What to do? Fix it or put up with it [title amended - Mod]?

[dunnp]

I should have included an emoticon. The rat tail file line is tongue in cheek.
The point is anyone attempting to fix these features misses the point.
Hence the features of a nice small holed stick rather than bugs that need fixing.

[mirabai]

Normal or not, I submit that these elements are choices of the pipemaker, however conscious, but it is at the discretion of the owner and a skilled maker, whether the original or another, whether they can be "improved" and whether the owner wants them to be. If I chose to pursue those changes it would be precisely because the "stick" was not "versatile" nor in tune with useful fingerings. In any case, I do not ever recommend anyone doing this themselves if they are not in a position of experience and skill.

[Mr.Gumby]

If I chose to pursue those changes it would be precisely because the "stick" was not "versatile" nor in tune with useful fingerings.

And there you are already on thin ice. It is indeed a maker's choice and, in the case of the chanters I play myself that use similar fingerings, a deliberate and considered one.

I don't know why you assume a chanter like that wouldn't be 'versatile'. I like to think the chanters I am playing as versatile and probably as rich in tonal colour as they get. And they were voiced with that purpose in mind. So recommending a make over because of the chosen fingerings for certain notes would in my view be well off-limits as this would interfere with the maker's intentions and specific qualities of the chanter(s).

[mirabai]

If I chose to pursue those changes it would be precisely because the "stick" was not "versatile" nor in tune with useful fingerings.

And there you are already on thin ice. It is indeed a maker's choice and, in the case of the chanters I play myself that use similar fingerings, a deliberate and considered one.

I don't know why you assume a chanter like that wouldn't be 'versatile'. I like to think the chanters I am playing as versatile and probably as rich in tonal colour as they get. And they were voiced with that purpose in mind. So recommending a make over because of the chosen fingerings for certain notes would in my view be well off-limits as this would interfere with the maker's intentions and specific qualities of the chanter(s).

understood... what I mean by "not versatile", is that in my experience, the smaller the bore and holes, especially with thicker walls, the fewer fingerings will work = less versatile, regardless of how much you might like the tone of the design. This is the balance point for me. I am unwilling to put up with non-versatility or out of tune notes, especially if the issues can be "fixed" with minimum consequences. Sometimes the consequences are greater and the choice is more complex. It is still up to the owner to make that choice though, with the help of a knowledgeable maker with no agenda.

[myrddinemrys]

In any case, I do not ever recommend anyone doing this themselves if they are not in a position of experience and skill.

or to anyone who would be flayed alive by the wife for modding the pipes?

[dunnp]

An article by Geoff Woof touching on why smaller bores and fingerholes offer greater versatility
http://source.pipers.ie/PdfViewer.aspx?mediaId=11081

I think the owner of the pipes has every right to make them play a certain way. However these decisions should not be made lightly or by beginners. Every maker with an interest laments that the work of the 19th century was tampered with by later makers and players.

I am suspicious of "Improvements" . To me the fingerlngs , tone, flexibility, etc. offered by my c chanter are a vast improvement over the d chanters I struggled with for many years.

Few traditional musicians would agree Boehm improved the flute. However some might think Nicholson did so its not a clear cut case.

I don't see this as an argument but an interesting topic with differing viewpoints. Would be great to hear from other makers but being a delicate subject it's easy to see why they would be reluctant to weigh in and I applaud Tim and Bill for doing so.

[Brazenkane]

I am unwilling to put up with non-versatility or out of tune notes.

I've talked to Tim about this one on a few occasions. I know makers who prioritize the faithful copying of (the best of) the old instruments. From what i understand, they believe that those makers had arrived upon some combination of tone and tuning that is sublime. The tuning isn't what would be called a great scale by today's standards (meaning: those looking for 440, all octaves in-tune-type scale), but then again, that depends on who you're talking to. One thing is for sure, the tone and timbre on the old instruments can be otherworldly amazing. I think some (if not all) of those makers that are copying/building sets like the old guys, feel that the craftsman of yesteryear arrived at their discovery by sheer genius, and that there the information they used to get there is lost.

It appears, or better, physically sounds like the more makers try to "straighten out" the pitch, the broader, and in many cases, the brighter the tone is. I know of some very in tune chanters. They'd be great in certain situations. Then again, that is depending on your vantage point. Some who have ears enough to hear it, feel that a chanter should sound like a old chanter w/ all it's eccentricities. Others might go with the view point that the makers of old had figured out quite a bit, but were chancing it just like everyone else, and that they didn't take the instrument as far (in tune?) as it could've gone. That said, we all know "in tune" in the 1800s ain't the in tune of today. There's a definite lore that is connected with copies; e.g. by being faithful to (the best of) an old design, I'm reaching into the past, tonally, scale-wize, and vibe. And, all lore aside, I personally like 'em.

Conversely, makers (Tim and others), might be less willing to put up with some of the older eccentricities. Now, we're back into judgement calls. There are other factors too...and ones that Tim alluded to. How well does the maker play? How experienced is he/she? Is the maker just parroting work, or is the effort based on a deeper understanding?

So many factors to consider....

I think back to some of the lads who had poorly made chanters , who quit playing in the 1980's and '90's. I think they'd've been very happy to have someone (like Tim?) to get them going, no matter the maker.

[Elmek]

mirabai wrote: Some designs have a slower taper in the top half of the chanter and then taper more quickly in the bottom half. They start and end with the usual dimensions of a 3/16" throat and 1/2" bottom end, roughly speaking, for a D chanter, but can be much smaller than a typical Rowsome style chanter between the back D and G holes. This makes the already chronic issue of breaking back D all but unavoidable and the second octave A and B will generally be sharp

My own pipes which have a chanter with what looks like a two stage bore (narrow (I take it this is slow ?) then widening out) works nicely through both octaves, jumps the octave easily and is in tune the whole way. When I managed to break the reed (I know I shouldn't be messing with it ) I tried the BH Universal reed and others by different makers and it was flat and way out of tune. Finally plucked up the courage to ask for a replacement from my pipe maker and hay presto it was back to as good as new

Question here would be how does Mr Britton know that he has right reed design to suit the chanter when making assumptions the design is wrong?

John

[geoff wooff]

mirabai wrote: Some designs have a slower taper in the top half of the chanter and then taper more quickly in the bottom half. They start and end with the usual dimensions of a 3/16" throat and 1/2" bottom end, roughly speaking, for a D chanter, but can be much smaller than a typical Rowsome style chanter between the back D and G holes. This makes the already chronic issue of breaking back D all but unavoidable and the second octave A and B will generally be sharp

My own pipes which have a chanter with what looks like a two stage bore (narrow (I take it this is slow ?) then widening out) works nicely through both octaves, jumps the octave easily and is in tune the whole way. When I managed to break the reed (I know I shouldn't be messing with it ) I tried the BH Universal reed and others by different makers and it was flat and way out of tune. Finally plucked up the courage to ask for a replacement from my pipe maker and hay presto it was back to as good as new

Question here would be how does Mr Britton know that he has right reed design to suit the chanter when making assumptions the design is wrong?

John

Very good question John !

Would anyone like to read my opinion on some of the points made on this thread ?

Oh, and hello to all,
Geoff.

[Ted]

Hi Geoff,
I, for one, would love to see your input.

[myrddinemrys]

I second that, Geoff; I like to hear pipemaker perspectives.

[PhilD]

Would anyone like to read my opinion on some of the points made on this thread ?

Ummm?.... Yes please!!

Warm welcome to the forum Geoff.

[geoff wooff]

Thanks for the welcome. Let's see how far I get with this:

Being a maker, one of my instruments suffered at the hands of someone who thought they knew better. It was a set that lived a long way from Ireland and the owner, my customer, had the misfortune to break the chanter reed. So, instead of asking for a replacement he decided to see what his more local reedmaker could do. What happened was ,to my mind bizare. The chanter was returned to its owner with a new bore and fingerholes and a reed to match.

Now, one might imagine this happening to a poorly designed concert pitch chanter but this was one of my C set chanters, which now resembled, both in looks and workability a modern Concert D chanter ( but still in C)! My Customer was mortified, to say the least, and called me about it. I could not believe what he was saying so I suggested he sent the thing back to me for assesment.

What I recieved was a nicely ruined chanter that lacked its original character and ,as my Customer suggested , it just did not sound anything like it had originally. The result was that I had to make a new chanter..... So, who did this...?? I have been told but hearsay is just that and so I will not say in public.

The design of this C set was based on my Harrington C set which , in my experiance, is an almost unique survivour from the pre Famine period. Most of the sets from that time are in what we would now call C# or B... very few that will now play comfortably in modern C have come down to us... i know of only four chanters of the size. The original has very small finger holes and will produce many different tones from most of the notes. Agreed not all of the alternate fingerings will produce well tuned notes but they do provide a variety of colours and note strengths which can be used for dynamic purposes.

A bagpipe is usually an instrument with one volume output so to have a tone and volume control on your melody pipe is a very nice thing. Unfortunately this ability has been largely overlooked with the creation of the more powerfull Concert Pipes and thus most players today are perhaps unaware of this feature of the old instruments. When the Tone holes get too large the cross fingering effects are diminished almost to nothing.

It would appear that some makers today wish to get rid of these 'quirky' sounds so that the player can throw whatever fingering they wish at the chanter and the sound and tuning remain the same. Whereas the old narrow bore pipes with their very carefully considered tone holes can produce music of far greater character.

So, I put it to you that my C chanter was modified most likely because that person did not know how to make a reed for it so instead he broke it... that does not sound like the work of an inteligent person!

With this old type of chanter it is possible to have also a variety of pitches for many notes so that a set of perfect intervals can usually be found alongside ones that can be in Equal Temperament or close to it, if needs be. Some people do not like the note E on their pipes... whereas I love my E's because I can make a Perfect Minor or Perfect Major Second against the drones, play closed or open rolls on E as well as the usual Hard E, and that is just some things that the first note will do. Imagine a chanter that will jump to Hard D from ANY note without having to make an A cut... a chanter that will rise well into the third octave (comfortably as far a G3).... can make many notes blossom from a quite 'feep' to a full cry of pain...

When played, on the knee... the sound of a chanter is coming out of the open finger holes so the shape and size of these holes has to be very carefully thought about, not just for the tone height of the issuing sound with one standard fingering but how each hole reacts with all the other notes when alternate fingerings are used... it is quite a complex thing.

Obviously one needs a 'right' reed recipe before comencing to tune and voice a chanter and/or replace a worn out reed. I do not make reeds for modern Concert Pipes but I did make some reeds for The Patsy Touhey set a few years ago... I got close with my copies of the 1920's reed of Michael Carney but it was not untill I used the original Taylor staple that all worked as it was supposed to.

I have been studying and playing this old set for 35 years and trying to reproduce all its qualities in my work.. I do not see this as slavish copying but a work of thought and eventual understanding with a view to offering others the joy of playing something truly beautifull.
Geoff.

[rorybbellows]

It must indeed be very frustrating for a pipemaker who has spent years developing their product ,to have it ruined at a stroke by ignorance. But is it not also true that for the makers own sanity, that they have to mentally let go of their "children" for better or for worse.

RORY

[myrddinemrys]

Just . . . wow.

Nice story, Geoff.