Re: Proms


"Agamemnon" <agamemnon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a6SdnZPeHt6uNgrVnZ2dnUVZ8gOdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<pbowles@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:0e004153-02c7-43a9-bdbe-26edff183f3c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
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.>>>

Everywhere!

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>>>

Except of course it does.

<<<demonstrated, applies and always has to a broad range of traditional
regional music of all nationalities - you can find references to>>>

No. It referes to the but end of a 19th Romanticist Art Music genre and
now
refers exclusively to a specific genre of Irish Popular Music genre.

<<<German folk music, Portugese folk music, Spanish folk music, even>>>

There is no such thing as wither German, Portugese or Spanish folk music.

<<<Greek folk music among others, and in most of these languages the>>>

Greek folk does not exist. All Greek music prior to Rembetika is referred
to
as historical music and from Rembetika onwards is referred to as popular
music.

<<<English term is used to describe their own music, just as the
English>>>

The English term is not used by anyone who is informed to describe them
music. Only be the ignorant. The general English term used world wide in
almost all countries to described their music is popular music, not folk.

<<<term 'rock' is used to describe homegrown rock in these countries.>>>

That's because it's rock. Laika is NOT and NEVER has been folk. It is
referred to in English as Greek Popular Music. Rock is one of its
sub-genres.

<<<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.>>>

No it isn't.

<<<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.>>>

No they don't. Foreigners organising 19th century art music exhibitions in
Portugal use it to refer to Folklore which is 19th century romanticist art
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>>>

Yes it is. That is what Folklore is.

<<<conclusion is simply wrong, as has been demonstrated - there is no>>>

My conclusion is historical accurate.

<<<"19th Century art music genre" or indeed 1950s/60s "Pop/Art Music">>>

Yes there is.

<<<genre that has ever been described as folk. The term as originally>>>

WRONG! There entire genre of Folklore was historically created by the 19th
century Romanticists and art music.

<<<defined always referred to traditional or regional music, and that is
still a large part of its meaning.>>>

Nope. It isn't traditional. It's contemporary Art Music.

<<<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).>>>

Nope. The 19th century Romantic Folklore Art Music movement is called
Folklore. That is what Folklore is and that is what people using that term
mean when they use that term.

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!>>>

YES THEY DO FOOL!

<<<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>>>

If it's in between its Art 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>>>

Not by the Arabs.

<<<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".>>>

Right, so this a clear descriptions of ART MUSIC!

Now go and find some real Arabic music. What do that Arabs call it?
POPULAR
MUSIC is what they call it.

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?>>>

They are not folk musicians. Arabic musicians either call it classical
music
if it is classical, or popular music if it is popular.

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>>>

They have multiple music styles. They fall into two categories. Classical
and Popular. There is no such thing as folk. Folk is a genre of Irish Pop
Music. Just like you don't call Hip Hop, Rock, you don't call Tsifteteli
or
Samba, Folk.

<<<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?>>>

IDIOT!

Thin Lizzy is rock. Rock does not originate from Ireland.

"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.>>>

Stop dissembling.

"The influence of Kraftwerk's distinctive use of synthesizers, drum
machine
rhythms, and heavily effected vocals can also be heard on early Detroit
techno records. Detroit techno artists Derrick May and Juan Atkins tried
to
replicate Kraftwerk's sound on early techno records such as Cybotron's
Clear
(1983), Model 500's No UFOs (1985), and Derrick May's Nude Photo (1986)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraftwerk

So what is clear is that Techno is a direct replication of Kraftwerk's
distinctive use of synthesizers, drum machine rhythms, and heavily
effected
vocals. Kraftwerk is the first ever Techno. It may not have been called
Techno at the time, but neither was Blues called Blues at the time. Get
used
to it.

<<<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.>>>

What elements? Name them. It's no Griot which was the dominant music form,
so I expect that even less of the other African music forms survived the
salve trade. All allusions to other African forms are all retrospective
and
highly disputable.

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.>>>

But its the dominant music of West Africa where the slaves came from.

Traditional Trisfteteli, Hassapiko, Kalamatiano were all stylistically
inappropriate for mournful songs intended to evoke emotion and grief and
inspire passion, they were party songs, but they still became Rembetika.
Don't you think the same would have happened with Griot.

The reason why it didn't happen is because Griot was forgotten. And if
Griot, the dominant music form, the music devised for historical use, was
forgotten then so were all the other African styles. And that is as it
should be. The music was never codified by the slaves. Oral histories
don't
survive beyond living memory. American slavery is direct proof of that.
The
descendents of the American slaves did not know which villages they came
from not even the names of their villages or their neighbours. The only
way
they could trace their ancestry was through written records and now
through
DNA tests.

The only styles which survived were CODIFIED MUSIC! And which styles of
music were codified, Irish and Scottish folk, French dance music and
Italian
Cantara, and Romantic Classical Liturgical music (ie. Gospel). And it was
these types of music which were performed by the descendents of slaves
because they pervaded all society, because they were codified, and because
they were codified they were easy to teach and learn and through exact
repetition. Inexact repetition would have destroyed the music.

As the Wikipedia article says, this led to Country and Western and at this
time Black and White music was INDISTINGUISHABLE in every way except for
the
colour of the musicians.

Jewish and Greek historical music was also codified and influenced blues
music in the 20 century.

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 ;-)>>>

ORAL TRADITIONS ARE A LIE!

<<<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?>>>

If it is being exploited at this convention then it is not traditional.
It's
contemporary Art Music.

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.>>>

So you can't answer the question with any evidence. I shall take that to
mean that the word Sitar is no earlier than 1845 and therefore your
earlier
claim that Kithara is derived from it is false and completely untenable
and
unsubstantiated. Any raving nationalist or nationalists can edit Wikipedia
and stop others from correcting their distorted facts.

"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.>>>

There is NO EVIDENCE provided by you or anyone else of the word Sitar
dating
before 1845 AD so I am correct in asserting that Sitar is from Zither.

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.>>>

Twaddle! All Pandouria, Lyres, and Kithares are referred to by the latter
term in Greece.

<<<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.>>>

So no actual historical or literary evidence for that claim either.

I shall take your lack of evidence to mean that their isn't any, and that
Pandouri is a wholly Greek word and any similarity to an extinct Sumerian
word is purely coincidental.

<<<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>>>

I said nothing of the kind.

<<<instrument. Where else would the word have come from if it wasn't in>>>

No it doesn't. You claimed it descried a Bow.

<<<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>>>

These are all substantiated historical facts and accepted by ancient Greek
and Roman historians and all native Greeks.

<<<say there is no reason to believe the Hyksos were Greek and that's the
end of it. Convention places their origin in Canaan.>>>

TWADDLE. The Hyksos introduced the Arch into Egypt. The only use of the
Arch
before this was by the Minoans.

<<<"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 (?? ??? ) literally means "30 strings," while
setar (?? ??? ) 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>>>

That is BULL***! You can't make a claim without substantiating it. You
claim the Sitar predates the Kithara. I have shown you it does not with
historical and archaeological evidence. Either substantiated your case by
proving the Sitar (an instrument we know did not exist until 1300 AD and
which is identical to the Pandouri from 1700 years earlier) or one of its
ancestors existed in Asia before the Pandouri and before the Kithara and
Lyra which I have shown date to the time of Homer in writing and up 3000
BC
archaeological or else retract your claim.

<<<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.>>>

I have already proven my case. I cited Arrian, Plutarch, Curtius, Diodorus
and others. You have cited nobody, not one text, not one archaeological
artefact NOTHING.

<<<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.>>>

Demonstrated!

<<<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?


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.>>>

There are no records of this instrument in Egypt that predate the 5th
century either. The Ionians had a colony in Egypt since 650 BC. Now your
claim was that the Sitar predates all guitars. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE OF A
SIMILAR INSTRUMENT IN INDIA AT THIS TIME! There isn't any is there. If
there
is show it.

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.>>>

WRONG! He have Herodotus account of Arion. We have historical accounts of
who added which string to the Kithara, (which originally had 3 strings) to
make the number up to 8, and when. That takes up to at least 1327 BC (as
dated by Jerome) for an instrument called the Kithara which had 3 strings.

Pliny, Natural History "But Amphion taught first to sing and play to the
Lydian measures: Thamyras the Thracian to the Dorian: and Marsyas of
Phrygia, to the Phrygian. Amphion likewise (or, as some say, Orpheus, and
after others Linus) plaied first upon the Citterne or the Lute. Terpander
was the first to put seven strings unto it, to begin with played 3 to 4:
Simonides added thereto an eighth: and Timotheus the ninth. Thamyras was
the
first that played upon the stringed instrument, Lute, Citterne, or Harpe,
without song: & Amphion sung withall, or according to some, Linus. "

Archaeological artefacts of these instruments, push the date of the
Kithara
(no handle) to about 1600 BC and the Lyre to about 3000 BC. The handled
lute, which looks like a Pandouri is found in Hittite murals dating to
1300
BC.

WHERE ARE YOUR SITARS AT THIS TIME?

<<<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".>>>

FOOL!

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?>>>

NOT IN INDIA since you have shown no evidence for it.

<<<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.>>>

So NO PROOF for your unsubstantiated claims once 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 th
at
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>>>

YES I HAVE!

<<<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.>>>

BULL***!

There is NO evidence for the existence of the Sitar before 1300 AD. That
is
when ALL Indian text say it was invented. There is NO evidence for the
existence of the term Sitar before 1845 AD since I asked you to provide it
any you have not been able to find any.

Kithara is univesally accepted as the root of the word Gutar, Zither and
Cittern.

From Kithara > Citter > Zither > Sitar!


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>>>

No the Kithara is not a harp. The Kithara is a guitar with sound box but
no
handle.

<<<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>>>

WRONG! The pandouri is descended from the Kithara.

<<<(i,e, harp), so plainly it's relevant which type of instrument>>>

IDIOT! The Lyra is the harp.

<<<occurred in Greece when - the instrument that led to the guitar was an
import to Greece.>>>

WRONG! If you claim it is an import, provide evidence that it was imported
or else shut up.


IMBECILE!


.