At 09:40 AM 9/24/2004, ariel abramovich wrote: >Hi there, >I'm afraid that "Chambure's" vihuela has gained as well "universal >acceptance", at least within vihuela experts' circle. >On the other hand Jacquemart-Andre's vihuela was, as Eugene suggests, built >for different purposes than playing music on it(probably a sort of an exam >for someone willing to become an official "violero"). >saludos, >Ariel.
I still teeter a little and am no expert, but I am willing to concede to the experts in that the "Chambure" instrument just may be a vihuela...maybe. However, I think trying to claim that it is representative of the 16th-c. vihuela is still a bit of a stretch. There is, of course, a complete lack of corroboration from physical evidence given the scarcity of old things modern people are willing to name "vihuela." To my eyes, the "Chambure" instrument simply doesn't jive with much of the iconography. I think the best iconographic match may be the most famous one, the image from the beginning of Milans' book. I just don't see it in the other vihuela images I've encountered. Still, I am not an expert and am always keen to receive correction on this topic. One thing that I thought odd about the surfacing and embracing of this instrument was that the experts, those who I think would usually approach such stuff with the greatest skepticism, seemed to be the most eager to accept this instrument as vihuela. Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
