Sorry Jon, As you've discovered, your "bible" of chordophones is, in part, simply wrong (probably simply simplified, either actively to be comprehended by an isolated American audience or passively out of ignorance). Of course, you are correct in that the nomenclature and organology of such stuff is rather plastic. Still, repetition of construction and acceptance of the results standardize terminology, and knowing what a term usually implies is useful.
At 04:48 AM 12/28/2004, Jon Murphy wrote: >The > "Chordophones" (stringed instruments) occupy the most space. I see the > mandolone (lute) in the index, also the mandocello (lute)- (and a > machete(lute) and a mandolinetto (ukelele), and a mandobass > (lute)). The parentheticals are in the index, and others are (guitar), (viol), > as well as more. But I don't see the mandora, which I have music for - oh > well, no book can be perfect. At 05:44 AM 12/28/2004, Jon Murphy wrote: >Roman, again we meet in agreement. My bible of historical instruments lists >the mandocello, but not a mandoloncello. I think you are right about which >is corrupted. The violoncello is a different family, and the forming word is >violin (as contrasted to viol - as in viola da gamba, a fretted instrument). > >The mandocello is larger mandolin. The sequence in size is mandolin, >mandora, mandocello, mandobass. If the guitar and ukulele justify separate categories from lute, Neapolitan mandolin relatives certainly do. The Neapolitan mandolin family with which modern readers are familiar as _the_ mandolin--i.e., usually with standard tunings in fifths with metal or mostly metal strings passing over a bridge to fix to hitch pins set into the tail block or, later, a tailpiece--did not come to be until the end of the baroque era and literature did not begin to appear for it until ca. 1760. But the terms mandolino/mandoline and mandola had been in use for over a century before. The very earliest instruments named mandola were actually 5- or 6-course, gut-strung instruments with fixed bridges and were tuned (g-g), b-b, e'-e', a'-a', d"-d", g"-g"; they were much more like soprano lutes than modern mandolins and did bear some relationship to the late-renaissance mandore/mandora with which you are familiar, Jon. Ugo Orlandi says the term mandolino was originally applied to such a mandola with only the highest four courses, still tuned in fourths: e'-e', a'-a', d"-d", g"-g". I don't know what corroboration he has for this theory. Later, the soprano instrument in six courses (mandola as described above) usually was referred to as "mandolino" and "mandola" came to be applied to a larger, often 6-course lute, an Italian analogue to the later mandora or gallichon (the rococo-era Italian 6-course mandola was often tuned to the same intervals as 6-string guitar and sometimes from E). Because the baroque-to-rococo-era mandolino is so different from the modern mandolino/mandoline/mandolin of Neapolitan descent, modern cataloguers have taken to calling it things like "mandora" or "pandourina" as terms of convenience, but this simply is incorrect: period literature names it simply mandola or mandolino. Such terms of convenience are dangerous in that they threaten to isolate a rich body of repertoire (including works by the likes of Vivaldi, Scarlatti, Handel, Arrigoni, etc.) from an instrument with which to execute it. The mandolone is a very large and unwieldy Neapolitan mandolin relative, tuned A-A, D-D, G-G, c-c. Again, the original and more proper term for the violoncello-tuning analogue is mandoloncello, as named by its 19th-c. Roman originators/refiners, Maldura and Embergher; "mando-cello" and subsequently "mandocello" are Americanized corruptions that have taken hold in English-speaking places. Then there is the liuto cantabile or liuto moderno; Raffaele Calace claimed to have invented this instrument, but a few of his contemporaries built them as well. This was simply a mandoloncello with a high e'-e' course added to make it a more viable soloist. The Neapolitan-family instrument to first carry the name mandola was the instrument tuned an octave below the Neapolitan mandolin: G-G, d-d, a-a, e'-e'. The analogue to viola, again, was developed by Luigi Embergher in his efforts to emulate the string quartet late in the 19th c. and originally was named mandoliola. Again, the American use of "mandola" by Waldo, Gutman, Howe-Orme, and later the Gibson Co. for the viola analogue has become the widely used term. The Calace shop (now run by Raffaele Sr.'s grandson) still builds both sizes of mandola. They differentiate by referring to them as "mandola a sol" and "mandola a do;" I like that terminology, have adopted it, and refer to the bigger as "mandola in G" rather than "octave mandolin" (or "bouzouki" or any other modern, upstart terminology that was created in the isolation of Stefan Sobell's shop). "Mandolinetto" has nothing to do with ukuleles or machetes. This term is a rather informal reference to instruments built for tunings and set ups analogous to Neapolitan mandolin relatives, but with a guitar-like or generally waisted profile. The most famous and those the term usually describes were built for Boston's Howe-Orme label and featured a pronounced, pressed cylindrical arch running the center of soundboard in line with the strings/neck. As I'd mentioned last time, Howe-Orme was one of the first entities (certainly one of the first in North America) to offer the full family of mandolin relatives in analogy to the standard violin family. >Do I call it a chandora or a mandango? How about "charango." Deviating from the standard tuning of a thing does not make it a different instrument. If some ambitious luthier begins building similar things to be optimized in that tuning, it differs substantially from the standard charango, its construction becomes a standard of sorts, and a repertoire evolves around it, then the makers of such things might feel justified to create a name to differentiate their concoctions from "charango." For now, I'd say tune it however you'd like, play whatever repertoire appeals on it, and call it what it is: charango. >But the name is important in one thing, to the extent that it defines the >open string tuning it sets which intabulated music you can play if you call >for it by name. Voila. Standard tunings, in part, help to define instruments and their repertoire (especially in tablature), but alternate tunings do not redefine an instrument, whatever repertoire you intend to tackle with it. Best, Eugene To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
