"New" old pipes - what about Lawrie?
Luramao
(whoever) modern pipe maker makes pipes modeled after Hendersons or
MacDougals - and yet, it seems a common consensus that old Lawries are
just as stellar, and I've read many comments where this and that Open
piper plays old Lawries. So how come I've never come across any
references to any modern pipe maker whose pipes are based on Lawries?
I find this a bit perplexing...
hcstockŽ
MacDougall and used their drone pattern from 1907 through 1932. The last
known set of MacDougalls are the year 1906. I have been told it is possible
that there may have been a few sets made in 1907, but none known by the
person who informed me of this bit of history.
I posted this before and copied it here for you. The Lawries that these top
players play are older than1932 and as far as I know before 1907.
It would be hard for a pipe maker to say that they were making a set of
pipes after the Lawrie pattern. After all, MacDougall had the pattern first
so MacDougall gets the credit.
Respectfully,
Curt
Luramao <lur...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:3463-3A1...@storefull-297.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
dave
> *A little note about Lawrie and MacDougall pipes. In 1907 Lawrie bought out
> MacDougall and used their drone pattern from 1907 through 1932.I posted this
> before and copied it here for you.
No not quite.
The* pre WWI,* and pre *1900 *Lawrie tenor dimensions are in fact so close to
MacDougalls that the differences are not worth mentioning, because
those same differences could be found in either makers output.
(ie bottoms, .3281. ...tenor top bore 17/32, bushes between .550 and .570)
One other bit of Minutia...Lawrie used 26 tpi combs,
MacDougall (and Glen) used 25 tpi combs exclusively...it's one way to
distinguish one
from the other, though a gauge is required.
>and used their drone pattern from 1907 through 1932
Not quite.
Even in the not so remarkable(in terms of workmanship) sets of Lawries from the
1960's remained true to these original and Lawrie dimensions.
I do happen to have two nice sets of Lawries I just finished some repairs on.
One is from 1900, the other is from (circa) 1965.
Dimensions on both are not close, they are *identical*.
This is(oddly enough) usually the case with Lawries.
The biggest difference(besides the craftsmanship) is that one set is Ebony and
the
other is African Blackwood.
(However, as an aside, David Glen pipes and James Center pipes used these
dimensions
for their tenor drones as well as a few other makers of that era, so the
coincidences
between Lawrie and MacDougall are merely pragmatic)
However, I'd like to point out that "lawrie using a Macdougall design" is just
not true
especially when it comes to the bass drone.
The Lawrie Bass bottom(stock unaltered) from the pre WWI sets is roughly .344,
while the middle joint was .390.
The MacDougall (any of the MacDougall Makers) used a much larger Bass Middle
in general(though they varied), and a larger bass bottom in general(though they
varied).
>
> It would be hard for a pipe maker to say that they were making a set of
> pipes after the Lawrie pattern. After all, MacDougall had the pattern first
> so MacDougall gets the credit.
As to who is making similar pipes to Pre WWI Lawries , I'd say
Gee who would do a crazy thing like that.......????
hawg...@my-deja.com
centuries. Why don't we hear about older ones? Were they all
destroyed in the '45? It seems like the wood could survive if they're
digging up centuries old viking ships and so forth.
Alex @:o)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
u38cg
somebody had too much whisky, and sat on the bass drone. Oops, here comes
a new set of pipes.
Also, when the Disruption occurred (major religious split in 1844 Church
of Scotland's General Assembly), one sect, the Free Church, started
preaching that all music was sinful. Some of the best pipers of the day
burned their pipes (Bridget MacKenzies Piping Traditions of the North of
Scotland has more). If these people, who had worked so long for their
art, felt they had to go, how many more would there have been that we know
nothing of. I suspect this could have been a major factor.
One further possibility is that the late 1800s saw the first professional
pipe-makers. The Army market was growing, civilians had just caught onto
the idea of the pipe band, and for the first time, I suspect, a single man
could make a living from making pipes, as opposed to being a professional
wood-turner, who occasionally copied a set of pipes for someone.
Luramao
But, Dave - I've read that the old Lawrie pipes sound better than the "new"
ones. But, if the dimensions of old and "new" Lawrie pipes are exactly the
same, then how to account for the supposedly superior sound of the older
pipes? Is it just age of the wood, or is ebony a superior wood than
blackwood? Do we all need to rush out and buy ebony pipes now?
hcstockŽ
dave <athert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3A156D83...@hotmail.com...
> "hcstockŽ" wrote:
>
I posted:
> > *A little note about Lawrie and MacDougall pipes. In 1907 Lawrie bought
out
> > MacDougall and used their drone pattern from 1907 through 1932.I posted
this
> > before and copied it here for you.
Reply:
**********I am just stating what has been told to me by an athority on
pipes. Lawries after 1932 made changes, they are not the Lawries that these
top players are playing. I believe there is more to it than just the size
of some drone bores. Furthermore, you state that MacDougall bass bottoms
are varied. How do you know which one Lawrie used when they bought the
pattern from MacDougall in 1907. MacDougall made many different pipes. I
saw a set that had extermily small drones. Nothing like my set. To try and
state that Lawrie didn't use MacDougall's pattern in my opinion is wrong.
You may have run across a few sets of both and mesured the bore sizes. That
is not nearly enought information to say that the historical purchase of
MacDougall by Lawrie didn't take place and that Lawrie didn't do exactly
what I posted earlier.
> > It would be hard for a pipe maker to say that they were making a set of
> > pipes after the Lawrie pattern. After all, MacDougall had the pattern
first
> > so MacDougall gets the credit.
>
> As to who is making similar pipes to Pre WWI Lawries , I'd say
> Gee who would do a crazy thing like that.......????
********The fact remains that Lawrie bought MacDougall in 1907. I am not
going around and measuring bore sizes of a few pipes and looking a some
combing of a few sets to try and make a determination of what happend. I am
talking about history.
Respectfully,
Curt
dave
> **********I am just stating what has been told to me by an athority on
> pipes. Lawries after 1932 made changes, they are not the Lawries that these
> top players are playing. I believe there is more to it than just the size
> of some drone bores.
I believe that calipers and micrometers are not prone to misinformation.
You say that some mysterious "changes" took place.
Please enlighten us.
I must believe what experience and empirical data suggest.
> Furthermore, you state that MacDougall bass bottoms
> are varied. How do you know which one Lawrie used when they bought the
> pattern from MacDougall in 1907.
Empirical data.
Having worked/repaired/rebuilt/cloned probably a thousand parts
for Lawrie this or that,having catalogued, indexed, and filed each
and every repair and being one anal SOB.
> You may have run across a few sets of both and mesured the bore sizes. That
> is not nearly enought information to say that the historical purchase of
> MacDougall by Lawrie didn't take place and that Lawrie didn't do exactly
> what I posted earlier.
Actually between Charley , myself, we've run across
thousands of sets, and catalogued thousands of repairs et al.
The cumulative results of which are in what is probably the worlds largest
and most accurate notebooks which detail every measurement imaginable.
We even have rubbings of the silverwork on tissue paper.
Wanna see rubbings of Mike Rogers Lawries?
How about the dimensions of Cusacks Lawries?
How about the dimensions of Mike Greens Lawrie Bass Top?
How about Chris Hamiltons MacDougalls?
(yes, Chris you've been violated by my caliper)
How about the dimensions of every Lawrie ever worked on by this firm.
I do not speculate nor guess nor regurgitate, ..I measure and I know.
I've made *identical* replacement parts for every known maker of repute
for some of the most critical ears in piping.
Without fail, I get the same response...
"tone is identical to the original".
Yes, I must be wrong..certainly,
>
>
>
> ********The fact remains that Lawrie bought MacDougall in 1907.
AOL bought Netscape, Hardie bought Henderson,I buy coffee every morning.
> I am not
> going around and measuring bore sizes of a few pipes and looking a some
> combing of a few sets to try and make a determination of what happend. I am
> talking about history.
>
Buy a caliper.
dave
> >
>
> But, Dave - I've read that the old Lawrie pipes sound better than the "new"
> ones. But, if the dimensions of old and "new" Lawrie pipes are exactly the
> same, then how to account for the supposedly superior sound of the older
> pipes?
Superior players.
Were the situation reversed, and all the pros had Lawries from the
60's, I'd imagine your question would be the exact opposite.
> Is it just age of the wood, or is ebony a superior wood than
> blackwood?
I have no idea.
> Do we all need to rush out and buy ebony pipes now?
No.
Chris Hamilton
wrote:
>The cumulative results of which are in what is probably the worlds largest
>and most accurate notebooks which detail every measurement imaginable.
>We even have rubbings of the silverwork on tissue paper.
>Wanna see rubbings of Mike Rogers Lawries?
>How about the dimensions of Cusacks Lawries?
>How about the dimensions of Mike Greens Lawrie Bass Top?
>How about Chris Hamiltons MacDougalls?
>(yes, Chris you've been violated by my caliper)
Ow, I wondered what that scar was down there. I thought it was from
the appendectomy.
>I've made *identical* replacement parts for every known maker of repute
>for some of the most critical ears in piping.
>Without fail, I get the same response...
>"tone is identical to the original".
He's not kidding. The middle tenor top on my MacDougalls is perfect in
every way ... and tonally did not change at all from the original. The
only difference is it's AB instead of Ebony.
Chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Christopher Hamilton -- ToneCzar Inc.
ch...@toneczar.com -- www.toneczar.com
Rojo2G
> blackwood?
>I have no idea.
> Do we all need to rush out and buy ebony pipes now?
>No.
I've heard that during WW2 the pipes were made in maple. If this is so who made
them?
Thanks, I enjoyed this thread and am planning to count my tpi combs.
RonTeague
circa 1910 ebony lawries with black wood projecting mounts and 'french ivory'
tops and 'german silver' rings. An unbeilivable sound especially ceol mor(
which is what I play most of the time). I am trying out different chanters;
1920's hardie( very dark and haunting), 1940-50 Sinclair( well rounded, full
but a bit brassy) an older Sheppard black wood ( high, clear but a wee bit
thin). I would like to try a Kron or Nail or older Lawrie but I can't find
them in my area. I graduated to these pipes after 30 years with my 1940's
hendersons. The hendo's are big and bold and can swamp most chanters but not
very good with piobaireachd. I have been trying all sorts of chanter reeds. I
want my pipes to sound like Bob Brown's pipes. I'll never have his skill but
like the Codger looking at the bombshell in the bikinni once can always hope
and lust even if one can't reasonable be expected to perform. I have named the
lawries the Maccrimmons Harp as the sound is so delicate and clear. I would be
most delighted to heare of suggestions for a chanter for these beauties as well
as chanter reeds for them. Cheers Ron T
hcstockŽ
only buy original sets.
Respectfully,
Curt
Ron Bowen
would ya?
I had the pleasure of playing Ron's bagpipe last spring for several weeks
and they are remarkable. I actually had three sets of ebony Lawrie pipes go
through my hands and each was a prize. I'm very happy that they are being
played, cared for, and appreciated.
Dave Atherton knows his pipes! He built a replacement bass top for a 1920's
ebony Lawrie that belongs to one of the pipers in our band (NRP) and his
work was (is) incredible. When Dave speaks, I listen.
To Laura's question, I think that the influence that the MacDougalls had on
the GHB was profound and lasting, much more so than with any other maker.
There is a ton of anecdotal evidence to support the position that Henderson,
Lawrie, and Glen were all greatly influenced by MacDougall. To my ear, and
I'm speaking in very general terms here, Glen captured the warmth and
sweetness but lost some of the power. Henderson captured the warmth and
richness and produced a far more powerful overall sound. Lawrie (early
Lawrie up to about 1925 or so) came very close to capturing it all.
MacDougall bagpipes excell at producing a sound with very little separation
(if any) between bass and tenors. The best MacDougall sets are perfectly
balanced.
Still, with every maker there were better and lesser bagpipes. Some of this
may be attributable to man and machine. Some may be attributable to mother
nature. All good fodder...
Ringo
Chris Hamilton
>Oh, my pipes are all original. Maybe that is the difference in quality. I
>only buy original sets.
>
>Respectfully,
>Curt
>
>> He's not kidding. The middle tenor top on my MacDougalls is perfect in
>> every way ... and tonally did not change at all from the original. The
>> only difference is it's AB instead of Ebony.
I bought an original set too ... but the bass bottom tuning pin
cracked in four places almost immediately. The middle tenor top had a
hairline crack that grew over time and eventually needed replacement.
There aren't many pipes better quality than my MacDougalls. And Dave
maintained that quality with his replacement work.
Kris Bawden
least the blueprints and I'm absolutely positive that in 1932 Lawrie changed
it's measurements from the MacDougall's. I'd never buy a set of Lawries
made after 1932. They just don't have any sound. They sound Ok.. for maybe
20 mins or so. But then the sound just drops out... it just sorta
dissapears. I can't explain it. It's not just the pipes I've played.. but
I've heard similar things from other pipers.
"hcstock®" <hcs...@home.com> wrote in message
news:FqxR5.122943$td5.18...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
>
> dave <athert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3A156D83...@hotmail.com...
> **********I am just stating what has been told to me by an athority on
> pipes. Lawries after 1932 made changes, they are not the Lawries that
these
> top players are playing. I believe there is more to it than just the size
> of some drone bores. Furthermore, you state that MacDougall bass bottoms
> are varied. How do you know which one Lawrie used when they bought the
> pattern from MacDougall in 1907. MacDougall made many different pipes. I
> saw a set that had extermily small drones. Nothing like my set. To try
and
> state that Lawrie didn't use MacDougall's pattern in my opinion is wrong.
> You may have run across a few sets of both and mesured the bore sizes.
That
> is not nearly enought information to say that the historical purchase of
> MacDougall by Lawrie didn't take place and that Lawrie didn't do exactly
> what I posted earlier.
>
>
>
> > > It would be hard for a pipe maker to say that they were making a set
of
> > > pipes after the Lawrie pattern. After all, MacDougall had the pattern
> first
> > > so MacDougall gets the credit.
> >
> > As to who is making similar pipes to Pre WWI Lawries , I'd say
> > Gee who would do a crazy thing like that.......????
>
>
> ********The fact remains that Lawrie bought MacDougall in 1907. I am not
> going around and measuring bore sizes of a few pipes and looking a some
> combing of a few sets to try and make a determination of what happend. I
am
> talking about history.
>
> Respectfully,
> Curt
>
>
hcstockŽ
> Dave Atherton knows his pipes! He built a replacement bass top for a
1920's
> ebony Lawrie that belongs to one of the pipers in our band (NRP) and his
> work was (is) incredible. When Dave speaks, I listen.
I am sure Dave is a great craftsman. Also, I never heard anything negative
about him from anyone ever. That is a great accomplishment in itself in
this arena. Anyway, I looked to the top players for their opinions and
historical notes when I research pipes. Nothing against Dave of course, but
he is a pipe maker. What pipe maker wants to hear that old pipes are better
than new? That is like saying he can't make a pipe as good as the old sets.
It is unrealistic for someone to admit that. I believe there is much more
to it than just dimensions of pipes. Materials used it obviously very
important. Just because you are using the same type of wood, doesn't mean
it is exactly the same. Possibly pipes become more porous as they age and
it makes for a more balanced sound. Not sure what it is. I will try and
find out why, if anyone knows.
If I needed a part fixed on a set I wouldn't hesitate to send it to Dave.
He would probably send it to me broken in two after reading my posts. And
then charge me double. lol
Respectfully,
Curt
dave
> Oh, my pipes are all original. Maybe that is the difference in quality. I
> only buy original sets.
>
Were'nt you the guy who said Gillies was playing "an ancient set, ..maker
unknown",
Then it turned out they were made in 1998.
Curt, there is so much more to a bagpipe than a quick conclusion
like "all original".
I've seen more "all original", "vintage" sets than I care to remember.
Plenty of "all original" 71' Fleetwoods on the road.
I'm currently working on an "all original" set of pre-WW1 Lawries.
Oh, they happen to have Henderson tenor tops, Henderson Bass Bottom,
The silver is Lawrie(hall marked), mounts are Henderson,Blowpipe is
unidentifiable,
none of the mounts match, the tenons have been returned to fit into 60's
Lawries stocks,
one of which has been jam packed with some kind of gunk because it was
originally
fitted with an artificial ivory ferrule, so there was a large gap to fill.
Bores have been crudely polished.None of the stocks match, and the tenor stocks
are
two different lengths and radically different in a myriad of ways.etc etc.
Of course the man purchased them from a well known piper so surely they must be
"all original".
Don't bet on it.
u38cg
plays an issue set of supposed silver + ivory Hendersons, that had been lying in
store unplayed for an unspecified period of time before he got to them. He
reckons that over the nine years he's been playing them, the bass has just
started to become richer and fuller, and more like a Henderson bass is supposed
to sound. Whether this is to do with the storage, or the total playing time
received, I don't know. But it is an interesting look at the whole business.
Does anyone have any thoughts on sound change in new pipes they've owned since,
say, the seventies?
"hcstockŽ" wrote:
> > Dave Atherton knows his pipes! He built a replacement bass top for a
> 1920's
> > ebony Lawrie that belongs to one of the pipers in our band (NRP) and his
> > work was (is) incredible. When Dave speaks, I listen.
>
hcstockŽ
> Were'nt you the guy who said Gillies was playing "an ancient set, ..maker
> unknown",
I stated that Gillies was playing an old looking set of pipes. I now know
they were one of your sets and I compliment you on there apperince. I
didn't get to hear them, because he was playing in the CMU band at the time.
I have only heard him play his Lawries.
> Then it turned out they were made in 1998.
>
> Curt, there is so much more to a bagpipe than a quick conclusion
> like "all original".
> I've seen more "all original", "vintage" sets than I care to remember.
> Plenty of "all original" 71' Fleetwoods on the road.
>
> I'm currently working on an "all original" set of pre-WW1 Lawries.
> Oh, they happen to have Henderson tenor tops, Henderson Bass Bottom,
> The silver is Lawrie(hall marked), mounts are Henderson,Blowpipe is
> unidentifiable,
> none of the mounts match, the tenons have been returned to fit into 60's
> Lawries stocks,
> one of which has been jam packed with some kind of gunk because it was
> originally
> fitted with an artificial ivory ferrule, so there was a large gap to fill.
> Bores have been crudely polished.None of the stocks match, and the tenor
stocks
> are
> two different lengths and radically different in a myriad of ways.etc etc.
>
> Of course the man purchased them from a well known piper so surely they
must be
>
> "all original".
> Don't bet on it.
I will bet on it. I know much of the history of these pipes. I have seen
plenty of mix and match sets. I had an old set of Lawries sent to my house
to look over. They were loaded with replacement parts. When I first saw
them I didn't know that. I took them to my instuctor and he showed me all
the problems with the pipes. It was a great learning experience. I collect
antiques and should have used some of that knowlege. It is similar. I am
happy to report that I have an all original set with. No cracks as well.
:)
The person that I bought my pipes from is a personal friend and I knew the
family before piping. They knew my father. It is not like going out and
buying from a stranger. Even if the stranger is well known , he is still a
stranger. Also, he is arguably one of the most knowledgable people in the
world when it comes to pipes and what they are. He has more experience than
possibly anyone. :)
It is obvious that this would be a soft spot for you. I don't blame you.
You are a fine craftsman, no doubt. I just prefer old original sets of
pipes for solo. So do almost all the top open players. Sorry if this is
upseting. I don't mean it to be. In a few years maybe we will be talking
about how great the sets you make are. ;)
Respectfully,
Curt
>
dave
> > Were'nt you the guy who said Gillies was playing "an ancient set, ..maker
> > unknown",
>
> I stated that Gillies was playing an old looking set of pipes.
Well that's kind of like saying "all original".
>
While this thread has lost my interest, I'd just like to say that there are
quite a few
experts , who I would love to have stand in front of my 1936 Yates wood-turning
lathe, hand them some wood ,point to my hand-tools and say ............."make".
Luramao
"Kris Bawden" <kris....@home.com> wrote:
> I'll back you up on that. I'm sure that Lawrie bought MacDougall.. or at
> least the blueprints and I'm absolutely positive that in 1932 Lawrie changed
> it's measurements from the MacDougall's. I'd never buy a set of Lawries
> made after 1932. They just don't have any sound. They sound Ok.. for maybe
> 20 mins or so. But then the sound just drops out... it just sorta
> dissapears. I can't explain it. It's not just the pipes I've played.. but
> I've heard similar things from other pipers.
The sound "disappears"? That sounds more like a reed problem or a problem
with the piper's stamina than a problem with the pipes. (Unless, its perhaps
due to cracks in the pipes that expand as the pipes get warmed up?)
The reason I asked the original question is that I have a set of "newer"
Lawries, and the sound is so great that if I were to ever buy a new set, I
would really like to get a set of "Lawrie immitation" pipes, and it wouldnt
matter whether they were immitation of "old" Lawries or of "new" Lawries.
I've never heard a better sounding bagpipe than Lawries, of any year.
My pipes are 50ish-60ish. They are a terrific sounding set of bagpipes. I
play them for over an hour at a time fairly often, and they sound as rich at
the end as they do at the beginning. There's no sound drop off of any kind at
all.
Lura
>
> "hcstockŽ" <hcs...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:FqxR5.122943$td5.18...@news1.rdc2.pa.home.com...
> >
> > dave <athert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:3A156D83...@hotmail.com...
Paul Gretton
> Also, I never heard anything negative
> this arena.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cheers,
Paul Gretton
*****Present mirth hath present laughter.(Twelfth Night)*****
Paul Gretton
>
> What pipe maker wants to hear that old pipes are better
> than new? That is like saying he can't make a pipe as good as the old sets.
> It is unrealistic for someone to admit that. I believe there is much more
> to it than just dimensions of pipes. Materials used it obviously very
> important. Just because you are using the same type of wood, doesn't mean
> it is exactly the same. Possibly pipes become more porous as they age and
> it makes for a more balanced sound. Not sure what it is.
The accepted wisdom as regards OTHER woodwind instruments is that tone and quality are
determined to a very large extent by the dimensions, almost entirely so if the same wood
is used. This is certainly the case where reproductions of renaissance and baroque
instruments are concerned. Changes in antique instruments since they were made (other
than initial playing in) are not considered really relevant (unless we are talking about
radical changes such as cracks, or wood drying out). In other words, fine early wind
instruments were already good when they were made --they have not "become" good because
of some mysterious process occurring over the past 200 or so years of storage.
When a serious modern maker wants to reproduce a baroque flute, bassoon, recorder etc.,
he sets about it by making the most exact copy possible of an original museum
instrument. (If he is unlucky, he may have to rescale it to take account of a
non-standard pitch.) Again, the accepted wisdom among players of "authentic wind
instruments" is that the best reproductions are as good (at least!) as the originals. I
have heard direct comparative evidence of this with my own ears and have played original
cornetti alongside reproductions with the same results.
NB: I am talking about WOOD winds here, not brass. The position is more complicated with
brass instruments because the actual metal used today is very different to the brass
used in the baroque period. If you want baroque-type brass, you have to smelt it from
ores yourself and then hammer it. As far as I know, only the great craftsman Heinrich
Thein (Bremen) is doing that.
I have never for the life of me been able to understand why modern bagpipe makers don't
simply copy an excellent old Lawrie, MacDougall etc. pipe as precisely as possible
(perhaps with slight rescaling to allow for the rise in pitch). As far as I know, only
Hamish Moore and Julian Goodacre are doing so. (Don't know about you Dave.) This is
absolutely the standard approach nowadays within the "Early Music" movement
--harpsichord makers copy Ruckers, recorder makers copy Bressan etc. There was a period
when revisionist makers produced "early instruments" to their own hybrid designs, but
few serious ones do so any more.
Paul Gretton
Paul
Paul Gretton wrote:
--
Matt Buckley
Paul Gretton <PaulG...@compuserve.com> wrote
> I have never for the life of me been able to understand why modern
bagpipe makers don't
> simply copy an excellent old Lawrie, MacDougall etc. pipe as precisely as
possible
> (perhaps with slight rescaling to allow for the rise in pitch). As far as
I know, only
> Hamish Moore and Julian Goodacre are doing so.
To expand just a bit, Hamish's GHB in A are exact copies of the 1790
"Black Kintails" - blackwood, silver ferrules, cocobola mounts,
plain-turned. The look and feel is incredible. The bores of Hamish's GHB
in Bb are exact copies of c.1916 Hendersons. The Bbs can be obtained
either plain-turned or beaded/combed. Both sets can be viewed at Hamish's
new website: www.ham...@musicscotland.net
Cheers. Matt
Matt Buckley
Correction: Hamish Moore's website address is:
www.hamishmoore.musicscotland.com
Also, Julian Goodacre's GHB are exact copies of the 18th century
"Waterloo Drones", now displayed at The Piping Centre, and formerly
at Scotland National Museum. Julian's chanter is based upon an 18th
century chanter found on Mull. The set is very sweet sounding - check
out recordings of Barnaby Brown playing pibroch to hear them.
Cheers. Matt
Kris Bawden
there may have been a few bad sets produced.. and they just ended up my way
by coincidence. I've played 3 sets of 50's Lawries, set them up with good
quality reeds.. nicely adjusted (accept for one set that wouldn't tune
high). But the sound, like I said, would just drop out. I had several
other reputable pipers in my area take a look at them... they couldn't see
why they were weird.. anyways.. I have heard and played turn of the century
Lawries and was very impressed.
"Luramao" <lura...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:8vcfcq$aqa$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
dave
> hcstockŽ wrote:
> > Also, I never heard anything negative
> > about [[ Dave Atherton ]] from anyone ever. That is a great accomplishment in itself in
> > this arena.
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Paul, this guy really keeps his ear to the ground.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hcstockŽ
Paul Gretton <PaulG...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:3A1ABD...@compuserve.com...
> hcstockŽ wrote:
> >
> > What pipe maker wants to hear that old pipes are better
> > than new? That is like saying he can't make a pipe as good as the old
sets.
> > It is unrealistic for someone to admit that. I believe there is much
makers don't
> simply copy an excellent old Lawrie, MacDougall etc. pipe as precisely as
possible
> (perhaps with slight rescaling to allow for the rise in pitch). As far as
I know, only
Dave.) This is
> absolutely the standard approach nowadays within the "Early Music"
movement
> --harpsichord makers copy Ruckers, recorder makers copy Bressan etc. There
was a period
> when revisionist makers produced "early instruments" to their own hybrid
designs, but
> few serious ones do so any more.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul Gretton
>
> *****Present mirth hath present laughter.(Twelfth Night)*****
Interesting post. Maybe they let the wood cure for a while longer and
didn't mass produce pipes back then, like they do today.
I seemed to have hit a nerve with some people. I like old pipes better and
some people don't want to hear that. I is only my humble opinion from
research I have done. Nothing more. I am sure people need to justify what
they have done. For example, if I just bought a new set of Nails and
someone said that new pipes are not as good as old, I may want to defend my
purchase of New. I can certainly see why Dave hates me now. He is a pipe
maker. Sorry Dave for upsetting you.
Respectfully,
Curt
Marv Bishop
for a year or two especially by an accomplished player who will tune it properly
every time. The grain of the wood settles in and conforms itself to the
vibrations it is receiving. Whereas a new instrument will tend to resist the
vibration a bit, an older instrument will vibrate in a more complementary manner and
tend to transmit the vibes throughout the instrument. When the whole instrument is
catching all the vibes, the resulting sound is richer. Check out older guitars,
older violins, etc.
Marv :b~
u38cg wrote:
> As a little aside on the whole subject of materials and pipes, my pipe-major
> plays an issue set of supposed silver + ivory Hendersons, that had been lying in
> store unplayed for an unspecified period of time before he got to them. He
> reckons that over the nine years he's been playing them, the bass has just
> started to become richer and fuller, and more like a Henderson bass is supposed
> to sound. Whether this is to do with the storage, or the total playing time
> received, I don't know. But it is an interesting look at the whole business.
> Does anyone have any thoughts on sound change in new pipes they've owned since,
> say, the seventies?
>
> "hcstockŽ" wrote:
>
> > > Dave Atherton knows his pipes! He built a replacement bass top for a
> > 1920's
> > > ebony Lawrie that belongs to one of the pipers in our band (NRP) and his
> > > work was (is) incredible. When Dave speaks, I listen.
> >
> > I am sure Dave is a great craftsman. Also, I never heard anything negative
> > about him from anyone ever. That is a great accomplishment in itself in
> > this arena. Anyway, I looked to the top players for their opinions and
> > historical notes when I research pipes. Nothing against Dave of course, but
> > he is a pipe maker. What pipe maker wants to hear that old pipes are better
> > than new? That is like saying he can't make a pipe as good as the old sets.
> > It is unrealistic for someone to admit that. I believe there is much more
> > to it than just dimensions of pipes. Materials used it obviously very
> > important. Just because you are using the same type of wood, doesn't mean
> > it is exactly the same. Possibly pipes become more porous as they age and
dave
I have a bridge for sale.
Made by RG MacTri-Borough on April first ,1880 at 01:12:03 hours.
All Original,one of a kind,this bridge was not mass produced.
A similar bridge was built in 1933, but that bridge is crap,or so I'm told.
This Bridge was made from 100% seasoned concrete,steel, and iron.
I know this for sure because I was told so.
hcstockŽ
> Paul,
>
> I have a bridge for sale.
>
> Made by RG MacTri-Borough on April first ,1880 at 01:12:03 hours.
>
> All Original,one of a kind,this bridge was not mass produced.
>
> A similar bridge was built in 1933, but that bridge is crap,or so I'm
told.
>
> This Bridge was made from 100% seasoned concrete,steel, and iron.
I think comparing a bridge to a musical instrument is a poor analogy. You
must not be tired of this thread yet. You can talk till you are blue in the
face, but you are wasting your time talking to me here. Try and get a top
player to play your pipes in major competitions instead of babbling here.
> I know this for sure because I was told so.
People learn from other more experienced people and by their own
experiences. It is too bad you don't have friends in the piping world you
can trust. There are many fine people out there, but you must learn to be a
good listener. A good listener does not filter out all the things that
he/she does not want to her. You may someday come to grips with the fact
that no top piper plays the pipes you made, yet. Being in the business your
opinions are very bias and defensive. This could eventually hurt your
business. You sent me a private e-mail and I was wondering if you really
read it through? There is much to learn from the person who sent you it.
Once again, good luck in your business,
Curt
dave
I imagine there was a time when folks could think for themselves in this
country.
Bill
dave <athert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I now realize how Bill Clinton got re-elected to a second term.
You know its ignorant posts like this that spoil this country. He was
elected (easily) by a majority, TWICE, but yet theres a few who imply
we are too stupid to know what we were doing. The majority of us are
happy, only petty little whiners who didnt get their way are still
crying about "Clinton this and Clinton that". As proof of this, just
today I received one of those ignorant letters asking Clinton to step
down, allegedly written by a retired military officer (whose publicly
denied he had anything to do with writing it) giving an opinion from
someone who cant even run his own life, or could come up with an
original thought if his life depended on it, on a subject he certainly
has a tainted opinion on, and yet this pack of lies and innuendo has
crossed the web probably thousands of times due to small minds with
petty little motives. As a matter of fact, I received this email three
times in the past year, from the same person... who no doubt, doesnt
even remember sending it a few months earlier. His screen name
was "RonaldReag...@aol.com"...
--
Bill
Bleeding heart liberal, and proud of it!
Bill
dave <athert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I now realize how Bill Clinton got re-elected to a second term.
P.S. My point was, whats to be served by sending this libelous crap
out now, when the guys leaving office in a few months anyway? Its
certainly not helpful to our country as a whole.
--
Bill
teddyt...@countyhellpress.com
Bill <bag...@netzero.com> wrote:
> In article <3A1AFB3B...@hotmail.com>,
> dave <athert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I now realize how Bill Clinton got re-elected to a second term.
>
> elected (easily) by a majority,
Actually, he was NEVER elected by a majority (%51+). He was elected by
a PLURALITY. He never broke the mid-40 percentile.
Besides, posts to an internet newsgroup certainly do not "spoil" a
country, whatever that means. You folks have more to thank Alan
Greenspan for than Billy Clinton.
Chris Hamilton
>I think comparing a bridge to a musical instrument is a poor analogy. You
>must not be tired of this thread yet. You can talk till you are blue in the
>face, but you are wasting your time talking to me here. Try and get a top
>player to play your pipes in major competitions instead of babbling here.
He doesn't need to try, it's already been done. (No, I'm not referring
to myself).
But about myself, 6th in the Open Jig at Maxville, and Piper of the
Day at Stone Mountain playing MacLellan drones and Kron chanter ain't
exactly chopped liver.
This summer, I put aside a superb 100-year-old set of MacDougall
drones and 1985 Sinclair (and sometimes a Gibson) chanter in favor of
brand new MacLellan drones and Kron chanter. I put my butt on the line
and decided to give these new makers some publicity.
Here's some judges comments excerpted from my various scoresheets this
summer, from professional EUSPBA and PPBSO contests. I was playing
MacLellan drones and Kron chanter.
"Very nice bagpipe!"
"Good pipe!"
"Very nice pipe"
"A very solid performance on a deep and mellow pipe with a strong bass
drone."
"Nice pipes throughout"
"Quite superbly played on an excellent pipe"
"Very nice robust bagpipe"
"A very enjoyable tune on a humming pipe."
"A very well played tune on a lovely pipe"
"Excellent drones"
I'll tell ya what, in addition to my usual MacLellan drones, I'll be
more than glad to play a set of Kron drones, or Soutar drones and
chanter, or MacLellan chanter, in a professional contest next year.
>You may someday come to grips with the fact
>that no top piper plays the pipes you made, yet.
Rome was not built in a day either. I remember when the COW band, then
called Scottish & Irish Imports, purchased our first Shepherd chanters
in 1985 ... never heard of anyone playing them. Fifteen years on
Shepherd rules the chanter market and has won countless band and solo
contests. But in 1985 they were a fledgling startup pipemaker.
APayzant
>From: Marv Bishop pipe...@home.com
>Date: Tue, Nov 21, 2000 12:54 PM
>Message-id: <3A1AB652...@home.com>
>
>Any wooden acoustic instrument sounds better (richer, mellower) after being
>played
>for a year or two especially by an accomplished player who will tune it
>properly
>every time. The grain of the wood settles in and conforms itself to the
>vibrations it is receiving. Whereas a new instrument will tend to resist
>the
>vibration a bit, an older instrument will vibrate in a more complementary
>manner and
>tend to transmit the vibes throughout the instrument. When the whole
instrument
>is
>catching all the vibes, the resulting sound is richer. Check out older
guitars,
>older violins, etc.
>
>Marv :b~
Interesting post.
Might well be relevant to thin-walled instruments such as violins, guitars,
etc., but I have not seen any evidence that the large mass of wood in bagpipe
drones vibrates significantly or that the grain of the wood "settles in and
conforms itself to the vibrations".
A
Bill
teddyt...@countyhellpress.com wrote:
> Actually, he was NEVER elected by a majority (%51+). He was elected
by
> a PLURALITY. He never broke the mid-40 percentile.
More babblin about nothing, just searching for technicalitys. He WAS
elected, nothing else matters.
>
> Besides, posts to an internet newsgroup certainly do not "spoil" a
> country, whatever that means.
Its the sentiment and mean-spirited intententions behind things like
the email I mentioned, that spoil this country, not where it was posted
or printed. Again, you twist, and try to loose the true meaning of my
post in tiny technicalitys. Your just reinforcing my point.
You folks have more to thank Alan
> Greenspan for than Billy Clinton.
Yes we do, us. And the MAJORITY of us have been very happy for the past
8 years, except for a few very verbal bunch of sore loosers.
Bill
teddyt...@countyhellpress.com
Bill <bag...@netzero.com> wrote:
> In article <8vf19d$eom$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> teddyt...@countyhellpress.com wrote:
> > Actually, he was NEVER elected by a majority (%51+). He was elected
> by
> > a PLURALITY. He never broke the mid-40 percentile.
>
> More babblin about nothing, just searching for technicalitys. He WAS
> elected, nothing else matters.
Didn't mean to get your lather up...just makin' sure the historic facts
were presented.
> Its the sentiment and mean-spirited intententions behind things like
> the email I mentioned, that spoil this country,
or mistaken assumptions, like the one it seems you've made about my post
being some kind of attack on your political beliefs.
> Again, you twist, and try to loose the true meaning of my
> post in tiny technicalitys.
I wasn't concerned with the "true meaning" of your post. I'm more
concerned with truth and the battle against misinformation.
Just to clear this up, I wasn't attacking W. Clinton. I was making sure
that incorrect information wasn't allowed to be mistaken as fact. I'm
sorry that you decided to incorrectly gleam some secret meaning from my
post other than the two simple facts that I originally presented. It
probably doesn't matter, though...I'll bet you've already mistakenly
labelled me a Repulican...or a Democrat.
I'm a registered Papist. God bless you.
hcstockŽ
But attacking my instructor, is a bit much. I know you know my instructor
and he is a true gentleman. I didn't get personal until he started all
that. You don't see me saying bad things about Charlie Kron who is a
respected pipe maker. I have said many good things (they seemed to go
unnoticed). I was not happy with the work they did on my Henderson's, but
it was good enough for a band set. I never said anything about it to
anyone. When I sent my pipes there they were in the middle of a flood. I
should have sent them to a guy in Canada, but wanted to keep them in the US
and I didn't know about the flood until they had my pipes already. I didn't
want to send them back because at the time I only had one set and didn't
want to be without them any longer.
It is amazing to me that someone will go this far just because I like old
pipes better than new. Many people do, but they didn't post it here, they
e-mailed me directly. I can see why they did. How stupid it was of me to
post my opinion on something. Better to stay on the sidelines and just
read.
You stated that Rome was not built in a day. Those are my thoughts exactly.
Good job at stone mountain. I'll bet you had a ball. Come back to your old
stomping ground and we will get a wee dram at Hoffstots or the Pipers Pub.
Respectfully,
Curt
Chris Hamilton <ch...@toneczar.com> wrote in message
news:m14m1t0d9q1ciqggs...@4ax.com...
Mike Szarka
news:3A1AB652...@home.com...
> Any wooden acoustic instrument sounds better (richer, mellower) after
being played
> for a year or two especially by an accomplished player who will tune it
properly
> every time. The grain of the wood settles in and conforms itself to the
> vibrations it is receiving. Whereas a new instrument will tend to resist
the
> vibration a bit, an older instrument will vibrate in a more complementary
manner and
> tend to transmit the vibes throughout the instrument. When the whole
instrument is
> catching all the vibes, the resulting sound is richer. Check out older
guitars,
> older violins, etc.
This is a fascinating theory; is there any evidence at all for it,
scientific, anecdotal or otherwise?
Mike
--
Mike Szarka
Celtic Flair Pipe Band
http://www.celticflair.com/
james...@my-deja.com
Does the little R after your name stand for "Retarded"?
JT
DicksonDL
> catching all the vibes, the resulting sound is richer. Check out older
guitars,
> older violins, etc.
This is a fascinating theory; is there any evidence at all for it, scientific,
anecdotal or otherwise? >>
I've heard the same thing from violin teachers and violin repairmen. A violin
begins to get it's true voice after it has been played for a hundred years or
so. Stradivarius never heard his instruments sound like they do today.
And I've heard that a harp sounds best after it has sucumbed to many years of
tension of the strings pulling on the sound board--the few years just before it
self destructs.
But these instruments depend on the vibration of the wood to actually amplify
the sound produced by the strings. In pipes, it isn't the vibration of the
wood, but the vibration of the air column that produces the sound. So I don't
see that the age would make such a difference as it does with stringed
instruments. The bore dimensions and geometry, though...
Duane Dickson
Maeve
news:G4ELM...@campus-news-reading.utoronto.ca...
> Marv Bishop <pipe...@home.com> wrote in message
> news:3A1AB652...@home.com...
> > Any wooden acoustic instrument sounds better (richer, mellower) after
> being played
> > catching all the vibes, the resulting sound is richer. Check out older
> guitars,
> > older violins, etc.
>
> This is a fascinating theory; is there any evidence at all for it,
> scientific, anecdotal or otherwise?
Yes .... and no ... :) What I mean is ... I can't remember all of the
particulars and I MIGHT be able to research it again and find out for sure
but for the moment, you'll just have to trust what I remember of the
conversation. Sorry, Mike :) This was a discussion along the same lines ...
does the wood get better with age and use. It pertained to hammered
dulcimers and a maker that plays music to his before he ships them :) :)
There was a study done at a university somewhere (memory gap) where they
hooked up some sensors to a dulcimer that had JUST been built. When a note
was sounded, the vibrations lasted for a VERY short time ... minute,
imperceptable-to-the-human-ear vibrations that lasted about 20 minutes. The
instrument was played for a short time each day and the length of the
vibrations continued to lenghten in duration. The vibrations were lasting
an incredible length of time as the instrument was being played more and
more. The researchers decided to see if it was just that it was being
played or if it would respond to "music" and set up a sound system that
played music to the dulcimer for 5 days, 24 hours a day. When they tested
the single not again, the dulcimer's vibrations lasted 20-something (another
gap) hours. Again, measured with a sensor and audibly imperceptable to the
ear. Another interesting thing that was discovered is that the instrument
became SO sensitive that a person walking PAST the instrument would cause
the vibrations to begin. We've noticed the same phenomenon with our own
dulcimers here .... we can actually here them resonate as we move past time
in a quiet room.
The research continued and they decided to see if it would "stay alive"
after not being played. It was put in a sound proof room and left for a
week. The note was struck and the sensors showed a remarkable DECREASE in
the vibrations. The dulcimer was dying! I don't remember if they continued
and what the final decline of the instrument was in the end.
There was another discussion that I had within the last couple of days with
other fiddle players. We were discussing the old instruments and what made
them so desirable (some things don't change from group to group!). There was
an interesting theory discussed and I was wondering how it might relate to
the pipes as well. What was said is that not ALL of the instruments by noted
makers were GREAT ... there were a few that shined above the others. There
were also instruments by not-so-known makers that were great. Now why did
these instruments last for 400+ years while the not-so-great instruments
faded into ... wherever they go??? It's theorized that the great instruments
were loved, cared for, played, and passed along to other good players who
did the same ... while the lesser ones just disappear. Just food for
thought. I know that most of those who have a great pipe will be looking for
someone who will appreciate the instrument for what it is and pass it along
to make sure that it is not lost forever.
Love and Light be with you,
Maeve
http://people.delphi.com/terralyn
ter...@sanctum.com
authoring http://sandykeith.com
Paul Gretton
I've heard the recording on his wesite and I have the CD of the Edinburgh piobaireachd
concert. The sound on the CD is magnificent.
Paul Gretton
>
> Paul,
>
> I have a bridge for sale.
>
> Made by RG MacTri-Borough on April first ,1880 at 01:12:03 hours.
>
> All Original,one of a kind,this bridge was not mass produced.
>
> A similar bridge was built in 1933, but that bridge is crap,or so I'm told.
>
> This Bridge was made from 100% seasoned concrete,steel, and iron.
Hmmm... I'm not sure what your point is. There's a bridge a hundred yards from my house
(in Maastricht, Holland) which was built in the 14th century and which was the only
means of crossing the river (other than by boat) until another bridge was built just
downstream in the 1930's. The 14th-century bridge is still going strong and I cross it
every day of my life. The city now has plans to demolish the 1930's bridge and to
replace it. All they are doing to the medieval bridge is replacing the road surface with
cobblestones.
Bill
teddyt...@countyhellpress.com wrote:
>
> Didn't mean to get your lather up...just makin' sure the historic
facts
> were presented.
>
sending me that stupid email for the third time.
Sorry, didnt mean to make it sound so personal. I realize you were just
getting the facts straight, but it seems "nitpicky" and a bit late to
even be discussing this... which was exactly my point!
> > Its the sentiment and mean-spirited intententions behind things like
> > the email I mentioned, that spoil this country,
>
> or mistaken assumptions, like the one it seems you've made about my
post
> being some kind of attack on your political beliefs.
I didnt see it that way at all.
>
> > Again, you twist, and try to loose the true meaning of my
> > post in tiny technicalitys.
>
> I wasn't concerned with the "true meaning" of your post. I'm more
> concerned with truth and the battle against misinformation.
He was elected by a majority, he garnered the majority in that
election. I never said the majority of voters.
>
> Just to clear this up, I wasn't attacking W. Clinton. I was making
sure
> that incorrect information wasn't allowed to be mistaken as fact. I'm
> sorry that you decided to incorrectly gleam some secret meaning from
my
> post other than the two simple facts that I originally presented. It
> probably doesn't matter, though...I'll bet you've already mistakenly
> labelled me a Repulican...or a Democrat.
No, you must be anindependent, since you've displayed an original
idea. ;?)~
>
> I'm a registered Papist. God bless you.
Oh they make rapists register over there too? LMAO!
>
--
Bill
Bill
"hcstockŽ" <hcs...@home.com> wrote:
> Chris, this has gotten beyond pipes. He has attacked myself, which
is fine.
What, when? Or do you mean defensively? I can find a few posts of yours
where you attacked me (personally, not about pipemakers) and then
tendered an apology. Maybe the guilt is just eating you up, so you feel
the need to make excuses like below? I dont even know who your
instructor (or pipemaker) is, so any attack on him had nothing to do
with you personally, but you obviously took it that way. Im not going
to apologize for a "perceived only" and unintentional insult.
> But attacking my instructor, is a bit much. I know you know my
instructor
> and he is a true gentleman.
Oh sure I do, its in every post you write. How the hell would I know
your instructor?????
I didn't get personal until he started all that.>
Bull! You had already attacked me personally twice before I ever
mentioned anything about any pipe maker or tutor. You then promptly
apologized.
You don't see me saying bad things about Charlie Kron who is a
> respected pipe maker. I have said many good things (they seemed to go
> unnoticed).
You want recognition from them, or a discount for talking nice about
them?
I was not happy with the work they did on my Henderson's,>
So you've been lieing to us all along, and it took my post to expose
you? You claim to be dissatisfied, but have said "many good things
about them"?? I dont see how I can take much you say seriously after
reading the above.
but
> it was good enough for a band set. I never said anything about it to
> anyone.
No you didnt, but you suddenly became verbal about this "alleged
shortfall" of Krons work AFTER I allegedly insulted your grand puba.
The fact that you are the ONLY person here whose ever said anything bad
about Krons workmanship, and that guys like Ringo Bowen swear by his
work, tells me your just talking sour grapes, and trying to look
for "cyber revenge" against Kron because I insulted your brand. So
unless you have more experience, play better, and compete with guys
like Ringo, I guess we all know who to listen too.
When I sent my pipes there they were in the middle of a flood. I
> should have sent them to a guy in Canada, but wanted to keep them in
the US
> and I didn't know about the flood until they had my pipes already. I
didn't
> want to send them back because at the time I only had one set and
didn't
> want to be without them any longer.
So your makers customer service blows chunks? So badly in fact that it
took less time to ship them to the US for repairs than to have them
done locally? I think I just got a big hint who your maker is, because
only one I know of has a LONG list of customer complaints under his
belt. Now you'll say "Because he's so good he has a waiting list", but
if you truly believed that, then you would have waited.
>
> It is amazing to me that someone will go this far just because I like
old
> pipes better than new. Many people do, but they didn't post it here,
they
> e-mailed me directly. I can see why they did. How stupid it was of
me to
> post my opinion on something. Better to stay on the sidelines and
just
> read.
I never mentioned anything about "old vs new" pipes. As you said in a
private email, you got miffed because a few people here ask for an
opinion, and if you dont agree with them they get in a huff.
I agree, your too sensetive to post here.
And yes there is far more private emails going around here than there
are posts.
Hope your not offended Curt.
Cheers!
Bill
His point was, that if he had built it, it would still be standing
proud with no cracks, and tourists from around the world would come
there to stand and marvel at "the wonderful workmanship". ;?)~
Will you give me a discount on repairs now Dave? lol
--
Chris Hamilton
>Chris, this has gotten beyond pipes. He has attacked myself, which is fine.
>But attacking my instructor, is a bit much. I know you know my instructor
>and he is a true gentleman.
Yes, I do and he is.
...
>Good job at stone mountain. I'll bet you had a ball. Come back to your old
>stomping ground and we will get a wee dram at Hoffstots or the Pipers Pub.
Hoffstots ... haven't thought of that place in years (decades!).
Pipers Pub is nice. Perhaps we shall make it so!
Bill
> > respected pipe maker. I have said many good things (they seemed to
go
> > unnoticed).
Then we have:
> I was not happy with the work they did on my Henderson's,>
>
> but
> > it was good enough for a band set. I never said anything about it
to
> > anyone, instead I just posted it on the NG to try to embarass them.
castle_d...@my-deja.com
> > You know its ignorant posts like this that spoil this country. He
was
> > elected (easily) by a majority,
>
by
> a PLURALITY. He never broke the mid-40 percentile.
>
Your attempt to rewrite history are a failure. Clinton won 49.24% of
the popular vote in 1996. That hardly could be classified as "mid-40
percentile" as you would have it. The Republicans got 40.71%, which I
believe qualifies as an old fashioned whipping. You know, I know it,
and Bob Dole knows it.
hcstockŽ
pictures if you like. I am done talking about all this, here. I really
didn't want to say anything negative about anyone on the group. It really
wasn't that bad and they did a fine job rethreading my blowpipe. Like I
said they were in the middle of a flood. I never have been through that,
but I am sure it is a pain in the butt. I am sure it is not a true test of
someone's workmanship. Like I have stated about 100 times they are a highly
respected in there field.
Relax,
Curt
>
> I didn't get personal until he started all that.>
>
> Bull! You had already attacked me personally twice before I ever
> mentioned anything about any pipe maker or tutor. You then promptly
> apologized.
>
>
>
> You don't see me saying bad things about Charlie Kron who is a
> > respected pipe maker. I have said many good things (they seemed to go
> > unnoticed).
>
> You want recognition from them, or a discount for talking nice about
> them?
>
> I was not happy with the work they did on my Henderson's,>
>
> So you've been lieing to us all along, and it took my post to expose
> you? You claim to be dissatisfied, but have said "many good things
> about them"?? I dont see how I can take much you say seriously after
> reading the above.
>
> but
> > it was good enough for a band set. I never said anything about it to
> > anyone.
>
> No you didnt, but you suddenly became verbal about this "alleged
> shortfall" of Krons work AFTER I allegedly insulted your grand puba.
> The fact that you are the ONLY person here whose ever said anything bad
> about Krons workmanship, and that guys like Ringo Bowen swear by his
> work, tells me your just talking sour grapes, and trying to look
> for "cyber revenge" against Kron because I insulted your brand. So
> unless you have more experience, play better, and compete with guys
> like Ringo, I guess we all know who to listen too.
>
>
> When I sent my pipes there they were in the middle of a flood. I
> > should have sent them to a guy in Canada, but wanted to keep them in
> the US
> > and I didn't know about the flood until they had my pipes already. I
> didn't
> > want to send them back because at the time I only had one set and
> didn't
> > want to be without them any longer.
>
> So your makers customer service blows chunks? So badly in fact that it
> took less time to ship them to the US for repairs than to have them
> done locally? I think I just got a big hint who your maker is, because
> only one I know of has a LONG list of customer complaints under his
> belt. Now you'll say "Because he's so good he has a waiting list", but
> if you truly believed that, then you would have waited.
>
> >
> > It is amazing to me that someone will go this far just because I like
> old
> > pipes better than new. Many people do, but they didn't post it here,
> they
> > e-mailed me directly. I can see why they did. How stupid it was of
> me to
> > post my opinion on something. Better to stay on the sidelines and
> just
> > read.
>
> I never mentioned anything about "old vs new" pipes. As you said in a
> private email, you got miffed because a few people here ask for an
> opinion, and if you dont agree with them they get in a huff.
> I agree, your too sensetive to post here.
> And yes there is far more private emails going around here than there
> are posts.
>
> Hope your not offended Curt.
> Cheers!
> Bill
>
>
dave
> dave wrote:
> >
> > Paul,
> >
> > I have a bridge for sale.
> >
> > Made by RG MacTri-Borough on April first ,1880 at 01:12:03 hours.
> >
> > All Original,one of a kind,this bridge was not mass produced.
> >
> > A similar bridge was built in 1933, but that bridge is crap,or so I'm told.
> >
> > This Bridge was made from 100% seasoned concrete,steel, and iron.
> > I know this for sure because I was told so.
>
> Hmmm... I'm not sure what your point is. \
Perhaps metaphors and hyperbole don't mix.
u38cg
experienced a set of new pipes doing the same over a period of two years,
becoming richer and blending better. So there is anecdotal evidence...now we
just need some scientists...
u38cg
which by all accounts they aren't, but simply because they believe judges will
have your attitude, Curt. I can't say I blame them, and I suspect that it would
be true, certainly in this country, that a piper with Dave's pipes will be at a
disadvantage. Naill had enough trouble with his pipes when he started...how
much more would an American maker have in Scotland?
I know there are good pipers out there trying out Dave's pipes...even the fact
they've been willing to bother trying them says much.
"hcstockŽ" wrote:
> dave <athert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3A1ADFF0...@hotmail.com...
> > Paul,
> >
> > I have a bridge for sale.
> >
> > Made by RG MacTri-Borough on April first ,1880 at 01:12:03 hours.
> >
> > All Original,one of a kind,this bridge was not mass produced.
> >
> > A similar bridge was built in 1933, but that bridge is crap,or so I'm
> told.
> >
> > This Bridge was made from 100% seasoned concrete,steel, and iron.
>
> I think comparing a bridge to a musical instrument is a poor analogy. You
> must not be tired of this thread yet. You can talk till you are blue in the
> face, but you are wasting your time talking to me here. Try and get a top
> player to play your pipes in major competitions instead of babbling here.
>
> > I know this for sure because I was told so.
>
hcstockŽ
Well I liked the post, but the part with my attitiude. LOL (lol=laugh out
loud) I don't want to get more people worked up. I was only kidding on the
part about my attitude.
Enjoy,
Curt
u38cg <u3...@abdn.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A1C05B8...@abdn.ac.uk...
JOHN BROADWELL
vibrations are set up within the material, from whatever source, then the
molecules will realign themselves in a favourable (or maybe line of least
resistance) pattern. This new molecular pattern will eventually settle down
with the passage of time and the amount of regular playing.
I can see no reason, why the reasonably thick wood used in pipes, should not
be subject to the same maturation laws as the thin wood used in other
instruments, it's just that the timescale may be different, though of course
we should not forget the age, integrity and nature of the "whole"
instrument.
Just my two penn'orth (from a subjective non-scientist)
John
u38cg <u3...@abdn.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3A1C0418...@abdn.ac.uk...
> Well, along with me, one other person has emailed me to say that they
> experienced a set of new pipes doing the same over a period of two years,
> becoming richer and blending better. So there is anecdotal evidence...now
we
> just need some scientists...
>
> Mike Szarka wrote:
>
Luramao
has come back. When I left off we were talking about fine old and new
bagpipes; today I check in and we've got bridges and papists and
presidents and economists and attacks on people and imagined attacks on
people and (of course) retaliations, plus some nut case who keeps
posting rubbish all over the NG... whew!
Well, anyway, (smile) - speaking of bridges - here's one, and its True.
A decade (or 2?) ago, a small town in Arizona bought THE London Bridge,
lock stock and barrell and every brick. They transported every single
brick over to Arizona, put it back together again, and now we have
London Bridge in Arizona USA. So, if someone offers to sell you the
Brooklyn Bridge, dont laugh - it might be for real!
Anyway, I gotta clear out o' here, cuz the shit's really flying on the
NG again..........
MrRobotTow
>posting rubbish all over the NG...
i thought you were gone?
> a small town in Arizona bought THE London Bridge,
rednex will buy anything.
Royce Lerwick
wrote:
>Paul Gretton wrote:
>
>> dave wrote:
>> >
>> > Paul,
>> >
>> > I have a bridge for sale.
>> >
>> > Made by RG MacTri-Borough on April first ,1880 at 01:12:03 hours.
>> >
>> > All Original,one of a kind,this bridge was not mass produced.
>> >
>> > A similar bridge was built in 1933, but that bridge is crap,or so I'm told.
>> >
>> > This Bridge was made from 100% seasoned concrete,steel, and iron.
>> > I know this for sure because I was told so.
>>
>> Hmmm... I'm not sure what your point is. \
>
>Perhaps metaphors and hyperbole don't mix.
Now Dave, you have to be very literal with these people. Curt for
instance seems to be the very guy Ron Bowen has written so much about
regarding the wastage of "classic" pipes upon the undeserving. Let's
just turn this thing around in a positive direction:
Curt--who the feck are you anyway?
Curt--who the feck is your "instructor"
Curt--do you have any idea who Dave Atherton/Charlie Kron are?
Curt--have you even read this NG more than the last five minutes?
Curt--have you actually seen or played these "classic" pipes
side-by-side with modern, hand-crafted pipes?
Curt--have you actually seen any of the dozens of really crappy "old"
pipes they used to puke off the lathes in the "old days?" (Probably
not, since they've all been burned for kindling by now.)
Curt--oh yawn. It's like trying to reason with David Koresh in the
compound and trying to convince him to come out for his own good.
Royce
Guess I'll go back to making funny noises in the studio for a while.
Right now I've got my dog barking at 160bpm and I'm trying to work in
some UP with a little drum&bass. You guess continue to have fun.
You've done so much with the NG since I stopped ruining it for you.
Instrumental Metal, Worldhop/Dance/Keltoid Weirdness
MrRobotTow
next time try fartin into the mic, it will sound better than that crap you
recorded before. better yet get your dog to fart at 160bpm and you might
overtake that all time classic "dogs barking jingle bells" that goes around
about this time of year
feed it mexican
u38cg
London over the summer and didn't notice any missing bridges...are we
thinking of the same one here - the one with two towers, the lifting bridge
deck, etc.? Not to mention the wee trust fund that dates from about 1200
and something, that stands at about £4 billion or so, at last count.
This sounds like the old chestnut about the tourists that were sold
Edinburgh Castle for £5 mill, 'cos the Government saw it as a symbol of
nationalistic oppression and wanted it off their hands. Something like
this happens every couple of years and gets into the papers.
u38cg
surprised if there weren't long term changes due to maturation of the wood, that
caused audible differences in sound.
Thinking out loud : wood has three levels of structure.
1 - the grain structure.
2 - the cellular structure of the grain.
3 - the molecular structure.
I think each will change differently affecting the sound in their own ways. The
grain structure will have the most effect, as it is closest in size to the
audible wavelengths we hear. Cellular structure will, I would guess, only
affect the sound at pitches above what we can hear. I believe, though, that
this can feed back into what we do hear, though I'm not sure of the mechanism
for this. The molecular structure only affects what we hear in that it feeds
back to the cellular and granular structure of the wood, but has no actual
relevance in itself.
JOHN BROADWELL wrote:
> I suppose if you think about it, all material is made up of molecules and if
> vibrations are set up within the material, from whatever source, then the
> molecules will realign themselves in a favourable (or maybe line of least
> resistance) pattern. This new molecular pattern will eventually settle down
> with the passage of time and the amount of regular playing.
>
> I can see no reason, why the reasonably thick wood used in pipes, should not
> be subject to the same maturation laws as the thin wood used in other
> instruments, it's just that the timescale may be different, though of course
> we should not forget the age, integrity and nature of the "whole"
> instrument.
>
> Just my two penn'orth (from a subjective non-scientist)
>
> John
>
> u38cg <u3...@abdn.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:3A1C0418...@abdn.ac.uk...
> > Well, along with me, one other person has emailed me to say that they
> > experienced a set of new pipes doing the same over a period of two years,
> > becoming richer and blending better. So there is anecdotal evidence...now
> we
> > just need some scientists...
> >
> > Mike Szarka wrote:
> >
Chris Hamilton
Lerwick) wrote:
>Guess I'll go back to making funny noises in the studio for a while.
>Right now I've got my dog barking at 160bpm
Ah, just like the ending of "Caroline, No" ... are your dogs named
Banana and Louie also?
>You've done so much with the NG since I stopped ruining it for you.
Please feel free to ruin anytime. There's a fine line between ruining
and entertaining. :-)
dave
>
> I think comparing a bridge to a musical instrument is a poor analogy. You
> must not be tired of this thread yet. You can talk till you are blue in the
> face, but you are wasting your time talking to me here. Try and get a top
> player to play your pipes in major competitions instead of babbling here.
Been there , done that.
Here's a news flash.
My sense of self-worth is not contingent on anything associated with the GHB.
Stop lashing out like a cornered animal.
Respectfully,
Dave
dave
> Chris, this has gotten beyond pipes. He has attacked myself, which is fine.
> But attacking my instructor, is a bit much. I know you know my instructor
> and he is a true gentleman.
You know I've just been playing the big tomcat swatting at the mouse,but after
reading this drivel I think maybe it's time for African savannah lion and the
gazelle.
I've got a bit of time to kill before the turkey is done so what the hell.
Curt ...I don't give a flying F--- who your instructor is.
YOU are the one posting to rmmb, as if YOU are the authority.
YOU are the one claiming this and that.
The reason you find yourself lashing out and so devoid of any reasonable and
articulate
argument on the subject of the original Lawrie/MacDougall thread is because YOU
have no argument.
YOU have no opinion of your own.
You've taken SOMEONE ELSES opinion and made it yours.
I'm not the least bit interested in your vicarious musings.
"My instructor says" is NOT a valid argument, it's not even a reasonable
argument.
In fact it is no argument at all.
Talk is cheap...I do it in my sleep.
That's like saying "Hey Judge Ito..OJ says he's innocent".
> I didn't get personal until he started all
> that. You don't see me saying bad things about Charlie Kron who is a
> respected pipe maker. I have said many good things (they seemed to go
> unnoticed).
until.......
> I was not happy with the work they did on my Henderson's, but
> it was good enough for a band set. I never said anything about it to
> anyone.
What you DON"T know about bagpipes could fill a 40 gig hard-drive.
We all have our cross to bear.
This is awfully ironic considering that you had so many nice things to say,
and then all of a sudden you decide to change your story.
(although in another thread this guy is telling everyone where and how he sent
his pipes
to get the orange turned off his mounts...isn't that strange?)
While I absolutely do not feel the need to respond to your transparent
motives, I nonetheless will.
Perhaps you may learn something, perhaps not.
Mr. Shaw sent me a roughly 50 year old of Hendersons (well actually
Hardie-Hendersons, but that's another story).
They were fully mounted in that butt-ugly catalin that oxidizes and turns
yellow/orange.
Being decades old the mountings were of course deep dark orange.
Most of us have seen this many times.
(pay attention Curt, there is some ACCURATE information here)
Catalin is chemically related to phenol.
It reacts with oxygen in a similar manner.
That is to say that, when it oxidizes it does so from the outside, to the
inside, turning colors
on the outside first and then working its way to the inside.
Mr. Shaw wanted the orange color turned off.
I had warned him about the material itself, and how wood goes out of round, and
about
the time that may be involved in working on old out-of-round pipes, and that the
price
would be contingent on the time factor.
I did the job.
Of course, trhe wood being old and all, each piece had to individually shimmed
while on the lathe to account for non concentricty, this is a REAL pain in the
ass,
and few(if any) bagpipe makers even know how to do this.
Each mount, ferrule, ring cap etc. had to be re-turned.
I took off about .005 from the OD of all the catalin.
I could not get 100% of the oxidation off the mounts, but that is the way of it.
If I cut any deeper into the mounts ..they would have been button mounts,
not projecting mounts.
The job took about 4 or 5 hours, I think I charged approx.200 dollars.
You can't polish a turd.
The reason catalin is not used anymore is because it is ..well just crap.
> . How stupid it was of me to
> post my opinion on something. Better to stay on the sidelines and just
> read.
You posted someone elses opinion.
Turkeys done.
Dave
Tim Sullivan
UNTRUE!
A venerable chunk of Marine Corps wisdom teaches:
"No matter how hard you polish a turd the best you can hope for when
you're finished is a shiny piece of shit."
Your mileage may vary.
James J Cheetham
> "My instructor says" is NOT a valid argument, it's not even a reasonable
> argument. In fact it is no argument at all.
>
Actually it is "Appeal to Authority" a form of logical fallacy (but not
always, if the authority is valid).
Cheers,
Jim
dave
Royce,
I think we should make it clear that there will always be those who
will
search for a "talent-booster".
There will always be those who claim that they are looking for "tone",
and "workmanship",but what they are really looking for is a "name",
and a "mystique", and good line of bullshit.
While slightly off-topic I'd just like to add that when I was growing
up , friends of
mine were collecting vintage Strats and Les Pauls, and pontificating
about the
"mysterious" tonal qualities of said "vintage" guitars.
I played a piece of crap.
Of, course I went on to become a professional, my peers went nowhere.
I recorded my last two commercial releases with a 500.00
BC Rich that I bought from a friend of mine who needed the cash
to fix the transmission on his Ford Bronco.
You can't *buy* tone, it's earned.
(BTW my last two CD's can be found at these and other fine locations,
if they don't stock it then just ask)
http://www.mp3.com
http://www.guitar9.com
http://www.guitarapalooza.com
http://www.cdnow.com
http://www.theorchard.com
http://wwwm.mjuice.com
http://www.playj.com
http://www.virginjamcast.com
http://www.peoplesound.com
http://www.listen.com
http://www.myplay.com
transworld
sam goody
coconuts
hmv
best buy
boarders
blockbuster
barnes and noble
and many, many more.
Amazon.com
CDNow.com
CDUniverse.com
CDPoint.com
CDWorld.com
EveryCD.com
Getmusic.com
Ktel.com
Massmusic.com
Buy.com
CDQuest.com
Bestbuy.com
CDconnection.com
CDusa.com
Twec.com
Netradio.com
Shopping.com
HMV.com
and more
WestCoastVideo.com
Harmony House.com
CDExplosion.com
Barnes&Noble.com
Rock.com
Insound.com
CDHut.com
Mediax.com
CDWarehouse.com
Tunes.com
Atomicpop.com
Checkout.com
Wherehouse.com
ValueAmerica.com
MovieGallery.com
Internetlab.com
Ticketmaster.com
Blockbuster.com
Borders.com
and more
JOHN BROADWELL
make any sensible observations on your interesting comments!
u38cg
> Yes!! I like simple :-)
So do I - hang on, why are we playing pipes then?
Luramao
u38cg <u3...@abdn.ac.uk> wrote:
> I'd be the first to admit I don't spend a lot of time there, but I was in
> London over the summer and didn't notice any missing bridges...are we
> thinking of the same one here - the one with two towers, the lifting bridge
> deck, etc.? Not to mention the wee trust fund that dates from about 1200
> and something, that stands at about £4 billion or so, at last count.
> This sounds like the old chestnut about the tourists that were sold
> Edinburgh Castle for £5 mill, 'cos the Government saw it as a symbol of
> nationalistic oppression and wanted it off their hands. Something like
> this happens every couple of years and gets into the papers.
No - its totally true about the London Bridge - I just looked it up - it was
purchased in the late 1960s, and torn down and taken to Lake Havasu City,
Arizona, where its reassembly was compeleted in 1971 - here's a site I found
on it:
http://www.fat.co.uk//replicas/lakehavasu.html
(I hope that works!)
Lura
>
> Luramao wrote:
>
> > Gadzooks - I go away for one day and suddenly the "old" RMMB newsgroup
> > has come back. When I left off we were talking about fine old and new
> > bagpipes; today I check in and we've got bridges and papists and
> > presidents and economists and attacks on people and imagined attacks on
> > people and (of course) retaliations, plus some nut case who keeps
> > posting rubbish all over the NG... whew!
> >
> > Well, anyway, (smile) - speaking of bridges - here's one, and its True.
> > A decade (or 2?) ago, a small town in Arizona bought THE London Bridge,
> > lock stock and barrell and every brick. They transported every single
> > brick over to Arizona, put it back together again, and now we have
> > London Bridge in Arizona USA. So, if someone offers to sell you the
> > Brooklyn Bridge, dont laugh - it might be for real!
> >
> > Anyway, I gotta clear out o' here, cuz the shit's really flying on the
> > NG again..........
>
>
hcstockŽ
> My sense of self-worth is not contingent on anything associated with the
GHB.
> Stop lashing out like a cornered animal.
>
> Respectfully,
> Dave
Really?
I was away for the Holiday visiting my family and came back to read the
ongoing bashing by Dave and some of his buddies. Even over Thanksgiving you
went on and on. You must have much time on your hands.
I wish you luck in the start of your career working at Kron's. I hope it
all works out for you, I really do. I am not one to hold grudges and not a
person full of hate.
When I first responded to the original post, I was stating what I thought to
be my belief. I am sorry some people believe in something else. I respect
their opinions and will keep mine to myself.
I know you don't care about instructors, old pros and top players. This is
where I have gotten much of the information from. So when you say I don't
have an opinion of my own, that is your opinion. My opinion on the subject
of Lawries came from my experiences with my instructors, my talking to many
top players and of course hearing different pipes being played. If you
don't consider that my opinion then I guess in your eyes I have none. That
is ok with me.
Hope you have a wonderful Holiday Season,
Curt
teddyt...@countyhellpress.com
castle_d...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Clinton won 49.24% of
> the popular vote in 1996. That hardly could be classified as "mid-40
> percentile" as you would have it.
Ok, then he never broke the upper 40 pecentile. He still never
garnered any majority.
Bill
teddyt...@countyhellpress.com wrote:
>
> Ok, then he never broke the upper 40 pecentile. He still never
> garnered any majority.
Bolonga! He garnered the majority in THAT election, otherwise he would
have lost.
--
Bill
DPilg88503
>have lost.
How about looking up the word majority in the dictionary Bill. Its obvious you
don't know what the word means.
Bill
for him. Not so hard to understand, is it?
But no, I didnt look it up, so technically you maybe correct. But your
splitting hairs by saying he didnt garner a majority.
n article <20001127224656...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
--
DPilg88503
>for him. Not so hard to understand, is it?
Well, it must be since you still don't have it right. When more people vote
against you than vote for you, you didn't get a majority. If you get over half
you have a majority. So, the majority of the people did not vote for him. He
did get MORE votes than the other two main candidates..enough to win..but thats
still not a majority.
Bill
dpilg...@aol.com (DPilg88503) wrote:
> Well, it must be since you still don't have it right.
When more people vote
> against you than vote for you, you didn't get a majority. If you get
over half
> you have a majority. So, the majority of the people did not vote for
him. He
> did get MORE votes than the other two main candidates..enough to
win..but thats
> still not a majority.
>
What country are you from? I dont agree, you see there was more than
two candidates in the election, therefore he didn't have more votes
against him. There was no 51% that voted against him, about 5% or 10%
(?) voted for the third party. Therefore if he had 49%, and the 3rd
party got 5%... I'll let you do the math.
Bottom line is he had the majority of votes, and won the election.
Make sense?
Matt Willis
11/28/00 9:22 AM:
> What country are you from? I dont agree, you see there was more than
> two candidates in the election, therefore he didn't have more votes
> against him. There was no 51% that voted against him, about 5% or 10%
> (?) voted for the third party. Therefore if he had 49%, and the 3rd
> party got 5%... I'll let you do the math.
> Bottom line is he had the majority of votes, and won the election.
> Make sense?
Well, yes and no. What you are speaking about, Bill, is a plurality. A
plurality is when one candidate receives more votes than any other, but does
NOT receive more than half the vote. A majority is ALWAYS more than half the
vote.
Example 1: Candidates A, B, and C are running for president. Here are total
voting results: A: 20%, B: 45%, C: 35%
Candidate B wins the election, but not by a majority. He wins by a pluality.
Example 2: Candidates A, B, and C are running for president. Here are total
voting results: A: 60%, B: 21%, C: 19%
Candidate A wins the election by a majority, since he received more than
half the votes.
But the president IS elected by majority. A majority of the electoral
college. Pluralities in the electoral college means nothing in a
Presidential election. If a majority of the electoral college is not
possible, the House of Representatives elects the President and the Senate
elects the Vice Presidient.
So Clinton DID receive a majority--in the electoral college. He never had a
majority of the popular vote--but he did have a plurality.
--
Matt Willis
nem...@mac.com
http://homepage.mac.com/nemrac/guide.html
Bill
Like I said, we were just splitting hairs, but it filled in a few
moments of an otherwise boring day.
In article <B6498562.10795%nem...@mac.com>,
--