I apologize for coming across as 'rude', but as one who has never had a 
professionally built gurdy, nor any formal training in luthiering (lutherie?), 
and who has built all his instruments without plans or drawings, I look first 
and foremost at the functionality of an instrument.

There are only a few real 'standard' things that are common to modern gurdies, 
they are not 'optional' as they are what makes the gurdy a gurdy and not an 
HGLO (hurdy Gurdy like object).  And I have built several of those before 
actually building what might be considered my first 'real' gurdy.

Starting from the front, if you have a tirant tuning peg (the tuning peg on the 
tailpiece of the instrument) that signifies that the instrument is to be fitted 
with a chien - the string / bridge combination that makes the trademark buzzing 
rhythm of the gurdy.  Not all gurdies have a chien, but if they are fitted with 
a tirant tuning pin, they should.  This instrument does not have the buzzing 
bridge that is the chien bridge.  So if you are going to build from these 
plans, you should either omit the tirant pin and build this as the sound 
equivalent of a very early gurdy, or you should research the bridge 
construction and placement, and add it to your gurdy.  I suggest the second 
option.  The flexibility and performance options the chien adds are quite worth 
the effort.

Since we cannot see inside the tangent box, there is no criticism that can be 
given at this time.  But once you get to the back, you see some indication of 
what the instrument was designed for.  The ears, the extensions that come out 
fromt he body/neck of the gurdy that hold the strings away from the keybox, are 
set up to have 2 strings each.  The tuning head has 6 pegs, which translates 
into (in this setup) 2 chanters or melody strings, and 4 drones.  Since the 
chien is simply a specialized drone, that gives you 3 'static' drones, one 
chien, and 2 chanters, which is a very common configuration.  But we now return 
to the front of the instrument.  The standard gurdy has a bridge for the 
chanters in the center of the soundboard, and bridges for the drones on each 
side.  Usually these bridges are set up in a kind of ladder-like configuration, 
with the outside stretcher missing.  Like bunk-beds for your strings.  The 
bridges allow in this configuration 2 strings on the 'top' side of the 
instrument, and one string in the upper position on the bottom side, allowing 
the chien to pass by and sit on it's own bridge.  The notches in these bridges 
are offset from one another following the same curve as the diameter of the 
wheel.  If you add more drones (bourdons) then you add more steps to the 
bridge, and each step higher is also a step a little closer to the centerline.

The instrument picture on the site you show doesn't have the correct bridges to 
match the tuning head and 'ears'.  It is almost like someone took a photo of a 
traditional gurdy, and a photo of a very early sinphone or organistrum, and 
photoshopped them together.  The tail end of the instrument, except for the 
tirant tuning pine (and what looks like a drawn in, loose tirant cable) is set 
up just like the 14th century box sinphone, and the head end is set up like a 
modern gurdy.

The woodworking, as I said earlier, is nice, but unless you simply intend to 
build an instrument to hang on your wall, that is not so important.  THe 
appearance is not traditional, but also, I like being unusual - if you look in 
the archives, you will be able to read a thread about designing a probable 
medieval instrument, not just a copy of a painting, in order to be different.  
That instrument is actually under construction, I found some 5 inch thick 
walnut planks, 14 inches wide and 12 foot long, that I am using to build the 
body.  The design is a conglomeration of designs that we have 'some' evidence 
that they existed, but the instrument will still be a modern form gurdy with 5 
strings (2 bourdons, 2 chanters, 1 chien) with all the accompanying and proper 
hardware.

I started out as you are, with more woodworking skill than instrument making 
skill, and the biggest reason I succeeded as soon as I did in building an 
instrument was the knowledge and discussion that I found on this list.  Cali 
and Alden, Roy, Simon, so many others with real skill in the HG building art, 
chimed in with criticisms, suggestions, warnings and other advice.  They 
treated me like I was part of this community from the get-go, and were honest 
and clear in their interactions.  People helped me make decisions on what to do 
with my instrument, and they help make decisions on what to do with the newest 
projects I am building, and sometimes that is critical assessment, sometimes it 
is enthusiastic agreement, but it is always support, and involved, interested 
support at that.  Many here are professionals (I am an amateur, and will remain 
so for quite some time I am certain), but they do not act like the 
professionals on so many other discussion groups - they might be far above us 
average mortals in skill, but they don't hold themselves above us in status.  
And that is why this list is so great.

I apologize for seeming rude.  I do want, as the rest of this list does as 
well, to see you build something that increases your enthusiasm and love of the 
instrument, not squashes it.  I am certain that you will find that this is 
EXACTLY the kind of help you really need - not just a bunch of cheerleaders, 
but people and topics with real, relevant information meant to inform and 
educate, not to discourage and dismay.

Welcome to the family, and again, my apologies if I cam across rude - it wasn't 
my intent.

Chris Nogy
rank amateur


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

On 5/14/2007 at 11:26 PM john tappan wrote:
Well, guys, thanks for the “welcome!”  So far, I’ve had one offer for help 
(thanks, Marc!) and three criticisms of the plans I’ve bought.   Not exactly 
the kind of support I was looking for!!

To my way of thinking, unless you’re going to build an historically accurate hg 
with historically accurate decoration (pick your builder, your style, and your 
decade), then a set of plans is just a beginning point.  I’ve rarely built 
anything exactly like the plans specified—there’s always room for changes, 
adaptations, and some creative license.  I’m assuming your good intentions, but 
really…

As far as Pascal Crangat’s plans, I’ve been looking at hg sites for months and 
I had never come across that name, so I googled him and found one site in 
French.  I don’t read French, so if he does have plans for sale, however good 
they might be, I wouldn’t know it.  And if I did know it, I’d expect the plans 
to be in French, as well, so I doubt they would be very helpful to me anyway.  
Now if he has an English version, I might be interested—I haven’t built 
anything yet.

John Tappan



Reply via email to