[LUTE] Re: Chitarrone

Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:58:51 -0700

One problem with borrowing from biological taxonomy in determining relationships between lute-like instruments is the possibility of coincidental similarities. In biology, "convergent evolution" is common: organisms that evolve in parallel by responding to similar habitats, so that their shapes or functions end up resembling each other even though they're not directly related species (birds and bats, for example, or fishes and whales). Those apparent similarities can be distinguished by genetics and through the fossil record; establishing a true evolutionary lineage may be much harder to do with apparently similar musical instruments that emerged in widely separated cultures.
For instance, is the bouzouki a member of the European lute family, based solely on the shape of its body and its country of origin? Is the Chinese pipa related to the Persian oud, or is it in an entirely different lineage that 'converged' to resemble other lute-like instruments around the world? They're all plucked cordophones with resonating soundboards and necks, for sure, but attempting a taxonomy much beyond that level of generality may be fraught with peril... 


On 10/18/2012 11:49 AM, Dan Winheld wrote:

Until musical instruments can mate & propagate on their own, the 
biological systems for classification become a strained analogy that 
must, at some point, break down. I'm still waiting for my 8 course 
tenor lute and my 13 course Baroque lute to get together some night 
and bless our happy household with a baby 10 course lute some fine 
morning.


(And the lauto? And what about the flat-backed Angelique by Gibson?)


-This could spiral out of control, like Moondog's song about human 
rights. "Enough about human rights! What about whale rights? What 
about worm rights? What about germ rights?" etc, etc.


On 10/18/2012 7:32 AM, Braig, Eugene wrote:

I actually believe those who think about such stuff are usually 
operating under "some form of generally acceptable classification 
system for 'lutes'," either as written in some source or another or 
devised in their own heads based upon discussions like these.  
Organology certainly hasn't shied from lute kin.



It's the specific notion of a biological-style key that I think would 
likely prove more cumbersome than practical if including substantial 
detail.  I suspect most who want to differentiate colascione from 
mandora, e.g., probably already have a decent sense of how to do so.  
I think a key could be constructed--I don't know, maybe already has 
been--but I suspect a key in this domain would be most useful if very 
simplified and designed with the generally uninitiated in mind.  Even 
among field biologists, once you know how to identify whatever you 
happen to be observing, you don't bother using keys any longer.


Best,
Eugene

-----Original Message-----

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On 
Behalf Of Martyn Hodgson

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 3:57 AM
To: lute mailing list list; Braig, Eugene
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Chitarrone


    Dear Eugene,

    I agree that to produce some form of generally acceptable
    classification system for 'lutes' would be difficult and even then
    prone to error/interpretations - but surely we shouldn't not try? I

    presume, for example, Mendel's inheritance findings have been 
revised

    since his day but his contribution shouldn't be ignored. And these
    early attempts surely allowed further advances in the field: so the
    same for present day organological research.

    Martyn
    --- On Wed, 17/10/12, Braig, Eugene <[email protected]> wrote:

      From: Braig, Eugene <[email protected]>
      Subject: [LUTE] Re: Chitarrone
      To: "lute mailing list list" <[email protected]>
      Date: Wednesday, 17 October, 2012, 22:15

    I don't think a dichotomous key would work.  As alluded, one of the
    neat features of biological inheritance is that all things come from

    similar parental things.  Not so when addressing the capricious 
whims

    of human creativity.  One of my favorite examples is mandolins, with
    many structurally different things being tuned identically and many
    functionally different things with similar construction carrying the
    name.  This case is not unique.

    General "taxonomy" of musical instruments has been around for a 
great
    long time (as "organology"), there are even whole scholarly 
societies

    committed to it (e.g., [1]http://www.galpinsociety.org/). However,
    such systems require a great many more judgment calls by their
    developers than biological systematics.
    Best,
    Eugenel










To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html























					Reply via email to