I have to challenge KenH's assertion that
"the dulcimer was invented/designed as a three course Instrument". The oldest dulcimers that have come down to us are probably teardrop-shaped Virginia style instruments, almost all of which have 4 strings which are in a more or less
equidistant arrangement. Usually the frets ran under 2 of the strings, which probably indicates that the player depressed both strings with a noter despite their physical separation and let the other 2 sound as drones. This playing practice persists today in Galax-style, though Galax instruments are more commonly other single-bouted patterns (boat-shaped or wide diamond-ish shape) rather than teardrop. Some old-time Virginia players may have chosen to fret only one string with the noter - it's difficult to be sure of anything -and the equidistant arrangement gave them the choice.The Cumberland mountain, Huntington WV and North Carolina instruments
were normally designed as 3 course instruments, with just 3 individual strings - and thanks to Jean Ritchie the Cumberland (Thomas/Amburgey) pattern became the folk revival's initial model of what a dulcimer was like.As Ralph Lee Smith makes clear in "Appalachian Dulcimer Traditions" the three course dulcimer with a doubled melody string (the pattern we are most familiar with in present day dulcimers) is an "innovation of the folk revival" which Homer Ledford started in unusual circumstances. At some point in his career (about 1960 according to Ralph) he began to make 3-course dulcimers with a doubled
middle course to suit his own playing style, but started putting the double course on the outside (where we know it today) at the request of Floyd Baker (Edna Ritchie's husband). This was to suit Floyd's noter-playing style, as Floyd did not want an extra drone string, and preferred the double course to be on the melody strings to help the melody carry over the drones. The innovation caught on - for good reason, Ken would say! But it is still a dulcimer revival-era innovation.I write as a dedicated 3-course buff who has no inclination to explore 4-string equidistant playing, but 4 equidistant string dulcimers have at least as much historical justification as 3-string ones. Historically both types would have been played noter-drone style of course. I love that sound and approach, but I also love other approaches (chording;flatpicking across all strings etc.) all of which are just as much revival-era innovations as the double course melody string is!To each his/her own! Ken has a clear preference for a double melody course, but let's be clear that it is an
artistic preference (to which, of course, he is perfectly entitled) rather than something with deep roots in dulcimer history. Most of the time I prefer the character of a single melody string - the sound I first fell in love with on the early Jean Ritchie records. Mine is an artistic preference too. I think Ken is wrong to suggest that 3 string players are in some way chickening out from the the demands of managing a double course. Personally I have a wonderful MD with a double course melody string in my brood which I play when that's the sound I want, but more often I choose to play dulcimers with a single melody string. Sorry Ken, but I had to get this off my chest - and I do agree with most of your other points - honest!