Wombat wrote:Not needed I think. I'm not a piper, I narrowly escaped a few years ago when I was unable to order a half set, but my understanding is that tight (staccato) piping is achieved by bouncing the end of the chanter on the knee. Pipers employing an open style still use ornaments.
Of course if you did every note like that you'd end up sounding like a machine gun (much unlike the traditional piper, who sounds like a tortured cat with amplification).
But i digress. The ornamentation is, of course, a part of the style, and it's done not only to separate the notes, but to introduce variation and bounce.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!
--Wellsprings--
Wombat wrote:Not needed I think. I'm not a piper, I narrowly escaped a few years ago when I was unable to order a half set, but my understanding is that tight (staccato) piping is achieved by bouncing the end of the chanter on the knee. Pipers employing an open style still use ornaments.
Of course if you did every note like that you'd end up sounding like a machine gun (much unlike the traditional piper, who sounds like a tortured cat with amplification).
Finbar Furey has been described as having a sound like pistol shots.
Wombat wrote:Not needed I think. I'm not a piper, I narrowly escaped a few years ago when I was unable to order a half set, but my understanding is that tight (staccato) piping is achieved by bouncing the end of the chanter on the knee. Pipers employing an open style still use ornaments.
Of course if you did every note like that you'd end up sounding like a machine gun (much unlike the traditional piper, who sounds like a tortured cat with amplification).
Finbar Furey has been described as having a sound like pistol shots.
And my flute teacher has a cat named Finbar! Dude, it all connects!
"glauber"
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!
--Wellsprings--
Bloomfield wrote:
There is a lot of ornamentation going on in piping that is not needed to separate the notes. And the point is this: the only relevant question for cuts and taps and rolls and whatnots is: do they enhance the music? Strangely that is the relevant question in piping, too.
True. And I am the farthest thing from an authority one could hope to find, but I felt it was fair to acknowledge that there is a strong school of thought which traces stylistic elements of whistling to piping.
Bloomfield wrote:
There is a lot of ornamentation going on in piping that is not needed to separate the notes. And the point is this: the only relevant question for cuts and taps and rolls and whatnots is: do they enhance the music? Strangely that is the relevant question in piping, too.
True. And I am the farthest thing from an authority one could hope to find, but I felt it was fair to acknowledge that there is a strong school of thought which traces stylistic elements of whistling to piping.
I think it's the other way around: people learn on the whistle and then transfer what they learned to the pipes.
(i love these discussions that move in circles)
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog!
--Wellsprings--
emmline wrote:True. And I am the farthest thing from an authority one could hope to find, but I felt it was fair to acknowledge that there is a strong school of thought which traces stylistic elements of whistling to piping.
I am all for tracing stylistic elements in whistling to stylistic elements in piping (and in fiddling, fluting etc). But I don't think it helps to trace stylistic elements to (supposed) mechanics of the pipes.
Bloomfield wrote:
I am all for tracing stylistic elements in whistling to stylistic elements in piping (and in fiddling, fluting etc). But I don't think it helps to trace stylistic elements to (supposed) mechanics of the pipes.
Ah so. Perhaps that's what I meant. Yes. (But I have at least heard the mechanical story.)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the whistle is older than the pipes!!
So why would whistling ornaments be based on the pipes?
Also, in spite of the fact that cuts are done very quickly, you can hear a slight difference in the sound when you cut with different notes. In my piping class, we actually listened to rolls done with different cuts, and some sounded much better (in our view) than others. I guess this is the "irish" sound that someone mentioned.
Tell us something.: Long ago, I was told that I faked iTrad whistle work very well. I took that comment to heart. 20 years of private lessons - and many, many hours of rehearsal later - I certainly hope I have improved...
If I were to bake a really fine cake out of this thread, the recipe would be made from Beth's superb explanation, and then covered with the Bloom's succinct and pertinent icing. We can wax ecstatic forever concerning our technical issues, but in the end the beauty of the music is what's really important.
It is so refreshing to read this thread. Brings back memories of C&F, long ago...
Re: elaborateness/simplicity and resultant difficulty of cuts, taps, rolls, and crans.
Quit making excuses and practice, people. Learn to do all this stuff and then decide to leave it in or take it out. It's worth the effort.
Some pipe de-mystification for those who are interested:
BTW: Staccato and non-legato piping is achieved with the chanter bell sealed against leg and the player lifting only the requisite finger or fingers to sound the notes - thus every note has a definite beginning and a definite end.
We only pick up the chanter for the following reasons:
-To sound the "bottom D" (lowest note on the chanter) with or without graces, although to play it in proper style you should at least grace it with an A as you lift the chanter to produce a "hard bottom D"; it sounds like NYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. I cut the lower hand notes in the first octave with the A note (ring finger of top hand) on whistle and pipes. I use whatever sounds good in the second octave -predominantly the A but there are occassions to use the G (index finger of bottom hand) or even the F# (middle finger of bottom hand) for cuts. Figure out what sounds good and use it, just remember to vary what you do.
This is the way I was taught by my various teachers, including Al Purcell, Pat Mitchell, Jimmy O'Brien Moran, Pat Hutchinson, Debbie Quigley, Brian MacNamara, Kevin Rowsome, and Benedict Koehler. You will hear this if you spend any serious amount of time listening to solo piping CDs- which you should IMO if you really want to learn anything about playing ITM on the whistle.
-To swell certain first octave notes and/ or exploit certain tonal qualities of the chanter.
To "pop" certain second octave notes - usually e, f#, g, and sometimes a; this is the "yelping" sound that pipers exploit for dynamic and rhythmic emphasis.
Tell us something.: I've been playing whistle for a very long time, but never seem to get any better than I was about 10 years ago. I'm okay with that. :)
is to want to use the finger for the note immediately above the one being played
That's what I do, and what my whistle teacher suggests. He says it's not as important on whistle but it becomes more important when playing flute and trying to get 'crisp' ornaments.
I find this to be an especially interesting thread since I just began studying ornamentation. The web site cited in one of the other threads that has video was also very useful. However he moves his fingers much higher than I thought was the goal. I believe that my aim right now is to try and play them slowly and correctly and aim for speed as I get more practice is that correct? I am using the Bill Ochs book as my tutor and playing along with the CD.
I'm probably gonna get chewed up and spit out different for posting this, but here I go anyway.
My real challenge in learning ornamentation wasn't to teach what my fingers to do, as in "this finger comes up this high" or "let's see, this is a G so I cut with the first finger."
The real challenge is getting your mind wrapped around the idea of a cut, and what it's really supposed to sound like. Making your fingers do the motions isn't nearly as hard as understanding exactly what you're trying to play in the first place.
And if, like me, you learned "grace notes" from classical training first, you have to completely forget it, totally unlearn it. A cut isn't the same thing as a grace note, isn't played the same way, doesn't sound the same at all. A grace note is an actual note--it has a definite pitch, and takes a certain amount of time, which either comes from the note before it or after it. A cut has no definite pitch, and isn't a note, but is really an articulation. It happens so fast there is no measurable amount of time taken from any note.
Sounds simple, but for me at least, it was the very devil to get my mind to really believe it. Once the mind finally got it, the fingers followed quickly.
peeplj wrote:I'm probably gonna get chewed up and spit out different for posting this, but here I go anyway.
Not that bad I hope since I think the fundamental point you're making is sound enough.
peeplj wrote: A cut has no definite pitch, and isn't a note, but is really an articulation. It happens so fast there is no measurable amount of time taken from any note.
This is just the view I was calling exaggeration two (although not in as many words) in my first post here. Just think a bit about what you are actually saying and you'll see that cuts do have pitch and it matters that they do.
In a cran you cut a series of different notes in quick succession. Although heard as blips, the notes are still heard as distinct in pitch. If pitch were not an integral part of the ornament, you could just keep cutting with the same note. That would not sound like a cran and it would not be a cran. Even blips have pitch and their pitch matters both to what ornament you are performing and to how well it sounds in the context.
