Re: Proms

On 4 Aug, 22:01, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:95f02b22-20db-4e10-a519-c788a1bea42a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 3 Aug, 20:18, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:5644983a-ada9-4c3b-9b96-2fb3ff39749c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 3 Aug, 16:31, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
And other countries have their OWN names too for their OWN genres.

<<<As well as their own names for rock, metal, dance etc...>>>

Nope. Rock in Greece is call, um... let me think.... er.... Rock.
Hip-Hop
in Greece is call, er.... let me think.... might it be Hip-Hop.... yes
it
is..... The genres of western popular music was called by the same names
everywhere.

<<<"Somewhere" doesn't imply "everywhere".>>>

Everywhere!

<<<Somewhere.>>>

 Everywhere!

Somewhere.

They

don't call them folk and the don't even call them traditional.

<<<You've been told before, Aggy, equivalent terms in different
languages
aren't always direct translations of one another. "Folk music" is a
pretty silly name in English - looking at the etymology, it means
"music by folks". However, it is used to describe a particular musical
concept, and other languages use words of their own to describe the
same concept, that may or may not be direct translations of the word
"folk".>>>

The don't call them folk. They don't use words meaning folk.

<<<The German word for traditional German music is Volksmusik. Wonder
what that could possibly translate as...>>>

Which translates as Peoples Music.

<<<Hmm, now what does "folk music" translate as...? Oh yes, "people's
music".>>>

Then use that name then instead of Folk Music which refers to a specific
genre of Irish Popular Music.

Except that of course it doesn't. The English phrase "folk music", as
demonstrated, applies and always has to a broad range of traditional
regional music of all nationalities - you can find references to
German folk music, Portugese folk music, Spanish folk music, even
Greek folk music among others, and in most of these languages the
English term is used to describe their own music, just as the English
term 'rock' is used to describe homegrown rock in these countries.

<<<The Portugese name for traditional regional music is Folclore
Portuges.>>>

That's an artificial categorisation concocted by the 19th century
Romanticists and applied retrospectively.

<<<Regardless of whether this is true or more nonsense, it is a word the
Portugese use for Portugese traditional music, and which in English is
encompassed under the phrase "folk music".>>>

No it isn't.

Yes it is.

It's a word that has no Portuguese historical origin

So what? It's still a word *that the Portugese use for Portugese
traditional music*, i.e. Portugese equivalents to British and American
folk music.

and is
used to describe foreign organised music conventions specific to a 19th art
music genre.

No it isn't. You're arguing from your conclusion as ever. Your
conclusion is simply wrong, as has been demonstrated - there is no
"19th Century art music genre" or indeed 1950s/60s "Pop/Art Music"
genre that has ever been described as folk. The term as originally
defined always referred to traditional or regional music, and that is
still a large part of its meaning.

<<<A Spanish regional music festival is called Concurso Internacional de
Folk Cuartu los Valles.

I could go on, but suffice to say your obsessively parochial worldview
is simply wrong.>>>

Folk is NOT a traditional Spanish nor Portuguese word. It is a Germanic
word

<<<So? Blues and rock aren't Portugese words. Yet guess what the
Portugese words for blues and rock music are?>>>

Yes, and they refer to Blues and Rock music, whereas Folklore refers to the
19th Century Romanticist music movement.

No, it refers to folk music. The Romantic music movement is called
"classical" in Portugese, just as it is in English (again using the
English word for the overall genre).

and as such there is no such thing as Spanish folk or Portuguese folk.

<<<No, doesn't follow at all. The Portugese and Spanish use the word
'folk' just as they use the words 'rock' and 'blues' - however, when
they use the word folk, they use it to apply to their own regional
musical traditions, not American or Irish folk.>>>

Nope. They use the word Folklore like rock and blues to refer to the 19th
Romanticist Art Music genre.

NO THEY DON'T! FOOL!

It's

what Anglo-Saxon ignorants have retrospectively used as a label for 19th
century romanticised traditional music.

<<<So why is it the Portugese and Spanish who apply it to their own
music?>>>

They apply it to 19th Century Romanticist Art Music and its derivatives.

No, they apply it to regional traditional music - the Spanish
festival, for instance, takes the form of a competition between
musicians and musical styles from different Spanish provinces.

The call them

POPULAR MUSIC! If you want to translate the terms they use into English
then
the term popular would be the correct term to use, not folk.

<<<What's the English translation for "Laika"? That seems to be the word
used for Greek folk music from what I can gather.>>>

There is no such thing as Greek folk music.

<<<For something that doesn't exist, searching for the phrase in Google
produces an awful lot of results.>>>

It doesn't exist. No one in Greece use such a term.

So what? We're talking about the definition of "folk music", which as
you keep pointing out is an English term. The English definition
includes Greek folk music as it does traditional music from elsewhere.

Music prior to Rembetkia
is called Historical music. Music from Rembetika onwards is referred to a
Popular music.

So no Greek rock music is called rock music in Greece either?

<<<Meaningless question. That's like asking would you call Irish music>>>

Twaddle. Would you call Arabic music, Folk music?

<<<What types of Arabic music?>>>

Since there are only two times Arabic classical music and Arabic pop music,
would you call them folk?

That's no more true than it is of English music that it's either
classical or pop - although you'll still find people who aren't music
afficionados using that distinction. All you're saying is that you
know nothing of Arabic music. Saidi, for example, is described as a
form of Egyptian folk music; Kathem al Saher as an Arabic folk
musician; a blurb for an album called "Slah Manaa Ensemble Art of
Arabic Folk Music" describes it as relying on "traditional elements in
order to capture the essence of Arabic folk music, playing qanun, nay,
rigg, ud & more".

Shall I carry on or have you been embarrassed enough?

The fact is, as you will come to realise, is that NO ONE in the Arab world
calls Arabic music folk music.

What do you suppose these folk musicians call it when they're speaking
English?

Would you call Latin

music,

<<<Not as the term is usually used. Latin American and Spanish folk
music, on the other hand, yes.>>>

<<<Would you call Thin Lizzy folk music? They're Irish (well, Irish-led
and written). U2? Answer the question.>>>

IDIOT! They do not represent the 1950's folk music genre. They are
classified as Rock.

Which just demonstrates the stupidity of your question - if Ireland is
allowed to have multiple styles of music, why do you assume the much
larger areas of the Arabic and Latin American worlds don't? If I asked
you "Is Irish music folk - yes or no?" either you'd have to say Thin
Lizzy is folk music, or Ireland doesn't have folk music at all. See
how idiotic that is?

"Detroit sound

In merging a European synth-pop aesthetic with the sensibilities of
soul,
funk, house, and electro, the early producers pushed dance music into
unchartered terrain. "

Looks like I'm right once again and you can't either understand English
or
cant be bothered to read the article properly.

<<<Nope. Read the article properly. Techno was *derived from* European
synthesiser pop and American funk - however, techno is an American
style. Just as the blues is an American style despite its influences
being African.>>>

Nope. Read the article properly.

Techno was a deliberate American copy of the style of music created by the
German band Kraftwerk. Kraftwerk invented it.

<<<Wrong. The American music derived from Kraftwork, as you pointed out
with another quote, was called electro. Electro was just one of
multiple European and American influences on techno. Techno is from
Detroit, and so American.>>>

Nope. The American music derived from Kraftwork was called Techno. Read the
article properly.

"The initial take on techno arose from the melding of Eurocentric
synthesizer-based music with various African American styles such as
Chicago house, funk, electro, and electric jazz. " No mention of
Kraftwerk at all - and indeed the electro you attribute to Kraftwerk
is described as an "African American style". Read the article
properly. The only reference to Kraftwerk is a throwaway simile by a
music critic, not something meant to imply they were the major
influence.

<<<synth pop. Both are true. Just as blues didn't start in Africa and
isn't slave music, despite those being its origins.>>>

No it wasn't. Slavery was abolished in America 100 years before Blues
began.

<<<And the music the slaves brought with them is what ultimately evolved
into the blues.>>>

IT DIDN'T. As I pointed out elsewhere the Wikipedia article says that Blues
has virtually no connection if any with West African Griot music.

And plenty of elements taken from stylistically African music more
generally - in fact everything except the melodic style, from the
rhythms to the key instruments of early blues, is of African origin.

All you are left with is improvised African American poetry, which is not
recorded before the late 19th century, so can't possibly have been
influenced by the salve trade. I mean look at it. Griot is the music which
West Africans use to record their history, but either the salves didn't use
it in the Americas, or it died out over a century before Blues.

Or they didn't use it for the same function - griot is entirely
inappropriate stylistically for mournful songs intended to evoke
emotion and inspire passion.

So how if
Griot, the dominant form of West African music and poetry died out in
America can improvised African American vocal poetry have survived and been
based on African poetry, especially when the time it emerged was over a
century after the salve trade ended.

Ever heard of oral traditions ;-)

<<<It's rock and world music. In fact Wikipedia lists five genres Dengue
Fever belongs to - Cambodian rock, rock, psychedelia, surf and
indie ->>>

Experimental Art Music then.

<<<No, rock. All of these being rock genres.>>>

Nope. Those particular genres are classified as experimental.

<<No they aren't. The term experimental music using the definition in>>>

Yes they are. And you don't know what you are talking about so what you say
is irrelevant.

No they aren't. And you don't know what you're talking about so what
you say is irrelevant.

<<<They're trying to copy Cambodian rock that in turn pinched from
psychedelia - nor primarily the Beach Boys; the music is much closer
to some of Jefferson Airplane's work. And copying 40-year-old
"experimental" music hardly qualifies as an experiment itself.>>>

If it's experimental music then it is also Art Music.

<<<You really haven't understood the Wikipedia definitions at all, have
you? And it *isn't* experimental music, as I've pointed out.>>>

You don't know what you are talking about. You are out of your depth as
usual. It is experimental music.

"In a broader sense, it is also used to mean any music that challenges
the commonly accepted notions of what music is. David Cope describes
experimental music as that, "which represents a refusal to accept the
status quo" (Cope, 1997, 222).

Michael Nyman (1974) uses the term "experimental" to describe the work
of American composers (John Cage, Christian Wolff, Earle Brown,
Meredith Monk, Malcolm Goldstein, Morton Feldman, Terry Riley, La
Monte Young, Philip Glass, John Cale, Steve Reich, etc.) as opposed to
the European avant-garde at the time (Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre
Boulez, Iannis Xenakis). The word "experimental" in the former cases
"is apt, providing it is understood not as descriptive of an act to be
later judged in terms of success or failure, but simply as of an act
the outcome of which is unknown" (Cage 1961, 13)."

What part of this definition does a revivalist band qualify under? Or
world music generally, for that matter, since you class it as
experimental music. Given that you naturally know what you're talking
about, you'll obviously be able to identify the precise part of the
Wikipedia definition of "experimental music" which describes either
Dengue Fever specifically, or psychedelia or world music generally.

People who know what World Music and what it was when the term
started
to
be
used know it is Experimental Art Music. Is Abba sold or advertised
as
World
Music?

Abba is thoroughly Anglicised pop music - even when sung in Swedish
it
still sounds like Abba's usual light pop.

Anglicised? You mean its Skiffle or Music Hall?

<<<Twit.>>>

Fool.

<<<WORON!>>>

FOOL!

<<<IGNORANT STUPID!>>>

STUPID IGNORANT!

MENTALLY DERANGED IMBECILE!

<<<Now try Girl from the North
Country:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Qhwemir1Ag
This is folk rock.

See the difference?>>>

Also art music, but a different genre.

<<<Now you've just rendered your idiosyncratic definition of "art music"
meaningless by admitting it contains multiple genres (note: not>>>

Who said id didn't. It clearly isn't Theodorakis.

<<<genera, which is the plural of genus rather than genre). It *is* a
different genre - Kitaro is New Age, Dylan is folk. With that
distinction recognised we may get somewhere at last.>>>

Different genre of Art Music.

<<<Different genre of music. And the specific genre where Dylan's
concerned is folk music.>>>

Different genre of Art Music.

You claim folk music is a type of art music.

You don't have a clue of what you are talking
about.

Right, okay everyone. Hands up who thinks the statement "Bob Dylan
plays folk music" indicates I don't know what I'm talking about? Hands
up who thinks the statement "Bob Dylan plays Art Music" indicates Aggy
is spouting gibberish as usual? I'm voting B.

<<<Hmm, they've put things you don't regard as roots music on roots music
albums, put rock acts on world music labels and showcased them at
world music festivals. Yep, pretty much completely contradicts what
you've said. Just as those people hosting and attending a festival for
Spanish folk music must do - because of course, no such thing exists.>>>

Correct. It doesn't. The event organisers are exhibiting Art Music.

<<<No, they're exhibiting traditional regional Spanish music.>>>

No, they are exhibiting music based on an 19th century Romanticist movement,

Fascinating, I never knew the traditional music of Andalucia was based
on 19th Century Romantic music. Care to give examples?

Nope. You put the if there as if it were a given fact. That is how it
read.

<<<Only to the comprehensionally challenged.>>>

To those who know what you are up to.

<<<<COMPREHENSIONALLY CHALLENGED IDIOT!>>>

COMPREHENSIONALLY CHALLENGED FOOL!>>>

MENTALLY DERANGED COMPREHENSIONALLY CHALLENGED IMBECILE!>>>>>>

DICKHEAD!

COMPREHENSIONALLY CHALLENGED DICKHEAD!

"The American Federation of Musicians defines arranging as "the art
of
preparing and adapting an already written composition for
presentation
in other than its original form. An arrangement may include
reharmonization, paraphrasing, and/or development of a composition,
so
that it fully represents the melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic
structure"

Right, so its not rearranging the notes in a different order. Now
admit
you
didn't know what arrangement meant.

<<<Okay, I had a feeling this definition would be too technical for you
to understand. Let's go through it piece by piece:

Reharmonisation = changing notes within chords to alter the harmony
with one another. It's taken to an extreme in jazz, where
reharmonisation can translate as "replacing all the chords".

Paraphrasing = saying the same thing as the original in a different
way. In music this translates as, you got it, *changing the notes* -
or to use the technical name "chord substitution".

Development of a composition = adding extra notes or otherwise
changing an original piece.>>>

IDIOT! You originally said that arrangement was changing the order of
the
notes and before that, using different notes. You were WRONG!

<<<Okay, so "changing the notes" is different from "using different
notes" how, exactly? As for changing the order of the notes, the Wiki
article seems to confine that to the definition of reharmonisation in
jazz.>>>

Stop squirming. It's not changing the notes.

<<<See above.>>>

 Stop squirming. It's not changing the notes.

See above.

piece, and the sitar is a much more plausible origin than the
lyre

BULL***! Sitar is a corruption of Zither which is a corruption of
Kithara.
The Sitar has no plausibility as the origin of the Kithara. The
Kithars
as
the meaning of its name (Hip shaped) suggests originated from the
Lyre.

Sitar means "30 strings" (and setar means "3 strings"). The fact
that

What a load of BULL***!

<<<Nope, that's what it means.>>>

No it doesn't. The Persian and Sanskrit words for 3 are from the same
root
as "THREE".

<<<Yes, "thri" - which in Hindi is "si".

"sitar
1845, from Hindi sitar, from Pers. sitar "three-stringed," from si
"three" (O.Pers. thri-) + tar "string" (see tenet).">>>

1845! Right, so Kithara, Guitar, Cittern and Zither all existed long
before
this FAKE and totally inaccurate etymology and the word itself.

<<<*sigh* The Online Etymology Dictionary is an *English* dictionary,
Aggy. The 1845 date is the date the word "sitar" *entered English* -
from, as the extract notes, the pre-existing Hindi word 'sitar', whose
derivation is then given as 'three-string'.>>>

When did it enter the Indian or Hindi language? Date?

Earlier than 1845.

"Sit" bares no similarity to them. It doesn't mean 3 strings or

<<<That's because the component that means 3 isn't "sit", it's "si-",
related to "tri-".>>>

Twaddle. It doesn't mean three. It is a corruption of Zi of Zither, which
itself is a corruption of Cittern which is a corruption of Kithara.

It doesn't clue you in that one of your made-up definitions was wrong,
so you make up another?

You don't know anything about the origins and relationships between
words, you cognatatively challenged fool.

30 strings. Its the name of a 3 stringed instrument that came from
Greece
which Alexander brought to Persia and Indian called a Pandouri, also
referred to as a Kithara, Zither or Cittern.

<<<No, these were entirely different instruments, and again the evidence
suggests the reverse - an origin in Mesopotamia and later import into
Greece rather than vice versa:>>>

WRONG! They wee exactly the same instrument. The earliest illustration of
a
Sitar is IDENTICAL to that of a Pandouri which pre-dates it by 1700 years.

<<<Keep up with that comprehension training, Aggy. The kithara and the
pandouri are entirely different instruments.>>>

WRONG! They are the same instrument.

Look at the web page *you linked to yourself*, Aggy. The instruments
are not at all the same - and the pandoura looks less like a hip than
the kithara, come to that. In fact, having read the pages on the
guitar and kithara in more detail, it's not at all clear that the
kithara has any relationship with the guitar. It was the source of the
*name*, but perhaps nothing more.

<<<"The lute begins to appear in the archaeological record of Ancient
Greece in the early years of the Classical Period (500-323 BCE). Like
the lyre, it was probably derived from Mesopotamia. A strong clue to>>>

Probably? When was this RUBBISH written. There is no probably. There
earliest example of the Lyre or Kithara dates back to 2800 BC and is found
in GREECE. This indicates that the lutes origin is Greek.

<<<Aggy, keep up. This article is about the pandouri, not the lyre.>>>

Pandouri, Kithara, and Lyra are all the same instrument.

How many lyres have you seen with necks ... sorry, 'handles'? Frets?
Seven strings? Round or oval wooden bases?

<<<this is the common Ancient Greek term for lute-- πανδοûρα [pandoura].
It's nearly identical to the Ancient Sumerian word pantur (literally,
"small bow"), which scholars believe to be the earliest term for the
plucked lute.>>>

This is a load of nonsense. If this is true then guitars with handles
would
have had to have existed in ancient Greece since 3000 BC in order for the
name to have survived from an extinct language, since it is not extant in
any other language!

<<<What? The name is Sumerian; why on Earth would the instrument have to
have survived in Greece? The name could well have survived in
Mesopotamia until the instrument was introduced to Greece.>>>

Prove it? Prove the term was in use in Mesopotamia before classical times..

The Sumerian word 'pantur' - Sumer was in Mesopotamia. Hence the word
existed in Mesopotamia before classical times.

<<<lyre. And if you're now saying they didn't use the name pandoura, the
name must have survived in Mesopotamia rather than Greece, presumably
describing Mesopotamian instruments.>>>

Prove it? Prove the term was in use in Mesopotamia before classical times..

You say the word didn't exist in Greece. It describes a Mesopotamian
instrument. Where else would the word have come from if it wasn't in
Mesopotamia to begin with?

<<<One of the oldest Greek depictions of the pandoura is the plaque
pictured at the top of this page, circa the 5th century BCE. The lute
depicted on this plaque is remarkably similar to the lutes of Ancient
Egypt. Akin to the Egyptian lutes, the pandoura seen here appears to a
hollowed-our wooden body and animal skin head (soundtable), with two
lines of small soundholes running parallel on either side of the
instrument's stick neck. The conventional wisdom is that the pandoura
was a 3-stringed lute, as were the Egyptian lutes. Even more
remarkable is the pandoura's triangle-shaped tailpiece, which is also
pretty much the same as those found on the Ancient Egyptian lutes. On
both the Greek and Egyptian instruments, this type of tailpiece
probably served the same function as a bridge, that is, lifting the
strings up off the surface of instrument's head and stick neck to the
right "action" for playing.

Looking at the other instruments depicted we see quite an interesting
variety. From left to right: large harp, tambourine, aulos (twin reed
pipes), pandoura (lute), trigonon (literally, "three corners;" a small
triangle frame harp), and aulos.

The large harp, seen on the left, is certainly Egyptian in style. This
is pretty remarkable considering that this plaque is dated to the 5th
century BCE, which means that it predates Alexander the Great's
invasion of Egypt in 331 BCE. This fact-- taken with the obvious
similarities between the depicted pandoura and the Ancient Egyptian
lutes-- offers us clear evidence of the influence Egyptian musical
culture must have had on the Greek vernacular music of the day. "

http://www.shlomomusic.com/pandoura.htm

Happy now? A source that isn't Wikipedia (so it must be true), and
archaeological evidence (with pictures in the text) indicating that
the pandoura's presence in Egypt at least certainly predated
Alexander.>>>

So what? The Greeks colonised Egypt in the Hykos period.

<<<What? The Hyksos weren't Greeks, they were Canaanites.>>>

WRONG! The Hyksos were Minoan Greeks. The Hyksos king Sheshi was the Minoan
king Saasitepi (Ausstaeb). The Hyksos kings Apachnas and Apophis were the
Mycenaean Argive kings Epaphus (Seneferankhre Apepi) and Apis
(Sarapis/Awoserre Apepi). The Hysos king Aqenienre Apepi was Agenor and was
descended from Epaphus.

Oh, I haven't started you on this nonsense again, have I? Suffice to
say there is no reason to believe the Hyksos were Greek and that's the
end of it. Convention places their origin in Canaan.

<<<"The Indian sitar is derived from the long-necked lutes of western
Asia and from the veena family of Indian musical instruments. It
should not be confused with the similarly named "setar". In the
Persian language, sitar (سی تار ) literally means "30 strings," while
setar (سه تار ) means "3 strings." Both names are deceptive, however.
The guitar appears to be derived from earlier instruments known in
ancient India and Central Asia as the Sitar or Setar.">>>

And your point is?

<<<"...instruments known in *ancient India and Central Asia as the
Sitar*..." - and this passage points out that these are different from
the instrument now known as the sitar. i.e. the name was in usage long
before modern sitars appeared.>>>

WRONG! I have explained to you what the article says. If you claim otherwise
provide evidence of these instruments that PREDATE Alexander the Great. I
have been waiting days for you to do this, and I will assume by the fact
that you can't that no such evidence exists and your claims are completely
unsubstantiated, because as usual you don't have a clue of what you are
talking about

Aggy, you don't ask someone to substantiate a case that doesn't need
to be made because you haven't substantiated yours. No one, not in the
article you cited, not in any other source, has ever made any
suggestion that the sitar has any links to Alexander - in fact the
modern sitar doesn't appear in India until 1500 years after Alexander,
and it's much more of a stretch to imagine that an instrument looking
very much like a pandoura from Alexander's time would have survived
unnoticed for that long than that the modern sitar evolved on its own
from similar pre-existing instruments in Persia or India itself. If
you have any case to make that Alexander was responsible for
introducing the pandoura to India, provide it.

<<<Different word, Aggy. Note the guitar article says "The modern word,
guitar, was adopted into English from Spanish guitarra, derived from
the Latin word cithara, which in turn was derived from the earlier
Greek word kithara,[3] which perhaps derives from Persian sihtar.[4]
Sihtar itself is related to the Indian instrument, the sitar.">>>

BULL***! The editors of Wikipedia don't have a clue about etymology.

<<<Note the [4] after that comment, denoting a reference - in this case
from the Online Entymology Dictionary.>>>

Ah, the out of date source you quoted above that has not credibility
whatsoever as I have demonstrated.

<<<"Demonstrated"? No, you just shouted it. Not the same thing.>>>

Demonstrated!

Shouted.

<<<assertions you make about music (or language) that they don't know in
advance are wrong. If you hadn't earned such a reputation for being
flat-out wrong in every subject you claim expertise in, no one would
have checked or been any the wiser that you screwed up here>>>

WRONG! I have earned a reputation for always being right and always
proving
you wrong!

<<<Okay, someone has *got* to take this for a sig.>>>

FOOL!

Come on, you don't really need me to explain why that line is so
funny. Do you?

<<<shows that is?>>>

Shows that it is a Pandouri.

<<<Hence all those Pandouri restaurants India's famous for, no doubt.>>>

IDIOT!

The instrument's called a pandoura, Aggy. And one of these days you've
got to learn when Not to Use Random Capital Letters in the middle of
Sentences.

WRONG!

The Sumerians were not Persians.

<<<Persia covered part of the same area (and indeed much of Greece at one
point - a possible route for the pandoura to have reached Greece).>>>

IDIOT! The Kithara existed in Greece long before the Persian empire and is
referred to by Homer.

As a harp - Perseus Encyclopedia gives quite a detailed description of
the instruments of the time. As the webpage you linked to yourself
(and which has repeatedly shot you in the foot) indicates, the
pandoura has no history in Greece beyond the 4th Century BC, and the
article I quoted from likewise indicates that there are no Greek
records of this instrument that predate a 5th Century BC Egyptian
depiction.

Since the earliest Kithara is found in Greece and dates to 3000 BC, how do
you know it was not take to Sumerian and called by its Greek name
Pandouri,

<<<For a start, because they're two different instruments? Secondly,>>>

WRONG! They are the same instrument.

WRONG! You claim that Greeks use the word kithara interchangeably. So
from an old text reference you have no way of telling whether the
instrument being referred to is a harp or a lute. And in fact there's
no evidence of lutes in Greece until the 4th Century BC, Any older
reference is to a harp.

<<<because the name means something in Sumerian (does it even have a
meaning in Greek?)?>>

Pan meaning Whole or All, Douri meaning the same as Dower from Doro and Dos,
to give. Hence, Pandouri means To give everything. It refers to the fact you
can get many octaves or notes from it since it had a handle you could hold
the stings down on the change the pitch.

Wow, that's a stretch and a half. Imaginative, I'll give you that, but
less credible even than "hip-shaped".

and

"to a common ancient origin from instruments then known in central
Asia
and
India."

<<<Naughty Aggy, snipping context. "Virtually all European stringed
instruments" shared this common origin - not "guitars in Greece and
South Asia shared this common origin", although even if it was the
latter, again it meshes exactly with what I've been saying.>>>

IDIOT! All European stringed instrument derived from the Greek Kithara

<<<No, from "instruments then known in central Asia and India". And as

Brought there by Alexander.

<<<Alexander didn't visit India 5,000 years ago unless he had a time
machine.>>>

He visited India 3000 years before the word Sitar appears, and 1700 years
before the instrument itself appears, looking identical to a Pandouri.

So where was it in the interim? Lost behind the sofa?

 > <<<The kithara is a European stringed instrument, correct? What's
more

the article goes onto trace precisely the sequence from sitar to
kithara to guitar.>>>

NO IT DOES NOT! The article is unreliable

<<<No it isn't; it was the sitar article the other piece called into>>>

YES IT IS! It doesn't even reference any archaeological or historical
evidence.

<<<Yet you want to rely on an article about the sitar that doesn't
reference anything whatsoever and is based mostly on "well, these two
instruments look much the same".>>>

Either proceed historical and archaeological evidenced for your claims or
else retract them. If you do not provide any then I will assume there isn't
any.

Either proceed historical and archaeological evidenced for your claims
or
else retract them. If you do not provide any then I will assume there
isn't
any.

You're the one running up against the burden of proof here, Aggy. Try
again.

How did this instrument get to India so it would be a common ancestor
to
all
guitars?

Answer the question?

<<<There's no question to answer. You're making a flawed assumption that
the Indian (or potentially Persian) instrument was derived from a
European ancestor that there's no reason to believe was ever in India.>>>

You are the one who is making the flawed assumption that is isn't.

<<<I don't need to make any assumptions. I'm using the information
available in the online sources. You on the other hand are just
inventing assumptions and objections to suit your personal preference
for the instrument's origin.>>>

I have provided historical and archaeological evidence which full
substantiates everything I have said.

No you haven't. You've claimed that sitar derives from kithara rather
than the other way round despite 'sitar' having a clear origin from
Persian words and no obviously relevant Greek etymology for "kithara",
and pointed out that the sitar looks like a Greek instrument that
there's no reason to believe was ever in India.

TWADDLE!

I have already provided evidence for the earliest known depiction of
the
ancestor of the guitar and that is the Kithara dating back to 2800 BC
in
Greece. There is no Indian or Asian instrument similar that pre-dates
it.

http://homoecumenicus.com/ancient_instruments.htm

<<<Which demonstrates what, save that the chitara looks nothing like a
guitar? All this points out is that the name comes from chitara, which
we've already established.>>>

IDIOT! Take a look at the reconstruction. The Lyra is the ancestor of
the
Kirthara which is the ancestor of the Pandouri which is the ancestor of
both
the Guitar and the Sitar.

Illustrations and sculptures of the Lyra and Kirthara found in Greece
date
back 5000 years.

<<<Says who? Looking at the Wikipedia article on kithara and rereading
the guitar piece, it doesn't even seem clear the kithara is related to
the guitar in anything but name.>>>

FOOL! The guitar is descended from the Pandouri also called a Kithara by
the
Greeks.

<<<Aggy, look at the page *you provided yourself*. The kithara and the
pandoura are two completely different instruments - the kithara is>>>

They are the same instrument and are part of the same family. They are a
resonator with strings across it. The term Kirthares is used by Greeks to
refer to then entire family of Lyria, Pandoiria, and Kirthares.

<<<<just a concave frame with strings, the pandouri is a fretted lute with
a neck, stock and fewer strings.>>>

Irrelevant.

Hardly irrelevant. The pandoura is the basic guitar design; the
kithara is a harp. The guitar descended from the pandoura, perhaps
adopting the name kithara because it was used to refer to that group
of instruments. It is not descended in any direct way from the kithara
(i,e, harp), so plainly it's relevant which type of instrument
occurred in Greece when - the instrument that led to the guitar was an
import to Greece.

Phil
.