Info about Vihuela Chambure - Early Guitars and Vihuela2024-03-28T13:50:28Zhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/forum/topics/info-about-vihuela-chambure?commentId=2111060%3AComment%3A73156&xg_raw_resources=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noDear Carlos,
Thank you for th…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-19:2111060:Comment:737522017-11-19T09:30:59.966ZMartyn Hodgsonhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MartynHodgson
<p>Dear Carlos,</p>
<p>Thank you for this. Yes - I agree with much of what you write and, in particular, about the peculiar and, to my mind, unattractive (truncated/squashed) body shape profile of E.0748 (the Chambure instrument) - but, as you also remark, the early music world likes novelty which might incline customers to buy unusual, if a bit unhistorical, instruments to show to their associates.</p>
<p>Some early sources (eg Bermudo) also specifically comment on the relatively small depth…</p>
<p>Dear Carlos,</p>
<p>Thank you for this. Yes - I agree with much of what you write and, in particular, about the peculiar and, to my mind, unattractive (truncated/squashed) body shape profile of E.0748 (the Chambure instrument) - but, as you also remark, the early music world likes novelty which might incline customers to buy unusual, if a bit unhistorical, instruments to show to their associates.</p>
<p>Some early sources (eg Bermudo) also specifically comment on the relatively small depth of the vihuela's body (ie two or three fingers deep ie around 4 - 6 cm only) and this clearly is reflected in the shallow body instruments recovered from early Spanish colonial-era shipwrecks which you mention. NRI (Ephraim Segerman designed) was the first to offer a vihuela with such a shallow depth in, I believe, the late1970s but it didn't seem to catch on. Although my own first vihuela (now in the possession of my daughter) was similar and still possesses an immediacy of projection which, perhaps(?), they preferred at the time... Certainly, some of the, admittedly occasionally crude depictions, also seem to show shallow instruments. The large Jacquemart-Andre instrument fits this model, although the colonial Quito instrument (mid-seventeenth century?) with native indigenous features, is more related to contemporary guitar bodies and, of course, probably dates (like E.0748) from well after the Spanish 'golden age' of vihuela music.</p>
<p>As mentioned by others, the C cut-outs in the body profile of some early depictions were probably principally necessary for the bowed version of the instrument and the distinctive feature seems to have been retained, as you mention, for some plucked versions too. I have seen little evidence that the bowed instrument generally employed doubled courses as the finger plucked instrument and this is, perhaps, a significant distinguishing feature.</p>
<p>Martyn </p> Dear martyn,
The problem when…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-14:2111060:Comment:740442017-11-14T10:21:50.355ZCarlos Gonzalezhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/CarlosGonzalez
<p>Dear martyn,</p>
<p>The problem when we talk about the vihuelas and the 4-order guitars is that we do not really know what is representative and what is not. The three historical vihuelas are very different, and in the iconography we find a great variety of models. Many people don't know that at least half of the iconographic representations of the vihuelas in the sixteenth century in Spain are of the viola type, with C shapes, which in general is associated with the Italian hand…</p>
<p>Dear martyn,</p>
<p>The problem when we talk about the vihuelas and the 4-order guitars is that we do not really know what is representative and what is not. The three historical vihuelas are very different, and in the iconography we find a great variety of models. Many people don't know that at least half of the iconographic representations of the vihuelas in the sixteenth century in Spain are of the viola type, with C shapes, which in general is associated with the Italian hand viola.</p>
<p>At this moment I am building 4 courses guitars and vihuelas based on archaeological remains found in Spanish ships sunk in Florida, and the proportions that we can deduce are very different from our "usual" models with very small and thin bodys and very long necks in which you can place 12 and 13 frets.</p>
<p>I have never made copies of the E0748 because it is a model that I do not like, I prefer flat backgrounds. But our world likes news and it is normal that musicians are interested in this type of instruments, which are also historically valid.</p> Dear Carlos,
Thank you for…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-14:2111060:Comment:740432017-11-14T10:06:02.126ZMartyn Hodgsonhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MartynHodgson
<p>Dear Carlos,</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you for this and your view that the instrument in question may have been built as late as 1600. However the use of much aged wood by the maker working even after this date cannot be ruled out - indeed, your own view suggests that the wood used may have already been around 200 years old when you think the instrument was made. The employment of much aged wood is by no means historically unknown (eg Italian stringed instruments) and accordingly it is…</p>
<p>Dear Carlos,</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Thank you for this and your view that the instrument in question may have been built as late as 1600. However the use of much aged wood by the maker working even after this date cannot be ruled out - indeed, your own view suggests that the wood used may have already been around 200 years old when you think the instrument was made. The employment of much aged wood is by no means historically unknown (eg Italian stringed instruments) and accordingly it is quite reasonable to also postulate that the instrument may have even been made in the seventeenth or even early eighteenth century but with much aged wood. Similarly, as previously mentioned, the use of ancient written parchment cut up to reinforce joints etc is not unknown and, indeed, surely the parchment used would have been redundant and well out of date and considered of no other significance to allow its usage in this cavalier manner.</p>
<p></p>
<p>Regarding the dendrochronological study, you'll have seen that Monica Hall seems to have identified the relevant paper you mentioned but neither of us have been able to find and peruse a copy so that any statistical variations, uncertainties etc arising from the study are not known. </p>
<p></p>
<p>I very much agree that just a relatively thick soundboard with just two principal bars should probably be considered a basic feature of the vihuela: as it is also, of course, for many guitars - especially many of those built before the rise of 'fan barring' in some Spanish centres (notably Cadiz and Seville) in the mid eighteenth century. Like you I do not find any significant structural instability in such instruments of which Romanillos speaks - perhaps it was his initial work with modern much-barred guitars which predisposed him to this view. In short, I agree that the lute and guitars of the earlier period used a different basic structural concept: one employing numerous relatively delicate cross bars but with thin bellies; and one using thicker bellies but only two transverse bars.</p>
<p></p>
<p>To conclude, I think we also both at least agree that E.0748 was constructed after the 'Golden age' of Spanish vihuela music and thus represents a poor model for performing the wonderful and inventive music of this early period - it is, therefore, astonishing that it is currently to be much favoured by modern players. As already said, perhaps it is the sheer novelty of the back construction rather than any concerns about what the 'Old Ones' might have reasonably expected.</p>
<p></p>
<p>MH</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> Hello,
In my opinion the doub…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-14:2111060:Comment:740422017-11-14T07:31:11.733ZCarlos Gonzalezhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/CarlosGonzalez
<p><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"></br><span>Hello,</span></p>
<p><span>In my opinion the doubts about the dating of the vihuela Chambure have no justification, and we are facing an instrument built in Spain or Portugal at the end of the 16th century.</span></p>
<p><span>1-This type of construcción of the tumbled and grooved boxes appears in the regulations of Spanish violeros of the time.</span></p>
<p><span>2-Do not forget the vihuela / guitar of 5 orders Belchior Dias, construction even…</span></p>
<p><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"/><span>Hello,</span></p>
<p><span>In my opinion the doubts about the dating of the vihuela Chambure have no justification, and we are facing an instrument built in Spain or Portugal at the end of the 16th century.</span></p>
<p><span>1-This type of construcción of the tumbled and grooved boxes appears in the regulations of Spanish violeros of the time.</span></p>
<p><span>2-Do not forget the vihuela / guitar of 5 orders Belchior Dias, construction even more refined than the Chambure.</span></p>
<p><span>3-Dendrochronology analyzes of the soundboard and dating of the parchment strips.</span></p>
<p><span>4-The internal soundboard structure , with only 2 cross bars and the shape of the bridge, common to the three existing vihuelas. About this I have to contradict my admired teacher José Luis Romanillos when he writes in his report: "The large and unbarred area of the lower bout and small narrow bridge must question the stability of the instrument to sustain the required tension."</span></p>
<p><span>Just the combination of thick soundboard, small bridge with openings and not with holes to tie the strings, is the fundamental characteristic of the vihuelas; is what produces its sound, very different from that of the lutes, as Isabella d'Este said to her Venetian luthier Lorenza da Pavia.</span></p>
<p><span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"/><span>I've been several years building this type of vihuelas without problems of stability of the harmonic cover, or bridges that take off, and also producing a very interesting sound and very different from that of my lutes.</span></span></p>
<p><span><span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"/><span>In fact I am convinced that the family of the lutes and that of the vihuelas / guitars have a completely different constructive concept, and therefore both produce very different acoustic and musical results.</span></span></span></p> Thanks for Carlos - it certa…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-13:2111060:Comment:741322017-11-13T10:00:59.764ZMartyn Hodgsonhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MartynHodgson
<p></p>
<p>Thanks for Carlos - it certainly reinforces the view some of us first put forward many years ago (including the late Donald Gill, as well as myself) that we need to question the assumption that the instrument (E.0748) was constructed in the sixteenth century and is therefore a good model for performance of vihuela music from Spain's golden age.</p>
<p>After considering various options my view at the time was that it might be a mid-eighteenth century six course guitar when such…</p>
<p></p>
<p>Thanks for Carlos - it certainly reinforces the view some of us first put forward many years ago (including the late Donald Gill, as well as myself) that we need to question the assumption that the instrument (E.0748) was constructed in the sixteenth century and is therefore a good model for performance of vihuela music from Spain's golden age.</p>
<p>After considering various options my view at the time was that it might be a mid-eighteenth century six course guitar when such instruments were starting to be made in Spain (notably Cadiz and Seville) although, of course, the body shape is significantly different to the many extant instruments from these centres and also different from artistic depictions of this period which generally show a considerably longer long lower bout etc - perhaps the instrument was made elsewhere on the peninsula.</p>
<p>But other explanations are clearly possible, including Romanillos's that it may be late nineteenth century construction - I agree that the finish seems generally more refined than that of many earlier instruments. I suppose a question arising from this is that, if it was made at such a late date, was it deliberate deception (such as other instruments made/remade around this period by <span>Leopoldo Franciolini, 1844–1920</span>)? or was it made as a sort of attempt at historical reconstruction for genuine research purposes? Do we know how the instrument arrived in the collection of <span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Geneviève Thibault, Comtesse de Chambure (1902 - 1975), in the first place? I thought I'd seen the provenance trail some years ago but can't find it now.</span></p>
<p></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">MH</span></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> That's very helpful and inter…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-13:2111060:Comment:737472017-11-13T08:30:44.290ZMonica Hallhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MonicaHall
<p>That's very helpful and interesting.</p>
<p>That's very helpful and interesting.</p> Hello,The main doubts about t…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-13:2111060:Comment:738462017-11-13T07:24:35.435ZCarlos Gonzalezhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/CarlosGonzalez
<p>Hello,<br></br>The main doubts about the authenticity of the vihuela Chambure were issued by Joseé Luis Romanillos in March 1998, after studying said vihuela in January of the same year. The doubts of Romanillos coincide in part with those issued by Michael Prynne in his letter to Madame de Chambure of October 13, 1966: Instrument too well done and sophisticated for sixteenth-century Spain, and with a form unusual for the time when It is supposed to be built.<br></br>If we look at the templates of…</p>
<p>Hello,<br/>The main doubts about the authenticity of the vihuela Chambure were issued by Joseé Luis Romanillos in March 1998, after studying said vihuela in January of the same year. The doubts of Romanillos coincide in part with those issued by Michael Prynne in his letter to Madame de Chambure of October 13, 1966: Instrument too well done and sophisticated for sixteenth-century Spain, and with a form unusual for the time when It is supposed to be built.<br/>If we look at the templates of the vihuelas, both in the historical instruments and in the iconography, iconography included, the incredible variety that appears before us is enormous, and does not allow us to speak of a "platonic" model of vihuela.</p>
<p>As for the age of the woods used by the Spanish violins, we have no information, since in Spain there are no guitars and vihuelas of the 17th century, except for a guide of 5 orders that have just been restored by Françoise and Daniel Sinnier de Ridder .</p>
<p>J.L.Romanillos report to the Musée de la Musique 20th. March 1998.<br/>CONCLUSION: "SD 748 was made, in my opinion, in the latter part of XIXth century by a very able instrument maker and as a representation of a Spanish vihuela following the body shape pf a French instrument such as that of Cellier or similar type instrument. It shows a high degree of applied instrument making craftsmanship, in particular that of the back and the finished surfaces of the ribs and staves in ny opinion much too refined for the period that the instrument is supposed to represent."</p> I am afraid I don't know of a…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-12:2111060:Comment:740412017-11-12T16:56:49.252ZMonica Hallhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MonicaHall
<p>I am afraid I don't know of any work on the age of woods used in the seventeenth century. Unfortunately not a lot of work seems to have been done on actual 17th century guitars at all - it is very difficult to find out about surviving example - whether they are in their original state and so on. </p>
<p>I think it is just the novelty of the Chambure instrument that has attracted player's attention. I was actually invited by Stephen Barber to try one of his out. Not a very useful experience…</p>
<p>I am afraid I don't know of any work on the age of woods used in the seventeenth century. Unfortunately not a lot of work seems to have been done on actual 17th century guitars at all - it is very difficult to find out about surviving example - whether they are in their original state and so on. </p>
<p>I think it is just the novelty of the Chambure instrument that has attracted player's attention. I was actually invited by Stephen Barber to try one of his out. Not a very useful experience as I hadn't played the vihuela for so long I could hardly find the notes. It had nylon (not gut which I just typed by mistake!) strings which I hate. There was no question of my ordering one... </p> Many thanks for this Monica.…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-11:2111060:Comment:737452017-11-11T17:49:59.751ZMartyn Hodgsonhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MartynHodgson
<p>Many thanks for this Monica.</p>
<p>It's interesting you mention that in an article Gonzales says that there's some doubt about the authenticity of the instrument. Others also raised similar concerns - sometimes also around the extraordinary squashed lower body and atypical shape when compared to early sixteenth century depictions of the vihuela (admittedly some a bit crude). The Jacquemart-Andrée instrument seems a much better model shape and closer to early depictions but seems…</p>
<p>Many thanks for this Monica.</p>
<p>It's interesting you mention that in an article Gonzales says that there's some doubt about the authenticity of the instrument. Others also raised similar concerns - sometimes also around the extraordinary squashed lower body and atypical shape when compared to early sixteenth century depictions of the vihuela (admittedly some a bit crude). The Jacquemart-Andrée instrument seems a much better model shape and closer to early depictions but seems strangely out of fashion currently - perhaps buyers are taken with the wonderfully complex back of the Chambure instrument - whatever it is.</p>
<p>Are you aware if any work has been done on the age of woods used by seventeenth century Spanish makers? I can't recall seeing anything.</p>
<p>Martyn</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p></p> The original paper seems to…tag:earlyguitar.ning.com,2017-11-10:2111060:Comment:740322017-11-10T09:24:41.456ZMonica Hallhttp://earlyguitar.ning.com/profile/MonicaHall
<p> The original paper seems to be "Instruments pour demain : conservation & restauration des instruments de musique" in 9th Journees d'etudes de la Section francaise de l'Institut international de conservation" (Limoges, 15-16 Juin 2000, Champs sur Marne : SFIIC, 2000) It is referred to in an article by Carlos Gonzales in "Estudios sobre la vihuela" published by the Sociedad de la Vihuela in 2007. Gonzales says that dendochronology of the table gives the dates between 1378 and 1496 and…</p>
<p> The original paper seems to be "Instruments pour demain : conservation & restauration des instruments de musique" in 9th Journees d'etudes de la Section francaise de l'Institut international de conservation" (Limoges, 15-16 Juin 2000, Champs sur Marne : SFIIC, 2000) It is referred to in an article by Carlos Gonzales in "Estudios sobre la vihuela" published by the Sociedad de la Vihuela in 2007. Gonzales says that dendochronology of the table gives the dates between 1378 and 1496 and allowing for the fact that the wood may have been planed down it could date from the first 3rd of the 16th century. Gonzales does say at the end of the article that there is some doubt about the authenticity of the instrument. Surprise, surprise! I don't think either source is available on line. I checked the Sociedad's web page but couldn't find out whether the book was still in print.</p>