----- Original Message ----- From: bill kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Sunday, December 18, 2005 3:17 am Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: the smoking ... derringer ... double barrelled
> what's interesting about grunfeld's comment on the > figure is the mention of strolling players - > itinerant, folk musicians - and small vihuelas. > obviously, they existed in sufficient numbers in the > early 16th cent. to be recorded in stone. That notion is nothing new. The study of the implications of iconography on historic performance practice is nothing new. > as mudarra's guitar had a figure "8" shape with neck, > tuning platform and keys, [Certainly not anything like "keys", unless you intended to simply imply pegs.] > bridge, nut, strings and was > made of wood, i imagine the only thing he would find > wildly perplexing about a charango is its name. That might be. I unfortunately was born about 400 years too late to have met Mudarra. All I can say for certain is that he never did encounter anything quite like our modern charangos and guitars. Any imagining of how he might have responded to them is exactly that; it's only speculation. I still don't understand why you're so hell-bent on trying to force feed the notion that modern instruments _are_ their conceptual ancestors on the reluctant early music world. Should I make that claim for modern 6-string guitars? I wouldn't. I just can't imagine suddenly deciding to rewrite the meaning of the concept of "historically informed performance" so that modern guitars should be considered a vehicle for HIP and then trying to force the notion on professional, scholarly types who study early music. If you like early music, go ahead and play it on any instrument you happen to have on hand and acknowledge how it might differ from period performance without shame. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
