I agree with Bill, it’s so difficult to work out what those classic pipemakers were really up to.
My best guess is that James Kenna would have regarded the “Heritage Set” as being in E flat. He would be working mainly to the high chamber pitch of the time (A at 422.5 hertz) as did Handel, Purcell and the rest. Why E flat? Well maybe that was nearest key to what came out when those pipemakers took the foot joint off the Pastorals and messed about a bit.
The trouble is, this means that we should expect the Heritage set to play about 30 or 35 cents sharp of modern D. But it doesn’t, it appears to be only about 15 cents sharp. Frustratin’ ain’t it! I don’t know if either Ken McCleod or Ronan has reeded the set as close to concert D as they could get or what. At 15 cents sharp. flute and fiddle players can easily tune up.
I’ve notice similar discrepancies with other historic sets, although sometimes historic regs and drones are used with modern chanters, which is another potential pitfall for the researcher.
I’ve looked at a lot of different sources and I now know that there are no easy answers. Terry McGee’s website has some useful info. on nineteenth century pitches used by flutemakers. This gave me a flash of inspiration (or it’s another blind alley perhaps). The flute is a warm breath instrument and the human body is much the same as it was two hundred years ago. However the climate has changed dramatically since 1850 in the North Atlantic region - it’s 1.5C warmer. And we no longer make or play our pipes in cold damp conditions with several more layers of clothing around us. This can make a big difference to the pitch of the notes that come out of our chanter. And those pipes have aged for over 200 years as well. All I’m saying is that there are other factors to be taken into consideration.
A at 415 was a historic pitch but possibly not one of the significant ones. It’s main claim to fame is that the baroque revivalists back in the 1950’s adopted A415.5 as their pitch for convenience because its exactly modern A flat (and of course D flat/ C# etc. etc.)
FWIW I have also seen similar Kennas that played in or close to (today’s) Csharp and Eflat. All had a drone/chanter balance that is quite different from today’s preferred one: very powerful drones that may not have been used all at the same time.
And as to cold and damp conditions, not been to the West of Ireland for a while have you?
All of that makes sense to me. I know many folks have flat chanters that are happiest a few sense shy either way of the “pitch” and Robbie Hannan’s Kenna/Coyne (whichever it is!) is 30 cents sharp of modern B on every recording that I can find. I know recordings can skew pitch sometimes, but I’d read elsewhere that that wasn’t the case with his…correct me if I’m wrong. I also want to say that I’d thought Tommy Reck’s set was happiest on the sharp side of B. Is it possible that the classic makers, the pipes being a solo instrument, sought tone and playing characteristics first, and then worked out the relative pitch second? Did they feel that they had to match an established pitch or were they more concerned about having the instrument in tune with itself at the pitch that most matched to qualities of that particular piece of work? Do we know if they really even cared if their instruments were compatible with the instruments from the music of the time? I mean after all, they weren’t targeting the classical set.
I mean after all, they weren’t targeting the classical set.
I remember Sean Donnelly pointing out in class in 1982 that Dublin was the second city in the Empire. Essentially one of the foremost cities in the world. These people were no fools away from the world, oboe and flute were among the instruments these men made, targeting ‘the classical set’, it is also know operatic airs etc were part of the piper’s repertoire at the time.
I see what you mean, I should have phrased that differently. What I was getting at was the the pipes weren’t part of the classical composer/orchestra genre (or at least as far as the composers went!) so the maker wouldn’t necessarily need to apply the same standards that violin, viola, keyboard, flute, and oboe makers were following right?
Wrang…
Page 1 THE UNION PIPES
Being an instrument now so much improved as renders it able to play any kind of Music,and with the additional accompanyments which belong to it produce a variety of pleasing Harmony which forms as it were a little Band in itself.
Gentlemen often expressing a desire to learn the pipes have been prevented by not meeting with a proper Book Instructions,which has induced the Author to write the following Treatise,which it is presumed with the favorite Colle-
ction of Tunes added thereto will be acceptable to the Lovers of Ancient and Pastoral Music..
From the 1st Paragraph of the 1st page of O’Farrells Collection of National Irish Music for the Union Pipes.1804
It hardly seems likely that the pipes were being played by or for an undiscerning audience who couldnae tell the difference betwixt a cows’ flatulance and Eb…
Given that there is wealth of detail in the Collection on musical style why on earth would it not be in tune with the instruments of the time?
On the Cover of the book it follows the heading with…
Comprising a Variety of the Most Favourite Slow & Sprightly Tunes.Set in proper Stile & Taste with Variations and Adapted Likewise for the German Flute,Violin,Flagelet.Piano &Harp,with a selection,of Favourite Scotch Tunes,Also a Treatise with the most Perfect Instructions ever yet Published for the PIPES.
All of which would suggest that far frae being some lesser instrument they were indeed targeting the Classical Set as ye put it.
I agree wi Peter. Dublin was a Classical City in the finest sense so was its music,its musicians and its Instruments.
Slán Go Foill
Uilliam
Yes, I am familiar with that material Ulliam. What I’m saying though, and I seem to have a hard time getting this across, is that the classical arena wasn’t targeting the pipes, not the other way around. How many pieces did Mozart, Haydn, Handel etc. write for the pipes? None. Any pipe concertos? See my point? So, if the instrument didn’t need to fit in with an orchestra at a defined pitch, it wouldn’t really matter what its pitch was, the tone and balance, and tuning with itself would be more important. Classical music was already switching over to equal temperment, so that right there makes a point. What I was getting at was that if a maker wasn’t bound by needing to deliver an instrument that played across the scales in an exact pitch, to meet the demand of orchestral players and composers, then he could offer a wider range of pitches that suited the designs of the chanters rather than the other way around. And I was actually asking about that, not trying to say that’s the way it was. Just seemed like a logical conclusion.
William Reeve’s Oscar and Malvina, variously described as a “Grand Pantomime Ballet” or an “Opera” (surely ‘Light’ Opera?) seems to have been written with Union (or perhaps Pastoral) pipes specifically in mind. The pipes were certainly a featured instrument in performances of it in 1794 and after (O’Farrell seems to have been the featured piper in some performances).
William Reeve’s Oscar and Malvina, variously described as a “Grand Pantomime Ballet” or an “Opera” (surely ‘Light’ Opera?) seems to have been written with Union (or perhaps Pastoral) pipes specifically in mind. The pipes were certainly a featured instrument in performances of it in 1794 and after (O’Farrell seems to have been the featured piper in some performances).
There well may have been more of these kind of shows.
Another composer of the day in London was William Shields who picked up some Irish tunes from another Irish musician John O’Keeffe and used them as ‘inspiration’ in his compositions.
Shields, incidently started to write Oscar and Malvina but was fired as composer and replaced by Reeves.
A long was of saying that early pipes must have some kind of standardized pitch(es) because they were used in all kinds of ensembles.
Thanks Bill ,kinda looks as tho this particular ship has sprung a major leak and with it meemtp’s argument.
meemtp If’n ye are so familiar wi the O’Farrell book then ye would have noticed that … as printed above is… Adapted Likewise for the German Flute,Violin,Flagelet.Piano &Harp…
This would suggest that the Pipes could be played wi the above and not that they couldnae.
to quote yersel… so the maker wouldn’t necessarily need to apply the same standards that violin, viola, keyboard, flute, and oboe makers were following right?
The maker doesnae need to apply any standards, ie present day Geoffrey Made sets but it would be rather foolish don’t ye think.??
Given that ensemble playing was very popular
I think it a tad arrogant to suggest that Kenna Coyne et al, would ignore the conventions of the time and make an instrument that could only be played solo and was a lesser standard than other parlour/orchestral instruments.
ye also say..How many pieces did Mozart, Haydn, Handel etc. write for the pipes? None.
This is a non issue and seems to be a red herring.Haydn spent some time in Dublin BTW and wrote pieces there.The absence of evidence is in itself inconclusive.I think it most unlikely, extremely maybe, that your trio wrote for the pipes but I would never presume to use a negative to support a positive.Who knows Haydn may well have written a piece in the toilet and then realised that he didnae have any paper to wipe his aerse so goodbye Pipe Symphony???
That there is little written work lends nothing to support an argument that the makers did whatever they liked…just because they were not being played in an orchestral sense as ye say but as can be seen Oscar & Malvina disproves,not a symphony perhaps but played with other instruments…
Methinks that is why ye are having such difficulty getting across …we are not convinced.
If I may muddy the waters further, from what I’ve read, in a time when there was no radio, television or recorded music, it was a very important and significant ability to be able to create music in the home for one’s own entertainment. As O’Farrell’s Intro reminds us, the market for union pipes was largely by “gentlemen”, i.e. people of some means. They would be the first ones looking to be able to play their pipes in tune with other instruments, such as those mentioned in O 'Farrell’s tutor.
I wonder if maybe we’re getting at the same thing but saying it differently? I definitely meant the orchestral/major composer sense as far as pitches etc. ie- pipe makers wouldn’t necessarily be making pipes for the orchestra market and major composers wouldn’t be composing orchestral pieces for the pipes. What I was trying to get across was the question that given that, was the market, solo or ensemble, for the pipes one that was using varying pitches based on the group/piece and not striving for a standard orchestral pitch as the big groups were. Similar to the Baroque traverso concept with the corps de recharge. One section for one pitch to play with an orchestra or different orchestras, another for small ensembles, and a third for solo/duet work or a particular piece etc. . Does that make my question any more well put? I’d imagine that even the gentlemen pipers weren’t in possession of one set of every pitch, but wondering if the varying pitches were a function of the different uses that different players may have wanted their pipes for. Say one wanted to play diddly, but another wanted to play contemporary ensemble pieces and a third maybe would want both. Different models available for different uses if you will. Again, only a thought/question not a declaration of fact.
Added:
To take this one step further, did the pipes start out with one or two “standard” pitches, and then add more to suit the increasing demand of the instrument and the different uses customers had, ie a customer wanting to play mainly trad and desiring a lower pitch/different timbre? Kind of a precursor to the evolution of the wide-bore, concert-pitch set?
Mozart DID write music for the pipes, although not Wolfgang Amadeus. His father Leopold Mozart wrote at least one piece, “Die Bauernhochzeit” (The farmer’s wedding) with solo parts for bagpipe and hammered dulcimer, I doubt he had the uilleann pipes in mind though.
Hey Tommy - you played Pat Sky’s B Kenna at the S/E Tionol in April with Kieran O’Hare. It seamed to me that when you both played together BOTH B chanters were in tune and played very well together.
Ive played that chanter too. The sweetest thing… I played with another piper(Brad Angus full set in B) the chanters were spot on in tune but the tone and playability of that Kenna is the stuff of legends…
Hey Tommy - you played Pat Sky’s B Kenna at the S/E Tionol in April with Kieran O’Hare. It seamed to me that when you both played together BOTH B chanters were in tune and played very well together.
Yeah, those chanters were almost bang on in tune. Rogges B chanter are modeled on a Colgan but I’ve bo idea how different the Andreas’ design is from the original.
Pats B chanter is stamped ‘Kenna Dublin’ so it must be after Kenna left Mulingar (1839 ??)
It could be worth noting that both Colgan and Timothy Kenna both lived and worked in Mullingar and Dublin so they may well have known each other and possibly influenced each others work.
Now that’s total speculation on my behalf but I do believe that these historical makers were had a good amount of communication with other.
I’d also take a chance and say that both Pat Sky’s and Jimmy O’Brien-Morans B chanters were concert C chanters when A was 415…
That’s right. Andreas B chanters are modelled on the Coyne, inside as well as out. He’s made quite a few modifications to toneholes, compared to the Coyne original, however.
That’s right. Andreas B chanters are modelled on the Coyne, inside as well as out. He’s made quite a few modifications to toneholes, compared to the Coyne original, however.
Is this the same Coyne whose measurements were published in the SRS volume 1 and if so has Andreas made any information available as to what modifications he made to the toneholes?