten around to reorganising the larger mandos yet. > Is the flat-backed Irish bouzouki one of the "etc.s" of which the Renn. > cittern is an ancestor? If so, why? If not, why not? Ummm... The answer is that there's a good chance the flattop mandolin was directly inspired by some cittern while we know the Irish cittern wasn't. Can't say I'm too happy with that answer myself though. I know of three different stories how the "Irish" cittern/bouzouki was invented: 1) John Pearse had a broken bouzouki and not the skills to repair it, so he made a new flat backed body for it. 2) Stefan Sobell custom made the first one from his own idea - or from some customer's idea. 3) Some (unnamed) Scottish gentleman was inspired by the Portuguese guitar and had an instrument built based on it. The two things all three stories have in common are that there's no particularly strong Irish connection and that they probably all are both true and false - depending on your point of view. > The second point: > > " The name [of the cittern] probably derives from the greek word > "kythara" and it is therefore likely it [the cittern] evolved from the > same roots as the guitar." WHAT??? I thought I had removed that long ago! That whole article dates back to the time when I was young(er) and foolish(er) and still believed in factoids like "the guitar evolved from the gittern." > Hope you don't mind the flak, it's well meant... Not at all. Frank To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
