FLAT chanter design - Vote for your favorite

[NicoMoreno]

Wow, Mr. Kane, overreaction there!

Is a hard E a normal expected parameter?

I think it's pretty well understood that different makers have different ideas about what a chanter should do. I didn't think Mr. Gumby's post was at all out of line. It's a well known fact, I think!

(crossposted with Mr. Gumby.)

[Mr.Gumby]

Hard E and off the knee (pinky down) E. That's an interesting one. There's a while school of pipemaking that doesn't allow for that and while I don't think that makes the chanters from those pipemakers poor chanters, I do think it's quite limiting having to go without. And both Es would fall within my 'normal' expectations, FWIW.


That reminds me of a reedmaker who, especially during the seventies and eighties, was very active helping people out (and he never quoted his achievements to anyone or took any financial reward for his efforts) who had set up his Rowsome chanter (which formerly belonged to Liam Walsh, the set was stamped by Leo but was obviously Willie, as an interesting aside). He told me he had it nearly pefect but his E of the knee would make that strange loud sound, like the bottom D. And that was the last thing he needed to solve, get that out of the way, before the chanter was going great.

I only smiled and suggested the sound could be useful.

'Normal' parameters? Or not?


Any amount of examples possible ofcourse. Do you think playing with your chanter glued to your knee in standard fingering is the 'normal' range? I have musically grown up listening to Ennis and expect a flexible chanter that will do many things, on or off the knee. Is that a 'normal' expectation? Why are many chanters by wellknown makers so limited in that respect then? Are they within 'normal' expectations?

[Brazenkane]

I

Pipemakers obviously have widely varying notions of 'what pipes are supposed to do' and how they are 'supposed' to work. And so do pipers and people who listen to pipes.
.

Indeed.

In my experience, there seems to be a consensus amongst (the best of todays) pipemakers, and reedmakers as to generally what the acceptable pitch/performance boundaries are. The paradox being that these generalities operate within boundaries that have narrow parameters, when widening the proverbial "shot." After having reeded at least 15 makers instruments, it's amazing how similar they really are. Some work well, some not as well, some have this sharp, others went for the sacrifice of that, in exchange for more this.

Lucky for us there are some really brilliant makers on the forefront, along w/the elders, who are making their incredible instruments, playing well within even the tightest "tolerances" of pitch, tone and performance.

what the row was about, again!

[Mr.Gumby]

what the row was about

I didn't think there was a row, you did.

Doesn't change my point of view about 'normal' performance and what that means in this context though. But I see you don't care to go into detail and that's fine. We'll leave it at that then.

[Brazenkane]

'Normal' parameters? Or not?


Any amount of examples possible ofcourse. Do you think playing with your chanter glued to your knee in standard fingering is the 'normal' range? I have musically grown up listening to Ennis and expect a flexible chanter that will do many things, on or off the knee. Is that a 'normal' expectation? Why are many chanters by wellknown makers so limited in that respect then? Are they within 'normal' expectations?

Those are all v. good questions, to my mind! Yes, I feel that is w/in "normal" paramaters.I wasn't so much commenting on how one plays, but more how the chanter plays as per your other observations. Your "Why are many chanters by wellknown makers so limited in that respect then? Are they within 'normal' expectations?" is a very good question, which probably has a few prominent answers.

I think it's root might be what the maker is actually going for:

I know of a brilliant pipemaker who doesn't like the hard E in his concert chanters. I'm not 100% certain if he designed that element out of his chanter. He was also going from a particular historical model, in combinations with trying to solve the E1-e2 "issue." Those were/are 2 of his particular motivators.

I know another pipemaker who also has modeled his chanter off a historical model. He believes the true pitch of E1, is the hard E. So, he goes for that. I own chanters that both play the hard E and ones that don't. I'm with you... if feel the instrument should be flexible, because I really enjoy using those colours. There are others who couldn't give a toss about hard Es. Yet there are those (few) who want a hard F! I feel this is all within normal parameters. To employ the awful overused cliche, "it's all good!"

Also, I know a pipe maker who never thought about the hard E, one way or another. That too (and the results thereof), to me, I feel are within normal parameters.

Finally, in my travels I came across a well known pipemaker's concert chanter that could be coaxed play a very lovely scale, but could only do so if the back d would totally break, and fold it in. The only way the back d would (barely) function would be if the reed were so thick and stiff, everything would sound and play terribly. THAT experience (which I'm trying hard to forget) was well outside the "normal parameters."

[NicoMoreno]

Right, well, the OP is basically asking for opinions on different makers and what their "normal" parameters are. For a flat chanter. He's looking for details. Like, does Joe Kennedy make chanters that give good hard Ds and Es? (Just an example, I don't actually know what he's looking for, which why I asked him the questions I did. Joe does, btw.) That's an obvious parameter. Less obvious ones that vary no less in their extremes are things like: What can I do with the A? What happens to the Fs when I'm off the leg with this fingering, or this one, or this one?

The point that Mr. Gumby made, that you got so angry about, but yet that you seem to be making now, is that every maker and piper seems to have a different opinion about what a chanter should do. If a chanter doesn't do something he or she expects, they consider it outside of the normal parameters. So to make a comment about "normal parameters" without defining what it is you are actually talking about really is quite useless.

[Brazenkane]

The point that Mr. Gumby made, that you got so angry about, but yet that you seem to be making now, is that every maker and piper seems to have a different opinion about what a chanter should do. If a chanter doesn't do something he or she expects, they consider it outside of the normal parameters. So to make a comment about "normal parameters" without defining what it is you are actually talking about really is quite useless.

Nico,, really now we're going to get into semantics. Your statement, "If a chanter doesn't do something he or she expects, they consider it outside of the normal parameters," would now ask of you... to ask a pipemaker ... to define what they "expect a chanter should do!"

I put, " normal parameters..." simply because I did want to write a thesis on what all the normal parameters might be. Not to mention that there is literally in endless combination of possibilities. I think that this is something that one understands better... much better... after having built reeds for a long long time. In fact, I don't think that this education ever quite ends, either. I think that what I did was take for granted that "normal parameters" would be something that pretty much everybody would understand, even if on a peripheral level.

[Jarlath.I]

Doesn't change my point of view about 'normal' performance

every maker and piper seems to have a different opinion about what a chanter should do

One of the issues without having a template so pipes can be "manufactured" is you do get into grey areas from one pipemaker to another. It means you can't make a reed that will be interchangable and work on every chanter. But I don't think we would want it any other way....

This thought came up as I read the last few posts. Part of the fun of getting better as a player is getting to know your instrument. The example of the one finger E (off the knee) is one I am working on. Too much bag pressure makes this note unplayable, slightly less puts a good growl in the tone, and less gives me a good solid E. This is a great place to throw in some "expression."

That being said, I do think that having a good stick is important. If it wasn't we would all be saving money by playing on the cheapest Pakistani chanters we could find.

[NicoMoreno]

Nico,, really now we're going to get into semantics.

Well, I don't agree at all. I don't think it's semantics, I think this:

My favs are all the chanters that do (within expected "normal uilleann parameters") what they are supposed to do, via players that have wonderful music in themselves. The ones I don't like are all the rest!

is just plain confusing language

What it reads as is meaning a set of parameters. Not all chanters by great makers do the same things, though, so what is the set of parameters?

I understand the reluctance to post a thesis, but I do feel like you can't jump on someone for pointing out that what you wrote isn't really helpful or informative.

[Brazenkane]

okay, ......:

pair a great chanter \w/ a hamfisted player and you get a chanter that cannot express the proper pitch of ANY note! so, only with a skilled player might you get an instrument that operates within a normal set of parameters (obvious?!). I believe I've already tipped my hat have to the idea that all chanters don't do the same things.

[Mr.Gumby]

I was talking to a dear friend recently. He asked me how the pipes at the Willie recital sounded. I gave my opinion and noted that some pipes sounded well but just sounded like a generic set of pipes. What I meant there was that they worked well in a particular way but didn't show much personality in other ways. Hard to explain what I mean by that but for example: one set I am thinking of didn't at all have the sound you'd historically associate with the maker, it sounded like any old set of pipes' if you get my drift.

I could (and did in the original conversation) give examples but let's not go there on a public forum where people get nervous about that sort of thing.

I think that is what I think of when I hear talk about the 'normal parameters' as they stand at the moment.

Another thing. When you go back a bit, say to the early sixties you'll find pipes (and playing styles) sounded very different overall from how pipes sounded during the eighties and most of the nineties and that soundscape has shifted again during the noughties. In other words, 'normal parameters' are quite fluid. And expectations pipers have of their instruments change with that.


My friend, who knows pipes well, at some point, when I mentioned a particular breed of pipes, said 'yes, it's very hard to explain what's not right about them to people who have never played a REALLY good set of pipes' . And that, I think, is the long and short of it. Pipemaking, despite huge progress, still has a way to go towards a full understanding of the instrument and produce instruments that allow pipers the array of colours some of the old makers managed to achieve in their instruments.

I think I'll leave it at that.

[Brazenkane]

[quote="Mr.Gumby"]I was talking to a dear friend recently. He asked me how the pipes at the Willie recital sounded. I gave my opinion and noted that some pipes sounded well but just sounded like a generic set of pipes. What I meant there was that they worked well in a particular way but didn't show much personality in other ways."
---

(I was there.......I totally agree!)



"I think that is what I think of when I hear talk about the 'normal parameters' as they stand at the moment.

Another thing. When you go back a bit, say to the early sixties you'll find pipes (and playing styles) sounded very different overall from how pipes sounded during the eighties and most of the nineties and that soundscape has shifted again during the noughties. In other words, 'normal parameters' are quite fluid. And expectations pipers have of their instruments change with that."

--

I was just having this discussion with a friend of mine (well known piper). One of the things that we were talking about was how far some modern makers have taken pitch e.g. reign it in to being less idiosyncratic, and more "in."

[Jarlath.I]

So for poor Eric, trying to figure out what Flat Chanter to purchase, it comes down to this:

1) The pipemaker matters, but you need to listen and try different chanters, because ultimately it is up to you on picking out the chanter that is right for you.
2) Keep practicing and gain as much knowledge as possible so you actually know what you are looking for.
3) If you buy a chanter and it just doesn't work for you, sell it and try again. I'll add that if you don't make reeds, get with someone who does, or work with the pipemaker to supply you with a good reed. Reeds do make a difference.

Did I leave anything out.

[Brazenkane]

YES!!!! Good man!

[rorybbellows]

The great thing I like about this forum is the way a contributor can talk out his A-hole with total impunity and in desperation to prove their point, make out that they are regularly having high brow discussions with top pipers and pipemakers on the idiosyncrasies and development of Uilleann pipes . “ I know more pipers and pipemaker than you so I must be right” seems to be war cry you here so often on threads like this. Give us a break!

RORY