What to do? Fix it or put up with it [title amended - Mod]?

[Lorenzo]

The problem is complicated further by the fact that there is no hard line between "reputable makers" and those less fortunate. IMHO, most makers fall in between. Indeed, there are few players or makers that are even in a position to judge what warrants the description of "reputable".

At least the word reputable is not complicated. It is simply means having a good reputation, not trying to contrast the successful with the unsuccessful, the fortunate with the less fortunate. Any maker that can get a chanter going right before it leaves the shop, or fix what might have gone wrong upon return, will have a good reputation, IMHO.

[Lorenzo]

It is interesting to note that Geoff's comments about versatility and my own appear to be diametrically opposed. I believe there is a place for everything, and a place where each and every perspective is at home. Relatively speaking, I have prioritized being as in tune with as many differing fingerings as possible, so that I can take advantage of the tonal differences and conveniences of these different fingerings without compromising the tuning. This will indeed minimize some of the idiosyncrasies but not to the point of nullifying them by any means. It is a choice that serves me as a piper who likes to make use of what dynamic and tonal range I have while still being in tune. Geoff has obviously taken a different route. Viva la difference!

An example that supports my point is a D chanter that has a particularly small G hole that in combination with other factors will not sound a proper note at all with one finger in the first octave. Given that it is SOP to play staccato triplets and the like with one finger, and is quite inconvenient to do otherwise, this is to me unacceptable. In my experience, such as it is, I find no down side to making the G slightly bigger to ameliorate the problem. I understand that there may be differing opinions on even what I would consider a relatively straightforward issue. The C natural/C# issue is similar to me in that many chanters seem to have a flat C# with any reed. Making the hole slightly higher and smaller if necessary cures it with no ill effects that I am aware of. These kinds of issues indicate to me that there is a significant history of chanters that have never played optimally from any standpoint and that in my experience it is only relatively recently that hardly anyone seemed to care. Slightly out of tune has simply been the norm.

Regarding your use of "versatility," the example you gave of tonehole positioning and size, and being in/out of tune, is with large bore large hole D chanters, right?

[Lorenzo]

Would it not be a step in the right direction if one of the goals in pipemaking development was to make chanters easier to reed ,namely to fit them with tubing staples. The future for hard to reed individual instruments may be very bleak and confined to underneath someones bed. As far as I know all Alain Froments instruments are designed to play with tubing staples.

Yes, Alain sent me an email with the dimensions for reeds and staples on the Froment B set of pipes I had. They were for brass tubing.

Trying to simplify reed making by establishing only one method may limit the tonal character available--or undiscovered. Chanters with unique bores have unique tones and unique fingerings. They are not made to be easy to reed or play. I'm guessing a lot could be lost by trying to standardize everything.

[mirabai]

I believe that it is clear that I am distinguishing between highly skilled and deeply thoughtful makers such as Geoff, and those makers that, with the best of intentions, are clearly none of those things. It is gratifying that there are more and more makers all the time in the former camp, but there are also more and more in the latter. And I agree that it is better to error on the side of respect for what a maker might be thinking.

The C issue is particularly interesting in the context of Irish music where the seventh floats around. I am quite fond of this effect and also pursue the option of a variety of Cs. I have little interest in tempered scales. An accordion tuned even slightly wet will make the finer points of temper moot. I am looking for just intonation as well as expressiveness. You can hear this immediately in my playing. My main point about the C# is that I want to have the option of a perfect major third from the A. Many chanters do not offer this. I also want a two fingered C that gives a perfect minor third from the A with no need for half holing or the key. I also want the option of a "slightly sharp" three fingered C that can be shaded down to a just minor third if so desired. I often slide sharper from there, at times all the way into a C sharp at the end of the note to give a bit of a "yelp" when called for.

The question of ease of reeding is a very good one and once again is complex in that what is easy and "normal" for one reed maker is unusual and impossible for another. It occurs to me that one might extract from this discussion the assumption that there is precisely one type of reed that will fit a given chanter perfectly and that all others will be a compromise. In my experience, vastly different reed designs can arrive at a satisfactory result and even a virtually identical result as long as the variables involved are balanced appropriately. Tubing staples do simplify things a bit, but a lot of variability is still available there.

Re: "reputable", what is complicated is that the reputation of a given maker can be all over the map, and justifiably so, depending on the specific issue, era, perspective, and experience level.

[mirabai]

That is what I had in mind but the principals apply to any chanter. The question, I think, is what agenda does one have when thinking of versatility.

It is interesting to note that Geoff's comments about versatility and my own appear to be diametrically opposed. I believe there is a place for everything, and a place where each and every perspective is at home. Relatively speaking, I have prioritized being as in tune with as many differing fingerings as possible, so that I can take advantage of the tonal differences and conveniences of these different fingerings without compromising the tuning. This will indeed minimize some of the idiosyncrasies but not to the point of nullifying them by any means. It is a choice that serves me as a piper who likes to make use of what dynamic and tonal range I have while still being in tune. Geoff has obviously taken a different route. Viva la difference!

An example that supports my point is a D chanter that has a particularly small G hole that in combination with other factors will not sound a proper note at all with one finger in the first octave. Given that it is SOP to play staccato triplets and the like with one finger, and is quite inconvenient to do otherwise, this is to me unacceptable. In my experience, such as it is, I find no down side to making the G slightly bigger to ameliorate the problem. I understand that there may be differing opinions on even what I would consider a relatively straightforward issue. The C natural/C# issue is similar to me in that many chanters seem to have a flat C# with any reed. Making the hole slightly higher and smaller if necessary cures it with no ill effects that I am aware of. These kinds of issues indicate to me that there is a significant history of chanters that have never played optimally from any standpoint and that in my experience it is only relatively recently that hardly anyone seemed to care. Slightly out of tune has simply been the norm.

Regarding your use of "versatility," the example you gave of tonehole positioning and size, and being in/out of tune, is with large bore large hole D chanters, right?

[Lorenzo]

That is what I had in mind but the principals apply to any chanter.

Any chanter? Maybe I'm missing something. As a contrast, it might be well to review the informative knowledge Geoff gave us...

The design of this C set was based on my Harrington C set which , in my experience, is an almost unique survivor from the pre Famine period. Most of the sets from that time are in what we would now call C# or B... very few that will now play comfortably in modern C have come down to us... i know of only four chanters of the size. The original has very small finger holes and will produce many different tones from most of the notes. Agreed not all of the alternate fingerings will produce well tuned notes but they do provide a variety of colours and note strengths which can be used for dynamic purposes.

A bagpipe is usually an instrument with one volume output so to have a tone and volume control on your melody pipe is a very nice thing. Unfortunately this ability has been largely overlooked with the creation of the more powerful Concert Pipes and thus most players today are perhaps unaware of this feature of the old instruments. When the Tone holes get too large the cross fingering effects are diminished almost to nothing.

It would appear that some makers today wish to get rid of these 'quirky' sounds so that the player can throw whatever fingering they wish at the chanter and the sound and tuning remain the same. Whereas the old narrow bore pipes with their very carefully considered tone holes can produce music of far greater character.

So, I put it to you that my C chanter was modified most likely because that person did not know how to make a reed for it so instead he broke it... that does not sound like the work of an intelligent person!

With this old type of chanter it is possible to have also a variety of pitches for many notes so that a set of perfect intervals can usually be found alongside ones that can be in Equal Temperament or close to it, if needs be. Some people do not like the note E on their pipes... whereas I love my E's because I can make a Perfect Minor or Perfect Major Second against the drones, play closed or open rolls on E as well as the usual Hard E, and that is just some things that the first note will do. Imagine a chanter that will jump to Hard D from ANY note without having to make an A cut... a chanter that will rise well into the third octave (comfortably as far a G3).... can make many notes blossom from a quite 'feep' to a full cry of pain...

When played, on the knee... the sound of a chanter is coming out of the open finger holes so the shape and size of these holes has to be very carefully thought about, not just for the tone height of the issuing sound with one standard fingering but how each hole reacts with all the other notes when alternate fingerings are used... it is quite a complex thing.

Obviously one needs a 'right' reed recipe before commencing to tune and voice a chanter and/or replace a worn out reed. I do not make reeds for modern Concert Pipes but I did make some reeds for The Patsy Touhey set a few years ago... I got close with my copies of the 1920's reed of Michael Carney but it was not until I used the original Taylor staple that all worked as it was supposed to.

I have been studying and playing this old set for 35 years and trying to reproduce all its qualities in my work.. I do not see this as slavish copying but a work of thought and eventual understanding with a view to offering others the joy of playing something truly beautiful.
Geoff.

I think it was Geoff who described flat sets (esp old flat sets) as a different kind animal--IOW not many comparisons at all.

[Lorenzo]

I'd be curious how many of the pipe makers listed here you think may have sent out chanters that didn't play well before leaving the shop. Of course things can change once they've been shipped. Consider varying climates, varying bellows and bag pressures, varying experiences players have, and varying perceptions on what is considered tolerable imperfections (since there are no perfect sets of pipes).

I'm not thinking of how well it might or might not be dealing with a maker--communication, waiting, delivery, shipping, payments, etc.

http://www.pipers.ie/makerlist.asp

[MTGuru]

Moderator Note: A couple of technical suggestions, guys, to keep things flowing.

1. It's not necessary to quote the entire post you're responding to. If there's a particular point you're addressing, trim your quote to that point. Otherwise, simply indicate in your post whom you're replying to (if it's not obvious).

2. Top-quoting - posting a reply above/before the question - can be confusing and difficult to follow, and is discouraged by many boards (including us). Here's a concise explanation:

http://www.idallen.com/topposting.html

Stick to bottom-posting, and you'll keep the Mods and other Chiffboard readers happier.

Thanks! Carry on ...

[geoff wooff]

So Tim,
it would appear that your tuning regime for the C's is the same as my own, just that you described it from a chordal sense as well. I no longer suggest that I am using Just Intonation because the more recent descriptions I have read of that system do not agree with what I am doing. I am trying to use a set of perfect intervals ( all related to the drone pitch) as the basis of my gamut. This can be extended to a fully chromatic scale.. keeping everything in place throughout two octaves is almost impossible and rarely achieved though.
It also being important to guard the playability, the note characters and tone quality at the same time.

Anyone who thinks that making Irish pipes for other people is a lovely way of making your living is kidding themselves. It is hard work from end to end... and then you are going to pack it all in a box and send it halfway across the world and expect it to work perfectly in a very different climate.

" Oh Geoff how can you let your créations go, just like that?" Simple, either I do or I starve.. it's the job !

[mirabai]

Thanks for the tech suggestions...

I think it was Geoff who described flat sets (esp old flat sets) as a different kind animal--IOW not many comparisons at all.

There are obviously some idiosyncrasies specific to each but the laws of physics still apply similarly to both.

I'd be curious how many of the pipe makers listed here you think may have sent out chanters that didn't play well before leaving the shop. Of course things can change once they've been shipped.

more than some would assume... relative perception of acceptability is, of course, precisely the issue.

I am trying to use a set of perfect intervals ( all related to the drone pitch) as the basis of my gamut. This can be extended to a fully chromatic scale.. keeping everything in place throughout two octaves is almost impossible and rarely achieved though.

I'm sure you're aware that even optimizing for the short list of keys relevant to a traditional context on a given chanter requires more than the drone as a reference, but I'm on the same page.

Bon appetit!

[Lorenzo]

There are obviously some idiosyncrasies specific to each but the laws of physics still apply similarly to both.

Yes, physics...not to be confused with metaphysics.

[Lorenzo]

" Oh Geoff how can you let your créations go, just like that?" Simple, either I do or I starve.. it's the job !

I have heard that some pipe makers have taken up the concertina for rest and relaxation. I wonder if there's any truth to it...

[Brazenkane]

please lets stay on the topic...

[geoff wooff]

" Oh Geoff how can you let your créations go, just like that?" Simple, either I do or I starve.. it's the job !

I have heard that some pipe makers have taken up the concertina for rest and relaxation. I wonder if there's any truth to it...

Yep, there is... both DQ and me ( any others?) but then I played the little squeezer before I ever saw a "Limerick Gasworks".

[geoff wooff]

So, staying on topic;
if a chanter and reed are tuned to produce a set of perfect intervals (against its drone base) then all the various MODES will be pronounced with the emotions ascribed to them by the ancient Greeks... these différences in feeling are lost ,to a large extent, in our modern (12 equal tone) tuning system. Look up Musical Modes if you need an explaination, I have not got the time.
Unfortunately with our "windcapped reed" instrument we don't have the opportunity to 'Lip' the notes to adjust pitches and tone and we also need to keep the pressure fairly steady so as not to upset our drones, therefore we need all the help we can get from our fingers and thus having a well considered instrument that is flexible in its note production abilities is vital if we want to produce music with more than just a gentle nod towards expression. We don't have much in the way of a volume control but let us please keep these flavour modifying devices. Do not make the tone holes bigger because you think it would improve the sound, it will not, it will only detract from the tone and pitch control. If the Back D is flat it is more likely that your 'Reed Head Speed' is too low or your staple is incorrect.

Tubing Staples;
the Oboe uses a standardised tube Staple (though perhaps there are different standard staples for the different types of Oboe) but it is not a bit of Hobby tubing bought at the local model supplies place... it is a specific and highly conical shape.
So do we use 1/8, 5/32 and 13/64 inches or 3,4 and 5 millimetres diameters ?? The inch sizes are close but not the same as the metric ones.....
Some who use tubing staples will modify them by inserting a wire or even worse inserting a wire in the bore of the chanter, shock/horror! Where the idea of 'rushing' a chanter originated I am not sure but I suspect it came about due to the need to lower the pitch of the Concert D instruments after the pitch standard changed in 1939. This lowering of pitch was a calamity for wind instrument makers because they had to change all their designs to accomodate the difference. You don't see Saxaphones and Oboes etc with bits of wire stuck up them !!! Any chanter ,other than an original High Pitched concert D, should not have a rush or wire in the bore . All that beautifull work of making a finely tuned cone is diminished by inserting something which is going to disturb the air flow of the Standing Waves. In a regulator it is usefull and can be used as part of the tone/volume control but in a chanter... no NO NO.

So, we re-design our chanters to suit the two or three 'standard' tube staples produced in China and sold through the NPU shop ? That would make it easier ? How does the saying go..." sell a man some Carrots and you feed him for a day, teach him how to grow Carrots and you feed him for life".