dear antonio - you may grow weary of me "banging on" about this but your knowledge on the subject is very interesting to me.
the music played on the charango, its function in the music and the variation of technique and material used in its construction are as different and individual as the luthier who made the instrument or the musician who plays it. these differences are small when compared to its purpose: playing music - and in this particular, early music. if we were able to hand a charango to any musician in any of the "early" phases of music history, i think he would recognize it for what it is: a handy little plucked instrument with double courses. any of the variations listed in your preceding letter (tunings, backing material, no. of courses, etc.) would naturally be of intense interest to him - no more than any other "variation" he might have encountered in his experience - but of secondary importance to its purpose. he would have played it. it wouldn't have seemed like something from another planet. it would have conformed to his perception of what a handy little plucked instrument should be. what he might choose to call it would be of more interest, no doubt, to you than to me. i read recently that the process of history really got underway when mirrors became affordable to everyone. until then it was impossible - literally - to properly see one'self as anything distinctly different. isn't the emphasis you place on the individual differences between a charango and a vihuela indicative of this relatively "modern" point of view? our poor "mr. warrior," happily stranded in paradise, with no collaborative support whatsoever - academic or otherwise - knew exactly what to call his instrument. who are we to quibble? you say "potato" - i say "potato" ... let's call the whole thing off. regards - bill --- Antonio Corona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear bill, > > Some final thoughts on this matter. Regarding the > name > applied to the vihuela by the Quechua Indians, I > should like to quote what Robert Stevenson has to > say > in this respect: > > "So largely did the drum idea loom that when the > Spaniards introduced the guitarra and the vihuela > the > Quechua called them ttinya, the same word which they > applied to any hand drum". (The Music of Peru, Los > Angeles, 1956 2/1960, p. 18) > > In fact, what happened was that the natives, lacking > a > word to designate the new instruments (there were no > string instruments in the pre-Columbian cultures of > America), applied the name of the instrument that it > resembled most, adapting it to describe them in the > closest possible terms in their own language. This > process happened as well in Mexico, where -according > to the Vocabulario en la lengua Castellana y > Mexicana, > M�xico (Juan Pablos, 1555), a Nahuatl-Spanish > dictionary by Alonso de Molina- the string > instruments > were called "mecahuehuetl", from "mecatl", string, > and > "huehuetl", drum. We can find the same operation in > the Vocabulario en lengua Mixteca (M�xico: Pedro > Balli, 1593) by Francisco de Alvarado, where the > Mixtec term "�uu yoho" for string instruments comes > from "�uu", drum, and "yoho", string. In any case, > the > Indians did not call the new instruments -which they > did adopt eagerly- charango, or cuatro or jarana, or > any other term currently in use for the popular > traditional instruments, but simply "string-drum" or > simply "drum". > > About the differences between the vihuela and the > charango, I'll name just a few: materials, shape of > the back, size (vihuelas were made in various sizes; > I > do not know of large charangos), stringing (five > courses vs six), tuning (re-entrant vs secuential), > musical function (accompaniment vs > solo/acompaniment), > playing technique (mainly rasgueado vs punteado), > repertoire (fantasias/intabulations/songs vs dances > such as huaynos, carnavalitos, sayas, taquiraris, > etc.). More importantly, we have no evidence of an > instrument that behaves -in a musical sense- as the > charango does during the time of the vihuela's > heyday, > while certain descriptions, such as the one Minguet > provides for playing the tiple in c.1752, stating > that > to play it well it should be strummed fast in order > to > make "noisy music" (para ta�erlo bien, es menester > hacer muchos redobles, y apriessa, sin salir del > comp�s, para que chille, � haga musica ruidosa) > could > very well describe how a charango is played. If we > were to find any relationships between the charango > and some member of the guitar/vihuela family, I > would > suggest that the Baroque guitar would be a more > likely > candidate. All the facts mentioned above combine and > point to the change you mention as needed in order > to > justify a different name, especially taking into > account your own statement about "their mutual > intent, > the purpose of their being far outweighs any > differences in material used in their construction", > considering the purpose of their being as the key > factor: their musical function. If you wish to state > that a vihuela de mano made from an armadillo shell > can still be considered as a vihuela de mano, I > would > have to agree from a purely intelectual perspective; > however, we have to face the fact that there is a > fault in this line of reasoning: as far as we know > there were no vihuelas made of armadillo shells. > > Finally, I'm afraid that we cannot construct history > with an imaginary basis. As historians we can, and > do > make educated guesses when lacunae or lack of > information prevent us from drawing firm > conclusions, > but we never present these guesses as established > fact, much less pile speculation upon speculation in > order to arrive to the conclusion we desire. > Imagination is a useful research tool if we > recognize > its proper use and limitations, but wishful thinking > cannot substitute for evidence. > > It has been my pleasure as well to chat with you. > > with best regards, > Antonio > > P.S. I've never made a sweeping statement about the > vihuela and guitar's names being interchangeable. I > did mention that it happened on certain occasions, > notably at the end of the sixteenth and throughout > the > seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, besides > pointing > to the evidence that indicates a certain laxity in > the > use of the term "vihuela" to designate a string > instrument. This does not imply that either > instrument > recieved the other's name indistinctly. For more > information about this you can see: �The Vihuela and > the Guitar in Sixteenth-Century Spain: a Critical > Appraisal of some of the Existing Evidence�, The > Lute, > Vol. XXX, 1990. > > > > > --- bill kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > dear antonio - > > > > thank you very much for your considerate and > > informative reply. > > > > what's needed here is a little imagination and i > > don't > > think historians are willing to inch themselves > that > > far out on to the plank. > > > > we have a shipwrecked sailor with some carpentry > > skills who makes a stringed instrument from the > > shell > > of an animal. it could have been a violin but he > > doesn't mention a bow; it could have been a banjo > > type > > instrument but he mentions a sound board. the way > > he > > describes putting it together suggests that he > made > > a > > small stringed instrument - very much like a > ukulele > > made from a coconut shell. > > > > what sort of instrument would a sailor of the time > > carry with him to the new world? i suggest a > > vihuela > > de mano is the most probable but it could have > > easily > > have been a small guitar - in any case, as you and > > others have mentioned in the past, the terms were > > reciprocal > > > > how familiarity with these small stringed > > instruments > > was obtained throughout south america is such a > > short > > time can be explained by the presence of a culture > > bearer - the spanish. this particular "warrior" > > landed in mexico > > > > can a vihuela de mano made out of an armadillo or > a > > coconut or some polyresina material for that > matter > > (al� ovation) still be considered a vihuela de > mano? > > > > why not? their mutual intent, the purpose of > their > > being far outweighs any differences in material > used > > in their construction. > > > > what changes (aside from the casa armonica made > from > > an animal shell or assembled from different pieces > > of > > wood like a chillador) are lacking in a charango > > made > > entirely out of wood that differs enormously from > > the > > construction of a vihuela de mano? > > > > where did the charango come from if not the > === message truncated === ===== "and thus i made...a small vihuela from the shell of a creepy crawly..." - Don Gonzalo de Guerrero (1512), "Historias de la Conquista del Mayab" by Fra Joseph of San Buenaventura. go to: http://www.charango.cl/paginas/quieninvento.htm ___________________________________________________________ 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
