--- "Mathias Rösel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You mean, where are they being kept?
No. > To think, however, that > the angelique must > have been developed, rather than invented, is an > unnessecary premise, > IMHO. It is extremely rare to find instruments that are simply invented, especially one that is so similar to other existing ones. What about the lute itself? We all know of its older brother, the oud, even though the outlines between the two become more and more blurred as we go back in time.. In fact, nearly all of our present day instruments have changed but little since their invention. Things like material, keys, valves, frets, "accidents" of design, merely represent technological modifications of an initial idea (the "invention") that often stretched back somewhere in pre-history. >The angelique > considerably differs from the > lute and the theorbo in two aspects, mainly: it is > single strung (lutes > are generally, theorbos more often than not, strung > with courses, i. e. > paired strings), and it's tuned like... - well: the > harp > (notwithstanding the fretboard of the angelique). No > fourths or fifths, > no re-entrant tuning either. True, the practical tuning setup of the two instruments is completely different, but the angelique's tessitura is completely identical to that of the 'theorbe de pieces.' According to Talbot this is from low C to high e (for 17-string instruments) - _exactly_ the same range. Could the angelique have even played theorbo music (with, perhaps, a little modification) then? >The bridge, pegbox, nut, must be > changed anyway (the > angelique bears 16 or 17 strings). This is no evidence that the angelique was created out of thin air. (Who, as in the case of the archlute or German swan neck, has been credited with its invention?) The same could be said of the development of the 11-course lute from the 10-or-fewer-course lute. Like the angelique, what started with experiments in tuning ended up with the invention of a new kind of lute - NOT the new lute and new tuning popping up together one day on a calendar. Why would anyone take an existing lute, add a new nut, bridge and rider - just for one more course? Why not just "invent" an 11-course as you propose happened with the angelique? The answer lies, of course, in the fact that many people started experimenting with tuning which eventually called for the structural changes. But we know that conversions were certainly done. As 11 courses became the norm, such instruments began to be made in their own right, even as conversions persisted to the days of the 13th course. So it must have been with the angelique. First, it was a plain theorbo with funky harp tuning, then an altered theorbo (new bridge, etc.), then finally a newly built dedicated instrument. >The > unique feature of the angelique certainly is its > tuning which is neither > devoloped nor taken over from the theorbo or lute. Its tuning unique? Not taken over from anything? You just mentioned that it is like a harp. Its external design is essentially a theorbo. > Swan necks are > secondary features, I'd say. Agreed! Chris > -- > Best, > > Mathias > > http://mathiasroesel.livejournal.com > http://www.myspace.com/mathiasroesel > http://de.geocities.com/mathiasroesel > -- > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
