Ladies and gentlemen,  Now we have inadvertently created another
semantic misunderstanding.  Or would it be an etymological ambiguity?

Because of my recent experience (at the Charlotte meeting) with
an armonica played beautifully by Dean Shostak, I assumed that the
initial inquiry was about an instrument of the same type.  However,
the response from Dennis James reminded me of a fantastic TV program
in which James played a different type of glass armonica.  (By the way,
the last act on this magic show is an independent automaton, which
concludes its act by releasing itself from the trapeze bar on which
it performs.)

Dean Shostak's glass armonica is the type in which the graduated series
of glass saucer bells is mounted on a single, horizontal shaft.  Each
bell is partially nested within the next larger bell, so that the bells
are arranged from largest to smallest.  The shaft (and the attached
bells) are rotated slowly by a motor or foot treadle, and the performer
touches the rim of the bells with a moist fingertip.

Dennis James, on the other hand, plays an armonica composed of a gradu-
ated series of drinking glasses, arranged on a table according to their
size (and thus pitch).  He plays them by applying his moistened finger-
tip in a circular motion around the top rim of each glass.

I would say that Dean Shostak plays the "nested glass armonica"
and Dennis James plays the "table glass armonica" (or perhaps, the
"stationary glass armonica").

Now ... About which one was the original inquiry?

Craig Smith

PS: Robbie, would you say that Dennis plays the cups and Dean plays
the saucers?

 [ That seems reasonable; 'saucer bells' are found in music boxes and
 [ 'cup bells' in old telephones.  Both ring nicely!  ;)  -- Robbie