What is a Dulcimer?

What is a Dulcimer?

It’s certainly a common question, especially from people who have never heard of it. After all, the dulcimer is not a common instrument. When introducing it to someone, I first clarify the difference between the hammered and mountain dulcimers. Then I usually say something like “it’s a stringed instrument with frets, traditionally 3 strings, and sits on the player's lap. Most people strum it with a pick, and some fingerpick”. That’s enough to give them the general idea. Most of the time they say “oh cool” and move on, while other times they may ask further questions. I’m always happy to share more about this wonderful instrument. 

However, there is another way this question can be asked, which I will focus on in this article. It could be asking “what is the definition of a dulcimer?” or “what instruments should be considered a dulcimer and which should not?”. The specific example I’ll work with is this: “is a chromatic dulcimer a dulcimer?”. 

I’ve seen that question a lot online, and sometimes folks get really heated about it, which I don’t understand. Generally I hear that conversation like the adults in Charlie Brown sound; it’s in one ear and out the other, I just keep enjoying making music and go on with life. Yet I have given this some thought, and many people have appreciated my answers so I would like to share them. After all, I play many non-traditional variations of the mountain dulcimer myself. 

Another thing about me is I have a Bachelors of Science in Mathematics. Among other things, that means I’m a nerd. So bear with me. But I think we need to take a step back and think about what names are. The word “dulcimer” is simply a word in the English language. It’s a string of certain letters in a particular order. Something distinct about humans (vs animals and rocks and stuff) is that we can communicate very specifically with each other. Say Bob has an image of a particular instrument in his head. He converts that image into a string of letters using the language processing part of his brain, in this case he gets “dulcimer”. Then he uses his mouth to make air particles dance in a particular way, so that when they dance over to Frank’s eardrum, Frank’s brain gets the same string of letters. Then, if Bob and Frank have the same associations of images and words, Frank gets the same image of that particular instrument Bob was thinking of. 

Okay so here’s what I’m saying. The purpose of names is just to communicate. What we call a thing doesn’t really matter. It doesn’t change what it is, after all “a rose by any other name would smell as sweet”. All that matters is that the names we use are clear and we all have the same understanding of what they mean, so we can communicate effectively. This is why in the dulcimer world, we have adjectives or qualifiers to modify the general term “dulcimer” to talk about different instruments. For example, a “chromatic dulcimer” is like a traditional dulcimer but has a chromatic fretboard instead of a diatonic one. (Technically it would be most clear to call it a “chromatic mountain dulcimer” to distinguish it from some sort of hammered dulcimer, but generally the context is clear enough to avoid this). Or I have also played the “banjo dulcimer”, which is like a dulcimer but with a resonator like a banjo, to give it a different sound. 

We are at a unique time in the mountain dulcimer history. The instrument is not very old, and is still changing rapidly. While there are still new developments being made, generally I think terms like “four string dulcimer”, “chromatic dulcimer”, “banjo dulcimer”, etc are clear terms that everyone in the dulcimer community understands. That is these terms are well established; they clearly and consistently refer to particular types of instruments. So I guess we cleared that up, the debate is over right?

Actually, no. I think in most cases, when people argue for example that a chromatic dulcimer is not a dulcimer, it isn’t an issue of unclear communication. Rather, they don’t think we should be using the word “dulcimer” in any way to refer to that chromatic instrument thing. In other words, while we have clearly communicative terms, but what people are really debating is how we should use those terms. 

My first question is why? Most people spend their days just trying to earn enough to eat some ramen for dinner, make some music, and go to bed. I don’t know why we need to add this stress to our lives. But okay, here goes. 

When people are debating this, I think it boils down to what I mentioned earlier: the dulcimer is continuously evolving. For a variety of reasons, some people don’t like the changes that have come about more recently. People want the word “dulcimer” to simply mean the traditional build with the traditional playing style, and for significant variations from this to have a different place. 

There’s a lot of responses to this, but here’s my perspective. If you personally have zero interest, ever, in playing any variation of the mountain dulcimer at all, and you will only ever play the traditional dulcimer, then I say go for it! I’m not trying to be sarcastic or passive aggressive, I really mean it. If you enjoy what you are doing, it’s not like you’re missing out on something essential by not playing a chromatic dulcimer. I think music is a wonderful gift from God that we can use to glorify Him, be a blessing to others, and enjoy ourselves. All those things can be done on any kind of dulcimer. 

And I am truly thankful for people who preserve the traditional way of playing the dulcimer. That’s a heritage that I never want to lose. I am always interested to learn more about the history and development of the dulcimer, and what it meant to the people who made it. 

However, I think it would be unfortunate if in trying to preserve that history, we stifle new ideas and innovations. Three hundred years ago when settlers first developed the dulcimer, it wasn’t traditional, it was a new innovation. Likewise, we have opportunities to innovate new ways of making music. 

I think it’s very possible to value both of these things: past musical traditions and newly evolving ones. Generally speaking, I don’t think people who are experimenting with variations of the dulcimer or different styles are trying to threaten the traditional dulcimer in any way. I certainly am not. I just love making music, and there’s particular ideas I want to explore, and things I want to experiment with. 

So does it matter if we, for example, consider a chromatic dulcimer to be a dulcimer? In the language sense, we may as well keep using the terms the way we already do. In the tradition-vs-progress sense, it may not matter, but we should be careful not to squash new musical ideas just because we don’t like them. 

It’s also worth pointing out how much a person’s individual musical journey affects their perspective on this. Many people play guitar first, and then come to play the mountain dulcimer. They feel very comfortable with the chromatic dulcimer, and may see the “traditional dulcimer” as a variation of the chromatic dulcimer with frets taken away. Some people with this perspective actually find it harder to learn the diatonic dulcimer. For me on the other hand, I learned the dulcimer first, and my entire understanding of music operates based on how I see the diatonic dulcimer. So even when I look at the chromatic dulcimer, I see it as a diatonic fretboard with extra frets. Because of my background, I am much more likely to see more things as a variation of the dulcimer. 

Let me offer a conclusion. What is a dulcimer? If we tried to answer this in the objective sense, all of humanity would have to agree on a single, logically rigorous definition. I think it is more practical to simply say yes, things like a “chromatic dulcimer”, “banjo dulcimer”, “four string dulcimer” and more really are dulcimers, because they were clearly born out of the dulcimer community; they have a clear lineage to the first dulcimers. As long as we use the right qualifiers, we will be A-ok. (This is the same logic used with guitars). But what I care so much more about is that we all just keep exploring and making music. Every dulcimer has unique strengths and weaknesses: I can get notes on the chromatic dulcimer that I can’t on the diatonic, but there are some techniques I can only play on the diatonic. The important thing is that we keep making music together, both preserving the rich legacy of the dulcimer, and exploring new possibilities. The dulcimer community will be the healthiest when we all value the music everyone makes, whether it's like our own or not.