J.E. Brennan Book w/ Plans

[Kevin L. Rietmann]

Your typical Taylor is happiest sharp of modern concert pitch too, I've been told. Except for the ones in C#, of course. I wonder how many of those are around? I heard about one, in a set that came with 3 chanters, D, C#, double. And I seem to recall George Balderose's stick is a C#.

Mine is almost too quiet for going out in public, not that I plan on doing anything about that!

I have 3 original reeds for my Brown chanter too. Non-functioning and they came taken apart too, handy for a reference though. Rolled staples of course and the heads were a bit shy of 1/2" = 12.5mm as I recall. Actually forget if the staples were reverse taper, or never figured out if they were, or...Busby said he preferred reverse taper, I think others who'd examined old Irish American reeds found reverse taper staples there as well. Taylors liked to solder the seam shut too.

[Calum]

Bear in mind the history of pitch standards. I think the US was on A=452 at the time the Taylors were at work?

[NicoMoreno]

Actually the George Balderose set is the one on Bill Haneman's site, and it is D, albeit a touch flat, I think.

Emmett Gill has a Taylor set, and he told me it's also just a bit flat of D (20 cents), not sharp.

The Taylor brothers were making in the late 1800s, before the rise to 452, I think.

[rorybbellows]

I don't think I've ever seen a chanter without some form of adjustment (rush, tape, etc.). Even brand new Froment D chanters came out of the shop with a wire rush up the bore.

Apparently Alian Froment considered the rush as part of the design not an adjustment.The thing with alot of Taylor type pipes is that you have to do loads of adjusting just to get them to play to an acceptable level, where Froments(and the others) play exceptionally well with little or now adjustment. Theres probably a psychological factor that comes into play and that is some pipers just like the look of them and mechanics of the Taylor design is top notch and so pipers are prepared to put in a lot of time just to get them to play.
I would imagine if they looked rubbish they would all be in the trash by now.

RORY

[NicoMoreno]

Citation needed.

I don't think a lot of adjustment was needed for Emmett's or George's Taylor sets, just the right reed(s).

[BzzzzT]

I find it hard to believe, that the Taylors, with their great skill and intelligence, would make an instrument with an insipid sound, that relied on numerous additions to be in tune. Though we will never know for sure. I imagine, they voiced their pipes with a reed or reeds that played in tune, without any extra stuff in the bore. I think the style of reeds the Taylor's used, tend to be different in many aspects from the modern reed. Even when I look at the reeds on Kevin Rowsom's page, for Leo's personal set. Leo's reeds are short, squat and tapered. I am sure that Leo also carefully controlled the inner diameter to heighten the sound and control tuning. To me, from my superficial observations of old vs new reeds. There seems to be some aspects of the reed that have evolved with newer sets. I believe if a Taylor set was playing poorly, it would be the result of a poorly matched reed, or a reed with a sad tone. I would guess their pipes, probably, were not very forgiving to different styles of reeds and maybe were even difficult to reed.

I don't buy the argument that older pipes are better than newer sets. To me, there is no difference from an old pipemaker pouring their heart out in the workshop, as compared to a modern pipemaker, with all the luxuries of modern technology, doing the same. I think it is easy, to overly romanticize some of the old aspects of craft, with the end result, being the same or similar in many respects to modern methods. Old sets kinda have a self fulfilling prophecy to play well and sound great. I think this is due to the fact that these sets get a lot of love and access to people who will make them sing. An example; If a reed-maker gets a modern chanter, the first reed the person makes that is in tune, sounds ok, but not magnificent, will generally be acceptable. If the reed-maker gets an old chanter or set from say Coyne, Egan, Taylor etc; the reed-maker is probably going to make quite a few reeds and really find one that sounds special, in tune etc. So, is it really the pipemaker, who loving crafted such a magnificent sound, response and tuning, or the hard love and craft of the reed-maker to create these extra special characteristics? I think many aspects of old sets are romanticized. When we hear these sets; the raw sound is passed through a holistic concept we have about old masters, craftsmanship, romanticism etc, that greatly influences our perceptions. I am not trying to denigrate in any way the work of the old masters; I just feel the work of the new masters, bears the same distinction of quality.

In the end, at some point, no matter who made them, the reeds just ****up, with sweet sound replaced by swearing! (at least for me)


- Jason

[mke_mick]

So, setting aside useless religious rants against the Taylors, for the Rowsomes, and vice versa: what's the actual book like? What do those of you who actually make pipes, or at least reeds, think of it?

Some of us are interested in the OP's original topic.

--Mick

[tompipes]

As a part time pipes maker I would find the dimensions of bores and reed numbers interesting. I don't see myself making a copy of a Brennan set any time soon but it's always to compare numbers.

As regards costs of pipes, there will always be Stradivarius and Ladas. The difference is money but more importantly your ability to make a Strad sound like a Strad should sound.

Tommy

[rorybbellows]

I find it hard to believe, that the Taylors, with their great skill and intelligence, would make an instrument with an insipid sound, that relied on numerous additions to be in tune.

I dont think they did make pipes with an insipid sound but they were pipes made for the day.Just to theorize a little , Maybe they were made loud to play without amplification in big halls but now pipers are toning them down and the pipes dont want to be toned down. Maybe they were made for a more open type of playing and now pipers are playing them tight
The one thing I'd would say ,in my opinion anyway is, if pipes are continually problematic to reed they are not good pipes by todays standards.

RORY

[dunnp]

That type of thinking is what leads to pipes being mangled. How many sets of pipes were ruined because of the above attitude. This is what the people today interested in the old union pipes are lamenting.

If anything these pipes (Taylor etc.) were being made to play exceedingly tight rather than open as suggested above. If we are to go by the recordings of those pipes in action in America.

Read the article linked by Nick Whitmer. In it the piper says the old pipes at home are at best crude affairs suitable for only jig music. We can see a bit of the attitude of the players of Taylor's towards the old union pipes.

Not everything new is better. Only different and many would argue a great deal was lost. Why look at Taylor or old union pipes with a modern aesthetic. Take them as they are and what can be learned from them not what is wrong with them by a modern aesthetic.

[rorybbellows]

That type of thinking is what leads to pipes being mangled.

Not everything new is better. Only different and many would argue a great deal was lost. Why look at Taylor or old union pipes with a modern aesthetic. Take them as they are and what can be learned from them not what is wrong with them by a modern aesthetic.

With your type of thinking we'd all still be living in caves

RORY

[BzzzzT]

I find it hard to believe, that the Taylors, with their great skill and intelligence, would make an instrument with an insipid sound, that relied on numerous additions to be in tune.

I dont think they did make pipes with an insipid sound but they were pipes made for the day.Just to theorize a little , Maybe they were made loud to play without amplification in big halls but now pipers are toning them down and the pipes dont want to be toned down. Maybe they were made for a more open type of playing and now pipers are playing them tight
The one thing I'd would say ,in my opinion anyway is, if pipes are continually problematic to reed they are not good pipes by todays standards.

RORY

I agree Rory. I think the time period and others factors came into play to influence the aspects of the Taylor's pipes. Whether someone likes a Taylor set, is largely a matter of personal taste. I think it can be really hard to judge a set's qualities. (see rant below) I do feel good chanters just want to play in tune. This could of been a strike against the overall quality of the Taylor's work. Nobody likes a set that is a pain in the a** to reed. I have no clue if they were difficult to reed, anyone care to chime in??? I am curious; the Brennan plans are tempting me and I am nervously eying my lathe.

Tone is VERY subjective. I think it is really difficult to judge the quality and tonal intent of a set of pipes due to the reeds being such a wildcard. I think this can greatly influence the tone coming out of a Taylor set. Until I made reeds for several different chanters and sets. I did not come or even realize this; it was a real eye opener for me! Even with my own personal set. It amazed me, how each part could sound totally different with certain tonal characteristics depending on the reed. If someone has never made reeds. This is an aspect of the pipes that would be inaccessible, to really explore. It is like a little hidden world. For example I like my drones to grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr instead or purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I can get them to play either smooth or a little raspy. I like them to sound a little raspy with some bite. For my set this gives me more harmonics with the chanter. Some reeds sound right, but don't seems to have the rich harmonic spread for whatever reason. The point I am making; is each part can be made to have distinct qualities. I think, the pipemaker can control this to a certain degree; but, the reedmaker is really in the driver's seat. After observing this, the only confident thing I can personally say about a set of pipes is that they can play in-tune! I am no expert and these are very personal observations by me. I do believe the pipemaker is the one who really facilitates tuning and volume, but is never in full control of tone, due to the reeds. I am sure there are many who will disagree. End of rant, too much coffee in the morning! (zips up flame retardant suit) Maybe, a pipemaker or someone more knowledgeable will chime in and spray me with napalm or comment...


- Jason

[geoff wooff]

From the experience I had making new reeds for the Patsy Touhey Taylor chanter (about ten years ago) I would say it is not difficult to do, however it is very usefull, indeed almost essential to have the original staples.
I tried for several days to reproduce the these staples and I came close... but NO CIGAR... when I eventually took the worn out original reed ( or perhaps one made by Michael Carney prior to 1936, which had been working well up untill then) apart and tied my best head onto the staple and... voila all worked very nicely....

The problem was (is) that this original staple was a beautifull reverse cone type which would be close to impossible to reproduce without making the Tools to form it.... I made a good try at copying it (and I have the dimensions if they are any use to anyone) but.......

So, the Touhey Taylor chanter played happily at 35 cents sharp of A=440hz. and has a nice clean, fruity tone, that certainly is not as loud as the way some people have their chanters going these days but I'd judge it to be very similar in volume to a Leo Rowsome chanter with a 'Leo' reed in it.

[rorybbellows]

From the experience I had making new reeds for the Patsy Touhey Taylor chanter (about ten years ago) I would say it is not difficult to do, however it is very usefull, indeed almost essential to have the original staples.
I tried for several days to reproduce the these staples and I came close... but NO CIGAR... when I eventually took the worn out original reed ( or perhaps one made by Michael Carney prior to 1936, which had been working well up untill then) apart and tied my best head onto the staple and... voila all worked very nicely....

The problem was (is) that this original staple was a beautifull reverse cone type which would be close to impossible to reproduce without making the Tools to form it.... I made a good try at copying it (and I have the dimensions if they are any use to anyone) but.......

So, the Touhey Taylor chanter played happily at 35 cents sharp of A=440hz. and has a nice clean, fruity tone, that certainly is not as loud as the way some people have their chanters going these days but I'd judge it to be very similar in volume to a Leo Rowsome chanter with a 'Leo' reed in it.

Interesting post Geoff , you say the chanter was easy to reed , but if you had not had the original super complicated staple it would have been impossible. So if the staples had been lost that would be another taylor set under some ones bed.
The reverse cone staple raises loads of questions , first one that comes to my mind is why would a pipemaker make a chanter that would only accept some practically impossible to make staple?
Is this staple unique or are do other Taylor chanters need this type of staple ?
If it is unique,why is it unique, was it an experimental chanter design that they stopped making?
Has the chanter some how been altered and now only accepts the crazy staple reed ?
Were the Taylor’s not in control of the chanter boring and every chanter had to have its own unique reed?

RORY

[dunnp]

"Impossible to reproduce without making the tools to form it."
Woof

Is this a fault of the pipes? The Taylors? Or the fella trying to reed them without the tool?

Thanks for your contributions Mr. Woof.

Would love to hear this set up close sometime:
http://source.pipers.ie/Search/SearchRe ... iaId=23427