Silly question time - duolian, triolian?

[melp]

All,

Sorry about this, please humor me, as this is driving me crazy! My question is what is the origin of these names - are they just names, or do they have some other meaning or relevance? Dictionary.com does not come up with anything, nor does wikipedia.

I have been through cones, but they both have one! I know that the triolian was surposed to be better build quality than the duolian.

Can someone put me out of my misery?

regards

Mel

[Michael Messer]

Hi Mel,

Not a silly question at all.

The Triolian was first. They were originally built with three cones under a tiny coverplate, hence the TRIO bit of the word. The three cone Triolians were never marketed, although a photo does appear in an early National sales catalogue and apparently they made a dozen or so of these instruments in 1928. To market Triolians, National converted them into single cone instruments. These were still called Triolians and were the first single cone National guitars to be made. In 1930 National stopped making wood-bodied Triolians and started producing them in metal (steel).

In 1931 National started their line of DUOLIAN instruments as a budget-priced version of their Triolian, Style N and Style O guitars. Why it was called a DUOlian is not known, but a logical guess points to the DUO being less than the TRIO.

The LIAN, or IAN bit of the word was probably a fashionable way of talking in the 1920s when both history and science were in the news a lot - EGYPTIAN, ELECTRICIAN, HISTORIAN....etc. This can only be a logical guess, but I think it is not to far from what happened. In addition, John Dopyera was a vegetarIAN!

Shine Onian,
Michael

[melp]

Michael,

Many thanksian! Strange how little things like this can bug you, well, no, not really, at least if you are me.

This question comes from a line of thought that reoccurred when I first found your material, initially your reviews of instruments, on the internet.

For some reason, who knows, but probably due to a very strange and wonderful experience when I first met a Fender Telecaster around 1966, or even earlier with a close to unplayable acoustic in 1962. Anyway, its all about authentic sound - I want it to sound like ...

One way is to get a instrument from 'the time'. But, is it? I learned with pickups that they change over time, so a brand new 21st century PAF humbucker will not sound like a 1950/60's model. But then neither will a 1950/60's now, its changed.

Maybe its the same with resonators? So, do I need a 'real' 1920/30's instrument to the 'the' sound? Sort of begs the question what is the sound? Not sure that I know, yet.

But I don't, yet, want a valuable instrument that could fall to bits, or that I would have to stay away from tall buildings if I dropped it.

As you have proved, beyond doubt, with the MM Blues you can get all the sound you decently need, most of the rest is about playing technique.

So back to the practice.

regards

Mel








regards

Mel