Tone and technique

[simonknight]

I think we're in danger of tripping over the semantics. Here's my theory such that is is.

Tone is usually held to mean the pitch or quality of sound. Timbre is the same thing. It is a function of the sound spectrum of the note. In my opinion, they are only limited mechanisms to vary the timbre of a given reed / chanter combination compared to other instruments.

As soon as you start playing notes then there is the envelope of the note, the attack and decay. Here there must be more room for the player to add their voice, but again limitations of response that may be chanter specific.

Then there are numerous techniques for adding texture to the note. By this time the player's sound can be far from the timbre of the basic reed / chanter combination (and should be recognizable even when playing on a different set.)

Ultimately, the phrasing and expression of the player, their approach to the tune, their choices of ornamentation and coloration become their distinctive voice.

On one hand, this is all technique, but combined with the musicality of the great player, it becomes more than the sum of the parts.

Now, I wish I could actually do it.

[djm]

The tone is, I think, a culmination of the piper's experience plus the individual reed/chanter combination. Obviously each reed and each chanter are going to have their own individual quirks. But there is some commonality to handling a chanter that allows top players to achieve mostly their same personal sound, even when playing others' sets.

If you think that just holding the pipes at one pressure is the only way to play then you are not at a stage to understand. A good piper plays at a constantly changing pressure, making micro adjustments in varying the pressure on every note to affect the overall sound. At first you learn this pressure control to modify tuning. When you add drones and later regs you will discover that you have to relearn your pressure techniques again. When you start hearing the tone differences good pipers can achieve you will start to see how a combination of how you touch each note with your fingers and how well you can manipulate pressure for each note will allow you to give your own personal colour to the way you play.

Paddy Keenan noted at a workshop that Ronan Browne was the only other person who has been able to play Keenan's set and get a decent tone out of it.

I agree with PJ that there is a whole world of tone possibilities hidden inside each piper's playing, but I think you have to be far past the basics of playing to concentrate on such an advanced aspect.

djm

[PJ]

Tone is usually held to mean the pitch or quality of sound. Timbre is the same thing. It is a function of the sound spectrum of the note.

I've been using the term "voice" so as not to confuse what we generally consider to be tone what I referring to as the particular tone that individual pipers can get from an instrument.

On one hand, this is all technique, but combined with the musicality of the great player, it becomes more than the sum of the parts.

Absolutely, I agree 100%. One the points I'm trying to make is that the emphasis in learning and listening is placed on the technique, not on the overall musicality or more precisely not on what makes the overall effect (i) so unique for a particular piper and (ii) so musical.

Now, I wish I could actually do it.

That's a topic for another thread.

But there is some commonality to handling a chanter that allows top players to achieve mostly their same personal sound, even when playing others' sets.

I recall someone (Peter Laban?) discussing an old recording of an unidentified piper playing a B set but with a style and tone very like Seamus Ennis. It turned out it WAS Ennis, playing someone else's pipes.

[simonknight]

If you think that just holding the pipes at one pressure is the only way to play then you are not at a stage to understand.

I do understand very well the effect that pressure has, and it's the very fact that I play with drones and regs that I say that the options for varying pressure are limited. You have to vary pressure to get the chanter, drones and regs in tune and balance. You have to vary pressure to get certain notes to respond. That pressure often can't then be changed to vary volume or timbre.

If you actually read my post you would see that I address the issue of articulating the notes. Your 'phrase touching the notes' is very apt.

Nevertheless, there are definitely pressure changes that provide color such as bending a note into tune, or holding a note at a different tuning that provides a different tone color.

What I do not believe is possible to the extent of mouth blown reed instruments is this -

1. A note can be played in tune over a wide range of volumes by varying pressure. Tuning and response are compensated by varying the position and tension of the embouchure.

2. A fundamentally different tone color can be produced by allowing different areas of the reed to vibrate, e.g. a sub-tone on a saxophone, or harmonics can be emphasized to the extent that multi-phonic chords can be played.

I think these mechanical distinctions between the pipes and other instruments are important because they give rise to a unique style of music within ITM that includes these expressive, rhythmic and tonal techniques.

I absolutely agree that it's hard for the beginner to hear the subtle elements of voice that can be produced, then to understand and execute the techniques, especially in a musically coherent way.

This stuff isn't mystique, it's technique and musicianship. We should discuss is it more, not turn it into a pissing match.

[simonknight]

One the points I'm trying to make is that the emphasis in learning and listening is placed on the technique, not on the overall musicality or more precisely not on what makes the overall effect (i) so unique for a particular piper and (ii) so musical.

I think that's one of the toughest things. It's a chicken and egg sort of problem. You can't produce the musical effect without being able to execute the technique, but when you practice the technique without a musical context, it hard to make sense of the technique.

I think you do have to grind away at the technique in isolation to get he muscle memory in place, but then follow up with a focus on the tunes.

The tionol environment can be tough when the whole time is taken up with grinding through the notes of a tune. It seems much easier to get into the fine points in one on one lessons.

Bill Ochs did a nice job at the NE tionol of teaching the phrasing of a tune. I think a lot of tunes get rushed through in a session kind of style without much phrasing or subtlety. Phrasing is a good place to start.

[CHasR]

What I do not believe is possible to the extent of mouth blown reed instruments is this -

1. A note can be played in tune over a wide range of volumes by varying pressure. Tuning and response are compensated by varying the position and tension of the embouchure.

2. A fundamentally different tone color can be produced by allowing different areas of the reed to vibrate, e.g. a sub-tone on a saxophone, or harmonics can be emphasized to the extent that multi-phonic chords can be played.

I think these mechanical distinctions between the pipes and other instruments are important because they give rise to a unique style of music within ITM that includes these expressive, rhythmic and tonal techniques.
.

Simon's right on the money here: the extent to which oboe + bassoon double reeds can be shaded through embrochure to enhance timbre in a performance greatly exceeds that of pressure on any bellows pipe;

BUT the "exact-ness" of technique needed for said pipes far outweighs that of orchestral reed instruments.

(Many's the Meistersinger overture Ive 'shaded' playing 2nd oboe )

One can cover a lot of fingering clams through articulation + dynamics:

(there's TIME to shut off the air column, change fingering, and attack the next note)

but with bellows pipes each finger motion is naked, an dthi sis why (IMO)we tend to promote technique over tone.

For YEARS I studied clarinet with a French teacher who whopped me over the head with a pencil when he considered that I wasnt listening to my tone. It's basic for other WW's ; but the UP beginner is far more concerned with reed function and fingering than tone. How to teach it from the beginning?

[PJ]

We should discuss is it more, not turn it into a pissing match.

I don't think we are, at least I hope we are not. I agree entirely that it should be discussed more.

A while back, I heard someone say about Johnny Doran that he had no interest in being a piper, as he was too interested in making music (or something to that effect). I tried to figure out what this meant and think it means that he didn't get overwhelmed with the technique of piping but was more concerned with whether what he played was musical or not. I think that the comment intimated that many pipers allow technique get in the way of musicality.

I'm not suggesting that piping technique isn't important. It most certainly is, but it just isn't everything. Unfortunately, it's easier to teach and learn that the other stuff.

[CHasR]

I'm not suggesting that piping technique isn't important. It most certainly is, but it just isn't everything. Unfortunately, it's easier to teach and learn that the other stuff.

precisely: timbre, phrasing, expression, stylistic nuances come far later than cranns, mordents, rolls, triplets. The 'music' gets lost in there somewhere...

[simonknight]

We should discuss is it more, not turn it into a pissing match.

I don't think we are, at least I hope we are not. I agree entirely that it should be discussed more.

A while back, I heard someone say about Johnny Doran that he had no interest in being a piper, as he was too interested in making music (or something to that effect). I tried to figure out what this meant and think it means that he didn't get overwhelmed with the technique of piping but was more concerned with whether what he played was musical or not. I think that the comment intimated that many pipers allow technique get in the way of musicality.

I'm not suggesting that piping technique isn't important. It most certainly is, but it just isn't everything. Unfortunately, it's easier to teach and learn that the other stuff.

David Power played a tune for me to learn (which I recorded) and announced after that is was a simple version of the tune without much extra in it. True he didn't put much in way of ornamants in, but there was a lot of subtle color and emphasis of the phrasing etc., to the extent that I could hear him doing something with nearly every note.

[MichaelLoos]

Maybe another thing that's being neglected is - listen to yourself and your own instrument's voice?

[MichaelLoos]

Sorry - didn't notice there's a second page meanwhile saying much more than everything I wanted to say.

[jqpublick]

A while back, I heard someone say about Johnny Doran that he had no interest in being a piper, as he was too interested in making music (or something to that effect). I tried to figure out what this meant and think it means that he didn't get overwhelmed with the technique of piping but was more concerned with whether what he played was musical or not. I think that the comment intimated that many pipers allow technique get in the way of musicality.

I'm not suggesting that piping technique isn't important. It most certainly is, but it just isn't everything. Unfortunately, it's easier to teach and learn that the other stuff.

This is analogous to learning to ride a bike. At first, it's all technique - left foot, right foot, wobble wobble wobble - then you get to understand that balance is important.... you get the point. The difference here is that after a while you can just ride, and enjoy the art of if, but with piping (and I'm guessing all music) it's easy to concentrate too much on the technique. It's the difference between seeing the whole picture and concentrating on the details. Technique = details, whole picture = the musicality of the tune.

I'm still very much a beginner compared to those mentioned above but I'm learning now to listen to the music I'm playing and not 'which finger moves next' if you know what I mean. I have to pay a different kind of attention than I'd use in a conversation. I don't know if that's clear, but that's what's happening with me. I've also found that I"m learning (some) tunes more easily, partially because I'm listening to the tune overall, and partially because (and this is new for me) I don't really have to think about which note is which, once I've got the first note I can figure out more or less on the fly where the tune sits on the chanter, kind of like recognizing patterns of motion, not just the proper sequence of notes.

Actually, having reread that, I realize that it's a sensible step in progression toward musicality, to connect the muscle memories of both notes and patterns of notes with the music you're hearing (both externally and internally). I know it's become easier for me to play if I let the tune carry me along, or to put it another way, I try to get out of the way of the tune. I've found myself spontaneously adding ornaments without really realizing it. And that's usually when I fall completely off the tune.

I'm not trying to use myself as the universal measure for piping or anything like that, god forbid. I have been trying to pay attention to what I have to learn, where my limits and fumblings are and push myself toward getting over them, and because of that I've been trying to listen to myself play as I'm playing, and that seems to have allowed more fluid playing.

One thing I've noticed from listening to great players (Powers, Ennis, etc, etc) is how much their personal interpretations of the rhythms in the music differs. I've been drumming for a while now, so rhythm is very important to me. One thing I really enjoy about David Powers, for example, is how strongly he emphasizes the rhythms and how (to my ear at least) there's a lot of subtlety in the way he uses open vs. closed phrasing in a lot of passages to add to both the rhythm and the tune itself. I also have noted with the good Mr. Powers that he plays very much at the front of the beat, which adds a rolling feel to tunes. For me, at least, a lot of the differences (but by no means most or all) between pipers I listen to seem to come from how they use technique to emphasize or slur over the rhythmic pulses of the music.

Anyway I thought I'd test my nascent thoughts about tone, etc against the grinding stone of C&F. Please feel free to cheerfully ignore me or, if you feel it to be necessary send me nasty notes via PM.

Mark

[Brazenkane]

w/all due respect to the author of the first post: I wanted to address one point...

I didn't mean to suggest that Clancy's dance music was in any way bad. However, I find his slow airs much more distinctively Clancy - by which I mean I hear it and know it could ONLY be him - than his dance music. (I'm listen to the Bright Lady as I type this).

I understood what you meant.

I agree entirely with what you say about learning to listen. However, until relatively recently when listening to other pipers, I've paid particular attention to their technique (ornamentation, variation, tempo, tight/open playing etc. they employed) but not gave enough attention to the tone they managed to obtain from their pipes, which has less to do with technique than appears.

It's important to pay attention to all you've mentioned....even obsessively so. BUT, techniques are a MEANS to an end. They allow to you get the instrument "off the table," so you can get to the heart of the matter and that is the music.

Technique gives you the ability to express the music you hear. The question is then; "what ARE you hearing? What are your reference points...or whom is a better way of putting it?

Some musicians don't hear as much music as they hear technique, which is why their hands sound brilliant and their music sounds machine like. Others seem to get at something that is far more intangible. That only seems to happen when everything is in place, yet "forgotten" about by the musician at that particular moment when everything comes together.

[KAD]

For YEARS I studied clarinet with a French teacher who whopped me over the head with a pencil when he considered that I wasnt listening to my tone. It's basic for other WW's ; but the UP beginner is far more concerned with reed function and fingering than tone. How to teach it from the beginning?

A couple of observations:

1. If you actually had regular lessons with a piping instructor who whopped you on the head with a pencil when he or she thought you were ignoring your tone, do you think it would make a difference? IMHO, a lot of UP beginners are more worried about technique because they don't have this sort of feedback. (It also doesn't help that the instrument is physically daunting at first.) My memory of the NPU video vol 1 is hazy; does anyone remember whether it discusses tone at all? How about Heather Clarke's tutor? It would also be interesting to hear from those folks on the forum who *do* (or did) have regular lessons. Did anybody's teacher stress tone from the beginning? Teachers, do you ever discuss it?

2. In the absence of such regular feedback, I'd guess that most of us evolve as listeners eventually to the point where we start to notice tone on our own. But I agree that process could be sped up by having a tionol instructor discuss listening to tone. Sounds like material for a masterclass.

I personally became obsessed with tone about a year into piping, when I discovered a piper whose tone leapt up and grabbed me by the scruff of the neck and sent shivers down my spine. I spent months and months listening to recordings and sitting down and experimenting, trying to figure out what bag pressure, what venting and vibrato, what attack and finish produced those effects. I'm still obsessing over that stuff five years later, and I expect to be obsessing over it for the rest of my piping career. Eventually I discovered how much difference a good/personally suited reed and chanter can make, but I agree that's not the whole story. Everybody's tone is unique, I think, because everybody has a slightly different combination of reed, chanter, bag arm, habits, finger size, dexterity, technique, and inner music. Of all of those, only finger size strikes me as not subject to potential improvement...


my $0.02 (if indeed it's worth that much)
KAD

[simonknight]

One thing that I think messes up tone, especially for beginners, is leaky fingers. Some concert chanters have very big holes and it requires a lot of precision to cover them 100%.

I can hear it my playing (and others) if my fingering isn't perfect. The tone gets muffled, attack is sloppy and basically is crap. If there's any trace fo death grip I have this problem some days.