Apprentice Pipemakers / Pipemaking

jordan · Post by **jordan** » Tue Apr 30, 2002 5:36 pm

Thanks.

Jordan

Patrick D'Arcy · Post by **Patrick D'Arcy** » Wed May 01, 2002 11:37 am

Originally posted to another topic...

Running the risk of repeating what has already been said:

I think the idea of physicists measuring instruments is fine for documentary purposes but to understand exactly how to make a good instrument the maker has to firstly know what a good instrument is and secondly have an intimate understanding of how to get them to sound the way they want them to sound. Of course there is physics involved in this process initially but it needs to be a part of how the pipemaker thinks, it has to become part of them... this is what I mean by an understanding.

For the pipemaker to be a good player of the complete instrument is paramount also, how is a maker supposed to make good in-tune regulators if they don't even know how to play them?

This set is an investment on both Geoff and the buyers behalf. The buyer will probably be an enthusiast who has a son or daughter learning and they want a really great set in the child's hand's as soon as possible to accelerate their learning, a great set is a true secret to fast progress on an instrument imo.

Hopefully the set winds up in the hands of someone that will be able to play it well, or will strive to do so. Whomever ends up with the set though, may not even play it themselves but it will certainly be in a great pipers hands at some time, maybe in a future generation?

Patrick.

John Mulhern · Post by **John Mulhern** » Wed May 01, 2002 12:25 pm

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CoyneLover wrote:
EXCERPT
X-Rays...HMM..I've seen X-Rays of chanters before, and found them to be absolutely worthless. (in my experience) They are impossible to get a clear measurement from. Blurry and inaccurate. How would I then transpose measurements (with no reference) from an x-ray to paper? When those measurements need to be with .01??

I will admit this is simply MY experience. I know David Daye has taken x-rays before. I would be keenly interested to know whether he got accurate measurements or not. If he did...blessings on him! and Share the technique please!

---------------------------------------------
Hmmm...I wonder if anyone has ever tried the use of polysulfide dental impression material to measure chanter bore's? Us machinist type's use it (Omniflex), or metrology grade silicone rubber, to precisely inspect bore's, groove's, etc. It's dimensionally stable, and usually is removable easily due to it's flexability. To precisely measure a 14 1/4" long noodle, though, might require an optical comparator, and God only know's what the chemical's involved would do to a priceless chanter of historical value, (leave it minty fresh?...hahaha). Just curious.

Dionys · Post by **Dionys** » Wed May 01, 2002 4:39 pm

Any dentists out there know the composition of this and what effect it would have on wood versus enamel? What if you oiled the bore immediately prior to making the mold? Any chemists?

Dionys

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Thu May 02, 2002 12:57 am

I wouldn't recommend makinga mould, there is actually a bore-measuring tool in existence which serves the purpose very well.

Tony · Post by **Tony** » Thu May 02, 2002 6:04 am

I agree with Peter... use a non-destructive probe for measuring bores.
Silicone is too soft and NOT suited for long slender shapes (as in a chanter) it's good for thick (non critical) blunt shapes, as in wood sculptures or deeply engraved art pieces.
There is a technique where a thin metal rod can be placed into the bore to support the silicone poured in around it but... you have to contend with the tone holes being closed off (probably with wax) or you won't be able to remove the mould from the chanter.
All this work plus the thickness of the release agents may affect the mould slightly making it a tiny bit smaller than the original bore.

Cayden · Post by **Cayden** » Thu May 02, 2002 7:39 am

Close enough Tony, I was referring to a metal rod which takes little discs at various intervals to enable you to determine the diameter of the bore. It's a handy yoke, reliable and not harmful for the bore. It's used fairly widely, Craig Fisher has supplied some to various people.

Roger O'Keeffe · Post by **Roger O'Keeffe** » Fri May 03, 2002 1:25 am

It seems to me that David Daye has it all covered here.
http://www-bprc.mps.ohio-state.edu/~bda ... tcopy.html

His non-metallic T-shaped probes have the merit of not damaging the chanter and more accurately measuring a bore which is not perfectly conical.

Dave Parkhurst · Post by **Dave Parkhurst** » Sat May 04, 2002 3:03 am

Apprenticing to someone may not be as hard as it sounds...I simply made a phone call to Glenn Schultz and off I went. The trick is not that, nor gaining the knowledge...it's taking it to heart and developing the skill needed to "create" an instrument, rather than simply crank out something using a lathe. Glenn's lathe didn't impress me, nor his shop. What was awesome was the way he could talk to me, whistle to himself and file down the blade on a whistle at the same time...he KNOWS what he is doing and can alter any portion of it to suit how he desires the whistle to turn out. I've been making whistles for over 2 years at this point and still I discover things while making them which make me pause and scratch my head. I'm sure in the uilleann arena, the learning curve is that much longer....I will admit that I don't make as nice a whistle as Glenn does, but I don't make a whistle in the same fashion as he does either. When a craftsman takes on an apprentice, it is with the assumption that that person will take the knowledge and use it...a true master is not threatened by someone wanting to learn his trade.

geber · Post by **geber** » Sat Jun 15, 2002 4:04 am

On the subject of apprenticeships, i spoke with Eugene Lambe several years ago, he said he wouldn't mind if I made my way there to hang around his shop for a while to pick up some pointers on pipe making. He said he had allowed a couple of US makers in his shop already. I know this is not adequate as far as the level of knowledge needed to make a quality set of pipes, but it does show that there are makers out there that are willing to pass on the tricks of the trade.

Hats off to Mr. Lambe

Lorenzo · Post by **Lorenzo** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:00 am

I've been wondering lately what, precisely, makes a (good) Rowsome chanter a Rowsome (since many of the better players preferred them). This article refers to reaming, and then what a maker does to the bore after he reams it. There's undercutting of course, but I'm not clear if that just means undercutting from (and around) the tone holes inside, or if the maker actually sticks a tool up the bore and undercuts a section under the tone hole, more circular, 360 deg around inside, to raise the pitch. So the inside wall of the bore (up and down) is not stright, nor flaired, but rather wavey and scalloped? This would only be done to bring the finger holes to a more comfortable position, and keep the larger toneholes smaller for less volume?

I've heard that Rowsome experimented with different sized throats and overall inner dimensions. Anyone know what size he actually settled on as being the best for the D chanter?

BTW, I know W. Rousome made flat sets, but how about Leo?

RobBBQ · Post by **RobBBQ** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:19 am

Very interesting thread. I have some questions though- How many current pipemakers had formal apprenticeships? Most of the better makers out there had an engineering or mechanical background of some kind, right (Wooff, Froment, etc.)? Second, what about more of a 'mentorship'? For instance (no promo here, BTW), there is Joe Kennedy from Canada who told me that he rang up Geoff Wooff one day and simply asked the man how it was done. I suppose many conversations and mailings later Joe was able to produce something that most people I've spoken with say is excellent for the range of flat sets.

I know its not a parallel thing, really, but when I started building drums, I had no apprenticeship, I chased a "sound" in my head. I got lots of good pointers from Albert Alfonso, but the rest was trial and error and a lot of time and work. But the reality is that there are certainly a paucity of makers making _good_ instruments out there, and I don't know for sure how to increase that number. Clearly, just increasing the number of makers won't necessarily incresae the number of good instruments avaiable. I for one, would love to give it a shot (now that I have a lathe in tow), but hardly know where to begin! So, I suppose some prior technical training is critical as well. Just some thoughts.

-R-

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 10:29 am

The disk type measuring probes only give you the narrowest dimention at a particular depth. With split probes you can get a plot of narrowest and widest measurements and then you can extrapolate a reamer that will give you a result closest to the original bore. An impression of the inner tone hole scallops, exterior measurements might be handy to give you a starting point for tuning the finished product.

Ted

Kevin L. Rietmann · Post by **Kevin L. Rietmann** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 11:45 am

Most makers do an initial pilot bore, smaller than the throat will be in the end, say 1/8," then a first reaming to get the section below the throat. Perhaps the throat is included at this point. Sometimes this section is the entire bore, of course, meaning they stop at that. Some old chanters were parallel for a while below the throat, I've been told. Wooff chanters have a "shell" a bit below the throat, according to Brad Angus. A sort of abrupt expansion there.
The rest of the bore is reamed with other tapers, for various reasons, some making more complicated bores, others less. Leo Rowsome used three tapers in his chanter bores, for instance. Leo's chanters had 1/2" (12.5mm) bores on the "small" end (Paddy Keenan, for instance), and something like .522. Not quite 17/32. Liam O'Flynn's, for instance.
Leo made C pipes, he plays a set he made on the Ri na Piobari record, with one of his father's chanters. Not many of 'em kicking around, I only know of one in private hands. He made a C# chanter for the O'Meally set Joe McKenna used to play, too.

Jim McGuire · Post by **Jim McGuire** » Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:40 pm

Seth Gallagher has two employees learning the trade in his shop and so does Andreas Rogge in Germany.

Didn't Seth get his start in the business at the Von Heune Workshop in Boston? Kevin Rowsome attended an instrument making school/college in England for a few years.

Access to good instruments is not a problem as so many examples of all types have surfaced in the last 30 years.

Metalworking classes seem to be everywhere.

Sourcing materials seems to be easier than ever. Finding quality wood probably the most challenging.

Information and access to it seems to be overwhelming these days.