Dear Tony, The first printed book of vihuela music (as far as we know) was Luis Milan's _El Maestro_. There is often some confusion over the date, because 1535 and 1536 appear in it. The tablature was what some people call Spanish, with the top line representing the 1st course (highest in pitch). All the other vihuela books were printed the other way up in Italian lute tablature.
Some vihuela pieces were pirated by Morlaye and Phalese, whose books appeared later than the vihuela books they dipped into. For example, the first piece in Phalese's _Hortus Musarum_ (Louvain, 1552) is a Fantasia which had appeared in Valderrabano's vihuela collection in 1547. The Italian equivalent of the vihuela was the viola da mano, or viola (for short). There is a book of music by Milano which was printed in 1536, which mentions the lute and the viola on the title page. You are right to think that the music for all these instruments can be played on any of them, because the tuning is the same. However, vihuela music often involves difficult chords high up the neck, which would be easier to play on a vihuela with strings (more or less) parallel, but awkward on the lute with fewer frets on the neck, and with the strings spaced wider apart than they are at the nut end. Best wishes, Stewart McCoy. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Lute Net" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Stewart McCoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:42 PM Subject: Re: Vihuela > Dear Stewart > > <snip> > > > However, her evidence is drawn from a wide period of time, and > > doesn't really explain why the Spanish should have printed music for > > the vihuela and not the lute, in the 40 years from Luis Milan (1536) > > to Estaban Daza (1576). > > Does this mean that the books in that period contained pieces in Spanish > tablature that were perfectly playable on the lute because of the tuning, > but were entitled "Pieces for Vihuela"? (Sorry I don't do Spanish). If so, > the difference seems a bit academic as presumably everyone would know that > they could play it on either instrument. From what you say about the > iconographic evidence that lutes were being played, it is difficult to > imagine the lutenists going down to the local music shop and saying "Oh > damn, they're still only churning out vihuela music". Does what you say > mean that till 1535 (after 1576 is perhaps less important) they _were_ > producing lute music. > > Going back to your earlier reply to Jon, how do we recognize a vihuela piece > in a (later, non Spanish) lute collection? Is it because the earliest known > version was published in that period in Spain? > > Yours, > > Tony
