speaking of Rowsomes...

j dasinger · Post by **j dasinger** » Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:38 pm

There was an add in the latest "An Piobaire" for a Rowsome half-set. Am I mistaken, or was there recently this same set (or another Rowsome half-set) up for sale somewhere? Hmm, could be my imagination. The winner of an ebay auction for a Rowsome practice set had his new chanter at the SF Tionol. Apparently he got a good deal. Brian Macnamara played it and said it was really sweet sounding. "It just wants to play" as he put it.
JD

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 12:14 am

I was telling Paddy Keenan about that Rowsome
chanter that sold on eBay for around $2500 US,
if I remember correctly. Paddy said that was probably
a pretty good deal if it worked okay.

He was talking about his old Rowsome chanter
he'd had forever and said he just about ruined it
when he was a kid...I think he was filing on it
or something like that. I also read somewhere that he
threw his whole set in the trash, over in England, during his
"hippie" days. A friend of his rescued them for him. He must
have been having a serious case of "pipers despair."

I think anyone that's ever had a chance to play one of these
old L. Rowsome must have a new standard to judge all other
chanters by...that's the way it seems anyway. I've heard
they really do just about play themselves, with the right reed.
I'm even amazed at my old chanter and how different good
reeds respond in it. It can sound like two or three different
chanters altogether, and play that much different too.

I've heard that even Leo use to have wires
all over the place up in his own chanter

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:21 am

Lorenzo wrote:

I think anyone that's ever had a chance to play one of these
old L. Rowsome must have a new standard to judge all other
chanters by...that's the way it seems anyway. I've heard
they really do just about play themselves, with the right reed.
I'm even amazed at my old chanter and how different good
reeds respond in it. It can sound like two or three different
chanters altogether, and play that much different too.

I've heard that even Leo use to have wires
all over the place up in his own chanter

The fact they need all sorts of wires in them should thell you something. In my opinion the above is maybe a bit of an overstatement. Some Rowsome chanters have nice [tonal] features but they have serious faults too and they certainly don't play themselves. I don't fancy them much at all.

glands · Post by **glands** » Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:37 am

Sure, the presence of wires tells us a lot...those playing them wished to tune to a particular standard or accepted Hz for "A" to appease either other musicians or else listeners. I've heard probably 8-10 Rowsome chanters live and have been enamored with the tone of each one. Perhaps I'm hearing a selected group of the better chanters. I've played two...they certainly do not play themselves as no chanter ever does. what a treat, though, to play an historical instrument that was made with relatively inferior tools compared to what is possible today. Often, the possesor or steward of the Rowsome chanter, or any instrument for that matter, has learend to compensate for the idiosyncracies of the instrument in how the bag and stick is manipulated to produce or coax out a particular tone. I would not be so bold as to knock around the Rowsome chanters, though.

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Sat Mar 15, 2003 9:46 am

Let’s put some nuances in there, we get the Lorenzos and the Glands of this world implying things [‘maybe these chanters should be with people who know how to appreciate their greatest potential’, ‘rushes tell you the piper likes his pipes tuned to a particular standard’] suggesting a critical look comes from uninformed quarters.

I am honestly surprised about the sudden wave of appreciation for the Rowsome pipes that is sweeping this board . For my generation of pipers they represented the sound the older pipers had. I started listening to Felix Doran’s lp, Leo Rowsome’s re-issued 78 rpm’s , Flynn with Planxty and Keenan with the Bothy Band. That was the one end of the spectrum and although I always was drawn more towards Seamus Ennis [who was the first piper I came eye to eye with after walking in to a concert in 1972], Tommy Reck and the tracks of JOBM on the Piper’s Rock that were all part of my early listening experiences, the Rowsome sound is still in a way a touchstone that can still stir me.
In 1980 I heard Martin Rochford play for the first time, he swept me off my feet, creating a soundscape very similar to that I knew from the Felix recordings. To this day I find some quality of sound that stirs that memory of early piping I heard in those chanters [and regulators, I do not at all at all like Rowsome drones, they completely lack the mix with the rest of the pipes]. Now, very few reedmakers can create that soundscape these days, most of them seem to fancy the shovel sized reeds that create that overblown Keenan style sound [which I don’t care for at all].
The Rowsome sound has in a way become our touchstone, but is it actually the sound of good piping one may wonder or is it just a phase in piping history that to some of the more extreme persuasions, was more of a mistake than anything else.

Now, talking to a former piper [who was a very good friend of Leo’s] in my locality some time ago, I was surprised how his own assessment of the set he used to play, and Rowsome pipes in general, was very similar to my own. It made me realise that his generation of pipers by and large played Rowsome sets because they couldn’t get hold of anything else that was actually working , they were making do and they were well aware of some of the shortcomings of the instruments.

Now the set of pipes formerly owned by the piper mentioned above [a Willie body with a Leo chanter which was handpicked for the former owner by Sean Reid and as Rowsomes go a nice chanter] is in the hands of one of my own pupils, it is well reeded but I feel it has held back the present player immensely during her initial learning period, by now she is coping with the idiosyncrasies and sounding quite lovely. You should have heard her though when I let her play my own set a year ago[which probably takes up less air and less pressure with regs and drones going than the Rowsome chanter which is easy enough to play by concert standards] , she couldn’t believe it and wouldn’t touch her own pipes for weeks. I play her Rowsome chanter often enough [and I can make a fair go at coaxing it into making the right sounds I like to believe] but I am always glad I can give it back to her.

So, before I ramble off too far, in response to glands above [who I take to be the doctor from Nashville who in the past seems to have taken a sudden interest in the care of historic instruments] I don’t think any of the old makers would have had to use inferior tools, woodturning in the 18th and 19th centuries was done with consummate skill and limiting us to the pipes, the craftmanship of the earliest pipemakers has yet to be matched.

And as far as being as bold as to knock Rowsome sets, I think you should look at them and take in their good points and bad ones and weigh up if they are what you like. Whether they are worth the hassle or not. Personally I don’t care for them as I said above, maybe because I set them off against the set of pipes I have been playing for past 16 or 17 years and against some of the other sets I have sat down with over time. Ofcourse you can coax a particular tone out of them but you can wonder if it’s worth the effort. Some would say yes please, others, well maybe thanks but no thanks.

glands · Post by **glands** » Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:13 pm

Mr. Laban, If you choose to attempt to quote me, or anyone else for that matter, then please quote directly and refrain from stating your interpretations and then being so presumptous as to place quotation marks around those misquotes.

I am wondering where you got the idea that I have "in the past"...."....taken a sudden interest in the care of historic instruments." I simply remarked about their playability; not their care. And, to end a beating to the dead horse to which you refer in attempt to drag it out of the closet in a pedantic way, I still believe that Liam O'Flynn has a right to do with "his" chanters in "his" possession whatever he wants!!! That doesn't mean that I support his decision, as I really have no personal experience on which to evaluate whether he acted in good faith with the instrument , so, don't misinterpret me. My position is one on ownership not the ethics of the matter.

The other thing I'd like for you to recognize is that OPINIONS on matters can never be wrong but facts on matters can indeed be wrong and misstated. The FACT of the matter is that the lathes and other equipment operated by pipemakers today, mostly at the flip of a switch to supply electricity to cause them to function, the cutting tools, the reamers, etc ARE INDEED superior tools.......you seem to imply that I spoke of the skills of the makers....simply a misstatement of my OPINION of the TOOLS based on FACT.

Otherwise, I allow you and I appreciate your opinions....and I hope that you will allow me mine and others there's without being so undiplomatic about it in the future.

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Sat Mar 15, 2003 4:44 pm

A good Rowsome chanter, properly reeded,
and in the hands of a good piper, speaks for itself.
Isn't that part indubitible?

I do prefer more technical comments like WHAT it is
exactly that makes a Rowsome so famously sought after
by some of the best pipers, but I do appreciate all the above,
like I do any other general comments on this board. In fact,
the more prickly and abrasive, the clearer it becomes
that experience in toning down a Rowsome could greatly aid
in toning down the throat of other chanters as well.

Things of interest to me, about the Rowsomes,
is the type of wood, the dimensions of the bore,
how certain reeds work fine while others don't,
what can be done to fix what's wrong,
and what it is about some piper's style of playing
that demands just a little more than what
they can find in any ordinary chanter.

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 3:23 am

glands wrote:Mr. Laban, If you choose to attempt to quote me, or anyone else for that matter, then please quote directly and refrain from stating your interpretations and then being so presumptous as to place quotation marks around those misquotes.

I am wondering where you got the idea that I have "in the past"...."....taken a sudden interest in the care of historic instruments." I simply remarked about their playability; not their care. And, to end a beating to the dead horse to which you refer in attempt to drag it out of the closet in a pedantic way.

I suggested you have taken a sudden interest in historic instruments based on what you wrote above 'what a treat though to play a historic instrument..' . I did not refer at all at all in my post to the Ennis chanter episode although your reactions in that discussion may have been in the back of my head. You did express rather vocal opinions on old pipes during a recent regulator workshop at the East Coast tionol, reports from several people trying to learn something there travelled through the grapevine and based on that I thought your 'treat to play such an historic instrument' was somewhat ironic.

As to Lorenzo's point, I was trying to make a case for looking at Rowsome chanters for what they are. Not suddenly take them for the superchanters they are not. I tried to bring across that I have an appreciation for a specific sound in them, basically because the pipers I listened to when starting out had that sound. Many years on now I listen to the instrument differently, I still hear the same pipers I used to listen to and still appreciate some tonal features in their playing I also now hear clearly the difficulties the chanter is presenting the players, the ugly octave E's the flappy back D, flat top G Wanky hard's.
I am also not so sure the best pipers are trying to seek out Rowsomes. Soke do, many don't. Take them as I said for what they are, they have good features and bad ones, weigh them up and decide whether or no you'd want to play them.

[edited 1. to add response to L. and 2. to edit loads of typos]

Brian Lee · Post by **Brian Lee** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:33 am

I don’t think any of the old makers would have had to use inferior tools, woodturning in the 18th and 19th centuries was done with consummate skill and limiting us to the pipes, the craftmanship of the earliest pipemakers has yet to be matched.

Peter,

I never thought about this point before, but you hit upon something that is a bit of a cliché here. The saying: "They don't make them like they used to!" is thrown around all the time, used on everything from cars, to homes, to Stradavarius violins. The craftsmanship of old has indeed given way to faster 'better' means of production, and more modern techniques. Now, this is not to say that the better makers of today don't know what they're doing, but perhaps rather that some of the old world skills have either been lost, or maybe even just glossed over in the name of progress.

I'm ONLY speculating here, but it is an interesting thought. Please no flames guys...just thinking out loud here. Thanks all

Bri~

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:26 am

Well, craftmanship aside, around the mid 80s I spent a whole day with Geoff Wooff looking at the lathes and tools in the science museum in London. And at things made using the equipment on display [predominantly 19th century tools]. Items of great beauty and unbelievable precision were produced in earlier days. Different ways of production, craftmanship, that too ofcourse, but I still think beautifull precision tools were available in times past, in spite of glands telling me it's a fact today's tools are better. When you see photographs and the odd film of Leo Rowsome [to get back on topic] in his workshop working away at this treadle lathe it's very easy to think he was using primitive tools . Still that doesn't mean that lathes and reamers of extreme quality weren't available in his day.

Tony · Post by **Tony** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:18 am

I think David Daye made the comment about the accuracy of the tooling (back then) being no less than today's standards, it was the technique that was lost.

kenr · Post by **kenr** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:34 am

Getting back to the main subject of this thread, there are inherent design problems in the shift to louder "concert" pitch sets, whether it's the peculiar reed requirements for the old Taylor chanters or the fog-horn bass drone on most designs of sets in D. The change in design was quickly followed by a dramatic decline in piping and pipe making both in Ireland and America. Nobody took on the american market with much success after Billy Taylor died - O'Neill had some fairly brief but not complimentary comments about the enthusiastic amateurs who got hold of Taylor's tools.

Leo was probably the best maker of concert sets in his day, but other pipe makers didn't seem particulary interested in concert set (Dan Dowd or Matt Kiernan chanter in D anybody?). I wonder why! So we had to wait til the late 70s and 80s for pipe makers to look at fixing some of the outstanding design flaws through more design tweaks and now most pipemakers will give you a reliable, easily reeded, steady concert chanter that shouldn't include a rush as an integral component. Peter still wouldn't give most of them house room but that's his taste.

Peter usually makes it clear that he is a dedicated flat piper and if you play regularly with a balanced flat set in just intonation, a concert set however well set up and dead on in tune will just sound "wrong". If you play flat you'll know what I mean.

That said, good reeds and a leak free set-up are essential for any set flat or concert. I've heard my share of flat sets where the regs just drown the rest of the set and the drones waver like mad so there's no "two legs good, four legs bad" kind of attitude here. If you like playing concert pitch my view is yer average Rowsome with a decent reed is a good chanter. I've only ever played two Rowsomes and they were both very easy to play and pleasant to my ears, so maybe I've been lucky.

Ken

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 12:02 pm

I fully agree with Ken, looking at the concert pitch instruments from where I am sitting, there isn't much satisfaction in playing them. Five years ago Geoff Wooff gave me a Rowsome chanter that was sort of decent [it was a 'budget model but it came tuned and set up as Geoff thought I would like it']. There was some pressure from some of the old guys to play with their 'band' on the sundays and this I dutifully did. Sitting in with Junior Crehan and his compatriots with a Rowsome foghorn [moderately set up as it was] was something I found a major embarrasment, I was not there after all to drown out the rest of them but to sit in and absorb their music. At home I didn't think of playing 'the thing' [as it became known very soon] because compared to what I usually try to play, the concert one just wasn't much fun. I gave it back so t olet it go to someone who could give it full appreciation if you like. I took up the tin whistle instead.
That said, the Rowsome chanter I referred to in a previous post, the one my student plays, is fairly well behaved for a concert pitch one, I can sound like your favourite piper on it if I set my mind to it but it's just not my thing. As Ken points out this is largely due from my perspective, coming down as it were from quite a well behaved instrument capable of very expressive sounds.
Both Dan and Matt Kiernan did make concert chanters although some of Dan's may have been made by Johnny Burke while he was working for Dan.
I fully agree with Ken [again] on the (bass) drone issue although I must say I have played Taylor sets [and I am thinking particularly of the very early one Rolf Knusel has] that have abosulutely lovely balanced drones. The huge metal soundboxes Leo liked to use didn't do him much favours in the stability department and volume wise I have heard them compared to a truck driving into the session.

My own opinions about the concert sets aside I think it may be good to realise that the pipes are not exactly a popular instrument among [the older] musicians, certainly in the West of Ireland. I have referred here often to my ongoing duet with the great Kitty Hayes and it is often she declared she never ever liked the pipes, those squeaky old things [she once brought that up when we were listenign to Padraig MacMathuna and Tony Linnane playing abosulutely wonderfully]. My flat pipes were an eye opener to her indeed. It is an opinion quite often heard when you get to know the players of that generation. And guess what make of pipes that opinion is largely based on.

[edited for a few and probably not all typos]