Chanter design development ideas

[islander]

I can't but wonder what's wrong with people's attitudes? I'm glad someone invented the regulators, a dry double reed, to use bellows instead of one's lungs and a bag so we don't have to store all the pipes in our mouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-5amqawD_c


Samppa

[CHasR]

I can't but wonder what's wrong with people's attitudes? I'm glad someone invented the regulators, a dry double reed, to use bellows instead of one's lungs and a bag so we don't have to store all the pipes in our mouth.

OK
Cant imagine there isnt an equivalent term in as highly developed and complex a tounge as Finnish; but it seems there;s a lot of DISSING of instruments goin on here.

I can't help but wonder what's wrong with an attitude that disses the last-practiced common ancestor of all bagpipes. What kind of axe is that to grind?

if ANYONE thinks the uilleann pipes are difficult: try playing the Launneddas.

Think its tough to play 3 drones, regs, & a complex chanter with a belows?

Just stick 3 crude cut tubes of cane, held together with wax & string, in yer gobs & circular breathe, & try to get music out of that. Dont forget there's tounging, tuning, and pretty tricky open and closed fingerings on two seperate melodic chanters.

Furthermore, It hasnt been "improved" in centuries,
and dosent look as if it needs to be.

We pipers should be thankful the Sardinians have kept this alive. The launneddas presents a valuable lesson for us all: pros, pipemakers, and pretenders. NYAAHH

[islander]

I can't but wonder what's wrong with people's attitudes? I'm glad someone invented the regulators, a dry double reed, to use bellows instead of one's lungs and a bag so we don't have to store all the pipes in our mouth.

OK
Cant imagine there isnt an equivalent term in as highly developed and complex a tounge as Finnish; but it seems there;s a lot of DISSING of instruments goin on here.

I can't help but wonder what's wrong with an attitude that disses the last-practiced common ancestor of all bagpipes. What kind of axe is that to grind?

if ANYONE thinks the uilleann pipes are difficult: try playing the Launneddas.

Think its tough to play 3 drones, regs, & a complex chanter with a belows?

Just stick 3 crude cut tubes of cane, held together with wax & string, in yer gobs & circular breathe, & try to get music out of that. Dont forget there's tounging, tuning, and pretty tricky open and closed fingerings on two seperate melodic chanters.

Furthermore, It hasnt been "improved" in centuries,
and dosent look as if it needs to be.

We pipers should be thankful the Sardinians have kept this alive. The launneddas presents a valuable lesson for us all: pros, pipemakers, and pretenders. NYAAHH

Excuse me, but I'm not dissing anything. I'm only suggesting new things to the old design for it to do things it currently doesn't do. I love the uilleann pipes as they are, but again, I wouldn't object making them better. There's nothing wrong with launneddas either. It's all about what one wants to do with their music and their musical instruments.

Any tradition is nothing more than a pile of ideas and practices that have cumulated during years and have proven to be useful. Tradition is not eternally unchangable or solid, it has been created and adjusted by people who have lived before us. If a new feature is introduced into any old tradition, especially a musical instrument which is nowadays played all around the globe, I cannot see how it takes anything away from the original tradition. It only brings variety and more possibilities. Launneddas is a proof of that as it is still played by people even though there are more developed types of pipes around nowadays.

If someone doesn't want to see any improvements to their pipes, it's completely ok with me. It doesn't take anything away from me or insult me. We have our own lives and we can all choose to play music the way we want to play it. It's not so serious.


Samppa

[Uilliam]

I was mainly refferring to comment by 'cash the piper', I can't see the humour there, just somebody who has the hump! The 'Troll' comment wasn't particularly funny either. My sense of humour is obviously not as refined as yours.
My comment on pipemakers wasn't made with any malice but was quite accurate when reffering to the males amongst us.
Uilliam made the comment that maybe I don't play pipes very well, maybe I play them too well which is why I find them restricting! If someone is only getting to grips with the instrument they obviously won't find them restricting.

Ach well here we go agin...
Ma post was not referring to anyone else other than Gut Tub let me make that perfectly clear.
I don't think the others, aformentioned by hiself, were in fact cracking jokes, for if'n they where then maybe I would have used them as a reference for Gut.
But they weren't and I didnae.
Gut Tub, for it is yee...
If ye can't see the malice in yer sentence re: pipemakers then ye need social guidance.
Far frae being accurate to oor male members it was insulting.
Ye can do whit ye like with yer own balls but leave mine oot o it please.

Yer reference to me making a comment aboot yoor musicality was as I wrote earlier a joke it may not be to yoooor liking but thats life for ye.
Maybe ye do play them too well maybe ye don't,to whit I, personally, alone and not writing fer anyone else on this forum, don't really care.

I believe that whilst I can draw breath, there will always be something new to learn on the Irish Pipes.
That is why I love them, and I can get as much expression as I want frae them.

I do really think ye owe our board and the makers oot there, an apology.
Tis never too late, and I am sure ye don't want to be thought of as a surly auld bampot noo do ye?
Pax Vobiscum
Uilliam

[KevinCorkery]

[/quote]
Since the opening of this thread I came up with a simpler way to add an extra note below the low D (or the usual bottom note on any chanter).

Samppa[/quote]

I'll use the difference of the soft versus hard bottom D to throw in a C# or a pseudo C#. Hard D, soft, and back to hard D. So there is a note there to use.

[Jarlath.I]

This is an interesting topic. My first thought for those who think the pipes are non-expressive - If you play without expression then you get what you have practiced. I do play another instrument, but find the uilleann pipes to be more expressive. It is that sound that attracted me to this instrument. I do find pipers as being protective of their instrument’s tradition. Bring up a single pipemaker’s name in this forum and you are at risk of some very heated discussion.

But getting back to the original topic, if there are new ideas on improvement of the pipes then my thought is to act on them. If you can’t do the physical work of applying an idea to the pipes, then my thought is that you should commission a pipemaker to do it. Throwing it out in a forum, expecting anyone to jump is naïve at best. The application of an empty beer can attached with blu-tac, with no accompanying video or sound bite isn’t going to lead very many to give it a try. That being said, I think the ideas expressed could have merit and I applaud someone who can think outside the box. Improvements must fill a need, and must be marketable (how many of us would have heard of the Taylor Brothers if it wasn’t for Vaudeville), and at that point any actual improvements will be embraced and molded into the tradition.

[islander]

Thanks for the replies. Yes, I would very much like to further act on the design ideas, just thought to ask if people here have tried them before. Don't have no money to commission a new chanter at the moment, I still have my new regs in the mail.. I plan on experimenting more with the sound/resonator chamber once I can build it from something else than a beer can.

Kevin, a mighty clever idea and good if it works for you, but if the soft and hard D's both are tuned to the note D with one's current chanter and reed combination, one needs to use a different kind of reed to produce the two different notes and maybe even then it's not possible to get an in-tune C#? You speak of a pseudo C#.

If there was a simple way to produce a low C# on a D chanter regardless of reed design, it would be quite nice! Then we could have both hard and soft D's and perhaps the additional C# would also work both ways, producing a hard and a soft note.

One can simulate the extending bottom tube design idea by taping a tube made of paper on the bottom of the chanter. The sound is probably affected by the paper tube as I've had difficulty in obtaining a hard low C# (I'm also mouth-blowing as my bag is currently in the mail...), but at least the pitch can be achieved this way. Now if there only was metal or wood instead of the paper and it could be pulled back to the original position to give the normal low D. A spring/magnet mechanism needs to be devised too for it to work comfortably.


Samppa

[Mr.Gumby]

(I'm also mouth-blowing as my bag is currently in the mail...)

Do you have many spare reeds?

[islander]

(I'm also mouth-blowing as my bag is currently in the mail...)

Do you have many spare reeds?

Heh, in the making at least


Samppa

[rorybbellows]

The important thing, is to know the difference between an innovation and a gimmick. Is a spring loaded chanter extension really a development that’s going to make a difference to the way Uilleann pipes are played.
Develop a concert pitch chanter bore that has the rich tonal qualities of some of the lower pitched pipes and still retain the volume and the response of a well reeded wide bore concert pitch chanter and you could call that a development.

RORY

[islander]

The important thing, is to know the difference between an innovation and a gimmick. Is a spring loaded chanter extension really a development that’s going to make a difference to the way Uilleann pipes are played.
Develop a concert pitch chanter bore that has the rich tonal qualities of some of the lower pitched pipes and still retain the volume and the response of a well reeded wide bore concert pitch chanter and you could call that a development.

RORY

I can see your point Rory, however I am more interested in benefiting from the additional low note myself, rather than doing a favor to humanity. I would personally find that additional note useful in some cases, and if it works well it's natural for me to presume others might find it useful as well. However my aims are not to impress anyone or to force any of this on others. As I've said before, I am curious if someone has ever tried these designs ideas before because I would like to have them on my own chanter and possibly to learn from the experience of others. I can't see your point in trying to talk me out of something simply because it "can't really be called development" in someone's opinion when it clearly is a kind of development which I would like to benefit from.

I would guess that it's impossible to import the same tonal qualities that are produced by a fundamentally different sized chanter into another kind of chanter (flat pitch vs. wide bore concert pitch). A violin cannot be made to sound exactly like a double bass (at least without the help of electronic applications) even if the strings were tuned down, because the necks of violin vs. double bass vary in length as do their string thicknesses and body masses and thus the harmonics they produce.


Samppa

[Steampacket]

"Anyways, no musical instrument should be regarded as sacred because after all it's only the instrument through which you are supposed to express your musical ideas." Islander.

Can't agree with you here as the uilleann pipes are "sacred" in a way. That is if you intend to use them in the traditional way that they were intended for. They are a extremely demanding and cantankerous instrument to master and understand, but that's also part of the attraction and allure. Also as PJ mentions if you're blessed with a good chanter and reed, or have come so far along the path that you can maintain, adjust and tune your reeds then it's just to play. The uilleann pipes have their limitations, true, but that's part of the challange and fascination I think.

Otherwise there's nothing wrong with discussing or trying out new ideas such as sound chambers, sliding reed seats, etc. if that's what you're into, although I think you're missing the point, the uilleann pipes are fine as they are as regards Irish traditional music. Less is more
Peace

[TheSilverSpear]

I can see your point Rory, however I am more interested in benefiting from the additional low note myself, rather than doing a favor to humanity. I would personally find that additional note useful in some cases, and if it works well it's natural for me to presume others might find it useful as well. However my aims are not to impress anyone or to force any of this on others. As I've said before, I am curious if someone has ever tried these designs ideas before because I would like to have them on my own chanter and possibly to learn from the experience of others. I can't see your point in trying to talk me out of something simply because it "can't really be called development" in someone's opinion when it clearly is a kind of development which I would like to benefit from.


Samppa

It's been done -- it's called the pastoral pipes. They are believed to be a predecessor of uilleann/union pipes and had a foot joint which allowed them to play the note below the tonic note. You couldn't play them on the knee though with the foot joint, so you had to play them with open fingerings. No staccato stuff.

[islander]

An excellent remark, TheSilverSpear. The design I'm suggesting is indeed similar to the pastoral pipes' foot joint but with the difference that it could be pulled back up to the main body of the uilleann pipe chanter. It seems now that it could be called a kind of hybrid between the two types of pipes. Maybe thinking about it in this way pleases the puritan traditionalists better A partial return to the roots of the instrument.

A properly functioning prototype is needed to evaluate if the idea works in practice or not and then to better know how to further develop the idea to get it as close to perfection as possible. If the length of the sliding foot joint would be too long and it would overlap the bottom finger hole(s) when pulled up, a telescope design with two sliding tubes inside each other could be one solution to the problem.


Samppa

[TheSilverSpear]

I still think you're finding a rather complicated way to reinvent the wheel. The pastoral chanters I've seen had a removable foot joint. You could take it off easily and play it on the knee and use staccato, like a uilleann/union chanter. The telescopic foot joint will inevitably effect the tone hole and the bore. It's like Ockham's Razor : the simplest solution is probably the best one and the one that pastoral pipemakers were utilizing.