Well folks I can see one or two hornets buzzing around here so I will come clean.

The Emporers new clothes approach was deliberate and the disscussion that has resulted is more than I had hoped for.

I could question if developing styles was a result of developing instruments and if changing availability of material and experimentation resulted in changes to the instruments or was the change lead by demand from players who wanted something better or different to perform with?

We were not there and few of the tradition bearers left any information.

Is the move toward an older style sound or technique a step backwards or a continuation of the evolution and just another round ?

Chicken or egg?

What I do know is my personal standpoint is as I have said ....

if it sounds good then it is good and I don't care who made it, when it was made or what from!

30 years ago I briefly taked to Jean Ritchie, had a long long discussion with Lorraine Lee as she was then and was smitten by the dulcimer bug however the players that influenced me most were Sally Rogers and Phil Ranson [who could make his Sobell sing tears!] Oh! and a young girl on the back stairs at Edinburgh festival who played me a request on her travel dulci with a cardboard body at around 3am

A bit rough around the edges but We were young and making memories!

Sorry !!! even 'when were they built' !!!

John

Dave, totally agree with Robin, I doubt your remarks caused real offence to anyone ! As an aside, you introduced the 'Strad' word ! Just when where they built, how much do they cost now, and can we build the same these days? (remark to be taken with a hugh pinch of salt !!!)

John

Hi Dave,

No offence taken at all - It is very good to have an 'emperor's new clothes' approach to all topics. As I said, the Pritchard and the Thomas have design features that are 'out of fashion' today, and that's primarily because of a change in playing styles. There's been a lot of interest in collecting these old dulcimers over the years (and the prices of originals reflects that!!!) but very little interest in actually playing them - that was until a few folks started building replicas. There are very, very few of us actually playing the Thomas and Pritchard designs - probably less than 1 in every 1000 dulcimers have been built to these early designs in the last 20 years. I love the tone and feel of playing these designs. They are not as easy to play "sweetly" as a modern instrument design, and there is a lot of the player's technique in developing a strong tone from them, but in a way discovering that points toward the way they used to be played. For example, the vertical quill technique is difficult to learn but the tone it generates is greatly superior to a guitar pick on these instruments. And there are more examples of techniques that I have found really make sense on these early designs (the reach across to the bass string with the noter, which dosen't work on a guitar fretted instrument).

Saying that using modern technology and understanding you could construct an instrument that improves on these designs is true. But insome respectsit is like the way Fender 'improved' on the Telecaster by building the Stratocaster - yet there's an awful lot of Teles still being sold because they have the tone and feel players want for specific music styles. And this is the same. The Thomas and Pritchard designs have the tone and feel that I want forspecific music styles- simple as that!

Dave, I'm coming in a little late on this discussion. Robin, Patty, Cheryl, John S, & John h have made excellent responses. I didn't think you were trying to 'Dis' Prichard. There are early instruments that are terrible: they don't fret true, they sound awful, craftsmanship is non-existent etc. I even have a couple from the early revival period which are nasty and one of them was made by a classical guitar maker! Thomas and Prichard, of those we know about, are the major makers of the 1800's. Their style was copied by many from Kentucky to North Carolina who made the hourglass style. Thomas has received the majority of publicity because of his association with the Ritchie Family. Prichard not as much though the early Presnell/Hicks instruments of North Carolina are so heavily influenced by his designs that the early ones could be called copies. Joanna Ross, on the FOTMD here, has posted pictures of what is a Prichard copy which may date to the late 1800's.

I think rather than being the Stradivari of the dulcimer world they are more of a return to the tradition that started the instrument as we know it today. Yes, they are simpler than a modern instrument; they have a somewhat different sound as well, and they are not set up for as "fancy" a playing style as we are accustomed to see today. Yet there is something about them that makes me want to play them and try to replicate the "high lonesome sound" that may have filled the hills and hollers on a moonlit night. Even tho' I'm in the West Virginia Hills, I think Robin Clark may have the essence of the sound down as well or better than anyone I've ever heard. Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to sell/trade either my Keith Young or Heatherwood, but my Tignor (J E Thomas pattern,) and Wylie (in my avatar) are just what is needed some times: simple, silvery, and able to send my mind back to an earlier time. I hope to add a Kevin Messenger Prichard reproduction to that stable really soon.

Rob

I find it hard to judge a makers quality of work based on a picture of an instrument made over a hundred years ago, and that is in a state of disrepair, like this example. I have personaly handled this example, and have seen the workmanship that went into it. The fine joinery of the sides to the pegboxand tail block. The graceful design of the scroll,the beautiful shape of the heart shaped sound holes. The work that went into evenly planeing the sound board and back. No these instruments weren't adorned with inlays and bindings, and fanciful engravings. But are nontheless some of the most estheticaly pleasing instruments I have ever seen. I build a reproduction of the Prichard dulcimer, and believe me ,it is not a simple challenge toachieve the quality of this makers work. Sure many of todays builders are getting a cleaner more refined sound, for the style of music being played on their instruments. And yes some are real works of art. But does that make them more worthy of being played? I think that the style of playing you wish to perform and the sound you wish to produce would determine the instrument you would choose to play. If you want a true old time sound ,it can never be achieved on a modern style of instrument, just as moderm style of play can never truely be done on a Prichard ,or Thomas. Two totaly different instruments, and should be treated as such and not used to determinewhich deserves to be played and which should viewed from behind glass.

All that said I believe the builders of such beautiful instruments did not intend for them to be hung on a wall and looked at. Just my own thoughts. Kevin Messenger.

Apologies if anyone feels provoked there was no intention to 'Dis' Mr Pritchard. {My great granddaughter uses that expression!]

I feel that is vitally important to preserve heritage but also feel that age does not always equate with merit.

It still seems to me that as technology and understanding progresss it is possible to construct an instrument that improves on those of more primitive eras or if it is so desired to produce an instrument that emulates the desired qualities of any other.

The wire used for strings 100 years ago and staple frets will produce a sound differing from those of today and the tone will vary dependant on the wood used.

The balance is a less tangible matter and I agree totally that playing skill accounts for most of what any instument will produce.

Feet are a subject like possum boards that provoke debate.

My position is if it sounds good it is good and I don't care who made it or what from.

A friend of mine has Niel Gows fiddle in his care. It is revered because it is Niel Gows and has a solid provenance. Most good traditional players I know regard it as an ordinary instrument!

It to should be in a museum!

Hello Dave, the range of comment engendered here on a sometimes simple thought always amazes me, I agree with the bulk of what has been said so far, I have made a number of dulcimers, and the quest for my 'Strad' is taking me backward in time and construction method, not quite 4"x2" and a coat of creosote, but certainly toward instruments made with what tools and timber I have to hand, and I am still surprised what sound can be achieved working thus ! Living in the UK I am reduced to collecting info from books, photos, etc, I just wish I could 'do a Kevin' and access a hands on experience (with paper, pencil, rule, (perhaps a dentists mirror) and of course a decent camera ! Should add that I am a noter/drone advocate,

best wishes

John

The Stradivari of the dulcimer world? Well not quite in that league of build quality, but in some respects that is an apt description. In order to develop my traditional playing skills Ibought an Ed Thomas replica from John Knopf and now I also have a Charles Pritchard replica from Kevin Messenger. The body sizes, woods, wire fretting and other features such as fiddle edges, sound posts, feet, wood pegs (giving an ultra light headstock) and bracing are just not available on contemporary instruments. This makes the whole playing experience and sound very different from a standard dulcimer of today. And I think that playing these replicas has taught me aspects about early playing styles that I just wouldn't have learnt any other way than through being 'hands-on' with these instruments. The balance across the strings is better for noter drone playing than pretty much all of the modern dulcimers I have tried, and the tone more silvery. Also, we don't see feet installed on new dulcimers - yet they are very much an aspect of playing early instruments.

The 'Thomas' was the template from which all our modern hourglass dulcimers grew through builders like JA, Homer Leadford, Lynn McSpadden, Jean Ritchie, Picklow etc. The 'Pritchard' shape has pretty much been lost from the stables of contemporary makers - yet he was a prolific builder of the late 19th century. Both Thomas and Pritchard knew what they were doing, which is why the pair of them were so successful and sold so many instruments. Although I have not found any records of Pritchard playing, we know that Ed Thomas was a fine mountain musician.

The whole style, balance, woods and tone took a shift with the change in dulcimer playing style introduced in the 60s/70s and in many respects the search is still on for the 'perfect' chord/melody dulcimer. Whereas if you hit the strings with a quill and fret the notes with a stick, well I think that you will find that those old Pritchard and Thomas designs are the Stradivari of the dulcimer world

Robin

Dave, I for one am glad that a Prichard dulcimer is in a museum. It preserves a bit of Appalachian history. And for being over 100 years old it looks like it's in good shape. I would suggest contacting Ralph Lee Smith or reading his book if you can get a copy of it. I'll let Ralph's playing a Prichard dulcimer speak (yes it was restored a bit, just the scroll head and I'm sure new strings),

Dave,

Have a listen to Ralph Lee Smith playing his Prichard dulcimer, or Robin Clark's soundfile of his Prichard reproduction. Fine playing of wonderful instruments - the very essence of old time dulcimer.

I should also make the disclaimer that my own knowledge is based on people of folks of the smoky mountains where I live.....WV and Kentucky areas are somewhat different. And also on the work of RL Smith.

TTFN!

We touched on this somewhere else recently Dave.
Given a well enough made instrument then most of what comes out is down to the player, only a much smaller part is down to the instrument.

Seems to me the importance of these pre revival makers(rather than the very old time makers) is that they held the tradition. Without them there may never have been a Lapidus.

I like a slightly rough edge to my playing anyway, and you know the old saying "There's many a fine tune played on an old fiddle"

john

Dave,

I'm certainly not an expert on historic dulcimer instruments, but I do know that mountain living in the 1800's was extremely rugged and the people as poor as they come. Not city poor though....mountain poor...living off the land. I doubt esthetics was at the top of their list for instrument making. I would think a functional instrument that could be played at home in the evenings would have been the priority. Dulcimer is an instrument of the common mountain folk in certain regions of Appalachia. I doubt that the average poor european had access to a Stradivarius instrument at the time, but don't know that for sure. I think you just can't compare instruments that developed for the mountain folk with instruments developed on another continent.

I'm just learning about Pritchard, but he was a key maker here in WV in his time. His instruments (and several other makers) contributed to the development of the dulcimers we play today.

There were not many makers back then, that is for sure. If you need good information about the development of the instrument I suggest you read Ralph Lee Smith's book on Appalachian Dulcimer Traditions. There are also a few other books that are of interested. I can share those titles when I'm back home.

That's my 2 cents. There are folks here well versed in Appalachian dulcimer history. I'll let them have at ya!

Best!

Cheryl

Right place f'sure Cheryl!...& nice pic of urself too. I was hoping we'd get updates...thx...

As an ignorant foreigner who has lived on the outer rim of the Dulcimer World I can appreciate the historic and antique values of an instrument like this but what makes 'Pritchards' memorable as a musical instrument?

Volume, Tone, construction, Playabiliity ??

Are these truly the 'Stradivari' of the dulcimore world or are they simply an example of a basic working instrument that represent the past?

The first book I read was Lapidus on Dulcimer and some of those wonderful pictures of precision hand crafted individual masterpieces stay in my mind 25 years on!

A museum would dare I suggest be the most appropriate place for a Pritchard !

I really would like some objective comments on these Historic instruments, as to my alien eyes, they are very simple and appear to be constructed for purpose from limited resources with little regard for aesthetic or quality!

I asked if they could open the case...the lady said yes, but the person who could do it wasn't available. I wanted to get a better picture of it. So amazing!

Reflecting on this pic ... yep, you're in the right place.

That is the one I used for my patterns Cheryl. I got to get up close and personal with it. I was shocked that they let me.