Differential Regulator

[djm]

1588? It would be interesting to know the source of this one, or against what evidence it is speculated.

djm

[Chris Bayley]

Checked the original photocopy in case the OCR program had misread the date - it is definately quoted as 1588. Would hazard a guess at a certain Gratton Flood who gave the Union Pipes the elbow

The Bagpipe
According to Professor William Gratton Flood
(Professor of Music, National University of
Ireland, 1911), the origin of the bagpipe can be
traced to 4000 B.C. and that Greek, Eqyptians,
and Romans all marched to battle in the skirl of
the pipes. In the 16 and 17 centuries, the
bagpipes achieved their recognizable form and
assumed a traditional role in Gaelic culture.

[Jim McGuire]

1588 does not refer to 'our pipes'. Grattan Flood is the first to introduce 'uilleann pipes'. It did not really catch on until 1968.

[Paul Reid]

Hi Jim, you mean the term "uilleann" pipes was not fashioned until 1968?

PR

[Jim McGuire]

The phrase 'uilleann pipes' was in Grattan Flood's 1911 book STORY OF THE BAGPIPE. Francis O'Neill's 1913 IRISH MINSTRELS AND MUSICIANS does not use 'uilleann pipes'. Only when NPU was founded in 1968 did that name for the pipes become more widely known.

[Kevin L. Rietmann]

Well Crowley and Rowsome use it in the title of their tutors although Leo apparently went on calling it Union pipes, right? Leo's records say Irish Bagpipes on the label - this was the case in America, too, as near as I can tell from the Spottswood discography of recorded folk music. "Bagpipes." O'Neill does quote Seamus O'Casadie as saying so and so (Jem Byrne, I think) is "A master of the uilleann pipes," but he refers to it throughout as Union pipes - in fact I don't think he even addresses the matter, it was so novel at the time.
I remember Ken McLeod wrote that the Dublin pipers only began to call them uilleann pipes when they began playing new wide-bore chanters by Willie Rowsome, hence Ken's suggestion to use the term derisively, for wide bore stuff, reserving Union pipes for the old flat chanters/pipes (and new ones in their mould). Pretty funny coming from the former partner in Hughes & McLeod, GHB makers, who I always like calling Huge and McLoud...
The 1588 date refers to Shakespear's authorization of The Merchant of Venice, which mentions a "woolen bagpipe," which was speculated as a garbling of "uilleann bagpipe" by a pair of fanciful antiquarians in correspondence - Flood pounced on this and declared that the correct term "uilleann" had been corrupted into "Union." He was chock full of far out theories of this nature - it sat very well with the Gaelic League who got their kick off with a speech by Douglas De Hyde about "De-Anglicizing Ireland." For instance set dance figures with names like the Paris Set or the Caledonian were rejected - they were obviously foreign imports! Nothing like fervent nationalism to get you up in the morning...

[billh]

...The instrument of this Collection has a differential regulator of a somewhat unusual construction. It is represented in Fig. 18 (4) and Fig. 19. It has seven keys, combining in one tube tile third and fourth regulators, which are made separate on some pipes.
Fig. 19 (B), representing a section of the separator, shows that the air enters into the circular clearance between the outer brass tube and the separator and surrounds the reed. On the other side the air enters first into a cylindrical receptacle A, goes through the small, narrow bore crook B, and fills the rest of the tube. Since the whole tube is air-tight, the air-pressure equalizes itself on both sides of the reed. ...


The keys on the regulators give the following tones.

Okay, here's my opinion - and it is just that, an opinion.

Bessaraboff's explanation above doesn't make much sense, and neither does the diagram, unless one interprets the current configuration to a misunderstanding. I doubt that it was Egan's misunderstanding, originally.

I think Bessaraboff was closer to the truth when he noted that the configuration was similar to that of two separate regulators that were "combined". The only explanation for the second "cylindrical receptacle" which makes sense to me is that it was a reed cap, intended to house a second reed. As others have pointed out, there is no need for any complex "air equalizing device" to make an extended bass reg speak properly, other examples work fine without it, and the fact that the "return" section of the regulator bore is tapered from the "cylindrical receptacle" end suggests that it indeed was intended to function as a regulator bore in its own right.

So to my mind, the diagram is totally consistent with two separate regulators which have had their end plugs removed and have somehow been cobbled together. The only remaining mystery is the lack of keys on the second reg, but of course we don't know what pieces may have gone missing. There are certainly pipes from around the same time period with a single E regulator, so this seems a possibility.

Patsy Brown's involvement is suggestive as well, since Patsy certainly was known for doing some unusual experiments.

regards,

Bill

[Chris Bayley]

Hi Bill

Actually Chris Bayley 'quoted' rather than 'wrote' !!!!

I am inclined to the view that it was originally a single extended Bass Regulator that has been experimented on by person(s) unknown. The additional air receiver/reed cap has the appearance of being grafted on in a not particularly tidy manner.

[taupe]

Thanks for replies

Nice to see the diagram that partly explains what is happening.

So we end up with a mystery as to whether it is original or not and if not who added the extra bits.

[billh]

...or who removed the missing bits.

Consensus seems to be that it is not original (at least not originally in the current configuration). Other Egan sets (cf the Ferguson set) have the "extended bass" notes on a separate regulator from the bass, as Chris noted in private correspondance. IMO the mysteries remaining are mostly:

1) is the second reed-cap with the bent-inlet and tapered section (left of photos) original? Chris seems to think it doesn't match the workmanship of other Egan stuff, and as far as I can tell from the photos I tend to agree.

2) was the bass extension originally attached to the bass reg (as it is now, ignoring the 'extra return bit'), or was it on a separate reg, like the Ferguson set's extension?

It's tempting to think that the MFA Egan (i.e. this one) could be made to match the Ferguson set's configuration more closely by separating the "differential bass reg" in two, capping the standard bass reg, and supplying the bass reg extension from the "extra" mainstock feed, reed cap, and tapered bore. However that would appear to result in the keys facing the wrong way, ??

Bill

[Kevin L. Rietmann]

Do you mean like this, Bill? Probably not but as long as we're talking shop!
This double bass design I dreamt up my ownself, the idea was to be able to ignore the extras if you wanted.
This is a like a Taylor bass reg, instead of how they built their double basses.
I.E., if you took a Taylor bass reg and added the metal extension to the end. When I used to mull over making pipes myself I sketched out an idea for a Taylor type double bass: take the standard bass bar, but leave off the stock air feed; instead, plug the bass bar into the mainstock itself (like the smaller regulators), and feed the air to end of the bar, where the reed would sit. A backwards bass bar. The bore would be on the inside, you could "piggyback" the keyed section on top. A bit cumbersome but it couldn't be any more bulky than the Taylor's diving boards and foot long keys.

[billh]

Yes, Kevin - though you may have cooked that design up yourself, it looks an awful lot like the Ferguson set and also makes a very plausible model for what the Boston MFA/Egan set might have originally looked like. Nothing new under the sun, and all that.

Bill
----
nihil novum orbum somethingorother est