Webster Hammer Dulcimers and more
Peter Rayner
Saw an ad in Elderlee's catalogue from Bill Webster for a HD with a
wide range and what looked like an unusual lay-out. It's also
possible I've heard one of these at a workshop, if it was the one then
it's nice. Has anyone played one? Comments on the lay-out?
While I'm at it I'll list the names given in my question on HD makers
and see if anyone wants to add any: Debbie Suran, Jim Hudson, Cloud
Nine, Russell Cook, Folk Craft, Hand-crafted Dulcimer and, of course,
Dusty Strings. Any more?
--
Peter Rayner Program in Oceanic | "All right, I retract, the
and Atmospheric Sciences Princeton | Honourable Member does *not* have
University | the brains of a monkey." F.Daly
Robin C. LaPasha
>Saw an ad in Elderlee's catalogue from Bill Webster for a HD with a
lay-out?
(That's Elderly, phone 517-372-7890.)
To be honest I was not satisfied with the Webster layout. I mailed off
for info, since I was in the market for a chromatic last year (more
below). The problem is - the bass bridge strings are all screwed
up. They go Bflat - F - D# - D - C - B - A - G - F# - E - D.
Which means you can no longer do the usual hammer dulcimer scales
between the bass and treble bridges (at least not straight across
as usual). To me, that's a big loss.
The other thing is - the Webster still uses triple strings. I don't
know if I'd be happy buying a new instrument with them; typical
building these days is double strings, sets about 1" apart.
On the other hand, I don't have a clue to how it sounds.
>While I'm at it I'll list the names given in my question on HD makers
>and see if anyone wants to add any: Debbie Suran, Jim Hudson, Cloud
>Nine, Russell Cook, Folk Craft, Hand-crafted Dulcimer and, of course,
>Dusty Strings. Any more?
Two things before I start. First, wood prices have simply shot up
lately, so expect these prices to be off by $100-$300. My own maker
had to put up the price another $100 between the time I mentioned
my interest and the time we made the deal (2 months, last fall).
Second, folks - include an SASE with any correspondence! Not
all these guys and gals are loaded with stamps. (If you're from
Europe mebbe those IRC things would work.)
The guy at Cloud Nine was a real dearie. I liked him. ;^) But I
don't like the bridges all connected (and transmitting a loud
bunch o' sound, I imagine). His 1992 price list ranged from a 12/11
kit for $345 (though another list has it for $255, so I dunno) to a
20/19/8 chromatic finished instrument for $1395; you'll find those
are very reasonable prices (Michael C. Allen, Maker, 5701 Stover
Road, Ostrander OH 43061).
I've not liked the sound OR look of Dusty Strings instruments. They
sound either tinny or muddy to me. However, I HAVE like the sound
of Sam Rizzetta's own instruments of the same design (he licenses
them to DS). Still ugly to me, but they sound nice. ;^) Only problem
is, Sam tends to have a year or two waiting list, and a "standard"
instrument (3 1/2 octaves) is $2350 (1992 price). If you like DS
designs but not sounds and are out for that sort of ultimate box,
you can write him at Rizzetta Music, P.O. Box 510, Inwood WV 25428.
I would add Whamdiddle in Seattle to your list (1916 Pike Place #906,
Seattle WA 98101, 206-784-1764). Their instruments as pictured
look much like Dusty Strings instruments, but are handmade by
Rick Fogel. (The DS instruments are ... group-made. Not exactly
a factory, but in largish sets and not so much a personal touch.)
The 1991 prices: the 12/11 kit was $170, the top-of-line Whamdiddle
5-0 with dampers was $1400. I haven't seen/heard these, but he
makes some wonderful hammers. ;^)
I also wrote Debbie Suran, who used to run In The Tradition. Her
dulcimers tend to have a few extra courses around for accidentals
(I don't know exactly where she puts them, though). In her 1990
price list, her 13/13 standard was $575, and concert models (16/16)
went up to $1500. (In the Tradition, PO Box 223, Deer Isle, ME
04627.)
I gave serious consideration to the Cloud 9 and Whamdiddle instruments;
I didn't write Russell Cook or Lee Spears but have heard good things
about them.
However - if you really don't own a dulcimer yet and haven't played
it for 6 months or more, then go ahead and get a tolerable 12/11
instrument. Learn on it. See if you can stand the thing, can play
it. I mean a kit if you're so inclined, or the DS Apprentice model,
or whatever (though I feel the Apprentice is overpriced and overweight).
Mebbe subscribe to the Dulcimer Players' News for a feel as to
what folks are doing (P.O. Box 2164, Winchester VA 22604, 4 issues/$15).
Then, when you know what you want order up a NICE instrument from
these folks listed. Preferably find somebody in your area with an
instrument made by the person (call the maker; they might know of
a customer) you can look at and listen to. Play your beater in the
meantime; save up the rest of the money after putting down your
deposit. When your beauty is ready you'll probably find somebody to
buy the beater off you.
That's about what I did; got the GrassRoots kit for $175, added some
mods (better bridge caps, separate strings). Played it a while,
went to Balkan camp. Decided I really needed a D# for Greek music.
(Or was that Romanian? ;^)) Now I have a chromatic dulcimer with
dampers (and a whole left bridge full of funny sharps and flats) on
order from a maker here in NC (who has just decided to stop building
to make time for more recording, sorry).
Good luck.
>--
>Peter Rayner Program in Oceanic | "All right, I retract, the
>and Atmospheric Sciences Princeton | Honourable Member does *not* have
>University | the brains of a monkey." F.Daly
--
Robin LaPasha
rus...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
Warren Steel
>>Saw an ad in [Elderly's] catalogue from Bill Webster for a HD with a
>>wide range and what looked like an unusual lay-out... Comments on the
>lay-out?
In <1993May22.1...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
rus...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Robin C. LaPasha) writes:
>To be honest I was not satisfied with the Webster layout. I mailed off
>for info, since I was in the market for a chromatic last year (more
>below). The problem is - the bass bridge strings are all screwed
>up. They go Bflat - F - D# - D - C - B - A - G - F# - E - D.
>Which means you can no longer do the usual hammer dulcimer scales
>between the bass and treble bridges (at least not straight across
>as usual). To me, that's a big loss.
I recommend Bill Webster's dulcimers without hesitation. The bass
layout you describe is not his "chromatic" dulcimer, but his regular
model--it does have at least one of every note, but it's basically
designed for the standard British/Irish/American dance repertory and
basic hymns and parlor songs. Only *two* bass strings (nos. 1 and 3 in
your list above) are different from the traditional octave-bass arrange-
ment . Since these uppermost bass strings are seldom used in their normal
function, and indeed are absent on many dulcimers, I find the arrangement
satisfactory. I believe Bill also makes a fully chromatic instrument for
the more exotic repertories.
rus...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Robin C. LaPasha) continues:
>The other thing is - the Webster still uses triple strings. I don't
>know if I'd be happy buying a new instrument with them; typical
>building these days is double strings, sets about 1" apart.
>On the other hand, I don't have a clue to how it sounds.
You talk as though triple-stringing were some kind of atavistic relic.
My Webster was *quadruple*-strung (triple in the bass). Remember that
Bill lives in Michigan, where dulcimers never went out of use, and where
well-designed antiques are played alongside modern instruments. Triple-
stringing is part of the distinct sound of the traditional North American
dulcimer--along with a resonant ringing tone (due to light bracing, and
little or no bracing under the central bridge). This tone, if you accept
it, will inform your playing style, along with the droney sound of many
American fiddlers. Double (or even single) stringing has always been
the result of (1) a misguided attempt to save money (like plywood backs),
or (2) a misunderstanding of the tonal nature of the instrument, perhaps
resulting from a desire to play unsuitable styles or repertories. This
sounds a little hard-nosed, I realize, but I wish more modern makers
*outside* Michigan "still" used triple strings.
Warren Steel mu...@sunvis1.vislab.olemiss.edu
University of Mississippi
Robin C. LaPasha
>In <1993May22.1...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
>rus...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Robin C. LaPasha) writes:
>>The problem is - the bass bridge strings are all screwed
>>up. They go Bflat - F - D# - D - C - B - A - G - F# - E - D.
Let me elaborate. The typical bass bridge allows you to play
the keys of F, C, and G by going straight across to the treble
bridge.
f bflat
e a
d g
- - Those dashes are to show the note the
8 c 4 f scale ends/starts on...
- -
7 b 3 e
6 a 2 d
- -
5 g 1 c
- -
(etc.)
>The bass layout you describe is not his "chromatic" dulcimer, but
>his regular model [...]
That may be true, but the Elderly catalog titles their instrument
as the "Webster Chromatic", and they sent me the layout.
>Only *two* bass strings (nos. 1 and 3 in your list above) are different
>from the traditional octave-bass arrangement. Since these uppermost
>bass strings are seldom used in their normal function, and indeed are
>absent on many dulcimers, I find the arrangement satisfactory.
Not true (about being almost the same as the traditional arrangement).
The arrangement and "which strings exist" are two different
things. You can't play the scales straight across. And in order to play
the F scale you've got to start at the top bass then jump down to
the tenor scale, then hop back for that B flat... The Webster
(according to the layout I was sent) offsets its scales (below those
top 3) like so:
Tr Ba
c 4
b 3
a 2
8 g g 1
7 f#
6 e
5 d
If that's okay with you, fine. But I've never seen any other
maker's instrument with such a layout, and no instruction books
or videos assume you can't cross over and get the fifth interval.
>>The other thing is - the Webster still uses triple strings. I don't
>>know if I'd be happy buying a new instrument with them...
>>On the other hand, I don't have a clue to how it sounds.
>Triple-
>stringing is part of the distinct sound of the traditional North American
>dulcimer--along with a resonant ringing tone [...] This tone, if you accept
>it, will inform your playing style, along with the droney sound of many
>American fiddlers. Double (or even single) stringing has always been
>the result of (1) a misguided attempt to save money (like plywood backs),
>or (2) a misunderstanding of the tonal nature of the instrument, perhaps
>resulting from a desire to play unsuitable styles or repertories.[...]
I disagree with your philosophy here. You're making two related
assumptions:
1. The dulcimer is/must be/ought to be made with that distinct
tone. Folks who do not attain that tone have failed. (Or, because that
tone is the (Michigan centered?) TRADITIONAL tone, it is the only
appropriate sound that should be coming out of a box called a
dulcimer.)
2. We all should LIKE that tone.
Well, sorry to say, I can't stand playing the ringy-tingy sound.
I chose a redwood soundboard (could've had a spruce) because I wanted
a mellow sound. I chose a maker who adjusts the sorts of bridges
used across the different registers of the box, so that the
treble bridges don't sound tinny or the bass doesn't have nasty
overtones.
I'm not willing to accept that that tone (and yes, I have a Bill
Spence record and LIKE _listening_ to it so I know what you mean)
is the only appropriate noise to come out of the box. I don't think
expanding dulcimer repertoire to music from other parts of the world is
using "unsuitable styles or repertoires" - because those other
instruments that play such music are kin to the dulcimer (hackbrett,
yang chin, santur... besides the cimbalom and santouri I hinted
at before). I think that experimenting with different woods and
sticks and damping techniques--as well as new repertoire--is part
of the same tradition that allowed some of Michigan's Scandinavian
farmers to play Irish and Appalachian music on their dulcimers in
the first place.
Imagine such an attitude towards the guitar! We'd all be playing
gut-string classical boxes (or 7-string lutes?). No folk, no
electric, no dobro. I don't want to miss music from a closed mind.
>Warren Steel mu...@sunvis1.vislab.olemiss.edu
>University of Mississippi
p.s. Besides the sound--which I left out of the Webster description,
because I haven't heard one--I don't like the idea of spending all
my time tuning. Yes I have an electronic tuner, and I know that not
all the strings are tripled. But some of us on the East Coast get
wild humidity variations... I have better things to do than tune.
--
Robin LaPasha
rus...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu
Randy Marchany
>In <1993May22.1...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu>
>rus...@ecsvax.uncecs.edu (Robin C. LaPasha) writes:
>>To be honest I was not satisfied with the Webster layout. I mailed off
>>for info, since I was in the market for a chromatic last year (more
>>below). The problem is - the bass bridge strings are all screwed
>>up. They go Bflat - F - D# - D - C - B - A - G - F# - E - D.
>>Which means you can no longer do the usual hammer dulcimer scales
>>between the bass and treble bridges (at least not straight across
>>as usual). To me, that's a big loss.
>
the "michigan" style of tuning. I think Donald Round builds some of his
dulcimers with that tuning. The tuning lends itself to playing tin
pan alley tunes with ease.
> You talk as though triple-stringing were some kind of atavistic relic.
>stringing is part of the distinct sound of the traditional North American
>dulcimer--along with a resonant ringing tone (due to light bracing, and
>little or no bracing under the central bridge). This tone, if you accept
>it, will inform your playing style, along with the droney sound of many
>American fiddlers. Double (or even single) stringing has always been
>the result of (1) a misguided attempt to save money (like plywood backs),
>or (2) a misunderstanding of the tonal nature of the instrument, perhaps
>resulting from a desire to play unsuitable styles or repertories. This
>sounds a little hard-nosed, I realize, but I wish more modern makers
>*outside* Michigan "still" used triple strings.
Yes, it does sound a little hard-nosed ;-). I'm not sure I agree with the
comment on bracing. Have you ever seen Bill Spence's or Walt Michael's
HD? They are not what you would call lightly braced instruments. While
triple/quad stringing today depends on the whims of the builder, in older
models, it was necessary because the building technology at the time
allowed only heavier (i.e., stronger bracing, therefore, more sound
absorbing) instruments. This meant that you needed more strings to get a
LOUDER sound. Nowadays, luthiers have developed better bracing
techniques and they don't require more strings to get the same amount of
volume. Check out the Smithsonian HD design paper (from 20 years ago,
written by Sam Rizzetta) and you'll see that it closely resembles the
design proposed by Howie Mitchell in the '60s. The designs were clunky,
heavy and sounded pretty bad compared to what is around now. Today,
luthiers benefit from the design changes of the last 20 years, better
tools (hand saw vs. power saw = so-so cuts vs. smooth cuts) and this
leads to better sounding instruments.
Anyway, it's not the tone that "informs your playing style", it your
hammering technique. If your pattern follows the "long, short, short"
drone of the fiddler then you're playing in the old-time style. Other
hammer patterns define eastern European, New England, Cape Breton, jazz
and swing styles. A decent player should be able to switch among these
and other styles and it has nothing to do with the tone of the
instrument. I could play on my triple bridge Rizzetta instrument or a
Russell Cook or a Cloud Nine or a Deer Isle and if you knew my style,
you would be able to pick it out regardless of the instrument.
Anyway, all of the builders mentioned in the previous posts build fine
instruments. Each one has a different tone and it's up to the player to
determine which "tone" fits the style of music she/he wants to play.
The other HD player in our band has a Lee Spears HD and is very pleased with
it. I have a Rizzetta and am pleased with it. Other good builders from
NC are Jim Taylor and Jerry Read Smith.
-Randy Marchany
Blacksburg, VA 24060
INTERNET: marc...@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
william.b.paulson
current tuning standards. The usual tuning he uses is what I've
heard called the "Michigan" tuning. It has the advantage of
raising the bass bridge up to allow a few lower bass notes. You
lose a few notes at the top of the bass bridge (probably a C, D
(or D#), maybe a Bb, where the notes are duplicated and rarely
used, and gain a few notes below what you can normally fit on a
smallish box. It's very commonly found on instruments made in
Michigan - Linda Foley and others use the same tuning. I've
switched back and forth between these two, and it's much easier to
switch mentally than you might imagine.
Has anyone seen any other interesting or useful tunings? One
traditional player in this area - Bill Robinson of St. Charles, IL
- uses a bass bridge tuning that puts major chords in sequence on
the bass bridge. E.g.,
B/E G
A/D E
G/C C
F#/B D
E/A B
D/G G
C#/F# A
B/E F#
A/D D
This has the some of the same effect as the Michigan tuning, in
that it gives some bass notes that wouldn't otherwise be available.
If you want to see more dulcimers in one place than you're likely
to most anywhere else, the Southern Michigan Dulcimer festival in
Hastings, Michigan is coming up June 18th, 19th and 20th.
Michigan seems to have thousands of people who retire from
something and then spend the rest of their lives playing
dulcimer. There's a characteristic style - fast, loud, slightly
syncopated dance music - which when played well is very
attractive, and played less well reminds one of an out of tune
banjo orchestra.
Bill Paulson
w.b.p...@att.com
Warren Steel
>The arrangement and "which strings exist" are two different
>things. You can't play the scales straight across. And in order to play
>the F scale you've got to start at the top bass then jump down to
>offsets its scales (below those top 3) like so:
> Tr Ba
> c 4
> b 3
> a 2
> 8 g g 1
> 7 f#
> 6 e
> 5 d
>If that's okay with you, fine. But I've never seen any other
>maker's instrument with such a layout, and no instruction books
>or videos assume you can't cross over and get the fifth interval.
Aha! now I get it. You're talking about a dulcimer in which the bass
strings are only a fifth below the corresponding right-hand treble.
This is not unheard of on old instruments. My Ukrainian instrument
has this arrangement. If fully extended upward, as you describe, it
allows playing in F and more easily in C, but it reduces the lower
range of bass so you can't play fiddle tunes an octave *below* the
fiddle. The typical Michigan dulcimer is directly descended from the
type produced by 19th-century shops, mainly in Western New York and
later in the upper Midwest, and available from the Sears catalogue
even in the 20th century. The usual arrangement is:
D G G (Webster: A#)
C F F
B E E (Webster: D#)
A D D
G C C
F# B B
E A A
D G G
C# F# F#
B E E
A D D
G# C#
Many Victorian instruments actually omitted the upper 3 or 4 basses.
As you can see, it's convenient for the fiddle keys, and the bass range
goes down all the way to D. As you see, Webster only alters two strings
in this arrangement to provide the notes E-flat and B-flat, but it isn't
really meant for playing in flat keys, and I wouldn't call it chromatic.
[Robin goes on:]
>You're making two related assumptions:
> 1. The dulcimer is/must be/ought to be made with that distinct
>tone. Folks who do not attain that tone have failed. (Or, because that
>tone is the (Michigan centered?) TRADITIONAL tone, it is the only
>appropriate sound that should be coming out of a box called a
>dulcimer.
> 2. We all should LIKE that tone.
>Well, sorry to say, I can't stand playing the ringy-tingy sound....
>I'm not willing to accept that that tone (and yes, I have a Bill
>Spence record and LIKE _listening_ to it so I know what you mean)
>is the only appropriate noise to come out of the box. I don't think
>expanding dulcimer repertoire to music from other parts of the world
>is using "unsuitable styles or repertoires" - because those other
>instruments that play such music are kin to the dulcimer (hackbrett,
>yang chin, santur... besides the cimbalom and santouri I hinted
>at before). I think that experimenting with different woods and
>sticks and damping techniques--as well as new repertoire--is part
>of the same tradition that allowed some of Michigan's Scandinavian
>farmers to play Irish and Appalachian music on their dulcimers in
>the first place.
>Imagine such an attitude towards the guitar! We'd all be playing
>gut-string classical boxes (or 7-string lutes?). No folk, no
>electric, no dobro. I don't want to miss music from a closed mind.
As I said before, I don't want to come across as dogmatic or
purist. I merely think it's best to start somewhere (within a well-
defined tradition or context) and then find your own departures,
rather than starting in a vacuum and re-inventing the wheel. Was
anything useful learned from the leather-plected, iron-plated early
20c. harpsichords of Pleyel or Challis, before Dowd, Hubbard and
Skowroneck returned to historical models *as a point of departure?*
Let me be clear: I admire experimentation, and acknowledge that
it can enrich a tradition or a personal idiom. Gibson, the Dopera
brothers, Fender--they all began within the guitar-making traditions
of their time, and transformed that tradition with lasting alternatives.
But when you opt for change, you make a tradeoff, whether conscious
or unconscious (You can't play Clapton on a Panormo, but you can't play
Giuliani on a Fender.)
Bill's dulcimers, with their varied woods, added flats and wound
basses, are but a brief extension of a tradition. Bill Spence's boxes,
deliberately braced to *deaden* the reverberation of the soundboard,
are a bit further from tradition, and raise legitimate questions about
the relationship between medium and repertory. The hackbrett, santur,
yangqin and cimbalom all have their own integrity--it would be difficult
to find a single instrument that could do justice to their diverse
styles, repertories, and techniques. What raised my hackles was your
calculated disregard of hundreds of players, makers, and listeners over
the decades with "Still using triple strings?--never heard 'em, and
don't like 'em! I don't KNOW the tradition, but I'm sure I wouldn't
learn anything from it anyway, so why bother?"
[Robin concludes:]
>p.s. Besides the sound--which I left out of the Webster description,
>because I haven't heard one--I don't like the idea of spending all
>my time tuning. Yes I have an electronic tuner, and I know that not
>all the strings are tripled. But some of us on the East Coast get
>wild humidity variations... I have better things to do than tune.
A well-built triple-strung dulcimer will not need to be tuned
so often. Actually, I like the sound of *brass* strings for the
lower basses; these are not so stable, and require adjusting, but
I gladly pay the price for this innovation.
Robin, and others, thanks for your comments! I hoped to start
something, and I see that a few people are actually following this
discussion. I'd like to make one last remark. The old-timers have
mostly passed away, but their influence lives on. On July 15-18 you
can see for yourself at the Osceola County/4-H fairgrounds in Evart,
Michigan. It may be corny and uneven, but it's real.
David Kassover
...
I find that the tone of my dulcimer varies with that which I
strike the strings. Soft padded surfaces are mellower than hard
rigid ones.
>
>p.s. Besides the sound--which I left out of the Webster description,
>because I haven't heard one--I don't like the idea of spending all
>my time tuning. Yes I have an electronic tuner, and I know that not
>all the strings are tripled. But some of us on the East Coast get
>wild humidity variations... I have better things to do than tune.
Some years ago, I was privileged to attend an instructional
seminar given by Walt Michaels (I believe Voorheesville is
considered East Coast, and anyway the seminar was in
Connecticut). At the beginning, he handed out a list of rules,
for the improvement of our talent and skill, to be read in our
copious spare time.
Every odd numbered rule was "Tune Your Dulcimer". Rule sixteen
or so was "If you really don't want to Tune Your Dulcimer,
perhaps you should consider taking up a simpler instrument, like
the kazoo."
BTW, there was, in fact, a Rule 6, but I don't remember what it
was.
--
David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against
RPI BSEE '77 MSCSE '81 sharp weapons and dull judges."
kass...@aule-tek.com F. Collins
kass...@ra.crd.ge.com
Bruce Adelsohn
Oops. Mea culpa -- *BIG*! I saw "dulcimer", and ignored "hammer." Sorry;
I realize that your problem is real. (A friend of mine has a similar one
with her autoharp...And another friend is a hammer player, in Philadelphia.
Speaking of variable weather...)
Please accept my apologies for being stupid; it's going to take the entire
cake of soap to clean my mouth of the taste of foot...
- Bruce -
Bruce Adelsohn
maybe four) strings, what are you doing playing stringed instruments? I
mean, think of the poor banjoists...and guitar players...and mandoliners...
and then there are the *12-string* players -- and harp guitarists, and...
But then again, you know what they say about (us) 12-string players?
[No (voice from the distance), what *do* they say?]
12-string players spend half their lives tuning, and the other half playing
out of tune...<g> Of course, there are *some* exceptions. Say, Leadbelly.
ANd McGuinn. And, oh, a *few* others <VEG>...
- Bruce -
guy byars
Don't be too hard on yourself, I play string bass with 4 (count-em 4)
strings. And I am getting ready to buy an electric tuner. So your
inital comment can be applied to me.
I have only been playing a stringed instrument a few months and want
very much to develop my "ear" enough so I won't need an electric
tuner. But there are times when I just can't seem to get it right.
And I have difficulty tuning with a pitch pipe ... especially when other
folks are playing in the background.
If I can use the tuner to just get the G string right, I can usually get
the rest from that. I'll probably buy the very small model (Korg I think)
which has a wooden case and LED displays.