It is currently Tue Sep 26, 2017 4:47 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 
 Post subject: Finger Holes
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 6:00 pm
Posts: 80
Location: Inverurie, Scotland
This has been bugging me fo a while and i cant see to find any references previously made, however i could be being thick.

Does it make any difference to tone/sound having, shaped finger holes? If so, what?

Also, can anyone give a brief list of makers who do shaped finger holes?

Cheers

Dan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 1:58 pm
Posts: 160
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Dan, you might be interested in following this thread: http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=14256


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 5:47 am
Posts: 17853
Location: Canadia
Dan, any maker can modify the shape of the tone holes if that's what you specify, but you will have to know exactly what you want and why. A few makers shape the holes by matter of course (Cillian O'Brien comes to mind), but most will try to talk you out of it. The shaping of the hole will affect its depth, which changes the tuning and hole location. In other words, a bit of extra fiddling around with the chanter during the making.

djm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:20 am
Posts: 2925
Location: Cascadia
Cutting "valleys" into the face on a chanter is usually called "scalloping." It is done to make the chanter easier to hold, supposedly. Some pipemakers scallop all their chanters in this way, others don't, and pipers are divided on whether it makes much of a difference. As often as not you'll find a good piper whose chanters aren't scalloped, and who wonders what the bother is.
If you mean the shape of the toneholes themselves, the only pipemakers I know of who start with small drilled pilot holes and work them into a more oval shape are Geoff Wooff and Brad Angus. Both undercut the holes on both sides as well, as part of the tuning, which also serves to remove sharp edges which contribute noise to the tone, and "fraise" the holes on the outside: a kind of exterior "overcutting," to further remove turbulence from the sound of the notes. Brad voices the regulator toneholes in this way as well these days, I don't know if Geoff does.
Some makers drill big holes and undercut them somewhat. Most makers just drill the holes fullsize, and their pipes have a great deal of this noise in the sound, what I call "chiff," which is a term pipe organ builders use. Compare Padraig MacMathuna's Nick Adams Bb set to Robbie Hannon's Coyne B. Padraig's chanter, which doesn't sound undercut at all, practically hisses at you, while Robbie's is much smoother, pure, and clean sounding. This is one of those subtle things that make for a better instrument, no matter flat or concert, quiet or loud. Also refer to Peter Laban's remarks about from a previous post about playing Patsy Touhey's chanter, which he said was quite loud "but it didn't scream at you" like so many others. The Taylors voiced the holes in this manner too, of course.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 4:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 6:00 pm
Posts: 966
[quote="Kevin L. Rietmann"]Cutting "valleys" into the face on a chanter is usually called "scalloping." It is done to make the chanter easier to hold, supposedly. Some pipemakers scallop all their chanters in this way, others don't, and pipers are divided on whether it makes much of a difference.
quote]

It's really a voicing/tuning method. If it were for comfort then there would be uniformity for each scallop or something.... My chanter e.g. has most scalloping around the A & G hole with very little around the E holes and the B holes (this is a step on from Cillians previous design which was one long scallop from the A to the E hole). So with a bit of undercutting and scalloping you get a much better tuned and voiced chanter. (As usual I am looking from a D point of view). Don't try this at home!!!!!!!!!!!

Alan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 5:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:20 am
Posts: 2925
Location: Cascadia
As a way of affecting the overall thickness of the pipe, and reducing the chimmney height? But you could as well make a thinner chanter overall, with the body thicker at the bottom, something I noticed in the last Wooff chanter I had a look at. The thickness seemed to swell towards the bottom a little. Maybe the bore's smaller above the A, too?
A lot of people follow Paddy Keenan's lead in wanting to scallop to make the thing easier to grip, according to what I've always heard. That's why Paddy took the rasp to that Rowsome, right? Then there's Taylors and company, who made their chanters flat on the front. And the Brian Howard chanter you see on his website, after it's finished with its 20 minutes of loading, the back D has this monster valley carved out of it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 6:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 5146
Location: Surlyville
Childress chanters have a scallop designed into the back D... it's very comfortable playing this design.
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 5:47 am
Posts: 17853
Location: Canadia
I have heard that story too about scalloping to tune the chanter, but am told that its not at all necessary, and more a matter of the pipemaker's choice. I have had a chanter with all the front holes scalloped and found it made no difference to the playability. Same with the flattened front - no great improvement. I have also tried with the scalloped back D, and found that this actually made it harder to do the back D roll (the flapping thumb trick).

I can't speak for anyone else, but I know I looked into these many different variations to find a way to overcome the difficulties I was having covering the holes accurately and at speed. In the long run, a plain outer cylinder seems to be the best, and only long practice will fix the playability aspect.

One scallop that I do have is on the back for the lower thumb. It helps steady the chanter at those times when I have few fingers on the chanter, but it is not really a necessity, either.

djm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:56 am 
Kevin L. Rietmann wrote:
Compare Padraig MacMathuna's Nick Adams Bb set to Robbie Hannon's Coyne B. Padraig's chanter, which doesn't sound undercut at all, practically hisses at you, while Robbie's is much smoother, pure, and clean sounding. This is one of those subtle things that make for a better instrument, no matter flat or concert, quiet or loud. Also refer to Peter Laban's remarks about from a previous post about playing Patsy Touhey's chanter, which he said was quite loud "but it didn't scream at you" like so many others. The Taylors voiced the holes in this manner too, of course.


Allthough it seems a lifetime ago by now, during the summer I played Padraig's Bflat for a while. I think you should always be careful assessing the sound of a chanter from hearing one piper play it on recordings, the night I played it several other pipers took turns, Padraig himself, Sean McKeown and Liam O Flynn as well as myself, each of us sounded distinctly different playing that same set.

For what it's worth, the chanter was very strongly scalloped. The way I was holding the pipes [taking into consideration the chair I had to sit on, limited space in a full kitchen in Friel's, the length of the bellows connection and all these things] I found the deep scaloping, which was narrow an actual hindrance. The scalloping forced the fingers to be placed on the chanter in a straight angle but the way I was sitting the fingers actually wanted to shold the chanter under a slightly different angle. Which made it hard enough to cover some of the holes.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 9:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2001 6:00 pm
Posts: 5146
Location: Surlyville
Peter Laban wrote:
....each of us sounded distinctly different playing that same set....

.... I found the deep scaloping, which was narrow an actual hindrance. The scalloping forced the fingers to be placed on the chanter in a straight angle....


I've heard that comment several times and many references were to guitarists by other guitarists.

Peter, the scalloping I've seen all seem to run 90 degrees from the length of the chanter (runs crossways) without regard for tilting of the left hand (for example)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 10:21 am 
Tony, one of the most striking examples I remember occurred when Maire Ni Ghrada came to collect her new Wooff C. Geoff, Maire and myself played tunes, swapping around the new set, mine and the Harrington, each of us sounding exactly like ourselves on each instrument. By the end of the day you bering a lot to it too.

Scalloping can occur in different degrees and can be more or less gradual, Nick Adams [who was present too on the night I mentioned] scalloped Padraig's chanter in a fairly deep and narrow way, there was not much room to move your fingers around.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 6:00 pm
Posts: 80
Location: Inverurie, Scotland
Thanks to all who replied.

I have never played a "scalloped" chanter you see. It would be possible to scallop the holes at a paricular angle specific to a piper though? At a cost obviously.

Dan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 5:47 am
Posts: 17853
Location: Canadia
Dan, only do-able if you start from scratch. Changing the depth of the tone holes on an already working chanter would blow all the tuning away. But, yes, your pipemaker could customize the chanter to you.

Would your really want this? I don't know how long you have been playing, but if your grip changes as you develop, the chanter might not suit you anymore, and wouldn't have much re-sale value if it didn't suit anyone else - just a thought.

djm


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 2:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2002 6:00 pm
Posts: 80
Location: Inverurie, Scotland
I have not been playing long, I was just curious. I find that they look more appealing than staright ones which is another factor. I think i know someone with scalloped finger holes so i will see if i can get a try of them and see what i think.

You make a good point though.

Dan


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Oct 25, 2003 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2002 6:00 pm
Posts: 1622
Location: Isle of Geese
Kevin L. Rietmann wrote:
But you could as well make a thinner chanter overall, with the body thicker at the bottom, something I noticed in the last Wooff chanter I had a look at. The thickness seemed to swell towards the bottom a little.
that's the way i'd like a chanter. cylindrical at the holes and conical beyond the bottom D.
as far as i can notice, marc van daal has done the same with the set in his front page http://www.uilleann.net/


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.080s | 13 Queries | GZIP : On ]
(dh)