from what i've understood so far, the only difference
between a vihuela and a guitar is the tuning -
variations in shape, sound hole configuration and
number of courses being shared by both.
- if the strings aren't there, how can you judge which
is which? grooves in the nut perhaps? ... size of
bridge holes? both could be difficult to define in an
antique instrument.
roman's "proletarian" distinction might be apt - a
well made, carefully preserved "guitar" might be
considered a "vihuela" simply because the people who
owned it had secure enough living conditions to keep
it one piece.
the "prole" distinction might also be applied to size.
dimutive instruments were made for travel. with its
"trade" associations and short life expectency under
rough and tumble conditions it might have been
considered of no consequence and in low prestige.
- at what point does a 4c. renaissance guitar become a
lowly uke?
- conversely, if it were to increase in size and rise
up the social ladder, at what point would a lowly
charango regain its aristocratic, vihuela association?
strummed in the bossomy embrace of a dutchess would
certainly get a rise out of me.
curiouser and curiouser - bill
___________________________________________________________ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger -
all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
