At 05:05 PM 9/18/2004, bill kilpatrick wrote: >how do you make a distinction between >two similar instruments - sitting side by side in a >museum display cabinet, say - based on a supposed >method of tuning and struming? > >- bill
I'm not entirely certain of the kind of reply this is seeking. In more cases than not, it's not hard based upon aspects of the instrument's construction. Most instruments are comfortably enough like other defined instruments that this isn't often an issue. (The vihuela is an unusual case in that, other than iconography, there is so little surviving physical evidence of what the instrument was.) If you're looking to define relationships between similar instruments (e.g., guitar:vihuela, mandolino:mandore, oud:lute, etc.), this is often not so tough...but can be in some instances. I will reiterate what I've said elsewhere: >The cladistics of biology are far easier to grasp; all living things >are, by necessity, directly derived from the living things that came >before them. As I've said before, it takes a couple horses to >make a horse. Put a horse and a donkey together, and you get >an obviously intermediary hybrid, the mule. Nobody is giving >birth to dragons and chimeras. >Unfortunately, no luthier is confined to the rules of heredity and >can generate chimeras at whim. Luthiers are free to draw >inspiration from anywhere. There often are no direct relationships >evident between intermediary steps, and if you try to concoct a >cladogram of necked chordophones, you'll end up with crossing >and undefinable or isolated branches. That's just the way it is. Best, Eugene -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
