In context

[CHasR]

What I wonder is: Why is there (seemingly) never any journalistic push-back on articles like this? Where are the legions of cringing, outraged bagpipers contacting the reporter (in this case, Amna Nawaz) and editors to alert them to the pernicious truth behind this "feel good" human interest piece. Where is whatever is the GHB equivalent of NPU, acting as a press watchdog with the authority and gravitas to redress the balance? Where is the follow-up article? Is no one (except us) paying attention?

With apologies for the rant.

actually MT The AFM glossy runs a regular feature on innovative products. Last year (iirc) the ed's unknowingly promoted a Sialkotti ghb. Ray Hair (new to the presidency at that time) was innundated with email from pipers regarding this substandard import, mfd'd by offshore non-union labor. It was a real wake up call apparently, pretty sure they did a retraction. and I got a sincere apology pledging better vetting as to which products are featured. Musicians DO check stuff out that they find in this magazine, so a minor victory.
From time to time I get inquiries from beginners and folks that want to get into piping: within the first three sentences of my reply is always "Dont get one made in Pakistan",, so it's more of a drip, drip, drip balance-redress than a full frontal assault. Most pipers pull their weight concerning the promotion of ACTUAL ghb's. The real floodgates are in import and resale, neither of which the bagpipe community has enough juice in, so any effective action needs to be heavy & accross the board in both these sectors, which would do much more harm.
By the way, Im looking for a set of Sialkotti drones, so I can spray paint them green for a chroma key shot.
and there's no need to apologise for your rant.
Yuri- you've, perhaps inadvertently, proved my point? That after a certain period of time these instruments become far more problematic than they're worth, from a user end. But thank s for correcting me that its not copying, as opposed to recreation. An important aspect I negelcted

[Yuri]

Well, in reply to Bogman.
I have to slightly modify my previous statement. It is still true what I said about the copying for playing purposes. However, copying for research is quite a different matter. What you non-maker guys/gals probably don't know is that any cylindrical, bored-out piece of wood, (unless drilled out exactly in the middle, which would make far bigger problems of another kind) will become oval fairly quickly. Now, if you start trying to ream out a piece of wood to an oval profile, you are going to go nuts. While it is strictly speaking possible, the logistics don't bear thinking about. Plus, the main point, it is not only unnecessary, it's (in this case unreservedly)plainly stupid. The oval was not put there by the maker, but by eventual shrinkage differences on quartersawn v. slabsawn sides. So in the first place, the most faithful "reproduction" will already, by definition , be not all that faithful. And that is only the very start. But you get the subtle drift of my meaning...