Frank Nordberg wrote: > > Back to Sach's main lesson: The fact that two instruments share common > > features can often be fully explained by the fact that there are so > > many instruments in the world and so few possible ways of building > > them. > >That's very true and I think I'd better repeat a point I've been trying >to make all the time: >My classification system draft is mainly based on the various >instruments' construction features. I have taken "popular conception" >and historical development into consideration but I'm trying my best to >avoid it. When I talk about instruments being "related" to each other, I >usually mean they're similar in construction, not that they're >necessarily historically related. > >------- > >One thing I didn't realize until now, is that nobody seems to have tried >to make an instrument classification system as detailed as this one before. >Maybe I should quit my job so I could find time to do it properly? The >whole thing seems theoretical and useless enough to warrant some kind fo >government or university grant... ;-) > > > >
Maybe what is needed is a modified word, as used in biology quite often: lutiform rather than lute. David To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
