This question is for either makers or owners. Given that ‘not all narrow bore instruments are the same’, and the closer they are to some of the ‘Classic’ sets by Coyne, Kenna, and Egan, the more likely they are to not use modern fingering, the question I have is: Does your modern narrow ‘D’ set use the modern fingerings or does it use the ‘two finger’ back D and the alternate lower hand fingerings? If it doesn’t, what, if you can say, has been done to give the modern fingerings?
An associated question regarding R. L. Mealy’s C# chanters. Do these use any of the alternate fingerings?
the more likely they are to not use modern fingering, the question I have is: Does your modern narrow ‘D’ set use the modern fingerings or does it use the ‘two finger’ back D and the alternate lower hand fingerings? If it doesn’t, what, if you can say, has been done to give the modern fingerings?
Fingerings can, to a point, be addressed in the voicing stages. Before my NBD chanter was finished fingerings were discussed and the chanter was voiced to my preferences including two finger back d, two finger F, which each will give a fuller tone.
But I don’t believe thinking of fingerings as one set of options is the right way to approach a chanter as in practice one would use different fingerings all the time for reasons of tone colour, micro-tonal pitch changes, legato v non legato, on-off the knee etc. I know I do and I am hardly unique in this. In other words, I’d use ‘modern’ (perhaps ‘standard’ fingerings is a better descriptor?) fingerings on my C or NBD chanters when I feel the situation calls for them and I would vary fingerings all the time on a ‘modern’ concert pitch chanter whenever I play one. It’s all in being flexible and drawing out the sounds and colours your chanter will give/allow you, never about the one true fingering for each note.
Having played an O’Mealy NBD I can say that it took well to modern/standard fingering but it really brought out the colour of the chanter with alternatives. The two finger F was particularly nice.
For me, learning different fingering is probably as important as learning basic ornamentation like cranning and rolls.
My first response to your question Bob is what is “Modern Fingering” ? I guess you mean some sort of standard fingering that is currently taught or noted in more than one Tutor book… something I recall as 2,1,2,1,2,1,1 , this being the number of fingers raised for ascending notes, with chanter on the knee, for the key of D. I think that any Piper who sticks with only one fingering for each note is probably missing out on half the enjoyment of playing the Pipes.
If we start with the very general premise that " the smaller the Tone Holes the bigger are the effects of crossfingerings"… obviously there are limits and compromises to be taken into account with that statement … then somewhere within all the limits and compromises there could be a happy medium that would give the piper reasonable scope for tonal and tuning variations… even an amount of dynamic control, if only in a perceived or subtle way … bagpipes are single volume instruments… no dynamic range available.
The sort of control I am talking about can be more available on the classic instruments due to these smaller tone holes, reed dependant of course. So, my original idea to create a D chanter in the image of the pre-famine style instruments was to be able to have all the tone colour control that I was used to on my Harrington C. So, I wanted the two fingered back D and all the various other fingering deviations from a theorectical standard.
I try to make all my chanters in such a way that the Modern Fingerer is accomodated and I can and do offer to voice a new chanter and reed to have a single fingered back D etc etc. , if the customer so desires. Yes it can be made with single fingered F#s but is that missing the point ?
So, my take on the Narrow Bore D set is to have a Pipes in D that plays like a Flat set.
My (admittedly limited) experience is in line with these gents. I currently own five chanters by three different makers; two flat chanters (B & C), one narrow-bore D, and two “modern” (wide-bore?) D. All of them can be played with modern/standard fingering, but each of them has different sweet notes and colours/tones available from alternate fingerings. To be clear, the fingering to get some of these notes/tones varies from chanter to chanter, for the same place in the scale. Even the chanters by the same maker (all in different pitches) like different fingerings for some of the same notes (same place in the scale that is). Ergo, each chanter and reed combination has its own unique personality, and I have to figure out how best to coax the sweetest notes and tones from each - regardless of the pitch or bore diameter.
I want to thank you all for your replies. They have clarified my thinking a great deal. Yes, Geoff, you are right, by ‘modern’ I am really thinking ‘standard’. Many years ago when I was first confronted by a practice set, I was given a copy of Leo Rowsome’s Tutor and directed to the fingering chart. From my limited contact with Baroque flute I have seen what small finger holes can do with regard to tonal shading.
JR was the NBD chanter you played the McCullough chanter?
Has anyone made copies of the Coyne chanter mentioned by Craig Fischer in Sean Reid Vol L? The one he said played about 30 cents below modern pitch?
Actually, the “standart” fingering appears to me to be the “closest” possible solution to get a staccatto playing on an UP chanter.
Probably because it is more complicated, it was driven to become the standart, for some pretentious claims.
Remember that Leo , in his tutor, taught open fingering before the closed one.
I fully agree with all that has been said above, yet I still don’t understand why concert-pitch chanters are always considered as less good in this fingering work than flats.
I’m doing exactly the same job, as well on concerts than with narrow bored, and it works the same: concert-pitchs are brilliant in open playing too, the only difference being that they’re a bit more loud. We’ve allready discussed this point elsewhere, before.
As P. Laban says, the tuning can be greatly controlled or adapted in varying fingering. I probably never play a sustained back D without choosing which fingering suits the best…
That can beside be a problem, when you make reeds or chanters for others, because, if used to do this control, you can play well with a rather out of tune reed…
Much of customers can be desapointed when they try the chanter.(so the maker has to make better reeds for them than he’s using for himself… )
Etc,etc…:I love open fingerings! , and all I have to add is repeating what has been allready said
I still don’t understand why concert-pitch chanters are always considered as less good in this fingering work than flats.
Maybe not think of the issue as the difference between open/closed playing but as the use of tonal colouring and using different fingerings for a note to achieve that. Larger holes will not allow the change in harmonics and shading/colouring of tone as well as the smaller holes.
Probably because it is more complicated, it was driven to become the standart, for some pretentious claims.
Not quite sure where you’re going with this statement, especially the ‘pretentious’ bit. One fingering isn’t more complicated than the other, it’s whatever you’re used to that comes easiest, a matter of habit and practice. As for declaring one more right over the other, that has probably a lot to do with historical precedent and the styles of ‘the old pipers’. The challenge is in finding the right mix of the different approaches in order to make the tune at hand shine and sparkle, to find the best way to articulate your melody and rhythm, in other words.
I think someone should mention the “old-fashioned” fingering charts in the Ennis book and in the O’Farrell tutor in case some readers haven’t heard of of them. Using the O’Farrell fingering on my Kenna C copy was a revelation. One thing though:- the O’Farrell tutor says that staccato notes are made, as you would expect, by closing all fingerholes between notes. That’s an awful lot of fingers moving up and down accurately and in unison, given that the chart looks much like an open fingering system. Do you think that’s the reason the “modern” system has evolved?
I had the pleasure of playing a very early (supposedly second or third O’Mealy made) D full set, narrow bore. Nice quiet set and in relation to different fingering was particularly open to variations.
This is what I’m talking about, but I simply don’t agree: I think that concert-pitchs do a great job in this matter too, and I’m making a great use of it.
I continue not to understand where their poor reputation is coming from?
We had the same debate on the french forum, and I encountered the same misunderstanding, as if people never try to apply on concerts what they do on flats.
Probably because it is more complicated, it was driven to become the standart, for some pretentious claims.
Ok:" because it looks more complicated", should I have said. I’m pretty sure it has something to do with sort of a “piper’s proudness”, if the “basic” fingering became to be the more tricky one.
I agree with this supposal. The closed fingering on our chanters is the closest as possible, to keep the notes working. Only the high G could be played with one hole opened, instead of two.
I realize that, througt this discussion, we could imagine a complete new way of teaching (and learning!) the pipes.
Something like: “everything is possible between the most opened fingering and the closest one”
This would be more in accordance with what really happens"on the field"
I don’t think it’s a misunderstanding and it’s something that’s quite observable. That said, not every chanter is made equal and I have come across both flat and concert chanters that ware quite inflexible, seemingly capable only of producing one tone for each note without much options for change, whatever way you may try to play them. On the other hand there are concert chanters set up well that are capable of colouring notes and playing expressively in the right hands, although as a matter of physics, not to the extend a well made and well set up small holed chanter would be able to. But I’ll grant you, it’s not a straight forward thing and other factors play a role.
Think of the thing Willie Clancy said, about his father (and possibly Garret Barry) saying the pipes are the closest thing to the expression of the human voice. After which he immediately qualified it by saying he obviously didn’t mean the concert chanter. And I think we can agree he was a man who knew how to draw a sound from a chanter and handy enough at playing airs.
And I think we can agree he was a man who knew how to draw a sound from a chanter and handy enough at playing airs.
Undoubtedly:my absolute referency in the subject!
But listen of what he’s doing on “the trip o’er the mountain”, for instance: perfect proof that the concert-pitch has got deep tone possibilities, isn’t it?
On the other hand there are concert chanters set up well that are capable of colouring notes and playing expressively in the right hands, although as a matter of physics, not to the extend a well made and well set up small holed chanter would be able to.
I have four vols of O’Farrell as PDF files but I can’t find a fingering chart. Could someone tell me where I can track this down?
Thanks very much.
Richard
)
, and all I have to add is repeating what has been allready said 
