Recently, Ruth Did an Internet Search for Bullroarers and Came Across Something Very Strange

WindWands

Recently, Ruth did an Internet search for ‘bullroarers’ and came across something very strange called a ‘wind wand’. Something clicked with me and I remembered an article from an old bi-monthly publication called ‘Experimental Musical Instruments’ which I had previously found the complete back issue collection of, and had it sent over from the USA. The article published around 1989 and written by the inventor of these ‘novelty’ instruments, Darrell DeVore (pictured below) explains the evolution from the ‘buzzing bee’ stage (a kids’ toy that DeVore found in China and adapted) to the later wind wand stage, and also includes instructions on how to build your own (bless him!). After extensive search on the internet there is still very little information about these instruments other than the link Ruth found, which is another Californian maker selling them on a couple of well known auction sites. I was able to find a nice couple of links to websites mainly concerned with ‘Aeolian sculpture’, but it would seem that only Nathan Sweet has taken up the challenge of continuing with this invention and his version is almost identical to DeVore’s, with the addition of a ‘double windwand’ slight variation.

And so, armed with Darrell DeVore’s article and a few internet pictures, I decided to make one…or two…well, a few! I quickly discovered a few things about this ‘free-air chordophone’ that neither of these makers had either mentioned or apparently used before. Darrell DeVore was a truly marvelous innovator, but although he designed a few different shapes and sizes of his initial ‘spirit catcher’ (the predecessor of the wind wand, which was more like a bullroarer and was twirled around the head on a piece of string), there is mention only of one size of elastic resonator, a ‘No. 64’ (I think American sizes probably differ from UK?). I’m sure he must have tried many different configurations, and indeed there is reference to different materials being used, but there is no mention of the difference the size of an elastic band can make. I first made a ‘double’ in the style of Nathan Sweet’s model and took a more ‘rustic’ approach using pieces of small, whole branch. However, this early model with two centre posts and longer end pieces became a bit tiresome on the arm, wrist and hand muscles after a while, so the next model had a single centre post with a triple bridge configuration that housed three bands of differing widths. This made it light enough to play for any length of time and gave an array of harmonics. However, I then realized something about the positioning of resonators and a third, unique ‘symphonic’ model, is now currently in the latter stages of development (Stay tuned to our news page!).

The width of the elastic band/resonator plays a part in determining the frequency of the fundamental tone, but this is also determined by how loose or taut the band is. Another factor is, then, the length of the overall instrument, as this will determine how far the band will have to be stretched. A smaller instrument with looser bands can sound as low as a larger instrument with tightly stretched bands, but there are limits either way. Already we are amassing an array of factors involved and we have not mentioned bridge width and shape, or the complete randomness of how/where/when the instrument is twirled (!) all of which play a part of the end result. Yet this seemingly free and random instrument can also be tuned, to a degree, by adjusting the bridge and tautness of bands, making it harmonically compatible with many other instruments. And ‘instrument’ it is. Not a ‘toy’, though children of all ages do, of course, love it! Within the currently widening circles of sound therapy and ‘healing’ types of music, or ‘soundscapes’, there may be great scope for such an instrument, producing rhythmic drones compatible with didgeridoo and the like. I have been using them to accompany my Mongolian overtone practice! More recently, my daughter suggested they could be used as ‘baby soothers’, and I have just produced a smaller pair of ‘double butterfly wands’ that Ruth and I will soon try to use in our Chant and Dance circle.

Making & selling

I try to make these instruments from reclaimed and/or locally sourced materials. I do not try to make them all the same, but do have a ‘standard model’, which is usually about 24/25 inches (600mm) long, and can accommodate the largest commercial band I could find, a No.108! This will provide a wonderful, low and ‘purring’ fundamental tone, ideal for meditative drones, and will also accept a No.89 band that is about half the width but can be slackened or tightened (as text above) to give a larger selection of tones. The picture of the ‘triple bridge’ model (above) shows bands of Nos.108, 89, and 69, to give you an idea of what these (UK) sizes mean, and the wand is 25 inches long. The bridge of this model will soon be reworked into a double arc shape as I have recently discovered that putting the bands side by side, as they are, makes for a less efficient instrument than if the bands are at slightly different angles to each other, which gives space for air to circulate better and provides more room for the bands to vibrate. Bridge parts are uniquely hand-carved to a traditional bullroarer-type shape for greater aerodynamics, and this specification cannot currently be found anywhere else in the world. Spinner handles are now single ended, using a wooden ball on an 8mm hardwood dowel which can be removed for different playing styles (Darrell DeVore refers to the ‘stroking position’), but these styles can be implemented anyway by holding the handle as part of the grip.