I have looked at and joined groups, thanks, and I'll check out Joellen Lapidus.

I'm interested in the idea of "advantage" that Lapidus brings up.  Igor Stravinsky said that he could not create without having limitations.  I think limitations are one of the things that attracts many of us to the dulcimer and that having less strings and less frets than, for example, a guitar can be what inspires us.  And having more resources doesn't necessarily make music or anything else better.  I don't necessarily agree with those who very much preferred Bob Dylan with just his guitar and harmonica to Bob Dylan with an amplified band, but, as anyone who's seen "A Complete Unknown" knows, there were -= and remain -- plenty of folk whose musical preferences run that way.

I'm just one of those folk who are inspired by the limitations of my 6.5 fret dulcimers, but also the "advantages" of four equidistant strings.  To each one's own and all are welcome. 

Have a great week.

I am going to put in a gratuitous plug for one of my favorite dulcimer authorities (I almost said “elders”, but she’s only a few years ahead of me!) - Joellen Lapidus. In her encyclopedic book “Lapidus on Dulcimer 2”, she says

The advantage of a chromatic dulcimer is you can play any note or chord in any tuning. The disadvantage is that it’s more difficult to play and you lose some of the melodic slipping and sliding between notes. The solution: have several dulcimers.

available at lapidusmusic.com

If you don’t know of Joellen, she was an early West Coast culture dulcimer maker, composer and performer. In the 60s and 70s, she introduced Joni Mitchell to the dulcimer. You can see and hear Joni playing Joellen’s instruments on her album Blue if you search YouTube. Joellen’s still an active maker and performer, and you should go out of your way to find her original music album Dulcimer Music for the Pelican Ballet on a streaming service - I found it through my Tidal subscription.Or you can buy it along with her book on her website.

Alex, have you looked at the discussions for the Groups (not same as Forums)? In particular the Groups “Chromatic Dulcimers” and “I Have Extra Frets”?

If you are new to the Groups part of the site, be aware that you have to “join” a group to read the posts and replies.

Happy Sunday, all.

May I respectfully and in friendship request more posts on chromatic vs. not chromatic?  There has been a great deal of interesting discussion of "what is a dulcimer?" and "is the duclimer on the verge of extinction?" here, but the original topic is, I hope, still of interest and deserving of your thoughtful contributions.

Thanks,

I'd be willing to bet though, that there are thousands more currently active mtn dulcimer players today than there were at any particular time between 1880 and 1950.

Skip-  It's a sobering thing, and ironic given the forum we are on, but part of the reason these things are dying in actual practice is because more and more, young folks are recreating virtually or choosing to spend their time with a mediated reality. In my day, the problem was too much TV. Stay at home and plant yourself on the couch, veg out till bedtime. Today it is even worse. Seemingly infinite options to waste your time on, and all in your pocket. We seem to prefer to watch others achieve and do, rather than do it ourselves.

However, and in light of what I just wrote, ironically, if it weren't for the internet I would never have discovered the MD or heard the wonderful music it is capable of playing. So there is hope for both the MD and other crafts, maybe even new opportunities for exposure and interest. And yes, I would much rather see people playing an extra fretted dulcimer with 6 strings a discontinuous fretboard and a whammy bar (well maybe not a whammy bar) than not playing a dulcimer at all.

I got my first MD after I was advised to learn more about HD's before trying to build one. I stopped by the Dulcimer Shop in Mt View and bought a McSpadden kit, which I still have. I decided then I needed to learn how to play it. It turned out I'm not into the typical music played on a diatonic MD so I went chromatic. I still have several diatonics although I don't play them. Ironically, I still play a lot of 'MD' music because the folks I jam with play a lot of it.  I use several other instruments though, chording or bass. I am not a musician in any way, just want something to do! 

I'm an old guy and have come to the conclusion that there are a couple of things that affect the 'apparent' demise in the use of MDs, along with a bunch of other 'skills/interests/hobbies'. The folks we see have the time and money [retirees anyone] to to invest in 'outside' interests during the 'work day', and those are the ones we see 'cause we are them. Remember, many of the last few champs are young folks, those in the work force or school. 

John- If it has a slide it isn't an IRISH whistle anymore.  :)

So moving on...."reasons NOT to put a slide on an Irish Whistle".........

My musical background and approach to the instrument are, I think, pretty different from others in this group.  One thing I find impressive is how nice and welcoming (almost) everyone is.  This is quite different from other types of musical communities in which I live and work, where competition and differences of opinion and values can get pretty nasty and even harmful.

As far as the instrument's future, you might find the following interesting.  For the preliminary exams my doctoral students in music composition take, I always have them compose a work for dulcimer.  The reason for this is because I think a professional composer should be able to learn to write for a new and unfamiliar instrument.  I choose dulcimer because it's especially challenging as a new instrument (and because I'm a pretty good judge of what is and isn't playable).

One doesn't need to be able to play an instrument to write for it.  (Such a requirement would make composing music for orchestra impossible for all but a few.). But, in the years I've given this assignment, four of my students have obtained dulcimers and taught themselves to play.  In part, I'm pretty sure it's just because they wanted to do a good job on their exam, but they were also so interested that they just had to have one.

I would also note that many Asian musicians (and audiences) I've worked with (including my wife) really like the instrument and find it works with their musical traditions.  There's reason to hope for the instrument's future.

Have a great rest of the weekend and a great week.

Randy, that Spanish Fandango of yours on YouTube is sweet!  A lovely example of what can be done with a chromatic dulcimer. Thanks for posting.

I personally think it's great to discuss our opinions on dulcimers- whether we're discussing labeling semantics and definitions, or traditional vs modern, or our own preferences and why we have them. If we can't discuss those things here, then where? We can discuss it all without putting down others. Let's continue to share our personal dulcimer experiences and opinions without making judgements on other people who have different opinions than our own. 
I've been a part of practically identical online dulcimer discussions for 25 years, starting with usenet email groups. These discussions are always interesting and stimulating, and I always learn something new from others' posts!

Curmudgeonly:

like or characteristic of a bad-tempered, difficult, cantankerous person........

I don't think anyone here is implying anything other than opinions, and a bit of banter about a subject we all are familiar with, but individually have different thoughts on. 

  From my armchair of vast experience...I see folks who WILL NOT buy or even consider a dulcimer with wooden pegs, yet cry "for shame" if I install mechanical tuners for someone, Same holds for installing, or not, a 6.5 fret. Let alone a hand full more...

I like and welcome the discussions here amongst the "enlightened  ones". But I do see quite a need to put aside the semantics and minutia when talking to the "under 40's", or anyone else that is not a "dulcimer head"  [yet]. Most of whom are looking to play the dulcimer because they like the sweet sound [can you tell with your eyes closed how many frets it has?], or they think it's "cool", or just different. They have hearts yearning for acceptance into the dulcimer crowd, they have hair that's every color other than what God gave them, and self inflicted shrapnel hanging off their faces.... But I see quite a few who really "dig" the dulcimer. They don't know the history, they don't know who Joni Mitchell was [or care]. And how does a creek get crippled? They want to move forward and make their music and their own memories. 

I also see "some" groups that don't want new members..."we like our group" we really don't want them...

So i do understand the fears of the dulcimer fading into further obscurity. 

So by all means, lets dive into all the details here, where love and admiration abound...discussing pegs,frets,and the evils of laminate construction....

Let us also remember when we didn't know what miloxy,milodian,mmi....yea that stuff was... And invite a kid to play, no matter how many frets....it ain't doin' no good hang'n on the wall.

last question....If Stradivarius used Titebond glue, baltic birch plywood, and machine tuners [I think he would have if he had them] What would a violin look like today?

Lisa, I can be curmudgeonly too. But I'll try not to be offended.

The motives of definition have nothing to do with keeping people out or keeping the "club" small. You may wish in the future to be careful in applying motives to what are supposed to be civil and friendly discussions. Feel free to disagree or challenge what I say, but to imply bad motives is out of line, and unwarranted.

I'd like to mention that the boys over at

TTAD- The Traditional Appalachian Dulcimore

accept me as one of their own and I so appreciate it.  I've posted some sketchy stuff there nary a word about this or that ain't the real thing or not.

Edited to change not to nary. I couldn't help it. : )

https://youtu.be/Ja9muThRASc?si=L8hi3ycSm_YUJY3S

I had a somewhat short romance with a chromofone and enjoyed the buzz. 

Hi everybody! Over the past three years I've grown older and more curmudgeonly so I'm jumping back into the discussion to say this: We need to get real. It does not matter how many frets are on a dulcimer if nobody plays dulcimer anymore.

The mountain dulcimer has never been a widely-played instrument. There were not many dulcimers in 1860. Nor in 1900. Not in 1970 and not today. A handful of players and builders have managed to keep the MD alive. Mostly within a limited range of geography and musical genre, but alive nonetheless. You might be OK with this. You might say “good, I don’t want the MD to be popular. I want it to stay special like it always has been.”

That’s a valid opinion. But there is danger here. The more narrowly you define the word “dulcimer” the fewer dulcimers will exist in the world. There’s a point where instruments fall so deep into obscurity that they die out completely. How close to the edge are we, and how close do we wanna get? How many people do you know in real life who play MD? If you attend festivals, how is attendance compared to 20 years ago, and how many people do you see under the age of 40? How often does a stranger walk up to you when you’re playing MD and say, “that’s a ukulele, right?”

We need more dulcimer players. We do not encourage this by arguing semantics. I am so tired of gatekeepers who want to send people away. Rather than slamming the doors in an effort to make “dulcimer” an ever more exclusive club, I propose that we broaden our definitions and welcome everybody. All the players. All the music. All the drones and all the chords. Even all the frets. Better a living tradition than a dead one. Or, in the words of a guy who plays chords on an instrument that will never be confused for a dulcimer, he not busy being born is busy dying.

Thanks, Randy.  That's actually one of the easier listening pieces in the set.  There are some that folks may find scary, as I use some tunings that invite dissonance.

But please elaborate.  What is it about my playing that argues against buying a chromatic?  I hope folk realize that this is a strictly personal decision.  I've heard folk do things on chromatic instruments that impressed me.  I'm just not interested in doing them myself.

I try to listen to something unfamiliar every day.  (I'm semi-retired, so I can make the time.). They're mostly things I'd never dream of doing or couldn't do, but there's always something to learn and enjoy.

Again, have a great weekend, all, and appreciate each others' company in this wonderful community.

I listened Alex. Not easy listening! But you're right your playing is a good reason not to buy a chromofone you got it all right there.

If a few people would post a audio or video of themselves playing a chromaphone that might be a reason not to buy a chtomadic : )

It seems we can all agree that the etymology of the word "dulcimer" relates to sweetness, but etymological origins have only a limited relationship to the evolution of words' meanings.  Take for example, the names of many of our states that have Native American origins.  How many of us even know the original meanings?

I'm happy to grant that sweetness one way many/most of us hear the dulcimer when played in familiar ways.  But we even have a group on this page for folk who like and use amplifiers, pedals, and other gear that produce sounds that are certainly something other than sweet.  Some of that sweetness may also owe to standard tunings and the music they inspire.

As a composer, I like the idea that sweetness is one possibility, but that the dulcimer is capable of quite a range of colors and that these yield many modes of expression.

Here's a piece that I think expresses that range of color and expression.  Three strings, no gadgets, but beautifully recorded to make me sound far better than I really am:

Have a great weekend.  This is a wonderful community.

I bow before thee. 

“Perhaps "dulcimer" is a state of being“
John P. Now that is funny….😂

Perhaps "dulcimer" is a state of being........

....and Strum a lay lees

Well, if the word dulcimer definition means nothing in regard to the instruments name, then we have a real puzzle on our hands. First what does the word mean in relation to the dulcimer..maybe diatonic scale? Or raised fretboard?  It would be hard to build a case for changing the name based on construction. I know some people who hate the sound of a hammered dulcimer as well, still the name seems appropriate and in my estimation the mountain dulcimer sings as sweetly as ever. But, definitions mean something and must matter or our discussions become frivolous and pointless. We are looking at this instrument from a 21st century viewpoint and not as the word was used in previous centuries. We didn’t name it nor can we randomly decide to change the definition. 

Brudar,

"it seems the only characteristic that all share is that the melody string faces the player while the bass strings faces the audience. "

Except for stick dulcimers! :)

Wow, amazing this thread is still alive after 3 years! With all the discussion of what a “real” dulcimer is in the face of discontinuous fretboards and bridges, varieties of stringing patterns and varying number of frets, it seems the only characteristic that all share is that the melody string faces the player while the bass strings faces the audience. 

But then if your right-handed self puts a left-handed acoustic guitar in your lap, would that act make it a six-string chromatic dulcimer?

I agree- "sweet sounding" is a highly personal defining criteria. A good example is a penny whistle-  many find it to be lovely and sweet sounding, while many others view it as unbearably shrill and annoying.

A couple of things about that, with apologies for veering off into banjos (but so many similarities exist between the mtn dulcimer and the banjo- both instruments being 'born' in early America from traditions of other cultures that arrived here)... I just can't help myself--

First to clarify a minor point, the fifth string that was added during the banjo's development was actually the low bass string. The higher/shorter "chanterelle" drone string was there from its very beginnings as a slave-made instrument, it was a rhythm and drone feature of the African folk music and the instruments that were the banjo's ancestors.

Indeed, aside from adding a low bass 5th string, when further form changes were added later on to the basic banjo to enable its being played in other settings and musical genres, out of practicality people applied more descriptive names to those "not quite banjos"- such as banjo mandolin, a tenor or jazz banjo, a banjo uke, octave banjo, etc.  These variations are today considered to be different instruments in their own right, and they definitely need their own names. Why? Because they have significant differences in playing techniques, tunings, and musical uses/settings/applications than the "regular" banjo.
To a casual observer, many of these banjo-y instruments might are described as "banjos" because that's what a lay person sees. But if you put a tenor banjo into the hands of a clawhammer banjo player, they'll have to learn an entirely new way of tuning and all new playing techniques in order to play it. To them it's a different instrument, like comparing a ukulele to a guitar. These are practical and real differences, not merely esthetic ones. Does the same hold true of the diatonically fretted mtn dulcimer and the chromatic mtn dulcimer?  IMHO it kind of debatable.

Lastly, as a person to whom the very early original forms of the banjo are most cherished, I must gently add that the later developments and elaborations of the banjo might be considered by some folks to be the nadir of the banjo's evolution rather than the apex.

Again, my apologies for veering off topic.
But then again, what exactly IS the original topic here in this thread? Reasons to not get a chromatic dulcimer? That's a topic that's ripe for this kind of meandering. It's almost inevitable!

Thanks to Alex for bringing this thread back to the original topic, with some compelling reasons for not getting a chromatic. Although I am capable of playing chromatic instruments, the one chromatic dulcimer in my collection mainly collects dust. Diatonic dulcimers are more fun, and instead of thinking about notes, I just play, focusing on sound and rhythm. Jerry Rockwell has called the dulcimer a musical possibility box, which is an apt description. And if we take Bonnie Carroll at her word, a standard three-course dulcimer has thousands of possible tunings. Let's explore these possibilities instead of getting bogged down in definitions.

Ha! I'm in Alaska. I can't blame the heat!

 "In fact, I know some people who do not find the dulcimer very sweet sounding."................

What a collection of wretched souls they must be.....You must endeavor to widen your circle...

Perhaps it is just the heat and humidity?

I gave this a couple of days to see who would chime in, and looks like (at least among those who bothered) I am decidedly in the minority! And yet I am unmoved!

And so, in good humor, and with the best goodwill I will point out that a "sweet sound" is a poor defining characteristic. Many types of instruments could be said to have a "sweet sound". In fact, I know some people who do not find the dulcimer very sweet sounding. And indeed, some poorly crafted dulcimers do not have that "sweet sound". Perhaps the issue is in the adoption of the name "dulcimer" in the first place, being already assigned to the hammer dulcimer? But it is the name we have. It does seem that "dulcimer"  is a catch all for any fretted (or unfretted) zither (or non-zither as in stick dulcimers) that are not already defined as an eppinette des vosage, hummel, scheitholt, etc. And perhaps I should modify my previous argument to pertain to the "Appalachain" or "Mountain" dulcimer, rather than simply the word "dulcimer" used by itself.

Words do change meanings over time. It is an undeniable fact. Such word meanings change with usage, and there are different mechanisms for that change. I would argue that the change is not ALWAYS legitimate. For example, the word "literally" used to very clearly mean that what ever was being referred to is not being spoken of figuratively. For the last few decades, the word is increasingly being used for emphasis, and quite figuratively! No. No matter how cold you were, you did not "literally" freeze to death! etc. I won't belabor the point with more examples, but sometimes ignorance, hyperbole, or deliberate efforts to truncate or obfuscate through slang are the drivers of linguistic change.

The banjo example Strumelia gave is a good one. Banjos hadn't reached the apex of their evolution. I would add the fifth string to that list of "improvements". But I will point out, there are defining characteristics that make it a banjo in the first place, and if you stretch that too far, it becomes something else.

However, as Alex Lubet pointed out, the original question is that of "why not to buy a chromatic". It appears I am guilty of hijacking the thread (or attempting to).

Hi All,

I hope you're doing well.

I'm personally more interested in the chromatic dulcimer question than the "what is a dulcimer?" question.  I would observe though, that the etymology of a word and its evolved meaning over time are someimes quite different (and sometimes not).

Writing only for myself, I've chosen not to get a chromatic dulcimer.  The following may sound like hubris, but that's absolutely not my intention.  I'm a classically trained composer.  I have a PhD in composition, which I've taught at the University of Minnesota for nearly fifty years.  I pretty much only play my own compositions and pieces written for me by others.  I mention this only because I'm fully acquainted with highly chromatic music.

But I choose not to own/play a chromatic dulcimer.  After fifty years of guitar, I added dulcimer to my instruments and it's by far my favorite now.  For me, a chromatic fretboard doesn't present particular challenges or inspirations, including discovering chromatic melodies and harmonies.  I have three principle means of deriving chromatic pitches:

1) Tunings:  I've found about 75 (on 3 and 4 equidistant strings) that I like.

2) Note bending:  Both sliding, blues style, and bending the note before I play it.

3) Harmonics that aren't available by stopping the strings.

I've come up with all kinds of, to me, interesting things that would never have occurred to me on a chromatic dulcimer or guitar.  It's one of the reasons I love it so.  I may discuss others in the future.

If any of this sounds interesting, I have channels on all the major streaming services and several albums, but I really only wanted to join this very interesting discussion, not to self-promote.

Have a great rest of the week.  It's no longer scorching here in MN, but we're having several days of heavy rain..

Although words do have to mean something, meanings change. Language adapts to accommodate a changing world. This has been confirmed to me many times in my 50-year career as a translator. And while I strongly believe that we need to respect tradition, there is no way to stop change. What I think we are seeing is that the term dulcimer is taking on a broader meaning. There will increasingly be a need to modify the term dulcimer with such adjectives as traditional or contemporary.  More and more makers are building a type of hybrid dulcimer with a guitar-type bridge, which to me is a positive development because it makes this wonderful instrument appealing to a wider range of musicians. 

I have always loved the sound of the dulcimer, but as a banjo and mandolin player, I was often disappointed by the lack of clarity. So I started building my own experimental instruments, which are designed for playing instrumental music using a mix of banjo, mandolin, and dulcimer technique. My attempts have been successful in at least one respect: the world has one more -- contemporary, hybrid, experimental -- dulcimer enthusiast.

The first American-made instruments that were called 'banjos/banzas/banjars' were developed from traditional African instruments such as the akonting. The first official "banjos" had no frets. Then when banjo playing became popular through minstrelsy, banjos began to be mass produced, and with frets. They were called "fretted banjos".
Over time, fretted banjos became the norm and came to be called simply "banjos", while the unfretted ones became known as "fretless banjos" instead of just banjos.
It shows how common names can change according to what variations become more popular over time.

I understand what you are saying Ken, but my problem with the name is that both the hammered dulcimer and the lap dulcimers have their name because of their sound and not their respective structures.  I remember in the 60’s and 70’s discussions particularly from the hammered side was that, “we were first called the dulcimer and didn’t have to use the word hammered in front of it.” They went on to argue that the Appalachian dulcimer should be called something else.  The word dulcimer was a free and fluid word that described the sound of something and not its form. That led a Welshman to call a Pennsylvania fretted zitter (they didn’t call them Scheitholts) a Dulcimar, in 1757 and write it down as part of an inventory for a will. I doubt if the early players of the hammered or the Appalachian were thinking of build when they used the word, but instead added the words hammered, Appalachian or even mountain as descriptors.  I see stick dulcimers and the like as following that tradition.  Anyways, at this late date it is sort of hard to rename whatever these things are as they are already known by those names.

I know this is an old thread, and the disagreements have settled down, and trouble maker that I am (please forgive me), I'm going to stir the pot.

Ken Hulme is right about the definition of the dulcimer. The word has to mean something. If it doesn't, then it means nothing.

It is true that dulcimers have evolved over the last couple of centuries, but at some point what is being crafted would have to be called something different. We do this with other instruments: violins are not viols, citterns are not guitars, etc. And I would argue (not disparagingly) that stick dulcimers, chromatic dulcimers, dulcimers with an independent bridge and discontinuous fret board (al la guitar) stretch the definition of "dulcimer" beyond the breaking point. Again I am not disparaging these instruments. I am just saying we have to speak of them with modifiers such as "stick", "chromatic" etc. because they deviate from the norm, and that norm is the kind of instrument Ken is describing: a real dulcimer.

I hate to sound so un-inclusive, and I don't mean to imply that such instruments are inferior (I actually own a couple of the "non dulcimers" I described above), or that there aren't sufficient similarities to true dulcimers with the deviation instruments that they shouldn't be discussed here. I am saying that words have to mean something (dulcimer included) or they are useless. If a luthier or craftsman wishes to innovate beyond the basic and general definition, go for it, but what comes from that may not still be a dulcimer. And that is okay.

If the word Dulcimer means sweet sounding instrument, then maybe the instrument is called a dulcimer for its sound and not the number of strings or how it is fretted.  There are a few cases of pre-revival chromatic instruments and many Virginia dulcimers had four equidistant strings.  There is also the case that, what we refer to as Scheitholts were called dulcimers as early as 1758 and in Ohio these fretted zithers were still being called dulcimers in the 19th century. And then of course we have the hammered dulcimer…now if you want to make a distinction between the Kentucky or Virginia or even the Pre-revival as opposed to post revival or even between traditional and modern dulcimers, then that is definitely legitimate.  But for me the dulcimer is a dulcimer because of its sweet sound.  I love the sound of the instrument and that’s why I play it.  I play guitar, banjo, Irish harp, a little mandolin and a few others, I play diatonic and semi-chromatic, but don’t enjoy fully chromatic dulcimers and that is because the limited scale forces me to be more creative and I love trying to get everything I can from a limited scale.  As was mentioned by Ken you can used the Virginia tuning and get to a lot of places on that scale..it’s just plain fun.  But it’s all dulcimer to me…just listen to that sound.

Amen, brother.

Been a bit since this thread was active but I enjoyed reading and thinking about it.

I think it's worth pointing out this discussion is really just about names. Whether some instrument is a "dulcimer" or not simply depends on how we define "dulcimer". Of course we will disagree on that. Should "dulcimer" be used in the strictest sense, or allowed to be used more broadly, referring to any instrument that had it's beginnings at least partially with the dulcimer? There cannot be agreement on this question because it is a matter of opinion. 

Honestly I don't think it matters. The purpose of words and names is to communicate. As long as there is no confusion of communication then the names serve their purpose. If I say "chromatic dulcimer" and everyone knows exactly what I'm referring to, that is sufficient. Of course we could discuss whether to use the term "dulcimer" or not. However, alluding to Shakespeare, what we call the instrument doesn't change what it is, its value, or its place in the musical world. Every instrument in the dulcimer world has it's strengths and weaknesses. Furthermore, everyone sees the relationships between different varieties of dulcimers differently because they all have different experiences. 

I totally agree with OverDrive; every instrument you play affects how you play other instruments. NateBuildsToys points out how he played the diatonic dulcimer first and later played the chromatic dulcimer, which then affected his view of the diatonic dulcimer. 

However, Dusty Turtle played chromatic instruments first, and later played the diatonic dulcimer. Because of this, his experience learning the diatonic dulcimer was very different than it is for others. 

For me personally, I learned the diatonic dulcimer as my first instrument. My understanding of the diatonic fretboard has shaped my entire understanding of music theory and how I play any musical instrument. I see the keys on the piano in terms of numbers from a dulcimer fretboard. When playing even a six or seven string instrument, whether guitar-like, zither-like or otherwise, I understand the tuning in terms of groups of three strings I can recognize as dulcimer tunings such as DAD, DAA, or DGD. For me, the diatonic dulcimer is absolutely fundamental to music, so when I play a chromatic dulcimer, I instinctively think of it as an extension of the dulcimer. Yet I know not everyone thinks this way. The cool thing is, that means I and other people have very different musical ideas, and we can learn from each other. 

Whether you want to play a chromatic dulcimer or not is totally up to you. People will be attracted to different instruments (including types of dulcimers) for a variety of reasons, whether natural playing style, preferred sound, desired musical genere, etc. I think the important thing is that we all make music. The value of us all making music together is we get to see everyone's unique approach and individual ideas, and learn from each other. I want to value and preserve the traditions of past generations, and explore new ideas at the same time. There are things I can do with a chromatic that I can't with a diatonic, and vice versa. Both have an important place. I love the stuff I do on the chromatic dulcimer, because it's just plain fun! I also love playing the diatonic dulcimer. Then again, I can't even play noter style, but I love that sound and am so thankful for people who play it well. In both cases, we're all making music, we just don't do it in the same way or with the exact same instrument. The dulcimer community will be the healthiest when we all value the music everyone makes, whether it's like our own or not. 

@ocean-daughter.  If you tune a Bagpipe tuning:  Ddd or Ccc for example, you can play both Ionian/Mixolydian and Aeolian/Dorian modal scales *without* having to have a 6+ fret!    

Well, I expect this question has been settled in the mind of the OP, at least with regard to the purchase that was being contemplated.  But it's still an intriguing question to consider. 

For me, the answer would be--I don't wanna.  At least, not at this time.  I mostly play melody-drone fingerdance (with a few sort of chords occasionally), and I don't feel a need to get a chromatic.  I do retune to get different modes (and I keep my various dulcimers in one of a couple of different tunings most of the time).  One reason I appreciate having a 6 1/2 fret is that it gives me two modes in each tuning--for instance, in DAC Aeolian I can also play in Dorian...

I've been wanting to add a 1 1/2 fret (along with an 8 1/2) to one of mine, to explore what it gives me.  I already know I'd appreciate that subtonic note on the middle string.  (I can play it on the 6th fret of the bass string when tuned DAD, but that doesn't really satisfy me.)  I guess for me it's discovering and deciding what music I want to play and how I want to play it, and how I get my instrument(s) to contribute to that. 

#1 Reason NOT To Get a Chromatic Dulcimer:
You don't have to defend or rationalize it's place as a dulcimer. 

It's too bad that this conversation, which started with such a reasonable question (even if it demands a parallel conversation on reasons to get a chromatic) has descended into a series of diatribes in which people offer differing definitions of an instrument that has been innovative and evolving for its entire history.  None of this has anything to do with the original question.

Yes, as Nate says, "qualifiers."  

There are guitars, 12-string guitars, solid-body electric guitars, tenor guitars, baritone guitars, etc.

There are dulcimers, baritone dulcimers, octave dulcimers, chromatic dulcimers, electric dulcimers, etc.

No controversy needed.

The dulcimer is a young instrument. For its entire history, it has been evolving.  Those first dulcimers had frets only under the melody string.  Does that mean that dulcimers with strings across the fretboard are not dulcimers?  Those first dulcimers also used friction tuners.  Does that mean dulcimers with mechanical tuners are not dulcimers?  Those first dulcimers were likely made solely of local hardwoods.  Does that mean a dulcimer with a redwood top is not a real dulcimer? Any effort to define a dulcimer by a limited number of construction characteristics is random and denies the long history of creative innovation among dulcimer builders and players.

The Jean Ritchie model dulcimer (made in that great Appalachian state of California!) has a Honduras mahogany fingerboard, rosewood overlay, ebony nut and saddle, mechanical tuners, and a 6-1/2 fret.  Those first dulcimers on which Jean learned had none of those elements, yet she recognized that they improved the instrument and supported them.  The rest of us might do the same.

Sitting here looking at a dozen or so instruments...staples, frets, wound wire, straight wire, oak, maple, rosewood. No two are alike, yet I would call them ALL dulcimers. If I spoke in elizabethan english I may say "dulcimore", and if I was a kid in the mountains I might say "that stringy thang"... And guitars with hollow bodies, solid, whammy bars etc are ALL guitars...But as for men with only a mustache and no beard.....well...."technically".....

Let me help you with that, Ma'am!  The misty dulcimore past is calling out to you...

I guess I don't have any mountain dulcimers.  waaaaaahhh!   😭

@nate Your perspective was one I hadn't considered-- I'm glad you wrote of it!  

Colloquially, although my newer Jean Ritchie model Blue Lion has "extra" frets, I'll still call it a mountain dulcimer.    

Happy strumming, y'all!   

If it has more than diatonic frets, or more than 3 courses of strings, technically an instrument is no longer a dulcimer, it is a Fretted Zither.  "Tomay-to tomaatoe", but diatonic fret spacing is part of what defines a dulcimer.

A guitar player friend once said about my dulcimer: Too bad some of the frets are missing. But then, too, are some of the strings, compared to a guitar. I wanted more strings, but instead of getting a guitar, I built a dulcimer with five separate strings. Is it a dulcimer? I would say it is 'quite' a dulcimer.

Just for fun, I added frets to a 4-string dulcimer to make it chromatic, and I can now play tunes that would otherwise be impossible. For strictly diatonic tunes, I use one of my diatonic dulcimers (well, they all have both the 6 and the 6+ fret, but I still consider them diatonic--that has become the tradition). 

Those of us who have been playing for a while probably have more than one instrument. Meanwhile, I play five dulcimers with different string/fret configurations: 3 strings, 4 strings with the double melody course, 4 separate strings, 5 separate strings, some with the 1+ fret, one chromatic. Each of those instruments has its own allure, its own possibilities and restrictions. I see no reason not to get a chromatic, and no reason not to call it a dulcimer.

I agree with Dusty. I too started out playing a guitar for nearly 30 years before picking up a dulcimer. Three strings and a diatonic fret board, should be a cinch, right? I'm still working at it. As Dusty mentions, the chord shapes that one may be accustomed to laying anywhere on the finger board for what ever chord needed doesn't work. But for all that, if I wanted to play the guitar, that is what I would grab instead. The fact that it is not the same as a guitar is part of the appeal for me.

"It may be true that there are no wrong notes on the dulcimer, but that doesn't mean that all the right ones are there" 

Dusty, that deserves a place in the fun sayings about dulcimer chat. 

I think of diatonic and chromatic dulcimers as two roads that lead to different kinds of attractions along the way. One will mainly take you to traditional music, both modal and pentatonic, and the other leads you to pop, blues, and jazz.  Both can cross over a little bit, but they have different emphases.

Of course, I mainly play a dulcimer with 6+ and 1+ frets, so I've chosen a kind of middle path.  I play mostly diatonic music but can occasionally add blue notes or switch keys in ways that would be much more difficult on a truly diatonic instrument.

I would like to caution us all not to assume generalizations hold for everyone.  I played the guitar, mandolin, and ukulele before discovering the dulcimer, and the diatonic fretboard did not make the instrument easier to learn.  On the contrary, the fact that I could not play so many of the songs in my head was very frustrating. It took about 2 years of playing everyday for me to get a sense of what melodies could be found on the diatonic fretboard and what couldn't.  (It may be true that there are no wrong notes on the dulcimer, but that doesn't mean that all the right ones are there!) 

And chording on the diatonic fretboard is more complex.  On a chromatic fretboard, a chord shape will be the same type of chord as you move up and down the fretboard, but on a diatonic dulcimer, that chord shape changes between major and minor.  That fact significantly slows down the development of dulcimer players who wish to play chords.

Never heard it put that way or thought about it that way Nate you're right on the money.

It's funny that you mention this. My experience with chromatic dulcimer is that it enhances my perspective of diatonic dulcimer. The cultural place of chromatic and diatonic dulcimers might be different, but to me, as a self taught dulcimer player, chromatic dulcimer provides me with useful contextual information that I can apply to diatonic.Specifically, hearing the ways that the same chords that I play in diatonic can fit into other keys helps me to think of them with a more open mind. 
Nate

Whenever I take up a new instrument, it gives me a fresh perspective on the other instruments I play. Somehow, it took me a lifetime to realize that the A minor scale is the same as the C major scale, just starting in a different spot. And it's called "Aeolian Mode". Suddenly I'm a music theory genius!  (Many thanks to Strumelia!) The diatonic dulcimer locks in the pattern that opens up all the modes for you. I feel like the chromatic dulcimer promises more but delivers less as a creative tool.

I have a nice chromatic but I seldom play it.It's too easy to make mistakes,laugh.

This is my feeling as well. I play (or played) several fretted chromatic instruments. The dulcimer is unique in its diatonic tradition. I find it simple, yet challenging; which in turn provides a refreshing approach to my music. 

That said, I respect others who have personal and valid reasons for choosing to play a chromatic dulcimer.

@Lisa-Golladay 's post covered the practical pros & cons quite well.

Yes, I agree with Jean Ritchie.  For me, the dulcimer is diatonic in nature, anything else is not quite a dulcimer.

I know I'm bringing up an old thread, but - oh well.  I play guitar, clawhammer banjo and am now learning dulcimer.  When I learn a mountain instrument, such as clawhammer banjo or dulcimer, I want to learn and play it the way the the original players played it.  I guess I want to learn the tradition, keep it, and maybe add a personal touch here and there.  But "old school" tradition is very important to me.  So, if I want chromatic, guitar or banjo is the way to go for me. With clawhammer banjo, I thought of transferring it to guitar - but why?  It was made for banjo. With a dulcimer I want that lovely sweet sound of the mountains and to keep the tradition alive as best I can.  I don't want to make them into something modern and into something they are not.  There are plenty of hybrids instruments - banjo dulcimers, guitar banjos, etc. out there if you want to come into the up to date modern world.

So, in my mind, let a guitar be a guitar, let a banjo be a banjo and let a dulcime be a dulcimer.

Every chromatic dulcimer comes with a free diatonic hidden in plain sight. Ignore the extra frets until you need them. For some people this is no problem at all. For others it's confusing and it sounds wrong and they just don't like it. Either opinion is perfectly valid. It's your dulcimer.

I play chromatic. I play diatonic. I play half-breeds with 1.5 and 6.5 frets. Since you asked why NOT buy chromatic, here's what I got:

Chromatic is harder to play. It has wrong notes. This is not insurmountable. Think about the guitar players you know; are they all rocket scientists? If they can manage a chromatic fretboard, so can you. However, if you hate to practice scales you will probably be happier with a diatonic.

Noter speed bumps. Do you play with a noter? Can't stand the idea of your dulcimer sounding like a slide guitar? This is a dealbreaker for some. And some could not care less. Know thyself.

Lack of instructional materials. This is a big one. There are a few books and videos for learning chromatic dulcimer, but not nearly as many resources as diatonic. When an absolute beginner asks me about dulcimers, I usually steer them toward diatonic.

Modal scales get difficult. Dorian is my favorite mode for improvising, and it's so easy on a diatonic! Dial in the right tuning and off you go. Whereas learning all the scales on chromatic is a major learning curve.

Other dulcimer players fly into a panic. Seriously. A friend gets a dulcimer and wants to play together. Bring out a chromatic and they'll yelp in terror. It doesn't look the same. It's too complicated! I have to keep a diatonic around or I won't have any dulcimer friends.

It's not traditional. This matters to many people. And sometimes (living history events? tapping into your personal memories of dulcimers past?) it may matter to you. If the sound you fell in love with is the sound of a traditional silvery noter/drone modal dulcimer, a chromatic is unnecessary and will make it harder to replicate that old-time sound.

That said, if you already have a diatonic dulcimer and you're considering chromatic, and if you have the time and inclination to learn something new, then my advice is go for it.

A couple of other points I forgot, a chromatic will probably be a bit more expensive to buy and much harder to sell.

Both Ken and Robin are correct.

Your instrument is personal.

As Jerry Rockwell says: It’s a possibility box.

Look at lots of video clips of folks playing a variety of music on a variety of different fretted dulcimer configurations and, perhaps, that will give you an idea of what approach you'd like to take to making music.  First and foremost, lean into what music is in your heart to make and get the tool (instrument) with which to do it best.  It's a process and it can be lots of fun to explore.  

TRADITION! 

When asked about dulcimer with “extra" frets, Jean Ritchie replied “In a strict sense it has a different finger board, it’s not quite a dulcimer anymore.”    

You can find all the notes in the dulcimer's range, but you have to be willing to re-tune at least one string to do so (takes less than 30 seconds, with practice).

If you want a chromatic instrument lay a guitar on your lap and play that.  Or I can build you an  "acoustic lap guitar". Just don't call it a dulcimer.   Part of the essential definition of Dulcimer, to many of us, is the diatonic fretboard.

If you are playing mostly "classic dulcimer songs" especially from tabulature rather than SMN, it will be 'more difficult' because the fret numbering convention is different, and you'll have to find the fewer diatonic frets among the plethora of chromatic frets.  You won't be able to simply count 1,2,3,4... to find a tab numbered fret.  With a chromatic instrument that becomes
1/2,1,1-1/2, 2, 3, 3-1/2, 4, 4-1/2, 5, 6, 6-1/2,7......



Also, IMHO the 'sound' of a chromatic "dulcimer" is different when you slide from note to note -- because of all the intervening chromatic notes between diatonic notes -- I hear those slides as 'muddier'...

Shhhh!  I have traditionally fretted dulcimers, some with 1.5 6.5 and some that are chromatic. And two with nylon strings.

My favorite dulcimer is the one in my lap.

I think many of the reasons will be be focus on tradition and your music interests which will include style of play [N/D or chording] and need for the extra frets.

It will boil down to what you want plus a bit of DAD [dulcimer acquisition disease].

I am NOT a traditionalist but I find I play mostly traditional [diatonic] music most of the time when I play with others even though my main MDs are chromatic. I use the chromatic side mostly when playing by myself.

I forgot to add, there are 'chromatic tunings' such as DAA#d, but they are 4 equi-distant strings. These are done on the standard diatonic MD.

I am looking to purchase a new dulcimer and am considering getting a chromatic.  It seems the benefits of being able to play any note within the dulcimer's range is a big plus, but I am looking for reasons why I would not want to get a chromatic.  Can anyone provide some insight here?

For instance, does having a chromatic make it more difficult to play classic dulcimer songs, is it generally more confusing, etc...?

Convince me why getting a chromatic is not the way to go, and why a diatonic is better.

Thanks!