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

[geoff wooff]

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

Oh, absolutely Rory.
However, it is because of actions taken by people with little knowledge that we now have so few "working" historic sets to study. I count myself very lucky that during my early years of making I lived in Australia where, although there are very few classic sets, instruments that did get there had arrived before they had been tampered with. This made it possible for me to measure and study three original examples of pre Famine pipes. These were ; an Egan (John Waylands Bb),a Coyne ( the C# J.Coyne that I recreated for Dicky Deegan) and my Harrington C set.

My fourth set for the study of this family of instruments was the B Coyne set that has slept peacefully in the Dublin Museum since soon after the death of its first owner, O'Hannigan.

One Major point is that these' Narrow Bore' or Flat Sets are a different animal and only closely related to the modern Concert pipes. My view is that almost all of those makers that have grown up on a diet of Concert Pitch pipes have never properly come to terms with making the Flat Sets.

PS; the owner, of the set in my story of the altered chanter , has since died and the instrument has passed to a 'promising Young player'... which calls to my mind several " what ifs".
Have a nice day and guard your original chanter reed staples !
Geoff.

[an seanduine]

Thank,you, Geoff.

Bob

[geoff wooff]

Thank,you, Geoff.

Bob

You are most welcome (to whatever it is I have done/said)..... only the plain truth after all.

[m coulter]

What was done to Geoff's chanter just begger's belief. With regard to makers undertaking alterations on other (existing) makers instruments - There should be a straight forward etiquette at play here. If a customer has a question or thinks there may be an issue with their pipes - and the maker is still making pipes - then they should simply contact the maker. If the maker lives on another continent and returning the instrument would prove problematic, then there's a good chance the maker can recommend someone closer who they know and is familiar with their work - and they would trust to undertake any minor adjustments - while in consultation with the original maker.

If the maker has passed away there is quite often a current maker who has studied their work in detail, or perhaps apprenticed with them and would be in a position to undertake restoration or repair work.

[Lorenzo]

The chanter was returned to its owner with a new bore and fingerholes and a reed to match.

Thanks for the story, Geoff. The first thing that came to mind was what kind of person would modify a top pipe makers work without asking the owner, checking with the maker, or at least double checking with owner to see if the new design he had in mind would be okay? I just can't fathom someone knowledgeable about pipe making, with the tools and know-how to rebore a chanter, doing something like this, without asking, simply because it might SEEM best to THEM. I shudder to think about the state of mind of such a person. It seems more reasonable that the MORE a pipe maker knows about uilleann pipes and reed making, and the variations that exist among them, the LESS likely they would be to tamper with such fine original work from another well known and respected maker.

[Brazenkane]

Well, you're leaving out the original question that started this. What about a chanter that doesn't work correctly, and the maker can't make it right? i.e. Not a chanter like Geoff's (or a number of great makers who copy chanters that require fingerings and finesse that extend way beyond the bog standard Heather Clarke finger's).

[Lorenzo]

What about a chanter that doesn't work correctly, and the maker can't make it right?

It kind of defies logic that a maker would sell and send out a chanter that he can't make work right. How many example of something like this can there possibly be??? Maybe you meant...work like the player thought it should work?

[Mr.Gumby]

What about a chanter that doesn't work correctly

I think maybe the crux of the matter is that, obvious and genuine defects aside, the question comes down to 'who is to decide what is correct or not?' There are plenty of horror stories going around that will tell you there are a few people out there who think they can (and worse, should) 'improve' chanters that are left with them for reeding. And I mean chanter with a proven track record of playing well. I bet the man who diddled the C chanter thought he improved a bad thing too.

Judgement calls indeed.


X posted with Lorenzo.

[m coulter]

Well, you're leaving out the original question that started this. What about a chanter that doesn't work correctly, and the maker can't make it right? i.e. Not a chanter like Geoff's (or a number of great makers who copy chanters that require fingerings and finesse that extend way beyond the bog standard Heather Clarke finger's).

There's always the return and refund option.

[bensdad]

Padraic, I think you mean

"the bog standard [represented by the fingering charts in] Heather Clarke ['s book]"

As I'm sure you're aware, HC is a fine piper.

[Lorenzo]

...the question comes down to 'who is to decide what is correct or not?'

In the case of Geoff, notice he keeps emphasizing the design of the staple, "...it was not until I used the original Taylor staple that all worked as it was supposed to." and, "...guard your original chanter reed staples!"

You can have a reedmaker that is pretty good with a knife, brass tubing, a rope, and some wax or fingernail polish, but what has he learned from the old school about rolling a staple out of copper, in different shapes, to make the reed/chanter work right--instead of reboring the chanter and repositioning the fingerholes so his one-style reeds will work?

I bet the man who diddled the C chanter thought he improved a bad thing too.

Yep. Can you imagine the diddler of a unique and working set asking questions like, "you do want to be heard don't you? Or, "you do want to play in sessions with other CP'd instruments don't you?" Or, "if you want me to make good reeds for this thing, we'll have to get the chanter right, right?"

[geoff wooff]

Yes Lorenzo,
I do emphasize "the staple". Another story to go with this point; back in '84 I paid a visit to Martin Rochford in East Clare, amongst other conversations he produced a C chanter and asked if I might have a reed for it. Now, often in coversation with Martin, I later found out, he would ask you a question that he already had the answer for, or had the opinions of several other people about the matter.

This old chanter was in a poor state of health but, to me, it was recognisable as a family member of the Pre Famine pipes clan. On close examination I found it was a Coyne and of exactly the same length as my Harrington. So, whilst Martin went out to the yard to feed his animals I took my chanter reed out of the Harrington and placed it in the Coyne.. plugged in the chanter and played away with my drones and regulators going... without radically re-tuning anything. It was a fine chanter and I would have been as happy playing it as my own. You see , the staple agreed. This was most gratifying for me because the staple was of my own devising.. I had no original staple for the Harrington.. but I had arrived at something that would work in two original chanters from the same period but by different makers.

At that point Martin returned and said, " ah I could hear that was my chanter you're playing.. the tone is different... but it is strange that you have that chanter working at all because there was another reed maker here only yesterday and he said the chanter was no good and that I should use it as a Bird Perch !"

[Mr.Gumby]

In the case of Geoff, notice he keeps emphasizing the design of the staple, "...it was not until I used the original Taylor staple that all worked as it was supposed to." and, "...guard your original chanter reed staples!"

Well, yes, and guess who was playing the Touhey chanter with the different reeds for ages while Geoff was listening on the other side of the workshop.

[PhilD]

So not surprisingly opinion is very divided. In some ways this whole debate is a question of perceived ownership rights. Do we really ever own anything, or are we just custodians? Understandably pipe makers see their hard work not just as a commodity, but as part of a legacy. As a creative person myself I totally get this, the uilleann pipes aren't just an instrument they are "breathing" works of art. This is down, in my mind, to the bespoke nature of every hand crafted instrument. If they were mass produced items, alterations whether in good faith, misguided, ill informed, or otherwise would be less of an issue.

Anyway, this is what I have got from this interesting discussion. That it would be really useful for pipe makers to publish there staple/mandrel dimensions for their respective chanters, either on their own websites, or with a central body like NPU. A permanent searchable record of old and new staple designs would be a great resource for the wider piping community, and future generations, and would maybe help stop needless alterations to chanters. Obviously if the pipe maker is alive and in business this should be your first port of call, but a database would also help in situations where; distance, expense, or the dearly departed, where obstacles to reeding a chanter properly.

[RLines]

Great thread.

I totally agree with the staple question. I have beautiful old Patsy Brown Taylor-style chanter from the early 20th century, and am also lucky to have the original Brown-made staple that was in the chanter it when it was rediscovered a decade or more ago. I've had a couple of excellent reedmakers here in the UK reed it for me over the last few years, and they have both told me that using the original staple makes all the difference. And the results are clear in the tone, playing and responsiveness of the instrument when a reed using the original staple is compared against an otherwise fine reed made to the same specifications by the same talented gentlemen, but made instead with a new staple.

I guard that staple as preciously as I do the chanter itself.

I've also have been (and currently am) the custodian of a couple of historic sets. I have never had them altered in the restoration process (and in fairness the pipe makers who I have chosen for the work have never suggested it) even when it is a struggle to get the set going to what might be considered the ease of good quality modern sets. But part of the beauty of my old sets to me are their idiosyncrasies, and learning to play them in the manner in which they seem to want to be played.

Rick