--- "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Charango
> as "vihuela", whatever 
> its kinships or similarities with earlier similar
> things, just doesn't cut 
> it as status quo and creates obfuscation, requiring
> additional 
> explanation...especially to those who already know
> what is expected of 
> things named "charango" and "vihuela" (either
> 16th-c. or modern).

imagine how obfuscated 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th and even
19th cent. players of south american "vihuelas" might
have felt had their instruments been refered to as
"charangos" ... and how obfuscating they would have
viewed some tut-tutting, 21st cent. hip-ster telling
them they've got it all wrong.

you've ennobled a bamboo tube readily enough with the
name "folk violin" - what prevents you from extending
the honor to the "folk vihuela" - aka "charango?" 
it's irrelevant how many bamboo violins get made or
how good the makers of these instruments may become at
making them - they'll always be violins.  

if kinship is acknowledged between a "vihuela" and a
"charango" - at what point in history did one become
the other? ... and why?

historical information tells us that early pluckers in
south america referred to their chordaphones as
"vihuelas" - who are we to tell them they're wrong?

at what point did the "folk" application of this
instrument demand a change of nomenclature?  the
advent of national radio broadcasting systems in south
america - late 1920's ... 1930's perhaps? - assuming
"folk" music was even allowed on the airways at that

"folk" vihuela seems a perfectly reasonable,
comprehensive and historically informed name for the
charango and the "gatto" (me' old plum) is out of the

- bill      


Now you can scan emails quickly with a reading pane. Get the new Yahoo! Mail. 

To get on or off this list see list information at

Reply via email to