Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
Building a reconstruction of a Renaissance Vihuela
Posts: 3459
Joined: Jul. 12 2009
From: Washington, DC
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
I like your interest in building other stringed instruments, in addition to guitars, Stephen. A real renaissance luthier! What did you do with the Bulgarian tambura you built last year? That brought back memories, as I was assigned to the American Embassy in Sofia Bulgaria from 1974 to 1976, and I enjoyed the sound of the tambura being played.
Cheers,
Bill
_____________________________
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, With the name of the late deceased, And the epitaph drear, "A fool lies here, Who tried to hustle the East."
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to krichards)
quote:
Why this one first?
I needed a subject to test the RH% control in the room before I built a client an expensive flamenco guitar here. And the vihuela was the first plucked/ fretted string instrument I learned how to build, it's always been a favorite of mine. I've never advertised myself as an early music instrument maker, but my time is opening up to diversify the range of instruments I make professionally and I am going to include vihuela. So I'm developing a model and method for making the vihuela a timely manner. This is only my third vihuela, but I'm sure more will follow.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to BarkellWH)
quote:
What did you do with the Bulgarian tambura you built last year?
It is owned by Roberto Zamora a Bay Area flamenco singer and dancer who plays it in fusion contexts and writes his own flamenco ish music for it. He also transcribes flamenco palos by ear and plays them. Mostly Moron toque.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
Sounds good, could you send a Japanese one? My Japanese student can translate. I will send one with cheesy art and a bad pun in questionable taste -- just to remind you of some of what you're missing.
Posts: 1589
Joined: Dec. 24 2007
From: Siegburg, Alemania
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
Stepen, (or anybody else that's knowledgeable), what exactly is the difference between a "vihuela" and a "guitar"? From various readings it seems a clear cut decision when describing an instrument as vihuela or (baroque) guitar. But I haven't found any precise criteria for making the distinction.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
Ed Try Don Google. I wrote vihuela versus guitar and found a ton of info. Lets just start with saying that the Vihuela is double strung while the guitar is single strung. If you have the time to study and write a short essay about these instruments, I´ll read it. I just dont have the energy and time to do so myself.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
During the 16th, 17th and most of the 18th centuries guitars were double strung just like vihuelas. The Italians had an instrument very similar to the Spanish vihuela known as the "viola da mano". Both generally had six courses of strings. The earliest guitars had four courses of strings which later developed into five and six-course instruments. The first guitars with six single strings were made in Italy in the late 1700s. The earliest specimens were modified five-course instruments. The French were next to embrace single strings. The Spaniards were fairly late to the game. The guitar with six doubled courses remained popular there into the 1830s. Most musicologist types will say that the vihuela had pretty much died out by the end of the 16th century and that the six course guitar was simply a later instrument that evolved from the earlier five and six-course guitars but physically there is relatively little difference between the two. The later six course guitars often had fingerboards that extended onto the top like those of modern guitars (the early guitar fingerboards were flush with the top as on lutes, vihuelas and most early guitars) and Spanish-made examples often had fan braced tops (Surprise!!! Antonio de Torres didn't invent fan bracing.) as opposed to the ladder bracing typical of most other early guitar-type instruments but this was not always the case. Trying to come up with cut and dried definitions of what constitutes what when it comes to early musical instruments can be frustrating. There are certainly examples where it is quite clear as to what they are but there are also numerous transitional examples, etc. which can fall into two or more categories.
Posts: 1589
Joined: Dec. 24 2007
From: Siegburg, Alemania
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
Ed Try Don Google.
I did, I did ... but found the info unsatisfactory in as much I found no info on what allows you to say "this is a vihuela" vs. "this is a (baroque) guitar" ... E.g., these are supposedly guitars:
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to edguerin)
quote:
ORIGINAL: edguerin
quote:
Ed Try Don Google.
I did, I did ... but found the info unsatisfactory in as much I found no info on what allows you to say "this is a vihuela" vs. "this is a (baroque) guitar" ... E.g., these are supposedly guitars:
Yup, both are five-course guitars. The small instrument appears to be a copy of the late 16th century Belchior Dias guitar in the Royal College of Music (London) collection and the large one looks like a copy of a late 17th century French instrument. Neither would be suitable for playing the vihuela literature which requires six courses.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to edguerin)
quote:
ORIGINAL: edguerin
Stepen, (or anybody else that's knowledgeable), what exactly is the difference between a "vihuela" and a "guitar"? From various readings it seems a clear cut decision when describing an instrument as vihuela or (baroque) guitar. But I haven't found any precise criteria for making the distinction.
Not my field of specialization but my father is an expert and owns/plays many of those instruments and lectured a small part of their history on Rotterdam Conservatory. I believe this is more or less the story.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
Hi Ed,
I was picking up email and glanced at your question. I'm not really participating very much....
Anyway, here is the deal. The Vihuela is basically the same as the Renaissance six course lute, but with a different body shape. During the 15th and part of the 16th centiry Spain held dominion 0ver parts of Italy and there was a lot of commerce between the two countries and a much cultural interchange. The Spanish developed a version of the Italian six course lute, and the Italian had a version of the Vihuela, they simply called a Viola da mano.
Anything you can play or anything written for six course lute can be played on the vihuela and vice versa. Take the tuning and action of the six course lute and transplant it on top of the vihuela shape body and there you go. Six course lute tuning is usually in G major and like a modern guitar with a capo on the third fret: GCFBflatDG..only the B flatis lowered one half step to A making is a minor third interval. That is called Renaissance lute tuning. If you put a cejilla on your guitar and lower the G string one half step you will be in the tessatura ( range) and tuning of vihuela and Ren lute. You can play lute music or vihuela music from the original tablature if you want.
Comparing guitars to vihuela is tricky because the guitar was not really in existence as we know it now and during the time of the vihuela and ren lute the baroque guitar certainly had not developed. There was a time at the end of the 16th century when the guitar seemed to develop and the ren. lute and vihuela became obsolete. Music changed and keyboard instruments took the center of the ensemble, lutes changed and became 7, 9, 10 course beasts and then the baroque lute came into service with 13 courses. To complicate the story the "long necked lutes" Therobo and Chitarrone began to be used in early opera by Montiverdi at the end of the 16th century. The vihuela and ren. lute just did not have enough gas to compete with with harpsichords and bigger lutes. An aside: Theorbo and Chitarrone used single courses while the Archlute stayed a double coursed instrument. All those lutes have the same long necked structure, but the Theorbi and Chitarrone are single string and played with the finger nails. The double course lutes were played with finger tip flesh.
So a comparison between guitar and vihuela is difficult to explain other than to say the vihuela really belongs in the lute family. The other difficulty is placing the four course guitar...ok that is a guitar shape body with a lute structure, but the tuning is also in G major like a modern guitar with a cejilla on the 3rd fret but you toss the bass E and the treble E and you have four courses tuned CFB flatD. In the day of the vihulea and ren lute 1500 to 1585 -- and a bit earlier vihuela music is reported as early as the mid 15th century-- one could take a vihuela and get rid of the G bass courses and the G treble string and you would have a Four course guitar, but who would want to play an instrument with space for extra strings? Right? So they made necks wide enough for six courses and that was a vihuela and then they made the four course width neck and it was commonly known as the four course guitar. A lot of lute composers also wrote for four course guitar. Look up Albert de Rippe he was the best although several of the vihuela composers also wrote for the four course, look up Valderabano and Mudarra. frSo basically the vihuela was really a lute format/structure instrument with a non bowl shaped body. There is a common narrative which is untrue that says the vihuela thrived on the Iberian peninsula because it was not oud shaped, it did not share the same staved bowl structure which lute and oud both have. Because the body is shaped differently than a lute, it has a different kind of sound. Imagine a flamenco guitar with a lute body, it would sound different...the shallow body imparts a lot of the character of the sound to the instrument, same with vihuela. During the time of the Reconquista in Spain the oud was still played and the flatter bodies of viola da mano and vihuela which were played in Italy and Spain simply sounded different than the lute and were more portable. The reason the oud was no longer played had less to do with anti Moorish politics than with the development of Western harmony which was not practical of fun on the oud.
Vihuela music was developed out of Northern European church music, one could sit with the vihuela and arrange the four vocal voices in a church hymn and play them al lat once on vihuela..you can do the same with lute. Josquin des Pres was a Northern sacred composer who was popular in Spain and many vihuela works are basically intabulations or arrangements of his vocal of instrumental chuch music. Look him up and cross reference vihuela composers. The real thing the vihuela s know for are the bodies of work of the vihuelist composers who could really jam. Narvaez and Fuenllana were the baddest dudes who created wonderful music and it was called the art of variations. They would compose pieces which were often fantasies and elaborate variations on popular tunes. Narvaez probably had the best counterpoint writing of all of them, but Mudarra was no slouch. Fuenllana is lush and complex, but he never muddles or lets things get muddy even when he used four voices at once, which was often. His music is perhaps the most dense texturally.
Anyway, if you would like to know more I'm happy to correspond with you or anyone interested in vihuela music. Juan Carlos Moreno, Toyohiko Satoh, Frank Wallace, Hopkinson Smith, Christopher Wilson ..and several others have all made great recordings on vihuela. Especially good is Fuenllana played by Moreno and Fran Wallace singing vihulea songs. Wilson plays wonderful Milan and Narvaez. "Hoppy" as he called recorded Mudarra songs with an important singer and Satoh is clean. Rolf Lislevand is great too.
Best vihuela-ing to you- Next look up Juan Bermudo- Osuna 1555..'On playing the Vihuela' English version publish online by Lute Society of America. Bermudo touches on why equal temperament tuning is superior to tempered tunings...in 1550.
Posts: 1589
Joined: Dec. 24 2007
From: Siegburg, Alemania
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
Stephen, thank you ever so much for your enlightening comments, and the effort!
So basically the difference between vihuela and guitar (at least as far as construction is concerned) lies in the number of courses and in the tuning, right?
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to edguerin)
I'm of the "not quite as black and white as that" school.
There are only three or four extant instruments that most historians agree are actually true historical vihuelas. It's also assumed/conjectured by those supposedly in the know that vihuelas, like lutes, most likely exisited in different sizes and tunings but not in the number of courses. For example, the vihuela in the Jacqemart-Andre Museum in Paris is a huge instrument with a scale length of 798mm! Several modern makers have constructed sets of different sized vihuelas for ensemble played based on the existing example known as the "Chambure" vihuela in the Cite de la Musique Museum in Paris. Although there is actually no existing music for vihuela ensemble, there are some duets in Enriquez de Valderrabano's "Libro de Musica..." published in Valladolid in 1547 for vihuelas of both the same and of different pitches, vihuela and another instrument and vihuela and voice. There is plenty of lute literature, choral transcriptions, etc. that would work quite well for larger ensembles. The original "Chambure" instrument has a 645mm scale length.
The existing Spanish solo vihuela literature cannot be played on an instrument with fewer than six courses and there is no existing music originally written for the vihuela, at least that I'm aware of, that requires seven courses. So, six courses it is. That said however, the fine player Toyohiko Satoh who Stephen mentioned made a recording of Spanish vihuela music in 1991 playing a modern seven-course vihuela but I never could figure out why. The instrument was made specifically for Satoh in 1989 by the Dutch maker Bert Kwaakel.
The widely held belief that most Renaissance lutes, and thus vihuelas, were tuned to G (a minor third higher than the modern guitar) really doesn't count for much since there was no standardization of pitch in the 16th century. 16th century guitars were small, four course instruments and most likely tuned to a higher pitch than the "typical" vihuela.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to C. Vega)
quote:
The existing Spanish solo vihuela literature cannot be played on an instrument with fewer than six courses and there is no existing music originally written for the vihuela, at least that I'm aware of, that requires seven courses. So, six courses it is. That said however, the fine player Toyohiko Satoh who Stephen mentioned made a recording of Spanish vihuela music in 1991 playing a modern seven-course vihuela but I never could figure out why
Is this a thinly veiled attempt at organology or an expert opinion on what constitutes the vihuela's musical literature?
At this point, there's much less grey in the picture than there was 30 years ago. The vihuela was very much an instrument that a whole body of work was written for, some 700 plus pieces in all. There are well known published "anthologies" and collections by vihuela players. Fuenllana published, Milan published, Narvaez also and so on until the end days of the vihuela when the last composers like Estaban Daza were working at tail end of the 16th century. Notably there were works for vihuela and voice and an extensive solo rep.
The seven course vihuela is quite historical. I'd refer you to the text by Juan Bermudo available in English translation from Cervantes Spanish, published in 155 in Osuna called 'On playing the Vihuela'. Bermudo was a musical theorist of the day proposed a lot of ideas ahead of his time, such as fixed frets and an equal temperament finger board. He also explained in this tract how string a seven course vihuela and when further into what we today call "alternate tunings".
The problems with few extant vihuelas has more to do with finding structural norms and patterns than with using them to substantiate the actual proof the vihuela existed. The texts I mentioned more than prove it existed and the recent scholarship (see Antonio Alcalde) goes much more in depth than the issue of organological reality. There at not enough extant vihuelas to get a clear picture of what was typical, but there are enough of them along with iconographic sources to combine all the information and come up with realistic versions. The Chambure vihuela in the Cite de la Musique in Paris has been really important in defining what a vihuela is, but what remains a mystery is whether or not it was typical or specialized to that maker. Iconographic evidence supports body shapes that are both like and unlike the Chambure. What we do know is that there were enough vihuela being made to create body of work for it and fora book of theoretic informaiton to be published.
I must adjourn to my room in the Akune Emperador where my minions and hot mineral baths await. After such soakings I shall hold court with Akune dirt farmers on important topics of ornaments in early Bach and daikon cultivation. We have much to discuss. Write me if you want more vihuela info.
S.F.
P. S. -- Batov, late comer, big attitude, slick surface work, weak historical reasoning. Stephen Barber and Stephen Gottlieb and a few of the other London based English lute makers did most of the heavy lifting to elucidate what a reconstruction of a vihuela would be. Everyone else basically followed the lead they created.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
So basically the difference between vihuela and guitar (at least as far as construction is concerned) lies in the number of courses and in the tuning, right?
To point, but it also has to do with the kinds of music played. On the vihuela and lute polyhony could be played, the guitar instruments were not what we think of as guitars today, but instruments that were strummed existed, but they did not really write down the music. The intabulations on vihuela were complex works with inner and outer voices taken first from church vocal polyphony and set on the vihuela. They music was not set up to be strummed, but plucked to articulate the separate voices as if one guy could play a vocal motet by himself.
There was probably a kind of instrument that could be strummed which was more like we think of guitar. But the concept of guitar strummed for vocal accompaniment came in to historical texts later during the baroque period where the strumming was written down. In the vihuela writing there was very little chance to strum a chord although it did happen. The four course guitar was strummable and many think that it was a simplified version of vihuela to make it more accessable to non committed folks who did not want to put in the time to learn vihuela which is quite difficult. The problem is that the four course guitar is not so easy either, well at least in the hands of the virtuoso composers.
I would keep digging into the scholarship to learn more, because there is much to learn, but nothing I would want to commit to as definitive on what was played off the record and called guitar. As the late 16th century music got louder and ensembles bigger, harpsicords and violins began to be called on. The intimacy of six course lutes and courtly love gave way to rock & roll and massive sounds by the days standards and the strumming guitars instruments came into favor instead of the small voiced lute instruments. Something changed and the court who loved the lute in the late 15th century, (Juana la Loca of the royal Spanish family employed a vihuelist to impart musical prozac into her difficult mental state) gave way to the French court later where playing guitar was racy and chic. See Watteu pictures of ladies and clowns playing guitar on swings. There was no contemplative polphony being played it was stable boy lust and Ziggy Stardust wigs.
Sad, sad...the decline of the West. Spengler was right.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
The seven course vihuela is quite historical. I'd refer you to the text by Juan Bermudo available in English translation from Cervantes Spanish, published in 155 in Osuna called 'On playing the Vihuela'. Bermudo was a musical theorist of the day proposed a lot of ideas ahead of his time, such as fixed frets and an equal temperament finger board. He also explained in this tract how string a seven course vihuela and when further into what we today call "alternate tunings".
I'm well aware that the seven-course vihuela existed in theory and I'll agree that music for a seven-course lute would be fully playable on a seven-course vihuela if one actually existed but none of the "well known published anthologies" you mention or any existing collections of music for vihuela from the period that I'm aware of contain any music for it. I may very well be mistaken but it seems to me that if such an instrument existed that at least one of the 16th century Spanish vihuela composers would have written for it but this does not appear to be the case. If you are aware of any specific examples please let me/us know. I will gladly and humbly stand corrected.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
C.Vega,
You're kind of missing the point of Bermudo's treatise. It does not matter if there is an extant vihuela with seven courses, or vihuela music written with a seventh course notated; Bermudo's manual is in part an instruction book on how to intabulate for a seventh course, he also describes vihuela of different sizes in order to play for singers in different ranges. What he covers mainly is the details of what constitutes the Vihuela Comun, the common vihuela of six courses, but he does not elaborate on the other types of vihuela, which is it reasonable to believe after a close reading of his text existed.
It is also reasonable to extrapolate from extant Italian lutes that many sizes of lute, from descant to bass existed. The vihuela if outfitted with a seventh course could play Italian seven course lute music. The idea behind Bermudo is that he knew about these instruments and music and described a seventh course. It would have been an instrument that pro would have had to handle and the vihuela books published at the time were not all meant for pros. Even if the music were written for six courses nothing would prevent a good player from working out Bermudos idea, if in fact is was his idea and using a seven course instrument and arranging the six course music. Guitarsists do the same thing today, they read music written for six string guitar, but work it out on seven strings by making arrangements which include the lower basses. The guys I make seven string guitars for do this all the time.
The burden of proving that a seven course instrument existed does not get proven true or untrue on the proof in the literature published. You simply can't say one way or another if Bermudo's thesis was worked out in his day or it waited until later players like Satoh read his texts and requested a seventh course. The point is that much of the vihuela music probably did not get published and a pro player who was a specialist played several sizes of vihuela and very likely a seven course instrument.
If you want to understand the situation you have to take in Bermudos text carefully. In the end it does not matter if Satoh realized the seven course 500 years after Bermudo, or if it was realized in Bermudos day. The fact that Bermudo wrote about it makes it real in the sense that is was known in the 16th century.
I'm going to go back to my retirement before I get accused of delving into the historical nitty gritty that has nothing to do with flamenco. Which is actually what makes history interesting, the details.... I'll go out with this song...Cancion del Emperador Dedicated to my pal Jernigan
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
Woulda, coulda, shoulda with a few maybes and what-ifs thrown in. What's transpired here is that a bunch of pseudo-academic blather has been tossed around to say nothing more than that the existence of a seven-course vihuela in 16th century Spain is, thus far, simply a matter of conjecture. Perhaps it did exist but the research is totally inconclusive.
Stephen, This self-promotional thread that you started had nothing to do with flamenco from the beginning. Don't start whining about it now.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
Comparing guitars to vihuela is tricky because the guitar was not really in existence as we know it now and during the time of the vihuela and ren lute the baroque guitar certainly had not developed. There was a time at the end of the 16th century when the guitar seemed to develop and the ren. lute and vihuela became obsolete.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to C. Vega)
quote:
edguerin
The only reason, and the only reason I responded to this thread is because the foro member 'edguerin' has always been very kind to me and an interesting foro member.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
Once again Stephen, you seem to be forgetting that it was you who started this thread, not "edguerin".
You've backed yourself into an intellectual corner with no clear answers or any concrete evidence to support your claims so you're bailing out. 'nuf said.
RE: Building a reconstruction of a R... (in reply to estebanana)
quote:
ORIGINAL: estebanana
quote:
edguerin
Eric van Gogh, you should try posting something on your own without citing your fathers opinions. I could cite my fathers achievements as well, but here's is the deal, those are HIS achievements not mine. I speak for myself, as everyone who is credible does.
First of all he might not agree with the way i re-told the story and second of all i rather use his incredible knowledge (based on a lifetime of studying the material on an academical level) then making up my own truth because the internet is already loaded with miss information of people who think they know without knowing anything at all (that's why i prefer trustable knowledge over opinions). The only reason i often mention him is because i don't like to take credit for his investigations/observations, in the same way composers are mentioned or certain copla's refer to their maker. I guess if one only produce/tell things one invented oneself (leaving out everything one learned from others) for most people there would remain very little to tell (not counting the crap)... this counts for me, for you and for flamenco. To give you an example, without checking facts and by just ventilating ones own opinion Erik van Goch suddenly becomes Eric van Gogh :-). On top he lectured it to me at Rotterdam Conservatory as part of my academical education so all i did was share that fairly trustable data with others wile mentioning my source. I would not do so if i would doubt his data or would have a different opinion. Don't see why mentioning my sources would made me less credible because in the end i speak for myself as well, i'm just pretty selective in the data i trust. Paco Serrano frequently traveled from Spain to the netherlands to learn it from my father first hand. Since not everyone is in that position i don't mind to share some of that knowledge on the foro.... for free.
During a masterclass of Moraito he added 3 extra notes that were clearly inspired by Vicente but i was to shy to shout "ole Vicente". After he stopped playing he mentioned Vicente himself had suggested those notes. A couple of minutes later he expressed his admirance for a Paco de Lucia chord he integrated in his own music and as a final treat he was extremely proud to show us a seguiriyas falseta that he had learned from his old teacher and that was treasured by his village for generations. What a shame, so much respect/credit for the deeds/lessons/contributions of others.
A couple of builders asked my father to lend them his popular and acclaimed instruments in order to study/copy them (like his Bolin alto guitar). My father refused out of respect for the original builders. In the same way he did not write/publish the best flamenco book you could wish for because everything he knows he learned from Paco and he thinks it's Paco's story to tell. He probably knows better how paco plays than Paco knows himself, still he keeps mentioning Paco does it like this and Paco does it like that.... again lots of respect/credit for the deeds/lessons/contributions of others.
Printable Version
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread