Robbie Hannan's Kenna set and woods

[tompipes]

I'm not sure that the issue is pitch, but rather volume and tone.

There was a good amount of pitch changing involved in their innovations too in the sense that they made sets in the new concert pitch of A = 452 although there is at least one Taylor set out there that runs flat of that.

Kenna used the older pitch of A = 415 and even older A = 393ish.

By the way thats why those pipes are refered to as 'flat sets'. Its because they are flat of modern Concert D or Concert C (later Kenna and Coyne only made pipes in D and C, the pitch changed so we have C# and B as a result)
so technically a chanter in C# or B would be a flat chanter and but D, C, and Bb wouldn't be....

I wonder if the James Kenna set was made originally for a European customer. There are organs in parts of Germany from the time of Bach that are tuned to A = 435 and others as high as A = 480!!
I'd say the choir loved that!

Tommy

[billh]

I'm not sure that the issue is pitch, but rather volume and tone.

There was a good amount of pitch changing involved in their innovations too in the sense that they made sets in the new concert pitch of A = 452 although there is at least one Taylor set out there that runs flat of that.

Kenna used the older pitch of A = 415 and even older A = 393ish.
...

I wonder if the James Kenna set was made originally for a European customer. There are organs in parts of Germany from the time of Bach that are tuned to A = 435 and others as high as A = 480!!
I'd say the choir loved that!

I think it's worth pointing out that these ideas about the pitch of old sets are highly speculative, though plausible.

Basically nothing is known about what the old makers were thinking about when they pitched sets; no tuning forks from the old makers survive, no pitches were specified on any documentation associated with a particular maker or set (prior to 1900 anyhow). There were multiple, competing pitch standards in use throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, and even in the 20th century (although by then the range of pitches in common use had narrowed somewhat).

I do think that it is likely that the old sets were being consciously matched to some pitch, and doubt that it's coincidence that Coyne sets most often seem to have been in what we call C# and B (i.e. two semitones apart - possibly nominally in "D" and "C" of the time). But this is inferred, not known.

There were at least two Kennas who made pipes, over a long historical period. Sadly another point making these ideas highly speculative is the extreme scarcity of surviving instruments. I don't know of any other surviving Kenna chanters (ignoring those which have been so badly damaged that little can be inferred from them) in the pitch of Ronan's "Legacy" set, though bodies survive (such as, probably, Joe Kennedy's). I could count the number of privately held, working, mostly-unmolested Kenna chanters on the fingers of one hand - and that's including work that spans over half a century. Only one that I know of plays in the pitch that could be called "A=415" (about modern C#). I know of two - maybe three - that play in modern C or thereabouts (which would corrsepond to the pitch of D at about A=393). What conclusions can safely be drawn on the basis of so few instruments?

By the way thats why those pipes are refered to as 'flat sets'. Its because they are flat of modern Concert D or Concert C (later Kenna and Coyne only made pipes in D and C, the pitch changed so we have C# and B as a result)
so technically a chanter in C# or B would be a flat chanter and but D, C, and Bb wouldn't be....

Tommy

Now Tommy, you're just trying to confuse folks, there!

best regards

Bill

[NicoMoreno]

Sorry Greg, but you are indeed "talking waffle".

Joe's Kenna set seemed to play at about Eb when he first got it going, and he made a chanter to match. It sounded nice, but he really wanted to play something in modern D. He spent some time and got it working very well at D, and I believe he may now be of the opinion that this is where it should sit.

The regulator is working quite well now, and was sometime last winter/spring when I played the set. He's gone through three D chanters with that set, I believe. The first was pretty well wide bore, concert pitch, and I think that was used because the drones at the time (especially the bass) were quite robust.

He then made a narrow bore D made out of osage orange that sounded quite nice and felt nice and oily...

Next and last is a D chanter from some Taylor bore measurements, and I think it's the nicest yet, and suits the rest of the set best too. It actually plays surprisingly like my B chanter, and is pretty sweet sounding. The regulator was fixed up and going sometime during the last two chanters. I only played it with the "taylor" chanter.

[tompipes]

I think it's worth pointing out that these ideas about the pitch of old sets are highly speculative, though plausible.

Yes these theories are based on a small amount of evidence which is a pity in itself.
But i can't help thinking that these makers must have been working to some kind of standard, or standards.

Now Tommy, you're just trying to confuse folks, there!

According to Dan Dowd it was a theory that 'the old pipers had' but that was Dan. He learned from pipers who in turn learned their music in the late 1800's and some of those lads had the habit of calling chanters by their lenght rather than pitch anyway.
More confusion!

Tommy

[Uilliam]

I'm not sure that the issue is pitch, but rather volume and tone.

There was a good amount of pitch changing involved in their innovations too in the sense that they made sets in the new concert pitch of A = 452 although there is at least one Taylor set out there that runs flat of that.

Kenna used the older pitch of A = 415 and even older A = 393ish.

By the way thats why those pipes are refered to as 'flat sets'. Its because they are flat of modern Concert D or Concert C (later Kenna and Coyne only made pipes in D and C, the pitch changed so we have C# and B as a result)
so technically a chanter in C# or B would be a flat chanter and but D, C, and Bb wouldn't be....

I wonder if the James Kenna set was made originally for a European customer. There are organs in parts of Germany from the time of Bach that are tuned to A = 435 and others as high as A = 480!!
I'd say the choir loved that!

Tommy

Tommy this is whit I posted back in 2003..It provoked a bit o friendly banter and I think the general consensus was that nobody gave a rats aerse..
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php ... ht=#148961

Post Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:15 am Post subject: Piping Terminology
I was wondering why nobody has picked up on the incorrect terminology used on the Regulators and Drones..Commonly and wrongly called Bass Baritone and Tenor.
If we take the Regs.Bass 1st..the lowest note on this is the G(assuming it is in the concert pitch of D)which is in the same register as the G string on a fiddle,which is of course a treble instrument ,and not a Bass.It is also the 2nd string of a Viola which is an Alto instrument.the Correct term for the Bass Regulator is therefore Alto Regulator
The so called Baritone and Tenor Regs should be correctly called Trebles.The Chanter is a Treble instrument and the middle register of the Violin(treble)both regulators cover the 1st register of the chanter so they are Trebles.
On to the drones.Bass.Baritone.Tenor-wrong again..as one octave seperates each pipe it should be Bass-Tenor -Treble.
Confused?? So are these...
Leo Rowsome in his Tutor terms
Drones.Bass.-Middle-Tenor
Regs Bass-Tenor-Treble(ist mention of treble)

Clarke Tutor,Armagh Tutor and Vallelys Companion to Irish Music all use the following
Drones Bass-Baritone(1st mention of Baritone)-Tenor
Regs Bass -Baritone-Tenor

Clearly a difference betwixt Rowesome and the rest!!
It would be more correct to use the term Big Middle and Small on regulators and drones rather than the incorrect and confusing Baritone et al.

The terminology between flat and concert pitch sets also seems to be blurred.
Modern Concert Pitch(post pianoforte) is in D. C and Bb ,C and Bb are also concert pitch,although a lot of pipers erroneously think of C and Bb as flat sets.
Baroque Pitch(pre pianoforte) is C#(the D of its day) and B which are correctly termed flat sets,because they are flat of modern concert pitch.DCand Bb are not.
I hope this clears up any confusion ye may have had.

[Little Green Man]

I agree with Bill, it's so difficult to work out what those classic pipemakers were really up to.

My best guess is that James Kenna would have regarded the "Heritage Set" as being in E flat. He would be working mainly to the high chamber pitch of the time (A at 422.5 hertz) as did Handel, Purcell and the rest. Why E flat? Well maybe that was nearest key to what came out when those pipemakers took the foot joint off the Pastorals and messed about a bit.

The trouble is, this means that we should expect the Heritage set to play about 30 or 35 cents sharp of modern D. But it doesn't, it appears to be only about 15 cents sharp. Frustratin' ain't it! I don't know if either Ken McCleod or Ronan has reeded the set as close to concert D as they could get or what. At 15 cents sharp. flute and fiddle players can easily tune up.

I've notice similar discrepancies with other historic sets, although sometimes historic regs and drones are used with modern chanters, which is another potential pitfall for the researcher.

I've looked at a lot of different sources and I now know that there are no easy answers. Terry McGee's website has some useful info. on nineteenth century pitches used by flutemakers. This gave me a flash of inspiration (or it's another blind alley perhaps). The flute is a warm breath instrument and the human body is much the same as it was two hundred years ago. However the climate has changed dramatically since 1850 in the North Atlantic region - it's 1.5C warmer. And we no longer make or play our pipes in cold damp conditions with several more layers of clothing around us. This can make a big difference to the pitch of the notes that come out of our chanter. And those pipes have aged for over 200 years as well. All I'm saying is that there are other factors to be taken into consideration.

A at 415 was a historic pitch but possibly not one of the significant ones. It's main claim to fame is that the baroque revivalists back in the 1950's adopted A415.5 as their pitch for convenience because its exactly modern A flat (and of course D flat/ C# etc. etc.)

[Cayden]

FWIW I have also seen similar Kennas that played in or close to (today's) Csharp and Eflat. All had a drone/chanter balance that is quite different from today's preferred one: very powerful drones that may not have been used all at the same time.

And as to cold and damp conditions, not been to the West of Ireland for a while have you?

[meemtp]

All of that makes sense to me. I know many folks have flat chanters that are happiest a few sense shy either way of the "pitch" and Robbie Hannan's Kenna/Coyne (whichever it is!) is 30 cents sharp of modern B on every recording that I can find. I know recordings can skew pitch sometimes, but I'd read elsewhere that that wasn't the case with his...correct me if I'm wrong. I also want to say that I'd thought Tommy Reck's set was happiest on the sharp side of B. Is it possible that the classic makers, the pipes being a solo instrument, sought tone and playing characteristics first, and then worked out the relative pitch second? Did they feel that they had to match an established pitch or were they more concerned about having the instrument in tune with itself at the pitch that most matched to qualities of that particular piece of work? Do we know if they really even cared if their instruments were compatible with the instruments from the music of the time? I mean after all, they weren't targeting the classical set.

[Cayden]

I mean after all, they weren't targeting the classical set.

I remember Sean Donnelly pointing out in class in 1982 that Dublin was the second city in the Empire. Essentially one of the foremost cities in the world. These people were no fools away from the world, oboe and flute were among the instruments these men made, targeting 'the classical set', it is also know operatic airs etc were part of the piper's repertoire at the time.

[meemtp]

I see what you mean, I should have phrased that differently. What I was getting at was the the pipes weren't part of the classical composer/orchestra genre (or at least as far as the composers went!) so the maker wouldn't necessarily need to apply the same standards that violin, viola, keyboard, flute, and oboe makers were following right?

[Uilliam]

I see what you mean, I should have phrased that differently. What I was getting at was the the pipes weren't part of the classical composer/orchestra genre (or at least as far as the composers went!) so the maker wouldn't necessarily need to apply the same standards that violin, viola, keyboard, flute, and oboe makers were following right?

Wrang....
Page 1
THE UNION PIPES
Being an instrument now so much improved as renders it able to play any kind of Music,and with the additional accompanyments which belong to it produce a variety of pleasing Harmony which forms as it were a little Band in itself.
Gentlemen often expressing a desire to learn the pipes have been prevented by not meeting with a proper Book Instructions,which has induced the Author to write the following Treatise,which it is presumed with the favorite Colle-
ction of Tunes added thereto will be acceptable to the Lovers of Ancient and Pastoral Music..
From the 1st Paragraph of the 1st page of O'Farrells Collection of National Irish Music for the Union Pipes.1804

It hardly seems likely that the pipes were being played by or for an undiscerning audience who couldnae tell the difference betwixt a cows' flatulance and Eb...
Given that there is wealth of detail in the Collection on musical style why on earth would it not be in tune with the instruments of the time?
On the Cover of the book it follows the heading with....

Comprising a Variety of the Most Favourite Slow & Sprightly Tunes.Set in proper Stile & Taste with Variations and Adapted Likewise for the German Flute,Violin,Flagelet.Piano &Harp,with a selection,of Favourite Scotch Tunes,Also a Treatise with the most Perfect Instructions ever yet Published for the PIPES.

All of which would suggest that far frae being some lesser instrument they were indeed targeting the Classical Set as ye put it.
I agree wi Peter. Dublin was a Classical City in the finest sense so was its music,its musicians and its Instruments.
Slán Go Foill
Uilliam

[meemtp]

Yes, I am familiar with that material Ulliam. What I'm saying though, and I seem to have a hard time getting this across, is that the classical arena wasn't targeting the pipes, not the other way around. How many pieces did Mozart, Haydn, Handel etc. write for the pipes? None. Any pipe concertos? See my point? So, if the instrument didn't need to fit in with an orchestra at a defined pitch, it wouldn't really matter what its pitch was, the tone and balance, and tuning with itself would be more important. Classical music was already switching over to equal temperment, so that right there makes a point. What I was getting at was that if a maker wasn't bound by needing to deliver an instrument that played across the scales in an exact pitch, to meet the demand of orchestral players and composers, then he could offer a wider range of pitches that suited the designs of the chanters rather than the other way around. And I was actually asking about that, not trying to say that's the way it was. Just seemed like a logical conclusion.

[billh]

William Reeve's Oscar and Malvina, variously described as a "Grand Pantomime Ballet" or an "Opera" (surely 'Light' Opera?) seems to have been written with Union (or perhaps Pastoral) pipes specifically in mind. The pipes were certainly a featured instrument in performances of it in 1794 and after (O'Farrell seems to have been the featured piper in some performances).

[tompipes]

William Reeve's Oscar and Malvina, variously described as a "Grand Pantomime Ballet" or an "Opera" (surely 'Light' Opera?) seems to have been written with Union (or perhaps Pastoral) pipes specifically in mind. The pipes were certainly a featured instrument in performances of it in 1794 and after (O'Farrell seems to have been the featured piper in some performances).

There well may have been more of these kind of shows.
Another composer of the day in London was William Shields who picked up some Irish tunes from another Irish musician John O'Keeffe and used them as 'inspiration' in his compositions.
Shields, incidently started to write Oscar and Malvina but was fired as composer and replaced by Reeves.

A long was of saying that early pipes must have some kind of standardized pitch(es) because they were used in all kinds of ensembles.

Tommy

[Uilliam]

Thanks Bill ,kinda looks as tho this particular ship has sprung a major leak and with it meemtp's argument.

meemtp If'n ye are so familiar wi the O'Farrell book then ye would have noticed that ..... as printed above is...
Adapted Likewise for the German Flute,Violin,Flagelet.Piano &Harp....

This would suggest that the Pipes could be played wi the above and not that they couldnae.

to quote yersel...
so the maker wouldn't necessarily need to apply the same standards that violin, viola, keyboard, flute, and oboe makers were following right?

The maker doesnae need to apply any standards, ie present day Geoffrey Made sets but it would be rather foolish don't ye think.??

Given that ensemble playing was very popular
I think it a tad arrogant to suggest that Kenna Coyne et al, would ignore the conventions of the time and make an instrument that could only be played solo and was a lesser standard than other parlour/orchestral instruments.

ye also say..How many pieces did Mozart, Haydn, Handel etc. write for the pipes? None.
This is a non issue and seems to be a red herring.Haydn spent some time in Dublin BTW and wrote pieces there.The absence of evidence is in itself inconclusive.I think it most unlikely, extremely maybe, that your trio wrote for the pipes but I would never presume to use a negative to support a positive.Who knows Haydn may well have written a piece in the toilet and then realised that he didnae have any paper to wipe his aerse so goodbye Pipe Symphony???

That there is little written work lends nothing to support an argument that the makers did whatever they liked....just because they were not being played in an orchestral sense as ye say but as can be seen Oscar & Malvina disproves,not a symphony perhaps but played with other instruments...

Methinks that is why ye are having such difficulty getting across ...we are not convinced.

Slán Agát
Uilliam