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

[benhall.1]

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...

The Ancient Greek modes were radically different from the ones we use in trad, or any music, today. What we use nowadays are modes which are pretty much the same as some of the Medieval Church modes, a different thing altogether from those Ancient Greek modes, which hardly anybody understands (the Greek ones, that is).

I like what you're trying to achieve, however, with the perfect intervals. I'm not a piper, I'm a fiddler/fluter so my intervals are, of necessity a bit different. But I love the sweet sound of a chanter tuned in perfect intervals against the D drone. It's gorgeous.

[geoff wooff]

You may well be correct there Benhall,
I am just a poor mechanic, not a musical historian.

However, for those who don't understand what we are talking about I made a suggestion,years ago, that bears repeating here.

Find the recordings of old Francie McPeake playing "Return from fingal" he starts the tune on the B of his chanter. Then compare that to Ennis' version where he starts on high E..... now listen to the difference that changing the starting position (key, mode, etc) has on the emotion of the piece.

These emotional changes are as much due to the presence of the drones as they are to the perfect note intervals.

Sorry for the thread drift but I look at the instrument in a wholistic way.. as a little Organ.

[mirabai]

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.

Agreed except that perfect intervals to a D drone, for instance, are not perfect for playing in A, or E minor, and needn't be since the D drone would not usually be used for those keys.

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.

I respectfully disagree. I appreciate that you like and believe in your approach, but it is simply a matter of your priorities and what you find attractive. No argument there. It's just that after almost 40 years of making pipes and prioritizing highly expressive playing I have come to the opposite conclusion. Who's right? The answer IMHO is both. Thank god there's room for both of us here on this lovely little planet. I find diversity delightful, as do you, it seems.

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".

I have always used tubing staples successfully since their inception in the 1970s, and clearly I am not alone. My only point here is, once again, that to say that this is somehow wrong or unworkable is ironic. If a person is attracted to hand rolling staples, where's the problem? Telling others that they are somehow wrong for not following the same path is questionable. Promoting this attitude of right and wrong with pretenses of authority to neophytes eager for guidance is unfortunate. I understand that there are many that believe that it is somehow impossible to successfully accommodate the complexities of the chanter with a stock tubing staple. Perhaps those people have not experienced tubing staples working to their standards and have then assumed that those that have experienced it are somehow deluded or undiscerning. Understandable, but...

Although I have the same preference for not rushing the bores of either chanters or reeds, I acknowledge (begrudgingly perhaps) that there are many who prefer the very effects that I dislike, which is, of course, precisely why they use them, and why I don't.

My main concern here is the "should" word. The bulk of aspiring pipers are by far more in need of easier methodology, though there is certainly a contingent of those who are attracted by the arcane, who love nothing more than to pursue complexity ad infinitum. It's a beautiful thing... World without end...

[NicoMoreno]

I, for one, would always play in Em (and often in A) against drones... that being of course the point in playing union pipes that are well tuned, per Geoff's method anyway

I feel, unjustly perhaps, that those who make a blanket statement that Em against the D drones sounds bad need to adjust their ears to a different paradigm. A, I understand better, however I have similar, if weaker, feelings about that key.

[Lorenzo]

I have always used tubing staples successfully since their inception in the 1970s, and clearly I am not alone.

My second chanter was one that was bored slightly larger through the upper regions, through the throat, all the way to the reed seat. So, obscurely identifying the following reed makers, although some will know them all immediately, DQ reeded it successfully with a rolled copper staple. I wanted to know how other reeds would work...as I always operate on the comparative value, so I had JP reed it too, and successfully, with a rolled staple. Then I had PS reed it, also successfully, with a rolled staple. Then I had TB reed it unsuccessfully with a brass tube staple--even narrowing the throat with a sleeve--and it worked nicesly but was out of tune in places. Then BA reeded it unsuccessfully with a brass tube staple. Then I had AB reed it unsuccessfully with a brass tube staple (this was done blind, w/o chanter in hand tho). Then I had TK reed it successfully with a rolled staple. Then I had BK reed it successfully with a rolled copper staple. And, after exhausting my then known resources of reed makers, I went back the original reed that came with the set, a huge hand-rolled copper staple (larger than you'd ever imagine) made by DS. Even though all the rolled stapled reeds worked nicely and in tune, and the tube staples didn't and were not in tune, the original reed made by DS was the only one that played effortlessly and perfectly in tune. BTW, even though all the reeds were made with either Spainsh or CA cane, DS had some secret knacks for picking out the best right out of the field in the delta.

[islander]

I feel, unjustly perhaps, that those who make a blanket statement that Em against the D drones sounds bad need to adjust their ears to a different paradigm. A, I understand better, however I have similar, if weaker, feelings about that key.

I agree.. Em against D drones sounds good if all the notes are tuned to the D drone and when you're playing alone OR with another melody player, but usually only without accompaniment. In my opinion the D drones just don't work in E minor tunes in a band setting when there's a guitarist or what ever playing chords with E minor as the base of his/her chord progressions. In those cases the D drone just throws the whole thing off balance and ruins the accompanist's work. Better to switch the drones off in those situations.

I also like to tune everything to the drone and have at least one key working as it should (and also have the possibility of droning in other keys as well), than have everything all over the place and leave the full potential of the pipes' sweetness with the drones going unlocked. If the chanter is tuned like that I don't think it sounds that bad in those other keys either... and you can always change it a little bit with increasing or decreasing bag pressure or playing off the knee. But yeah, it's an opinion thing (what isn't?).

[Mr.Gumby]

I am a bit flabbergasted hearing terms as 'versatility' 'Highly expressive' etc used in a way that is so diametrically opposed to the way I would understand them.

No wonder discussions here in the past have struck me as more than a bit confused.

Anyway, don't let me worry you, continue on.

[mirabai]

I, for one, would always play in Em (and often in A) against drones... that being of course the point in playing union pipes that are well tuned, per Geoff's method anyway

I feel, unjustly perhaps, that those who make a blanket statement that Em against the D drones sounds bad need to adjust their ears to a different paradigm. A, I understand better, however I have similar, if weaker, feelings about that key.

I also enjoy a D drone "against" Em, as well as Am, and am sympathetic to Geoff's method and do the same myself. My point was that if you are looking for perfect intervals, they change from key to key and referencing a D drone does not serve that purpose across the board.

I am a bit flabbergasted hearing terms as 'versatility' 'Highly expressive' etc used in a way that is so diametrically opposed to the way I would understand them.

Perhaps if we were sitting in the same room together trading tunes and examples it would not seem so. I gather you are an enthusiastic fan of Geoff's work and thinking. From where I sit, we are much more in agreement than it may seem, which is my point.

[geoff wooff]

So, Tim,
we agree to disagree about tone hole size, fine with me. So, perhaps we can agree that,( to come back to the original poster's topic), if either of us is called upon to Reed a chanter made by the other we will try our best to do this with out making alterations to the tone holes to suit our personal philosophical point of view?

I always leave the drones on but rarely play in A and never with Guitar accomp., in fact my personal view is that the Pipes is a solo instrument " a little band in itself".... " hive of honeyed sounds"... Irish Organ"... nice also with a simpathetic Fiddler. As I do not have a D set I rarely play in sessions with the pipes.... for sessions I play Concertina.

Leaving the drones on whilst playing in keys where a note might sound disturbing to the mode , as Em where with my small holed chanter I can choose to use a lower pitched E which makes a 'Minor Second' to the drone... I can thus with several subtle pitches available for most of the chanter's notes , adjust the tuning, on the fly if I wish and as my ear suggests.

I did not say that people should not use Tubing staples , but that to standardise them, whilst it would appear to be good, in practice it might create more problems than it solves whilst passing that piece of control to a third party.

My dogmatic statement on the use of rushes and wires in bores should have been clarified to say that I don't think it is a good idea to design, or use a design, and build a new chanter that requires a rush from the outset (even as part of that design). That , at times a rush might be required , because it is not easy or practicable to tune a particular chanter to a desired pitch due to any of the vagaries that inhabit these beasts, is a given but to be avoided if possible.

[mirabai]

As I've made clear, I applaud your profound appreciation and thoughtful pursuit of the finer points of chanter design, and I am delighted to make your acquaintance here, as we have never met. I have certainly benefitted from the discussion, and you can rest assured that I will not alter any of your work.

Re: standardization, in artistic endeavors it is never a good thing. I said what I said in relation to the larger discussion around this topic. In my experience, there has always been enough latitude using tubing to suit any chanter, and opinions to the contrary appear to me as assumptions rather than fact.

...and I hate rushes.

[mirabai]

My second chanter was one that was bored slightly larger through the upper regions, through the throat, all the way to the reed seat. So, obscurely identifying the following reed makers, although some will know them all immediately, DQ reeded it successfully with a rolled copper staple. I wanted to know how other reeds would work...as I always operate on the comparative value, so I had JP reed it too, and successfully, with a rolled staple. Then I had PS reed it, also successfully, with a rolled staple. Then I had TB reed it unsuccessfully with a brass tube staple--even narrowing the throat with a sleeve--and it worked nicesly but was out of tune in places. Then BA reeded it unsuccessfully with a brass tube staple. Then I had AB reed it unsuccessfully with a brass tube staple (this was done blind, w/o chanter in hand tho). Then I had TK reed it successfully with a rolled staple. Then I had BK reed it successfully with a rolled copper staple. And, after exhausting my then known resources of reed makers, I went back the original reed that came with the set, a huge hand-rolled copper staple (larger than you'd ever imagine) made by DS. Even though all the rolled stapled reeds worked nicely and in tune, and the tube staples didn't and were not in tune, the original reed made by DS was the only one that played effortlessly and perfectly in tune. BTW, even though all the reeds were made with either Spainsh or CA cane, DS had some secret knacks for picking out the best right out of the field in the delta.

I'd be curious to know in what places the reed that I made was out of tune, not to contest your judgement per se, but to further the understanding. Also, the sleeve likely did not "narrow the throat" but simply created a tuning and possibly maintained a smoother transition from chanter to staple rather than revealing the counter bore of the reed seat.

It's worth mentioning two anecdotes:

I was once helping a student who had one of DQ's chanters. As an experiment to help inform me as to what was happening with his reed I inserted my own reed into his chanter with the help of a tubing slide/extension. The reed immediately without any adjustment played immaculately through the entire range and in every respect.

For a while I was attempting to help one of the companies making pipes in Pakistan to improve their product with the hopes that less unsuspecting customers would waste their money and dash their hopes of playing the pipes. I eventually gave up on that. But while I was still engaged with the prospect, the owner of the company informed me that another piper had told him that one of their Scottish practice chanter reeds could be clipped slightly shorter and it worked "perfectly" in their uillean pipe chanter. I was skeptical, to say the least. The reeds in question were questionable indeed, bearing no resemblance in any parameter to any uillean pipe reed I'd ever seen. Considering the specificity with which we all pursue a reed working "perfectly", I expected the worst. I told him to send me some and I'd take a look. Not long after, I received 5 reeds in the mail and proceeded to cut one off in the way prescribed. I put it in the chanter and was absolutely shocked to find that it actually played in tune in both octaves with reasonable responsiveness though with a somewhat unusual tone. As it turns out, I couldn't get any of the others to work as well. Another chapter in the long book of humbling experiences...

[Lorenzo]

I'd be curious to know in what places the reed that I made was out of tune, not to contest your judgement per se, but to further the understanding. Also, the sleeve likely did not "narrow the throat" but simply created a tuning and possibly maintained a smoother transition from chanter to staple rather than revealing the counter bore of the reed seat.

Don't feel bad that your reed wasn't close enough in tune to play in public. It was pretty close and I enjoyed playing it lot in private just for the exercise...and acquainting myself with your artistic abilities. You were done with that reed in less than an hour too, start to finish. I haven't had that chanter for over a decade now, and I don't recall which note, or notes, it was exactly that wouldn't tune-in, but I'm pretty sure it was in the upper-upper register. I was too busy tuning pianos up at the university at the time to try to mess with it much. I'd like to get that large bore D chanter back. I sold it because I was getting into flat sets. If I could get it back, I'd send it to you, and it would give you another chance to prove your theory as it was a one-of-a-kind bore. BTW, BK loved that chanter, and talked about some of the extra wide bore Rowsomes he'd reeded successfully, and he noted the unusual measurements, and wrote them down for some future reference, and sent extra reeds with it to try out...as did TK. It took him a few tries, but he was finally able to make the right sized rolled copper staple so that the wide throat didn't need a sleeve. Yes, you noted that the throat was too wide too, and your slider tube help a lot to narrow it down.

[mirabai]

Interesting... Not feeling bad so much as curious. I don't have any memory of it at this point. I wonder if it was originally made that way or if someone had tampered with it...

[Brazenkane]

(a side note) You know, I wish when we read, "this reed was out of tune, and that reed was loud, etc." the writer would include sound files. In the past, I've read posts from people (present company excluded) declaring one thing, or another, only to find upon a sound file...they are barely beyond a beginner level! It'd sure clear up some things for us. You can take a perfect reed, put it in a great chanter, and hand it to an early intermediate player, and swear the reed had issues, and the bore was wrong!

[tommykleen]

I guess I might be living in Camp Anathema as far as pitch-on-pitch notions go. Lately I have been playing D chanter against bass and baritone A drone, and open tenor A reg...just as a study in what happens. Of course that involves re-setting most tunes. But it is interesting to hear (well to me anyway) the uilleann pipes live in this very different neighborhood. It is a session killer of course, so I try not to do this sort of thing in public. It also limits the use of the regulators to just the baritone and at that, it fits in few tunes. And even there it introduces clearly a late 19th Century/20th century pallet to the music that is not to everyone's liking. But I like it, if only as a study in contrast to traditional approaches.

And now I am going to re-read the OP since I don't recall at all what that was...