World's Oldest Highland Pipe Chanter

[projektio28]

How awesome is this?!

http://www.pipesdrums.com/ViewObject.as ... s-ID=18430

It would be amazing to have someone fit it with a reed just hear to hear the tones from bygone centuries!

Matt

[bogman]

Just what I was thinking myself. The hole spacing are very unusual. There's a set in Dunvegan castle that are maybe 100 years younger, they have two drones from one stock but the chanter is similar in design to a modern one.

[Yuri]

Surely tha can't be a Highland chanter, as we understand it. There simply isn't enough room there for the taper in the bore. More like border, or even a slightly tapered smallpipe design, I'd guess from the look.

[bogman]

I was thinking that myself Yuri, though it does say the chanter belonged to highland piper Iain Dall MacKay. The bottom two holes are closer together than the others when the opposite is true for highland chanters (and border and smallpipes) from the last few centuries. It would be very interesting if someone reeded it up.

[CHasR]

Surely tha can't be a Highland chanter, as we understand it. There simply isn't enough room there for the taper in the bore. More like border, or even a slightly tapered smallpipe design, I'd guess from the look.

obviously my friend, this chanter silently speaks volumes about the true origins and nature of the GHB. Hence all the hullabaloo about its return to Alba.

[bogman]

I don't agree that "this chanter silently speaks volumes about the true origins and nature of the GHB" at all.
There are unlikely to be any surviving examples of the first bagpipes, the only ones that could be the true origin. From the pictures, these pipes have as much in common with many other pipes as with GHB. The GHB has one bass and two tenor drones drones from three separate stocks. This is the nature of GHB. Despite writers trying to associate GHB with other pipes for a story, what we know as Highland pipes appear to have been _developed_ in Scotland to what they are today. The same as can be said for many other pipes and where they were developed. We keep reading that the pipes originate with the Romans or Africa or Asia not Scotland which is most likely true but the GHB is unique to itself, the same as others. Uilleann pipes in the form played now were developed in Ireland, the nature of these pipes is Irish.

In the Scottish piping museum there is a large array of weird and wonderful pipes. Do we just say pipes are pipes or do we accept that each established variant is an instrument in it's own right?

"this chanter silently speaks volumes about the true origins and nature of the pipes" would be just as accurate a statement.

[projektio28]

I don't think they're claiming this is the "first bagpipe" as found in Scotland. But this is certainly one of the earliest known GHB chanters. The chanter has provenance of belonging to Iain Dall MacKay and has been in the family since the 17th century until now. If he is credited with having written 30 piobaireachds for the Highland pipes, I think we're safe in assuming this chanter belonged to a 17th century version of the GHB, and not border pipes, lowland pipes, or some other pipes.

I've often heard that the bagpipes are thought to have originated in the Middle East or India. To borrow what a great piper Aaron Shaw says about them, "I like to think that the Scots perfected them!"

Matt

[Yuri]

When it comes to this kind of thing, I can't help feeling that the whole discussion is off the track. Point is, there is NO dividing line. That is, in the 17th century they simply never had this preconcieved idea that THIS is the Highland pipe, and no other qualifies. It's the old one about what's first, the egg or the chicken? It's a misleading one, since both egg and chicken have gradually changed across tiume, which means you go back so much time, you'll not see either egg, or chicken, then a bit later you do. But when there is neiter egg, nor chicken, there is something else, that does the job just as well, it's just that we are unfamiliar with that particular thing. Same with the Highland pipes (or any other, for that matter). Three drones are certainly the standard today, but the well-known painting of the piper of some grandee or other, dating to the 17-somethings does have only two drones, stuck into a common stock. The painting is above criticism as far as authenticity is concerned. So that must have been perfectly acceptable, if not the norm at the time.
What I'm driving at is that when you go back in time to a certain extent, things can no longer be called the same thing. A Highland chanter has a set of definitions making it one. The one on the photo simply does not meet them It is a chanter, it was played by a Highland piper, it had a lot of classic Highland music composed on it, and yet it is not a Highland chanter, because it simply does not meet the requirements. No band will accept a player playing a repro (or the original) of this particular chanter, simply because it doesn't fit. So it isn't one.
Mind you, I'd love to hear what it's like, and probably would enjoy it immensely more than a modern one. (Puts up hands in defensive position, warding off the barrage of rotten tomatoes and potatoes showering him.)
Takes bow.

[projektio28]

Great points Yuri... All I was attempting to do was say that if the so-called experts like Dr. Hugh Cheape and the National Piping Centre in Scotland refer to it as such, I'm not going to argue with them. Is it what a modern pipe and drum band would call a "Highland chanter" for the GHB? Probably not. Maybe they didn't even refer to bagpipes played in Scotland during the 17th century as "Highland Pipes" or "Great Highland Bagpipes" or anything of the sort.

To me this chanter is clearly an early predecessor of what we currently play. I'm not sure how anyone can claim it is or isn't something based on a photo in an article without having taken its measurements and stuck a reed in it.

I think what I'm really getting at is I'd hate for us to NOT hear it. Reed the thing up already and let's ceilidh like it's 1799!

Matt

[fiddlerwill]

So what is it then if its not GHB?
I simply can not agree that because it does not fit within a narrow, modern definition of GHB that it is not in fact GHB. Surely within a traditional framework this chanter *sets* the standard and in fact it could as easily be said that the modern piper plays a pipe that has changed so drastically from its predecessors that it could deservedly be called a 'modern GHB' as opposed to the older traditional design as exemplified by the Dall Chanter /pipes.

A car is a car whether a ford T or a modern lexus. A plane is a plane whether it has 4 wings or 2.

It is the quintessential GHB , yes modern materials, trends and fashion have created a beast far from this older design, but to somehow allege that the Modern pipe defines the Genre'' is IMO looking at the whole situation backwards.

Thats like saying that a flat chanter with 2 regs and 4 drones is not a set of UP because the modern standardised design is so different.
I can accept that the older designs could perhaps more accurately be described as Union pipes and as a predecessor to the Uilleann pipes, which could be a more accurate classification system. But that would mean re nameing the modern GHB, which lets face it was developed in its modern form in the Cities not so long ago , far from the Highlands .


Whats in a name anyhow? Piob Mhor... Warpipes. GHB? It is what it is.

[bogman]

Yes, I agree with both Yuri and Matt, hope someone reeds it up. The hole spacings are so different to the other Scottish pipes that the scale is likely to be different. I think it's only possible to speculate it's true relation to modern pipes.

[fiddlerwill]

Firstly, I gather from photos that there were[are]
in fact three drones. Secondly The chanter is not in playable condition due to wood shrinkage and old damage. However a copy can be heard here;
http://siubhal.com/promo/audio/IainDallChanter2009.mp3

Sounds rather GHB like to me

some further reading;

http://triplepipe.net/media/06PipingToday.pdf

http://pibroch.net/articles/bjb/2009-1.pdf

[Dominic Allan]

What stands out for me is the hole sizes, almost even throughout and all small. Sadly there isn't anything in the picture to give an idea of the overall size , but it does look small to me, if it weren't for the turning of the drones I would have guessed that it was a gaita in C.
The other thing to bear in mind is that this chanter looks radicaly different to the modern GHB chanter, I suspect that a suitable reed would bear resemblance to a modern reed and without some clues to the intended reed design you'll never get a true idea of it's intended sound or capabilities.

[bogman]

I was thinking the same myself Dominic, the apparent scale of the two drones and the turning seems to me to resemble Gaita more than GHB.

[fiddlerwill]

A chanter and tenor drone, proportions seem similar.