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

[Brazenkane]

He thought they were beautiful. I didn't feel so bad then, he made his choice.


.

So I'm I'm reading this, you didn't inform him there was an issue, you just let him make his choice???

[mirabai]

I agree with you, Bill, but I read Brazenkane's original post as asking what you should do in those cases where the instrument itself needs work -- those cases where the reed isn't the problem.

I sold my dodgy drones with the caveat, "Well, I never had any luck getting them to work, but you might." But I guess therein lies the trouble -- because these things are not likely to ever be fixed, they stay out there in circulation.

I think Bill's point, and one of mine, if I may emphasize, is that most people are not in a position to judge whether it is the instrument or the reed.

[TheSilverSpear]

Sure, your average eejit player probably can't figure that out. Can a pipemaker? If I took a malfunctioning set of pipes to you, are you in position to determine that rereeding alone will fix it or that they need more invasive work?

If I took my malfunctioning fiddle to the local violin repair guy, he would no doubt be able to determine whether the fiddle just needed new strings, a new bridge, or a whole new finger board. Obviously there's more standardization of fiddles than pipes, but I suppose my point is that we let professionals make these judgments all the time with all sorts of things.

[mirabai]

Sure, your average eejit player probably can't figure that out. Can a pipemaker? If I took a malfunctioning set of pipes to you, are you in position to determine that rereeding alone will fix it or that they need more invasive work?

If I took my malfunctioning fiddle to the local violin repair guy, he would no doubt be able to determine whether the fiddle just needed new strings, a new bridge, or a whole new finger board. Obviously there's more standardization of fiddles than pipes, but I suppose my point is that we let professionals make these judgments all the time with all sorts of things.

Understood, but as I already stated, in my experience, many pipemakers are not in a position to discern some issues. After all, we are talking about the "mistakes" that these same makers have already made... All this is not to mention that there are some DIYers out there making alterations...

[billh]

... After all, we are talking about the "mistakes" that these same makers have already made...

Q.E.D., thanks for that, T

We all probably have a mental short-list of makers whose work could benefit from 'correction'; but the lists won't overlap as well as one might think. It's a slippery slope, and in the community as a whole the potential harm to decent instruments is much greater than the gain to be had be 'fixing' one or two Brand X chanters. If the instrument is dodgy the best one can hope for is mediocrity. Best to maintain the moratorium.

It's also fair to ask why we would expect an experienced maker to 'understand' another maker's instruments well enough to know what to tweak. The more puzzling and unsatisfying I find an instrument, the less I am likely to feel I understand what is going on with it.

- B

Quod Erat Demonstratum, '[thus the thing] which was to be demonstrated', i.e. point is thus proved

[Cathy Wilde]

Wow. Interesting discussion! It seems a sensible pipe-owner would want to check with the maker first, but like SilverSpear said, sometimes that's easier said than done, or just insanely expensive if it involves shipping. So many of us are, to a degree, in the wilderness -- thank Clancy for things like the pipers' clubs and weekends like the St. Louis and Northeast Tionols! I've found the advice of pipers and makers I've met there invaluable for helping me figure out whether a particular issue is mine or the fault of that accursed bunch of sticks.

If my maker couldn't/wouldn't work on my pipes I think the first thing I'd do is ask if he could recommend someone else (preferably over here, of course) for the repair. I've done that with flutes in a couple of cases and that's worked out to everyone's satisfaction.

Okay, back to the debate.

[mirabai]

... After all, we are talking about the "mistakes" that these same makers have already made...

Q.E.D., thanks for that, T

We all probably have a mental short-list of makers whose work could benefit from 'correction'; but the lists won't overlap as well as one might think. It's a slippery slope, and in the community as a whole the potential harm to decent instruments is much greater than the gain to be had be 'fixing' one or two Brand X chanters. If the instrument is dodgy the best one can hope for is mediocrity. Best to maintain the moratorium.

It's also fair to ask why we would expect an experienced maker to 'understand' another maker's instruments well enough to know what to tweak. The more puzzling and unsatisfying I find an instrument, the less I am likely to feel I understand what is going on with it.

- B

Quod Erat Demonstratum, '[thus the thing] which was to be demonstrated', i.e. point is thus proved

Of course, I understand and appreciate all such thoughtful remarks and conclusions. Such talk is more easily said by a pipe maker though than an end user stuck with long cash out and an instrument that never will work optimally. Where to draw the line on trusting or not trusting the skills and understanding of a given pipe maker by another given pipe maker is perhaps best dealt with on a case by case basis. One could draw the line high and dry or one could try to help the unfortunate owner than can benefit from a few tweaks.

As usual, rules are only tools to serve the deeper complexities.

[Lorenzo]

One such issue that I was originally shocked to realize but have since accepted as more common than not is that most pipers and pipemakers do not understand what goes into making drones truly steady, meaning not wavering in pitch one iota at any reasonable pressure. For me, this is a must. For most, they have never experienced it, nor do they have the slightest idea how to achieve it. I can't tell you how many people have told me their drones are steady and upon examination reveal anything but. This is indeed usually a matter of simple and predictable adjustments to the reeds. However, given that usually the problem is rising pitch with rising pressure, and that all the adjustments that cure this also raise the overall pitch as a side effect, I often have found that by the time one adjusts or makes a reed to play dead steady, the pitch can be very sharp. Most tenor and baritone drones have the slide length to compensate for this. The bass however often runs out of tuning slide. Since its length is so great, it requires more than the usual allotted slide length and it plays nice and steady in E or Eb. The bores of these bass drones are often too big and/or too short to play in pitch and dead steady with any reed, period. There are also many Tenor drones and some Baritone drones that have bores that are too big to accommodate steadiness at any pitch. It is more common than you'd think.

billh said, "Without the right reed, no chanter will work properly, and reeds are very individual things. Unfortunately, modifying a chanter to accept a "good" reed (but not the "correct" reed) is a destructive act that forever revokes the possibility of getting it to work as the maker intended. (same for regulators, drones, etc.).

If the same goes for drones, as with chanters and regulators, do you think it's possible that another reed maker could get those drones to be steady by sizing and adjusting them differently (rather than wishing the bore was smaller)?

[Lorenzo]

If I took my malfunctioning fiddle to the local violin repair guy, he would no doubt be able to determine whether the fiddle just needed new strings, a new bridge, or a whole new finger board. Obviously there's more standardization of fiddles than pipes, but I suppose my point is that we let professionals make these judgments all the time with all sorts of things.

I think I made the mistake of comparing what's wrong with stringed instruments (Chris Thile and those Gibson Loar mandolins) with uilleann pipes. Notation on fingerboards is pretty straight forward. The nuances of uilleann pipes are in another world altogether from stringed instruments. I suppose if strings weren't made right there might be a parallel with reeds. Whether a fingerboard is radiused may be like whether finger holes in a chanter are scalloped, but whether a reed-to-bore is right or wrong, that's an issue unique to reeded instruments, esp dry reeds and climate issues.

I think I agree with billh, most of the things that were (so-called) "wrong" could have been righted w/o making modifications to the instrument. Some pipes were/are not made to be loud, or up to pitch, etc. You can't really say fix 'em...make 'em right. Sure, you can change them though.

What Tim has done with trying to fix Pakistani pipes is a fix in a whole different category than the things we may think are wrong with our made-to-work set of pipes. I remember reading what a great and well known pipe maker said about the Preshaw chanters--that even though the conical bore was purely straight, they worked right and sounded right. So, some bores are straight, some are perturbed.

I once had a reed that accidently worked beautifully in a custom bored chanter, except for one little thing (and now I wish I'd never complained). That reed-to-bore combination was soft and heavenly (for my climate)! But, when I lifted the finger for the upper A, going from F to A, I wanted to be able to leave the G finger down since I needed to came back to F almost immediately. That beautiful reed wouldn't let me do it very well without protesting. So, I had an expert reedmaker, whom we all know, look at it and he took it apart without asking. Put back together, it never was the same. You just can't take old reeds apart and try to put them back together with different materials and tensions. Was something wrong? Not really. I could have accepted a different fingering for what I needed to accomplish. If things are working pretty well on uilleann pipes, I think most of us have learned to leave well enough alone.

[mirabai]

One such issue that I was originally shocked to realize but have since accepted as more common than not is that most pipers and pipemakers do not understand what goes into making drones truly steady, meaning not wavering in pitch one iota at any reasonable pressure. For me, this is a must. For most, they have never experienced it, nor do they have the slightest idea how to achieve it. I can't tell you how many people have told me their drones are steady and upon examination reveal anything but. This is indeed usually a matter of simple and predictable adjustments to the reeds. However, given that usually the problem is rising pitch with rising pressure, and that all the adjustments that cure this also raise the overall pitch as a side effect, I often have found that by the time one adjusts or makes a reed to play dead steady, the pitch can be very sharp. Most tenor and baritone drones have the slide length to compensate for this. The bass however often runs out of tuning slide. Since its length is so great, it requires more than the usual allotted slide length and it plays nice and steady in E or Eb. The bores of these bass drones are often too big and/or too short to play in pitch and dead steady with any reed, period. There are also many Tenor drones and some Baritone drones that have bores that are too big to accommodate steadiness at any pitch. It is more common than you'd think.

billh said, "Without the right reed, no chanter will work properly, and reeds are very individual things. Unfortunately, modifying a chanter to accept a "good" reed (but not the "correct" reed) is a destructive act that forever revokes the possibility of getting it to work as the maker intended. (same for regulators, drones, etc.).

If the same goes for drones, as with chanters and regulators, do you think it's possible that another reed maker could get those drones to be steady by sizing and adjusting them differently (rather than wishing the bore was smaller)?

Definitely not, in more cases than you might think. That was precisely my point, as well as the point of his that I was speaking to. In my experience, there really are relatively few makers and less players that truly understand this issue, among others. It may well be impressive to a neophyte that someone is able to make a set of pipes at all, but just because someone gathers the wherewithal to make a set does not connote any ability to do it properly. Many makers copy existing work without fully understanding the design options. If what they're copying is not well thought out then... I am aware of one such set of published plans that are highly questionable in some ways. To put it bluntly, in many cases, with the best of intentions, much of what the "maker intended" is half baked. Your original point about Loar is not as far off as you're now thinking.

I've been making pipes and making reeds for other's pipes for almost 40 years, with a primary focus on understanding and evolving the design as opposed to copying historical sets. I am well aware of the differences in reeds required to accommodate different pipes. Drones are relatively straightforward compared to chanters. Even regulators have their subtle complexities that can be counter intuitive. Not so much drones. The other point about sleeving drones down, especially bass drones, is that it is almost always completely and easily reversible.

[buskerSean]

As a maker who is asked to 'fix' another's unplayable pipes, you'd be between a rock and a hard place surely? If your repair is not sufficient then you suck, if you fix then up nicely everyone goes "nice pipes" and original maker gets the credit

Prob one reason makers shy away from this?

[mirabai]

As a maker who is asked to 'fix' another's unplayable pipes, you'd be between a rock and a hard place surely? If your repair is not sufficient then you suck, if you fix then up nicely everyone goes "nice pipes" and original maker gets the credit

Prob one reason makers shy away from this?

LOL! Never actually thought o that... I only do things that I'm certain will work.

[myrddinemrys]

This is the kind of discussion a buyer would want to hear, but be able to get some honest feedback from others regarding the quality of the pipes that they are shopping for, or lack thereof. I've been very happy with my Ray Sloan chanter. It certainly has its own character. When I first got it, my lack of understanding of uilleann pipes and their complexities got in the way of my previous experience playing concert-tuned instruments such as saxophone, guitar, piano. After experiencing the sharp E issue that many experience, I was seriously distraught that my pipemaker would respond to me after asking about it, saying that it was something common in uilleann pipes and I would need to accommodate my playing. I seriously thought he was full of crap back then and thought, "Well every note should be in freaking tune for the amount of money I paid".

I learned more about the instrument over time, and learned to appreciate what foresight would have gone into the instrument design, let alone the aesthetic beauty of it. I learned to play better, listen a little more to Ray on his own insights, and I learned to listen to uilleann piping in a new way. There was at some point a paradigm shift from being a buyer/student/hobbyist, to becoming a uilleann piper.

My point behind that is that I couldn't really dream of going to someone else other than Ray for work. I learned a hard lesson a long time ago posting stuff about Ray's work on this site without first consulting Ray, which I have since repented of. If it came to some point of necessity, hypothetically speaking, sure I would consult someone like Tim or someone local. I think I would first give the pipemaker at least the opportunity to make a repair. To people like Tim who are States-side that stand ready when all else fails, I'm glad that those people are around. I really don't look down on that.

[dunnp]

So my C chanter doesn't like one finger g in the first octave unless with a stiff reed.
But the effect of the staccato is the same if it pops up.

C natural needs more fingers off in the lower hand.

And F# likes two or three fingers off depending on context (or one for staccato).

So are these bugs that need fixing or features of a nice small holed flexible stick?

Should I get out the rat tail file?

[Mr.Gumby]

Should I get out the rat tail file?

No, all things you mention would seem to me well within the normal range of varying elements and your chanter may well be voiced that way deliberately (with regards to C and F certainly) and for a reason.