Smallpipes or border pipes?
Jakmak
play with other musicians. I am trying to decide on the best way to go. What do
folks think about Scottish small pipes? Border pipes? What key is best?
Thanks for the benefit of your experience!
Jack
MrRobotTow
>play with other musicians. I am trying to decide on the best way to go. What
>do
>folks think about Scottish small pipes? Border pipes? What key is best?
We got a great set of half pipes for $55 on ebay. Perfect for indoor playing,
tune super easy, very mellow.
Bill
Quote of the month: After five years in therapy, my shrink handed me a loaded
gun, threw up his hands and screamed "maybe life isn't for everyone
afterall..."
Scot Kortegaard
wonderful little pipe, perfect for indoors. They're mouth blown, with a bag,
and have the same fingering as the GHB.
Scot.
"Jakmak" <jak...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010330221130...@ng-mr1.aol.com...
Matthew Buckley
"Jakmak" <jak...@aol.com> wrote
> I play the GHB & would like to get a quieter set for >indoors & hopefully
to play with other musicians. I am >trying to decide on the best way to go.
What do
> folks think about Scottish small pipes? Border pipes? >What key is best?
You're asking a short question with a very long answer,
and checking FAQs would be helpful to you. Having said
that, the following is basic info. you'll need on the issue:
1. Smallpipes, whether mouth-blown or bellows-blown,
have cylindrical-bored chanters. Very quiet [some feel
too quiet for large sessions], very sweet and quite easy to
play. A and D are the standard session keys, and most
owners of smallpipes have "convertible" sets including both
an A and a D chanter.
2. Borderpipes have conical-bored chanters, VERY
different in sound from smallpipes. In general, they sound
similar to GHB, but quieter and sweeter. They are quite a bit louder than
smallpipes, they are notoriously finicky and difficult to play, and require
frequent attention to set-up/
reeds. To add to the problem, the different makers of
borderpipes produce VERY different sounds. Some
borderpipes sound exactly like GHB, some have a far
more "frenchy" sound, etc. Generally, they are more
expensive than smallpipes. I own both smallpipes and
borderpipes. They both have outstanding, but different,
qualities and are used in different settings.
3. Walsh "shuttle" pipes, "Fireside" pipes, "practice" pipes,
etc. each have unique characteristics, and should not be
confused with or grouped under the general category of smallpipes. Some are
well-made instruments, some are
simply practice chanters plugged into drones.
4. If you are looking at TRUE Scottish smallpipes or borderpipes, you will
want to consider the finer makers out there: Hamish Moore, Colin Ross, Ray
Sloan, Richard/Anita Evans, Michael Dow, Heriot & Alan,
Jon Swayne, etc. Generally, the GHB makers advertising "smallpipes", e.g.
Naill, manufacture something very different - something closer to the
pc-in-drones kind of
thing. Stick to makers specializing in smallpipes and
borderpipes.
5. Get thee to North Hero Pipers Gathering, in Vermont, in August. Most of
the top makers will be present, and you'll be able to hear the various
instruments first hand.
6. You will hear many opinions from many folks about
instruments called "smallpipes". Accept nothing at face
value, and do your own extensive research. There are a
great many of instruments out there that do not measure up
to true Scottish smallpipes, and you must know EXACTLY what you are buying.
Contact me off-line if you want further detailed info.
Matt
Matthew Buckley
"MrRobotTow" <mrrob...@aol.com> wrote
>We got a great set of half pipes for $55 on ebay. >Perfect for indoor
playing, tune super easy, very mellow.
You either: (1) got extremely lucky, and purchased a set
of real SSP for an absurdly low price, or (2) you purchased a joke, and
haven't yet figured it out.
Generally speaking, no one should go looking for a serious
set of true Scottish smallpipes on e-bay for $55.00.
Cheers. Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Jakmak" <jak...@aol.com>
> I play the GHB & would like to get a quieter set for >indoors & hopefully
to play with other musicians. I am >trying to decide on the best way to go.
What do folks >think about Scottish small pipes? Border pipes?
One more thing. Plastic chanter reeds can be a real tip-
off. None of the serious SSP makers I am aware of use plastic chanter
reeds.
Cheers. Matt
MrRobotTow
>of real SSP for an absurdly low price, or (2) you purchased a joke, and
>haven't yet figured it out.
#1 fits. The previous owner had them for 8 years, and played them regurlarly
until 2 years ago, and he just decided that they sererved a better home, than
on his wall. Although he did advertise them as "wallhangers" he also stated
they did play and tune well, and they do.
>Generally speaking, no one should go looking for a serious
>set of true Scottish smallpipes on e-bay for $55.00.
I agree. I was looking for cheap wallhangers, but got much more than I was
really looking for.
Richard Mao
Thanks, Matt, great overview...
If playing on your own ... I have another alternative....
With an adapter... install a practice chanter bottom to your pipes in place of
the regular chanter and play with just the bass drone.... very quiet... needs
only very light blowing pressure.
Enjoy
So you think education is expensive?… Try ignorance!
Peking Piper’s admonition
Richard Mao, The Peking Piper ( Pekin...@mao.org )
Jim McGillivray
These two types of pipes sound quite different from each other. The best sets are
bellowsblown, though some mouth-blown Scottish smallpipes are being made these days
that are quite inexpensive and sound pretty good.
The Scottish smallpipes are based on the practice chanter sound and usually have
three drone pitches -- bass, baritone and tenor, though some folks prefer alto to
baritone, and some makers offer four-drone sets. Bellows-blown smallpipes by the
good makers are very rich and very much an instrument in their own right.
The Border pipes are a slightly larger instrument and sound like an 'indoor'
Highland pipes. Three drone pitches again -- bass, tenor, alto. Like the SSP they
work with very low pressure.
To my mind the Border pipes are a much more interesting sound, though if you're
accustomed to the big outdoor GHB sound you might initially find them insipid, as I
did. I quite like them now. They also carry better when being played with other
instruments. The SSP needs to be miked. Both instruments are really a lot of fun to
play once you master the bellows. While I love playing my big pipes, I can't say I
ever find it 'relaxing'. However, because of the reduced physical demands, I find
playing any kind of bellowspipe quite soothing and pure fun.
Most Border pipes come in A440. SSP can come in A, Bb, C and D. Bb has the closest
finger spacing to the GHB. It is quite sweet, but is not good for playing with
other instruments. A is very versatile in this respect. D is sweet, high and
lovely, but the finger spacing is quite tight.
Good SSP makers include Colin Ross (the 'inventor' of the instrument), Ray Sloan,
Hamish Moore, Richard Evans, Barry Say. Border pipe makers include Colin, Ray,
Hamish, Nigel Richard, John Burke.
I will confess that I'm a big fan of Ray Sloan's. That's what I play and
subsequently decided to sell. Ray is now also making a Border pipe which can be
played in a straigh Highland style, or cross-fingered for nearly a fully chromatic
scale. I have info on Ray's SSP and on SSP in general on my website --
http://www.piping.on.ca
I haven't added Ray's Border Pipes to my site yet, but have information on them I
can e-mail out.
If you want to hear good sound samples of Scottish Smallpipes, Border Pipes,
Northumbrian Smallpipes and Uilleann pipes, go to Ray's site:
http://www.ray-sloan.com and click on "Sound Samples." There are pictures of all
these different pipes there.
Hope this helps provides information without being *too* self-promoting!
Cheers,
Jim McGillivray
MCGILLIVRAY PIPING PARTNERSHIPS
-- Select Bagpipes & Accessories
www.piping.on.ca
905-726-4003
DicksonDL
<< I play the GHB & would like to get a quieter set for >indoors & hopefully
to play with other musicians. I am >trying to decide on the best way to go.
What do folks >think about Scottish small pipes? Border pipes? >>
Smallpipes are great, but not real powerful. Depending on the mix of
instruments, you might want to use amplification in performance. Borderpipes
have more presence, but generally are not as mellow sounding. Smallpipes in A
or D are best in playing with other folk instruments. A/D combo sets are
available from some makers.
Matt wrote,
<< One more thing. Plastic chanter reeds can be a real tip-off. None of the
serious SSP makers I am aware of use plastic chanter
reeds. >>
Agreed, Matt. But I think Jon Swayne's "Borderpipes" get a decent sound with a
plastic reed.
Duane
Duane L. Dickson
Matthew Buckley
"DicksonDL" <dick...@aol.com> wrote
<< One more thing. Plastic chanter reeds can be a real tip-off. None of
the serious SSP makers I am aware of use plastic chanter reeds. >>
>Agreed, Matt. But I think Jon Swayne's "Borderpipes" >get a decent sound
with a plastic reed.
Actually, you're quite right as to Jon's borderpipes. Very
nice sound. I was speaking more to SSP w/plastic reeds.
Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Jim McGillivray" <jim...@aci.on.ca>
> The Scottish smallpipes are based on the practice >chanter sound and
usually have three drone pitches
Great post, Jim, but I have to take exception to this
one comment. Or perhaps I am not correctly reading your intent in making the
comment, so my response may not
be in order. But here goes:
Interestingly, Richard Evans recently commented on the bellowspipe list
regarding some folk's belief that true SSP are somehow "based upon" the
practice chanter sound, and how frustrated he and other makers have become
with the notion that true SSP and pcs-into-drones are somehow closely
related. My understanding has always been that Colin and the other early
makers did not have practice chanters in mind as they developed their
wonderful instruments. As you are aware, some form of SSP has been in
existence for well over two hundred years, although Colin is credited with
using the Highland scale in producing an instrument suited to demands of
modern-era pipers. To my ear, the pc sound and the SSP chanter sound very
different, and none of the makers I've spoken to, or heard speak over the
years, e.g. Hamish, Colin, Michael Dow have ever suggested that their
instruments were in any manner "based upon" the pc.
I find much confusion these days in the minds of GHBers looking for a
quieter instrument, who somehow have come believe that "shuttle" pipes,
practice pipes, and other pc-plugged-into-drones style instrument are, in
the end, are simply "smallpipes". I think we must be careful with any
comment leading to the understanding, within the ranks of
GHBers knowing little about the world of alternative
pipes, that there exists little or no difference between true SSP and the
other forms of "smallpipe".
For what its worth.
Matt
MrRobotTow
>quieter instrument, who somehow have come believe that "shuttle" pipes,
>practice pipes, and other pc-plugged-into-drones style instrument are, in
>the end, are simply "smallpipes".
Well then how do you define "smallpipes"? When I bought mine they were
advertised as a "half set", and are just that, mini-GHB's, half-sized. A few
people called these "smallpipes" and I know they arent true smallpipes. I think
the problem is (as you stated) that most GHB'ers dont call these kinds of pipes
by their real names.
MacRodel
Matt: I'd love to have the bellowspipe list address. Would you be kind enough
to post it for us???
-Sumac
Ruiseart agus Ceit
<bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>One more thing. Plastic chanter reeds can be a real tip-
>off. None of the serious SSP makers I am aware of use plastic chanter
>reeds.
>
>
>Cheers. Matt
Hmmm...Julian Goodacre does.
Ruiseart.
http://druid.drak.net/druid/druidorder.html
LISTEN TO OUR MUSIC AT:
http://www.mp3.com/Ravenswing
Matthew Buckley
"Ruiseart agus Ceit" <dru...@amitar.com.au> wrote
> >One more thing. Plastic chanter reeds can be a real
> >tip-off. None of the serious SSP makers I am aware > >of use plastic
chanter reeds.
> Hmmm...Julian Goodacre does.
Yes, he does. I stand very much corrected. Julian is a fine maker of
pipes. His "Leicester smallpipes" have a
very sweet, light sound, and the sharpened 7th adds a
very ancient feel to the instrument.
Having said this, and with humble apologies to my friend
Julian, I still have a preference for SSP cane chanter reeds. The cane
sound, preferred by Hamish, Ray Sloan,
Robbie Greensitt, Colin Ross, Ian Kinnear, Richard Evans and many others,
still attracts my ear the most.
And now, back to my slice of humble pie.
Cheers. Matt
MrRobotTow
You'll be putting on some more weight with comments like that one about buying
pipes on ebay, because obviously an occasional gem can be found in a pile of
turds. Our half-set came with both a plastic chanter reed, and a cane one, so
keep guessing.
Bill
http://hometown.aol.com/mrrobottow/
Chris Eyre
"Ruiseart agus Ceit" <dru...@amitar.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ac9eb42...@news.amitar.com.au...
| On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:58:34 -0500, "Matthew Buckley"
| <bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
|
|
| >One more thing. Plastic chanter reeds can be a real tip-
| >off. None of the serious SSP makers I am aware of use plastic chanter
| >reeds.
| >
| >
| >Cheers. Matt
|
|
|
| Hmmm...Julian Goodacre does.
|
| Ruiseart.
|
So does Barry Shawcross.
http://www.shawcrosssmallpipes.com/
Chris Eyre
Ruiseart agus Ceit
I'm actually going to purchase a set of Julian's SSP (hopefully this
year). I really like the fact that he doesn't use endangered woods, in
fact, all of his SSP are made from Scottish trees, that he claims to
have known individually. He also pays much attention to historical
accuracy, which is appealing (doesn't matter, but nice <grin>)..
I should receive the bellows from said pipes in a few days; Julian has
made a special attachment so that I can fit them to my Shuttle pipes
(which I'll still be keeping <grin>), in order to gain some experience
beforehand. I'm really looking forward to converting to bellows
playing, as it'll get me away from the spit/drool-blowing,
mouth-knackering technique that I'm currently employing <grin>.
Ruiseart. .
Steve bliven
dru...@amitar.com.au wrote on 4/3/01 8:19 PM:
> I'm actually going to purchase a set of Julian's SSP (hopefully this
> year). I really like the fact that he doesn't use endangered woods, in
> fact, all of his SSP are made from Scottish trees, that he claims to
> have known individually.
My Goodacre pipes came with pictures of the trees from which the pipes were
made. He uses only material he gets from the forests on his estate. Long
ago he photographed most of the trees and so when one falls he cuts it up,
dries it and makes pipes. Insist that he send you a photograph of the
tree...
Ruiseart agus Ceit
wrote:
Sounds great!!! Thanks for the info.
Ruiseart.
Royce Lerwick
Ceit) wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:58:34 -0500, "Matthew Buckley"
><bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>
>
>>One more thing. Plastic chanter reeds can be a real tip-
>>off. None of the serious SSP makers I am aware of use plastic chanter
>>reeds.
>>
>>
>>Cheers. Matt
>
>
>
>Hmmm...Julian Goodacre does.
>
>Ruiseart.
And how does this contradict Buckley's statement?
Royce
Phantom Pipe Band:
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/118/sfu.html
Digital Warrior:
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/83/royce_lerwick.html
Zetland Tunebook, PM's Handbook:
shetlandpiper.com
Zetland Pipes:
www.royceworld.com
Royce Lerwick
Ceit) wrote:
>I'm actually going to purchase a set of Julian's SSP (hopefully this
>year). I really like the fact that he doesn't use endangered woods, in
>fact, all of his SSP are made from Scottish trees, that he claims to
>have known individually. He also pays much attention to historical
>accuracy, which is appealing (doesn't matter, but nice <grin>)..
UH, yeah, a really valid consideration. Make mine of balsam, the one
he called "Fred" from the base of the glen down by the pond. And make
sure those 1981 inventions of Colin Ross are historically accurate.
Oops, that would mean making them out of dalbergia melanoxylon.
>I should receive the bellows from said pipes in a few days; Julian has
>made a special attachment so that I can fit them to my Shuttle pipes
>(which I'll still be keeping <grin>), in order to gain some experience
>beforehand. I'm really looking forward to converting to bellows
>playing, as it'll get me away from the spit/drool-blowing,
>mouth-knackering technique that I'm currently employing <grin>.
>
>Ruiseart. .
Peace man. Free the animals.
Ruiseart agus Ceit
Lerwick) wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:19:57 GMT, dru...@amitar.com.au (Ruiseart agus
>Ceit) wrote:
>
>>I'm actually going to purchase a set of Julian's SSP (hopefully this
>>year). I really like the fact that he doesn't use endangered woods, in
>>fact, all of his SSP are made from Scottish trees, that he claims to
>>have known individually. He also pays much attention to historical
>>accuracy, which is appealing (doesn't matter, but nice <grin>)..
>
>UH, yeah, a really valid consideration. Make mine of balsam, the one
>he called "Fred" from the base of the glen down by the pond. And make
>sure those 1981 inventions of Colin Ross are historically accurate.
>Oops, that would mean making them out of dalbergia melanoxylon.
>
>>I should receive the bellows from said pipes in a few days; Julian has
>>made a special attachment so that I can fit them to my Shuttle pipes
>>(which I'll still be keeping <grin>), in order to gain some experience
>>beforehand. I'm really looking forward to converting to bellows
>>playing, as it'll get me away from the spit/drool-blowing,
>>mouth-knackering technique that I'm currently employing <grin>.
>>
>>Ruiseart. .
>
>Peace man. Free the animals.
>
>Royce
What is your problem???!!!!!!!!!
Ruiseart agus Ceit
Lerwick) wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Apr 2001 15:25:34 GMT, dru...@amitar.com.au (Ruiseart agus
>Ceit) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 08:58:34 -0500, "Matthew Buckley"
>><bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>One more thing. Plastic chanter reeds can be a real tip-
>>>off. None of the serious SSP makers I am aware of use plastic chanter
>>>reeds.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers. Matt
>>
>>
>>
>>Hmmm...Julian Goodacre does.
>>
>>Ruiseart.
>
>And how does this contradict Buckley's statement?
>
>Royce
I would have thought that was obvious. Matt said serious pipe makers
don't use plastic reeds. I pointed out that Julian Goodacre is one who
does. Since then, Matt has agreed with me.
See...its really quite easy to understand isn't it.
Royce Lerwick
Ceit) wrote:
>I would have thought that was obvious. Matt said serious pipe makers
>don't use plastic reeds. I pointed out that Julian Goodacre is one who
>does. Since then, Matt has agreed with me.
>
>See...its really quite easy to understand isn't it.
Hmm. Not considering the fact that the topic was SSP, and Julian
Goodacre may make them of course, but a "serious" maker of "SSP" would
never think of putting a plastic reed in his chanter, therefore, he's
disqualified himself from being a "serious" SSP maker.
Regarding his other piping products, according to yourself the chief
attraction there is the fact that he makes pretty much every
weird-arsed kind of bagpipe that every crawled around England or
perhaps Europe, and the chief credit you list in this regard was
two-fold, one, his "historical" accuracy, and the fact that he
apparently lops down Hugo, the Holly Bush, and after appropriate
seasoning, turns him into a faux English Great Pipe.
If you want a set of SSP that sounds like a faux English Great Pipe
Practice Chanter, then of course, he's the kitty. He's your man. But
no "serious" SSP maker would turn a set out of Hugo the Holly Bush, as
the "serious makers prefer dalbergia melanoxylon. Furthermore, there
is no "historical" accuracy in probably anything he makes, as the best
claim he's ever made is whipping out an estimate based on old
paintings and faking his way into an instrument that seems externally
"about" the same dimensions and appearance. I don't know if you can
even say the original, extinct English Great Pipe for instance, was
made out of Hugo the Holly, or if, like other instruments, exotic
hardwoods were actually preferred for it as well, and boxwood or other
available woods were considered "low level" or "peasant" materials
when the good stuff wasn't available.
As I've previously said, the SSP was invented in the early 80's by
Colin Ross, historically was made out of blackwood, the best have
always been made out of blackwood, and have always historically and
most musically, been reeded with cane chanter reeds. Furthermore, they
come if anything from a much much older NSP tradition, which likewise,
has always chosen blackwood over Annie Apricot or Billy BogOak, and is
absolutely defined by the sound of its cane reeds. The "serious" SSP
makers come out of the NSP tradition.
Julian Goodacre is a fine lathesmith-of-all-trades, can work wonders
with that pear branch he's been soaking in propylene glycol for two
years, and may make SSP for whatever reason, but if doesn't know
better than to put plastic reeds in them, he can't be very serious
about it.
Royce Lerwick
Ceit) wrote:
>What is your problem???!!!!!!!!!
Guess I need to hug a tree.
Ruiseart agus Ceit
Lerwick) wrote:
>On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 07:01:02 GMT, dru...@amitar.com.au (Ruiseart agus
>Ceit) wrote:
>
>>What is your problem???!!!!!!!!!
>
>Guess I need to hug a tree.
>
>Royce
Ridiculous little twerp. If you've spent as much time piping as you
have been insulting people you've never met, then you must be very
good by now.
Ruiseart.
Ruiseart agus Ceit
Lerwick) wrote:
<insulting drivvel snipped>
Your rude points have been noted, and duly ignored.
Matt Willis
>
> So does Barry Shawcross.
> http://www.shawcrosssmallpipes.com/
>
> Chris Eyre
Anyone heard these pipes in person? The website has no sound sample
available, but they're are very pretty pipes--I really like the imit. ivory
look. Would compliment my big pipes (full imit. ivory also) nicely.
Also, there is no price list--anyone know the price on these things?
--
Matt Willis
nem...@mac.com
http://homepage.mac.com/nemrac/guide.html
Silver Thistle Pipes & Drums
Austin, Texas
http://www.silverthistle.com
Hayword
<3acbbee3...@news.amitar.com.au>:
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:18:38 GMT, pmle...@mn.mediaone.net (Royce
>Lerwick) wrote:
>
><insulting drivvel snipped>
>
>
>Your rude points have been noted, and duly ignored.
>
>Ruiseart.
Well Ruiseart, you're a better man than I, because I can't ignore his rude
points. I could argue them one by one but what would be the point? I'd get
a more reasoned response from a sack of hammers than I would from Royce.
Royce, catch a clue. You're an idiot. Anytime this newsgroup comes up in
talking to other pipers at games or workshops the first words out of their
mouths is usually a reference to your latest case of 'fingers in gear,
brain in neutral' response. I can usually ignore your drivel, but when you
malign a person like Julian I just can't sit on my hands. Its not that I'm
worried anyone will take your opinion of him any more seriously than they
take any of your other postings. I'm sure you are in so many kill files its
not even funny. But I just have to say that Julian is a fine man, piper,
and pipemaker, and you're not even worthy to mention his name, much less
give your scatterbrained opinion of what he does. Why don't you stick to
what you do best, flaming and giving bad advice, and leave the reviewing of
pipe makers to people that actually have clue.
Howard
Maeve
news:B6F1F2AD.147D0%nem...@mac.com...
> Anyone heard these pipes in person? The website has no sound sample
> available, but they're are very pretty pipes--I really like the imit.
PLEASE respond as I'm already counting my pennies and have e-mailed for a
complete price list! I'll forward it to you, Matt, when I receive it if you
want to look it over :)
Love and Light,
Maeve
http://people.delphi.com/terralyn
ter...@sanctum.com
authoring http://sandykeith.com
Matthew Buckley
"Hayword" <hay...@att.net> wrote
>Well Ruiseart, you're a better man than I, because I >can't ignore his rude
points. I could argue them one by >one but what would be the point
>But I just have to say that Julian is a fine man, piper,
>and pipemaker
Well - since I seem to have started all this with my unfortunate initial
comment, I thought I'd weigh-in again and clarify my thoughts.
Julian's SSP have an extremely sweet, lovely and quiet sound. The tone, and
the sharpened 7th, make for a sound unique, to my ear, among most SSP made
these
days. In other words, comparing Julian's SSP sound to
most others is a bit like an apples and oranges kind of
thing. It's almost a different instrument altogether - based
principally upon the "Montgomery" chanter and, one could argue, more
historically accurate than the Colin Ross
creation of the early 1980s.
Another maker of alternative pipes using plastic reeds is
Jon Swayne. His "border" pipes have a very lovely sound,
plastic reed and all. I have heard as well a few Michael MacHarg smallpipes
in D, with plastic reeds, that also have a very sweet sound.
However, generally speaking, and to my ear only perhaps, I can hear
immediately, in standard sets of smallpipes, the
difference between cane and plastic. I prefer the cane sound.
Julian takes his work very seriously, and produces well-
made instruments. The argument that he produces replicas
of ancient instruments that cannot be proven to be exact
replicas is not quite the point - they are as close as we can
come to the real thing, i.e. ancient English pipes, and his
instruments have a haunting, ancient tone. Further, for anyone hearing
Barnaby Brown's recording of ancient pibroch using a set of Julian-made
ancient-style GHB,
there can be no doubt that the instrument is very carefully
made and designed. Like Julian's SSP, the Barnaby
Brown GHB cannot be compared to modern GHB band
instruments - apples and oranges, different purposes and
approach altogether.
FWIW. Matt
Chris Eyre
I spoke to Barry at our branch contest a couple of weeks ago. He is in the
process of putting up a sound file and a price list shortly.
This is the information scanned from his year 2000 pricelist:
1 Standard pipes with imitation ivory mounts, mouth blown in C or D,
complete with aluminium case £450
2 As above but bellows blown, with hand tooled leather bellows and belt £495
3 Combination set supplied with blowpipe and bellows £580
4 Standard pipes with imitation ivory mounts, mouth blown in A or Bb,
complete with aluminium case £475
5 As above but bellows blown, with hand tooled leather bellows and bellows
£520
6 Combination set supplied with blowpipe and bellows. £605
TWO IN ONE SET.
One set that tunes into both A &Bb supplied with imitation ivory mounts
Two chanters one in A, & one in Bb.
Interchangeable three drone common stock
Blow pipe and stock.
Hand tooled leather bellows and belt.
Velvet bag cover
Aluminium pipe case.
ALL FOR THE UNBEATABLE PRICE OF £750
C & D chanters complete with reed £75
Above chanter with reed covering stock £85
A & Bb chanters complete with reed - £85
Above chanter with reed covering stock - £95
Bag cover in velvet - £20
Hand tooled leather bellows & belt. £180
Interchangeable common stock. £95
Blow pipe & stock. - £85
Engraved Stirling silver in Thistle or Celtic 12 piece add. £420.
Engraved Stirling silver in Thistle or Celtic 13 piece add. £450.
Engraved lacquered brass as above 12 piece add. £300.
Engraved lacquered brass as above 13 piece add. £330.
Chris Eyre
Maeve
news:9aiafh$oea$3...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> I spoke to Barry at our branch contest a couple of weeks ago. He is in the
> process of putting up a sound file and a price list shortly.
>
> This is the information scanned from his year 2000 pricelist:
> Chris Eyre
So what you are saying, Chris, is that I can have everything that I want for
the low, low price of £1355 + a possible £860 more??? I'm not kidding about
this! I HAVE to hear them!!! I've already dragged Husband #1 upstairs to see
the web page, he's agreed!! Well, kind of .... I didn't give him the prices
yet :)
Chris Eyre
"Maeve" <ter...@sanctum.com> wrote in message
news:VM3z6.30884$BC6.9...@e3500-chi1.usenetserver.com...
Eh?? Where did you get "£1355 + a possible £860 more" from??
The most expensive single deal you could get on that pricelist was the "TWO
IN ONE SET", ie:
"One set that tunes into both A &Bb supplied with imitation ivory mounts
Two chanters one in A, & one in Bb.
Interchangeable three drone common stock
Blow pipe and stock.
Hand tooled leather bellows and belt.
Velvet bag cover
Aluminium pipe case."
The whole lot would only cost £750.
Unless you are thinking of going for the "Engraved Stirling silver in
Thistle or Celtic 13 piece". For that you would need to add on £450.
Even that only comes to £1200.
Yes?? :-))
Mind you, if you are considering getting the Combination C and D set AS WELL
(!) supplied with blowpipe and bellows, that adds another £580.
Even THAT total only comes to £1780.
(Phew)
How many sets can you play at the same time? :-)
Chris Eyre
Royce Lerwick
Ceit) wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Apr 2001 00:18:38 GMT, pmle...@mn.mediaone.net (Royce
>Lerwick) wrote:
>
><insulting drivvel snipped>
>
>
>Your rude points have been noted, and duly ignored.
>
>Ruiseart.
Isn't naive a French word too?
Ruiseart agus Ceit
Thanks for that Matt; a very intelligent and informative post.
In addition, I think Julian's SSP actually have a flatened 7th (I'm
not referring to his "Montgomery" set).
Shawn Husk
already said please excuse me.
I don't know about every small pipe maker out there but I've heard about 6 or 7
sets and I've NEVER not once heard a better sounding set than Hamish Moore's.
None comes even close. He's got it right in my book. Give him a listen if you
can.
Shawn
gsh...@eastlink.ca
Sloan's. A definite improvement!
George
"Shawn Husk" <shaw...@nls.net> wrote in message
news:3ACBD55C...@nls.net...
Royce Lerwick
>But I just have to say that Julian is a fine man, piper,
>and pipemaker, and you're not even worthy to mention his name, much less
>give your scatterbrained opinion of what he does. Why don't you stick to
>what you do best, flaming and giving bad advice, and leave the reviewing of
>pipe makers to people that actually have clue.
>
>Howard
Hey Howard, guess you play plastic chanter reed then eh?
Royce
(That disqualifies you as well.)
Royce Lerwick
Royce Lerwick
<bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>Julian's SSP have an extremely sweet, lovely and quiet sound. The tone, and
>the sharpened 7th, make for a sound unique, to my ear, among most SSP made
>these
>days. In other words, comparing Julian's SSP sound to
>most others is a bit like an apples and oranges kind of
>thing. It's almost a different instrument altogether - based
>principally upon the "Montgomery" chanter and, one could argue, more
>historically accurate than the Colin Ross
>creation of the early 1980s.
No, Colin Ross "created" the SSP, his "creation" is a "creation," and
anyone profession to make SSP unlike his are historically irrelevant.
Even Jilian Goodacre's "SSP" are only "based" on an historic
instrument, which is *not* SSP.
>
>Another maker of alternative pipes using plastic reeds is
>Jon Swayne. His "border" pipes have a very lovely sound,
>plastic reed and all. I have heard as well a few Michael MacHarg smallpipes
>in D, with plastic reeds, that also have a very sweet sound.
Yes, but those are all "based" on SSP, or takeoffs of SSP or versions
of SSP, compromised versions.
>
>However, generally speaking, and to my ear only perhaps, I can hear
>immediately, in standard sets of smallpipes, the
>difference between cane and plastic. I prefer the cane sound.
Well not "standard" sets of SSP, "real" sets of SSP. It's just so easy
for anyone to jamb a reed on any sort into a 5/32nd" bore and call is
"smallpipes."
>
>Julian takes his work very seriously, and produces well-
>made instruments.
And this only evokes the equally serious question: What's wrong with
him to then stick a piece of plastic into this fine instrument and
thus *base* it's final setup and configuration on this inferior
driver?
>The argument that he produces replicas
>of ancient instruments that cannot be proven to be exact
>replicas is not quite the point
Well, it was Quisinart's point. The only historically accurate set of
SSP would be one made by Colin Ross or a good duplicate to his specs,
with a nice cane NSP-type reed in it. Anything less or deviant from
this is neither musically equivalent nor historically accurate.
>- they are as close as we can
>come to the real thing, i.e. ancient English pipes,
Nonsense. We can't come. All "we" can do is concoct a superficial
external similarity. How it sounded, how it tuned, what it's scale or
range or how it was reeded is entirely conjecture and is neither
accurate nor inaccurate, close nor far, it's just a guess. Anybody's
guess is as good as anyone else's.
>and his
>instruments have a haunting, ancient tone.
Ancient what though? We don't know. Can't tell. Goodacre is
predisposed to turn out instruments based on Baroque or oboes or
medieval shamws or crumhorns or whatever else he or "we" have more
tangible specifications for. On the outside it may look like a
bagpipe, but when it comes to setting up a reed and a bore and a scale
and a fingering system, and a range (based on reed choice) it could as
well be a hautbois or a bombarde, just depending on how he or "we"
choose to make it function as an instrument.
>Further, for anyone hearing
>Barnaby Brown's recording of ancient pibroch using a set of Julian-made
>ancient-style GHB,
>there can be no doubt that the instrument is very carefully
>made and designed. Like Julian's SSP, the Barnaby
>Brown GHB cannot be compared to modern GHB band
>instruments - apples and oranges, different purposes and
>approach altogether.
Sure it can be compared--the same way the Grande Biniou can be
compared to a set of Krons or Gibsons. If you want *real* *serious*
GHB don't but Biniou reeds in them for openers.
And when was the last time you heard anyone in the GHB world come on
the NG and make glowing recommendations for a set of pipes based
almost exclusively on the notion that the maker personally knew the
tree they were made from? That's so Folk Naziesque it's
self-lampooning. Oh, it's a folksy, woolley, fuzzy warm world of
back-to-earthness and pretended ancient rebirth, but as far as being
any credential for making serious musical instruments, and in
particular, SSP, it's a load of twaddle. Julian Goodacre may be a fine
fellow, and well able to turn down my granny's maple rocking chair and
make it sing with the Early Music Ensemble at the Renaissance
Festival, but the topic was "serious SSP makers" and those my friends
exist in the heart of an entirely different tradition of piping.
If the topic were great French bagpipes, I'd tell you to go to
Limousine and have a set made there the way they make them there with
reeds they make there so they sound exactly like Limousine pipes. I
wouldn't tell you to go find some guy who had tea with the stick he
turned it from out of his backyard, before he stuck a yogurt cup reed
in it because it still sounded OK. I would say find out the real deal
and get one of those.
Royce Lerwick
Ceit) wrote:
>Thanks for that Matt; a very intelligent and informative post.
>
>In addition, I think Julian's SSP actually have a flatened 7th (I'm
>not referring to his "Montgomery" set).
Probably exactly the same chanter, different tuning. Name a tuning and
he'll make one. Keys, no keys, hang this on, hang that on, dream it
up, he'll turn you one.
Matthew Buckley
"Ruiseart agus Ceit" <dru...@amitar.com.au> > >
> In addition, I think Julian's SSP actually have a flattened 7th (I'm
> not referring to his "Montgomery" set).
And I was. I should have pointed out the difference. The Leicester
SSP-in-D
Julian plays on his recent CD, in particular on "Whitwell Waltz" and
"Michael Turner's
Waltz" features the sharpened 7th. Two very lovely tunes, perfect for the
Leicester SSP.
Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote
> Hey Howard, guess you play plastic chanter reed then eh?
Howard plays a beautifully made, and lovely sounding, set of H. Moore
SSP.
He's also a VERY fine piper, both GHB and SSP. You're on the wrong track
here,
Royce, if you plan on taking on Howard on a personal level.
Cheers. Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3acd5941...@news.mn.mediaone.net...
> No, Colin Ross "created" the SSP, his "creation" is a "creation," and
> anyone profession to make SSP unlike his are historically irrelevant.
Rubbish. SSP have a solid historical foundation. The real issue is pitch,
scale and semantics.
Colin Ross's principal innovation was to make a set with the flattened 7th.
Historically, what little evidence we have (e.g. Montgomery chanter)
suggests that ancient SSP probably had a sharpened seventh. But it's not as
if Colin created bag-bellows-chanter-instrument from scratch. Many early
makers, e.g. Hamish, copied instruments from the Museum of Antiquities and,
therefore, could attempt to claim [although they do not] greater historical
accuracy than Colin.
> It's just so easy
> for anyone to jamb a reed on any sort into a 5/32nd" bore and call is
> "smallpipes."
Agreed. Hence my annoyance at the many pc-plugged-into-drones
versions of "smallpipes".
> And this only evokes the equally serious question: What's wrong with
> him to then stick a piece of plastic into this fine instrument and
> thus *base* it's final setup and configuration on this inferior
> driver?
A fair point. You'd have to ask Julian. Perhaps customers don't want to
fuss at all
in connection with cane chanter reeds.
>The only historically accurate set of
>SSP would be one made by Colin Ross or a good duplicate to his specs,
>with a nice cane NSP-type reed in it. Anything less or deviant from
>this is neither musically equivalent nor historically accurate.
Define historically accurate ? Accurate back to 1981? If Colin can
"create" [your word, not mine] something 20 years ago, why can't
someone else "create" something since that time. Again, Hamish and
others have carefully copied historical instruments from the Museum
of Antiquities and elsewhere. I think you are on a VERY slippery
slope to argue historical accuracy in connection with SSP.
Cheers. Matt
Ruiseart agus Ceit
They sound very interesting. Having said that, the Leicestershire
Small Pipes couldn't be classed as SSP, since Leicestershire is in
England. Julian's "Scottish" Small Pipes have a flattened 7th (except
of course the Montgomery set).
Royce Lerwick
<bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>
>"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote in message
>news:3acd5941...@news.mn.mediaone.net...
>
>> No, Colin Ross "created" the SSP, his "creation" is a "creation," and
>> anyone profession to make SSP unlike his are historically irrelevant.
>
>Rubbish. SSP have a solid historical foundation. The real issue is pitch,
>scale and semantics.
Unfortunately Matt, pitch, scale are about 50% of the basic definition
of the instrument, the other 50% being tone, driven primarily in this
system by the reed used. Colin Ross's Scottish Smallpipes had a
specific pitch, a specific tone, a specific reed, and was specifically
the very conventionalized, highly standard NSP reed and bore diameter
scaled and drilled to play a standard GHB scale and range.
Now, if you are claiming this existed anciently, it seems to me you
and Shawn Husk and perhaps some others were arguing vehemently against
this very suggestion just last year.
>Colin Ross's principal innovation was to make a set with the flattened 7th.
>Historically, what little evidence we have (e.g. Montgomery chanter)
>suggests that ancient SSP probably had a sharpened seventh.
Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but the Scottish Smallpipes you are talking
about actually were played on fingertips and had an extremely close
span between holes and played at a pitch probably close to modern
standard pitch NSP, around F-F#. If this is the case, the instrument
is essenially unuseable to the GHB player and entirely foreign to the
vast majority of GHB tunes.
>But it's not as
>if Colin created bag-bellows-chanter-instrument from scratch.
That's not even logical, since the context has been established and it
isn't necessary for him to invent a bag or a bellows to have invented
the "Scottish Smallpipes." Call it the "Modern Scottish Smallipes" or
any other nomeclature you care to use, this is a distinctly different
instrument, and if you doubt it, just go buy a "primitive" NSP, unplug
the chanter, get up on your fingertips, and see how useful it is. Most
people can't even deal with the Shepherd high D smallpipes just
because you have to use your fingertips, even with the natural 7th.
>Many early
>makers, e.g. Hamish, copied instruments from the Museum of Antiquities and,
>therefore, could attempt to claim [although they do not] greater historical
>accuracy than Colin.
Colin hasn't claimed historical accuracy, neither have I, nor, had you
been reading closely, is historical accuracy necessarily tangibly
proven in anyone's case, nor is it particularly desireable in the Ross
invention's case, the instrument we now call the SSP. If Hamish Moore
copied antiquities, pray tell why are all his "Smallpipes" in modern
keys with natural 7ths and set up for the GHB player?
>> It's just so easy
>> for anyone to jamb a reed on any sort into a 5/32nd" bore and call is
>> "smallpipes."
>
>Agreed. Hence my annoyance at the many pc-plugged-into-drones
>versions of "smallpipes".
Well Matt the *primary* difference between the Ross SSP and a PC is
the reed. It's the same bore. The PC is set up for a plastic or at
least narrower cane reed and thus produces an entirely different tone.
Making the plastic reed wider and longer means redrilling the finger
holes to get intonation back and a better tone results from the change
in the reed, but it's just a PC with delusions of grandeur if you're
driving the bore with a plastic reed.
>
>> And this only evokes the equally serious question: What's wrong with
>> him to then stick a piece of plastic into this fine instrument and
>> thus *base* it's final setup and configuration on this inferior
>> driver?
>
>A fair point. You'd have to ask Julian. Perhaps customers don't want to
>fuss at all in connection with cane chanter reeds.
And I'll even buy that as a valid consumer-level desire. Idiot
proofing is great for sales, and makes the customer happy in the long
run. It is not however, evidence of "serious" design or tonal
expectations, and is quite to the contrary, evidence that the maker is
willing to peddle an inherently 2nd rate instrument out the door in
the name of convenience.
>>The only historically accurate set of
>>SSP would be one made by Colin Ross or a good duplicate to his specs,
>>with a nice cane NSP-type reed in it. Anything less or deviant from
>>this is neither musically equivalent nor historically accurate.
>
>Define historically accurate ? Accurate back to 1981? If Colin can
>"create" [your word, not mine] something 20 years ago, why can't
>someone else "create" something since that time.
Because your following proposition is fundamentally incorrect.
>Again, Hamish and
>others have carefully copied historical instruments from the Museum
>of Antiquities and elsewhere. I think you are on a VERY slippery
>slope to argue historical accuracy in connection with SSP.
Then I guess you better get onto the bellows piping listserve and get
them all straightened out. I think you'll find they're all under the
impression that the NSP derived "smallpipe" tradition was and is
entirely separate from any GHB-linked pitch, scale, or fingering
system and range and always has been. I think you'll find that any
"ancient" NSP smallpipe was very short lived and was essentially just
a modern NSP in the "standard" pitch with an open bell, which was
abandoned for a closed bell and totally closed fingering almost
immediately, whereupon keys were almost as quickly thrown all over the
place and the range extended up and down, fully chromatically. I think
you'll find that the contention that any bellows-blown "smallpipes"
using GHB open fingering with an open bell and range and an NSP bore
and reed (both of which have been strictly specified and standardized
from the start) ever existed before Colin Ross is unsupportable by the
evidence, as is the suggestion that any of these nonexistent
instruments ever had fingerspans conducive to GHB style play, and
modern concert pitches like A, or Bb.
What Colin Ross did in fact, was take an existing instrument with a
constant playing and making tradition going back several hundred
years, with a standardized, univeral reed, and standardized, universal
bore, and make a chanter from those parameters that would feel and
play like a GHB chanter. I know this because some of his first
customers were a Utah family in a band I was in at the time, who were
descendants of one Robert Dugan, a noted player from Newcastle, who
emigrated to Utah when he joined the Mormon Church. We were all
ordering up NSP (at the time unheard of generally) and one of the
"special" things he came up with for some of those guys was a chanter
they could plug into their NSP and play "Highland style", and I guess
a drone bead or something to change tuning to the new pitch.
At the time nobody had heard of NSP, and there wasn't even a name for
this SSP, just a "Highland style" chanter you could plug into your
NSP, though I suppose he was also selling dedicated SSP to other
customers as well. (I reeded up several sets of SSP in the mid-80's
for a certain well-known retailer and private individuals before I
realized you couldn't make a living off it. I was 15 years ahead of
the curve at the time.)
I think you can prove somebody out there had a narrow-bore chanter
with a major scale that could be played with open fingering, even
"Highland style," but I don't think you can prove it used an NSP reed,
had a long scale for flatfinger technique, had the GHB natural 7th so
it could play the GHB repertoir, and sounded like anything other than
a dry-reeded practice chanter. In summary, you can show me instruments
anciently that would be useless to the modern GHB piper.
Royce
Royce Lerwick
<bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>Julian plays on his recent CD, in particular on "Whitwell Waltz" and
>"Michael Turner's
>Waltz" features the sharpened 7th. Two very lovely tunes, perfect for the
>Leicester SSP.
Well, you're just proving my point here Matt. You list two waltzes,
not GHB repertoir, or even Celtic repertoir. Furthermore, and think
about this, you refer to the "Leister SSP." Where is Leister?"
SSP=smallpipes of/from/connected to Scotland
Leister is in England. Ergo, "Leister SSP" is oxymoronic.
So, they aren't "SSP" at all.
Royce Lerwick
Why is it you people always come down to belligerent, combative, and
lame allusions to "personal" discourse. Think about what you're
saying. You're just baiting a fight aren't you.
If Howard doesn't play a plastic reed he's on my side, and if he's
playing a Moore SSP, he's not playing a plastic reed unless he got or
made one and brutalized them. If he took the latter approach, well,
nothing I say about him personally could possibly be more damaging.
So, he's either pro-cane and has bought cane-reeded SSP from a
*serious* SSP maker as I have urged and is indeed the point of this
exercise, or he has essentially castrated a beautiful set of same and
condemns himself.
You can piddle and quibble all you want. No *serious* maker of *SSP*
would ever put plastic reeds in his chanters and let them out the
door. It isn't a petty difference, and don't let anyone with family
photos of the plum tree he turned his plastic-reeded "SSP" from
beguile you with his earnest and cheerful manner, try to convince you
otherwise.
No *serious* maker of *SSP* would use plastic chanter reeds. So far
you've convinced yourself and everyone else that Julian Goodacre
serious about making bagpipes, serious about saving the endangered
rainforest and African hardwoods, in touch with nature, a cheerful
soul with great musical and lathe skills. You haven't however,
convinced anyone but yourself that he is specifically serious about
making SSP. He doesn't even call them SSP, he makes several variations
of "smallpipes" and only *one* of these types of "smallpipes" does he
even *call* "Scottish Smallpipes." So one out of several smallpipes he
makes are "SSP," and on top of that he's "seriously" making maybe a
dozen other sorts of bagpipes--and probably more than a dozen.
No wonder he's gone to plastic reeds. "Serious" SSP makers make
nothing but smallpipes, NSP and SSP all day every day, and personally
make and adjust reeds for same. If dedicated smallpipe makers have
waitinglists backlogged for 2-3 years and that's all they make, it's
easy to see why someone who was gearing up for dozens of different
bagpipes wouldn't have time to scrape and balance finely crafted cane
reeds on top of all that.
This has nothing to do with Julian Goodacre. The question was,
"serious SSP makers." If he fell into that category that's all he'd be
making all day every day, he'd be making them out of fine African
blackwood, and he'd be hand-making every single component including
cane reeds.
Royce
Jim McGillivray
Regarding the 'inventor' of the modern Scottish smallpipe -- a discussion going
on here and on the bellowspipe newsgroup, neither of which Colin Ross frequents
-- I don't have a definitive answer as I don't know the history of the old
'smallpipes' nor who was making what in the late 1970s. However, I can quote
Colin Ross from an article he wrote for the June 1999 issue of the "Common
Stock", the newsletter of the Lowland and Border Pipers' Society. The article is
called "The Development of the Scottish Smallpipe and Beyond"
I quote:
"I had just begun my career as a Northumbrian smallpipe maker in 1978 when I was
asked to adapt a Scottish practice chanter for a player who wished to play it
using bellows and a bag rather than blowing it. He also wanted drones to go with
it to make up a full set of what were called Chamber pipes at that time. This
was completed in '79 and in effect was the first set of Scottish smallpipes with
the bellows and the drones on a common stock.
"I had made a traditional Scottish smallpipe previously in F natural which, as
we now know, was the same as the Northumbrian smallpipe but with an open ended
chanter -- but no one had taken any interest in it as it was too small for those
players used to playing the Highland pipes. In any case, the key of Fnat was not
a key that enabled a player to easily mix with other instruments, so with this
in mind I developed a chanter in D with drones to match, based on the style of
the smaller Fnat/E set of small pipes. From this point I called them proper
Scottish small pipes and did not consider them to be a small Chamber set. The
size of the chanter was not too small for Highland pipers to adapt to and also
was in the session- or group-friendly key of D. This was in 1981, and I sold my
first set of Scottish smallpipes in the key of D at the Edinburgh Folk Festival
of 1982 by demonstrating it in the acoustics of the downstairs Gents toilet of
the University Union Building.
"That particular set was in fact a hybrid instrument with the tenor, baritone,
bass drone system of the Scottish and Northumbrian smallpipe but with a chanter
that was in effect a miniature Highland style chanter with a parallel bore that
tapered out beyond the low Cnat holes. The scale had a flattened 7th top and
bottom whereas the original Scottish smallpipe chanter in F had a diatonic
scale, i.e. not flattened seventh at the top of the scale. This system enables
the pipes to be played in two keys, so that the D chanter could also play in G
-- another useful key for other instruments to play along with.
"That same year -- 1982 -- was when Hamish Moore took an interest in the small
pipes and I made various chanters for him in different pitches and with the
addition of keys -- like the Northumbrian smallpipe chanter -- to extend the
range and to give accidentals.
'During the '80s I continued making the smallpipes, as they were now called, in
D, C, Bb and A to suit all tastes, and I was pleased to see that other makers
were taking this up and producing pipes."
Interestingly, this appears several pages after a full-length and fascinating
interview with Hamish Moore.
One must of course take Colin at his word when he says he basically developed
the modern instrument and that others used his as a model. However, The Common
Stock is well read by smallpipe makers, and I can't say subsequent issues
contained any articles or letters refuting Colin's claims.
So there you go, for what it's worth.
Cheerz,
Jim McGillivray
MCGILLIVRAY PIPING PARTNERSHIPS
-- Select Bagpipes and Accessories --
http://www.piping.on.ca
905-726-4003
Royce Lerwick
wrote:
>Interestingly, this appears several pages after a full-length and fascinating
>interview with Hamish Moore.
>
>One must of course take Colin at his word when he says he basically developed
>the modern instrument and that others used his as a model. However, The Common
>Stock is well read by smallpipe makers, and I can't say subsequent issues
>contained any articles or letters refuting Colin's claims.
>
>So there you go, for what it's worth.
Whew! (As he wipes the sweat from his brow.) Richard Evans had me
questioning my own sanity a bit when he said Colin himself had denied
any credit at all for any sort of invention in the matter. I don't
subscribe to the smallpipes list (Jim and fellows thereon heave a sigh
of relief) but I am amazed a bit that all the material I've covered on
RMMB has already been covered by Colin himself there, and Matt and Mr.
Evans who must both subscribe to this list seem unaware of it.
I don't mean any offense to Hamish Moore or anyone else making
"Scottish Smallpipes" of whatever description, but I do believe it
very important to prevent the historical blurring of a fad, a craze,
and explosion of a new piping tradition by obfuscating what is really
a very clear provenance of the instrument's "invention" or
"development."
Royce
(By the way, as you now remind me, the first "Scottish smallpipe"
chanters that showed up in Utah were those shortish D models, and the
immediate feedback to Colin was, "These are great, but if you could
come up with one in A with more spacing it would be even better," and
I'm sure that was a comment frequently heard by him from everyone else
as well. They were pretty tight alright.)
Matthew Buckley
"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote
> If Hamish Moore
> copied antiquities, pray tell why are all his "Smallpipes" in modern
> keys with natural 7ths and set up for the GHB player?
Good point. I should have differentiated between drones and chanter. My
understanding
is that he copied drones. The issue of pitch of the 7th remans open.
.
> Because your following proposition is fundamentally incorrect.
> >Again, Hamish and
> >others have carefully copied historical instruments from the Museum
> >of Antiquities and elsewhere. I think you are on a VERY slippery
> >slope to argue historical accuracy in connection with SSP.
I'm gonna stay with this one. As Richard Evans, and Colin Ross himself, on
the bellowspipes list,
have stated, there is an historical basis for SSP.
> What Colin Ross did in fact, was take an existing instrument with a
> constant playing and making tradition going back several hundred
> years, with a standardized, univeral reed, and standardized, universal
> bore, and make a chanter from those parameters that would feel and
> play like a GHB chanter.
We can basically agree here. But it begs an interesting question, i.e the
relationship, if any, between bellowspipes and Highland "half" sets,
"parlour" pipes, etc. Although it's pure speculation, I cannot help but
believe that,
at some point, someone prior to Colin must have plugged a "parlour"
cylindrical
chanter into a bellows-and-drones setup.
Cheers. Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2001 08:51:56 -0400, "Matthew Buckley" wrote
> >Julian plays on his recent CD, in particular on "Whitwell Waltz" and
> >"Michael Turner's
> >Waltz" features the sharpened 7th. Two very lovely tunes, perfect for
the
> >Leicester SSP.
> SSP=smallpipes of/from/connected to Scotland
> Leister is in England. Ergo, "Leister SSP" is oxymoronic.
> So, they aren't "SSP" at all.
Good point. Sloppy typing on my part. I should have used something like
Leicestershire smallpipes, or Leicestershire SP. The SSP was typed out of
habit. I was not trying to argue that the the Leicestershire smallpipes
are
Scottish.
Having said this, still begs the question regarding the Montgomery chanter.
Are you suggesting any smallpipes found north of the border, featuring a
short chanter and sharpened 7th is, somenow, not "Scottish".
Cheers. Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote
> Why is it you people always come down to belligerent, combative, and
> lame allusions to "personal" discourse.
Because you made a ridiculous assumption here regarding what Howard
plays, an assumption that was heading down the slippery slop of
combative and lame in its own right.
Cheers. Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Jim McGillivray" <jim...@aci.on.ca> wrote
> I can quote
> Colin Ross from an article he wrote for the June 1999 issue of the "Common
> Stock", the newsletter of the Lowland and Border Pipers' Society. The
article is
> called "The Development of the Scottish Smallpipe and Beyond"
> I quote:
> "I had just begun my career as a Northumbrian smallpipe maker in 1978 when
I was
> asked to adapt a Scottish practice chanter for a player who wished to play
it
> using bellows and a bag rather than blowing it. He also wanted drones to
go with
> it to make up a full set of what were called Chamber pipes at that time.
This
> was completed in '79 and in effect was the first set of Scottish
smallpipes with
> the bellows and the drones on a common stock.
> ... So with this
> in mind I developed a chanter in D with drones to match, based on the
style of
> the smaller Fnat/E set of small pipes. From this point I called them
proper
> Scottish small pipes and did not consider them to be a small Chamber set.
> "That particular set was in fact a hybrid instrument with the tenor,
baritone,
> bass drone system of the Scottish and Northumbrian smallpipe but with a
chanter
> that was in effect a miniature Highland style chanter with a parallel bore
that
> tapered out beyond the low Cnat holes
> "That same year -- 1982 -- was when Hamish Moore took an interest in the
small
> pipes and I made various chanters for him in different pitches and with
the
> addition of keys -- like the Northumbrian smallpipe chanter -- to extend
the
> range and to give accidentals.
> One must of course take Colin at his word when he says he basically
developed
> the modern instrument and that others used his as a model.
Jim - Thanks for pulling this up and adding it to the discussion. Colin
confirms the basic
premises that neither Richard or I have disagreed with, i.e. that Colin
"invented" the
modern configuration of smallpipes. Colin's article begs an important
additional
question, i.e.
- If the very first set Colin made involved an "adaption" of a practice
chanter,
then what was truly the "first" set of true SSP ? The adapted pc design,
or
the latter D chanter w/NSP reed technology, thereby resulting in a
significant
departure, i.e. "hybrid", from the "adapted" pc design instrument ?
Colin's "hybrid" instrument, i.e. D chanter/NBP-style reed, is the basis for
my
belief that true SSP represent a significant departure from pc-into-drones
technology, and is the basis for my annoyance with the idea that SSP merely
consist of pc-plugged-into-drones. If Colin himself describes the first
set,
literally, as "adapted" pc, then perhaps I stand very much corrected in my
earlier comments.
Cheers. Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote
> Richard Evans had me
> questioning my own sanity a bit when he said Colin himself had denied
> any credit at all for any sort of invention in the matter. I don't
> subscribe to the smallpipes list (Jim and fellows thereon heave a sigh
> of relief) but I am amazed a bit that all the material I've covered on
> RMMB has already been covered by Colin himself there, and Matt and Mr.
> Evans who must both subscribe to this list seem unaware of it.
Uhhh, Royce, I purposefully solicated Colin's comment on the list on Friday
because
I was tired of hearing you speak for Colin. You are the one unaware of
what's been happening
on the list the past 48 hours.
Richard and I have NEVER suggested the Colin did not conceive the modern SSP
configuration.
I stated that I have never in 16 years of North Hero lectures heard Colin
claim invention.
I further simply stated that some form of SSP existed prior to Colin's
innovation. Although you
continue not to like it, semantics is an important element here.
Similarly, I've never heard that John Walsh himself maintains that he
invented his "shuttle" drone design.
As most alternative piper-types know, the shuttle design is ancient. So, by
plugging a Highland pc
into shuttle drones, did John Walsh "invent" shuttle pipes ? Hmmm.
> I don't mean any offense to Hamish Moore or anyone else making
> "Scottish Smallpipes" of whatever description, but I do believe it
> very important to prevent the historical blurring of a fad, a craze,
> and explosion of a new piping tradition by obfuscating what is really
> a very clear provenance of the instrument's "invention" or "development."
Why would you offend Hamish. He knows the history here as well as anyone,
especially given the fact that he played one of Colin's very first D chanter
instruments
and spread the gospel around the world.
Cheers. Matt
Stuart Hall
"Matthew Buckley" <bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote
>
>> If Hamish Moore
>> copied antiquities, pray tell why are all his "Smallpipes" in modern
>> keys with natural 7ths and set up for the GHB player?
>
>Good point. I should have differentiated between drones and chanter. My
>understanding
>is that he copied drones. The issue of pitch of the 7th remans open.
The ONLY reason I am following up to this long thread about SSPs is that
I'm surprised no one's quoted Hamish Moore's essay on his pipemaking. I
appreciate Jim's quoting Ross's stuff as well, and I think Moore makes a
few comments that are helpful to the discussion.
Colin had developed an hybrid instrument, which was to form the basis
of a renaissance in the Highland piping world as significant as any
single event since the inception of the first piping competition in
1781. When we came to start making Scottish Small Pipes in 1985, we
used a set of Highland small pipes as our model for the drones,
bellows and bag rather than the Northumbrian pipes on which Colin had
based his instrument. The chanter/ reed combination however was based
on Colin零 revolutionary work, although during the intervening years,
modifications have been made to the chanter design and the reed has
evolved to be quite distinctive from the original.
[Full text available at
http://www.hamishmoore.musicscotland.com/essay.htm ]
As far as cane vs. synthetic reed materials goes . . . I've heard very
nice synthetic drone reeds, but I've never personally heard a plastic
chanter reed I liked. Cane sounds better to me. I think reed material
has more of an impact, personally, on the sound than the timber of the
instrument, but then, that's just me. I'm not saying box and blackwood
sound the same, I'm just saying that they're not as different as cane
vs. synthetic reeds. Isn't "cane reed" redundant, anyway?
I don't know how important a discussion of the flat 7th is to the
smallpipes, either, since soon after their invention (or reinvention,
whatever) they found their niche as a new and different instrument for
people from the highland background to play. Highland music has that
flat 7th, so there you go.
Border pipes are another story. That's an instrument with continuity of
history, with examples (I believe) with both flat 7ths and a
conventional major scale with the natural 7th.
I guess I'm giving my opinions on everything, so let me make comment on
one other point. African blackwood isn't historically the BEST wood for
pipes, Northumbrian/Highland/uilleann or otherwise. It's what makers
turned to for two reasons: (1) deforestation of the British possessions
in the Carribbean from which cocus wood was obtained, and (2) the
extension of piping into harsher climates than those of the British
Isles. Cocus and box were THE timbers for wind instrument making for
hundreds of years, petering out in the nineteenth century as the supply
of timber became short. Well, not so much a supply problem for boxwood;
I'm not sure why it fell out of favor. Blackwood (from the possessions
in Africa) had a dense heartwood that was rather oily and therefore
relatively resistant to cracking. Great for mouth-blown pipes. Not
really necessary for bellows-blown pipes which aren't subjected to such
huge swings in temperature.
In my own discussions with folks who know about the history of
pipemaking (folks like Hugh Cheape at the Museum of Scotland . . . Geoff
Wooff of uilleann pipemaking fame, and others) blackwood (Dalbergia
melanoxylon) was a great compromise. I'm not saying it sounds bad, it's
just that it seemed to possess the best combination of qualities for the
highland pipes. Cocus sounds better, I think, but it's much more prone
to cracking. Box is nice for bellows pipes, but prone to warping (since
it's all sapwood). Heck, many of the extant OLD old sets (meaning 18th
century) aren't even mounted with elephant ivory, but rather seal ivory,
hence the old tradition of button mounts (since seal tusks are so
small). Ebony is thought by some to be an even better-sounding wood
than blackwood, but it's also dry and prone to splitting.
So as far as smallpipes go, no, it's not correct to claim that you're
making a historically-accurate instrument and imply that its history
goes back hundreds of years. We have Colin Ross to thank for
re-inventing it. The 1980s are history, I guess, but then so is
yesterday. Border pipes are another matter, and even PLANS for the
border pipes exist from at least the 18th century.
Stuart
--
--
Stuart Hall
(stu...@swbell.net)
Royce Lerwick
<bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>> >Again, Hamish and
>> >others have carefully copied historical instruments from the Museum
>> >of Antiquities and elsewhere. I think you are on a VERY slippery
>> >slope to argue historical accuracy in connection with SSP.
>
>I'm gonna stay with this one. As Richard Evans, and Colin Ross himself, on
>the bellowspipes list,
>have stated, there is an historical basis for SSP.
No, what Colin said was fundamentally different on a *literal* level,
not a semantic one. Colin Ross said there was an historical basic for
*an* instrument in the smallpipe family called "Scottish." He then
goes on in great detail how he totally departed from this.
>> What Colin Ross did in fact, was take an existing instrument with a
>> constant playing and making tradition going back several hundred
>> years, with a standardized, univeral reed, and standardized, universal
>> bore, and make a chanter from those parameters that would feel and
>> play like a GHB chanter.
>
>We can basically agree here. But it begs an interesting question, i.e the
>relationship, if any, between bellowspipes and Highland "half" sets,
>"parlour" pipes, etc. Although it's pure speculation, I cannot help but
>believe that,
>at some point, someone prior to Colin must have plugged a "parlour"
>cylindrical
>chanter into a bellows-and-drones setup.
Well, somebody might have and the fact is that's not what Colin did.
Parlour or "miniature" pipes have been common for centuries, but these
are expressly the hated practice-chanter based instruments. Obviously
they had cane reeds originally and probably sounded a bit better than
a plastic practice chanter of today, but simply plugging one of these
into a bellows isn't what Colin did, nor would it be a significant
change to the parlour pipe or "miniature" class of pipes. The common
stock of the NSP and the injection of the NSP *reed* (which is how I
launched this thread, as the *reed* is the thing) into the "miniature"
or "parlour" pipe (practice chanter) instrument demanded a total
rescaling of course of the chanter and produced an *entirely*
different tone. Not just superior, but entirely different. We have
miniature bagpipes and have had for centuries. They suck, nobody plays
them. Only the Pakistanis have made them for a hundred years--until
Colin Ross's smallpipes opened up a market in the GHB world that made
it profitable for more reputable makers to even experiment in that
area again, and many have--all layouts, from shuttle drones to common
stock drones, to GHB shoulder drones.
Royce Lerwick
<bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>Having said this, still begs the question regarding the Montgomery chanter.
>Are you suggesting any smallpipes found north of the border, featuring a
>short chanter and sharpened 7th is, somenow, not "Scottish".
>
>Cheers. Matt
I'm suggesting you read a previous response to this same question, and
then consider the fact that I could have sailed over from Norway 400
years ago and left a set of Norse pipes in Scotland with some
soon-to-be dead Laird and you could unearth them in his castle next
week and those wouldn't be Scottish either.
Royce Lerwick
You'll have to explain what assumption I made about what he plays. I'm
seriously not following what you mean.
Royce Lerwick
<bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>Jim - Thanks for pulling this up and adding it to the discussion. Colin
>confirms the basic
>premises that neither Richard or I have disagreed with, i.e. that Colin
>"invented" the
>modern configuration of smallpipes.
I disagree. You and Richard both have vehemently opposed even the use
of the word "invented" in any context. Richard conceded to use the
word "developed" and then insisted twice to go on and include a
ludicrously wide definition of what a "Scottish" smallpipe could be,
in effect saying that Colin's radical alterations of the original
concept were really not significant enough to warrant making any
distinction between his versions and the ancient Montgomery or
primitive NSP versions.
Furthermore, you've personally claimed that Hamish Moore developed his
"SSP" from ancient historical examples, which is clearly not the case.
His drones may be inspired by ancient examples, but those are
essentially nothing more on a functional basis than standard NSP
drones in any case. Moore's chanters are in fact not based on ancient
examples at all and are made after the modern Ross pattern. So on this
score you too have really denied any credit at all to Ross for the
modern instrument.
Royce
>Colin's article begs an important
>additional
>question, i.e.
>
>- If the very first set Colin made involved an "adaption" of a practice
>chanter,
> then what was truly the "first" set of true SSP ?
That was the first Ross smallpipe for the GHB player. Just get this
SSP thing out of your head.
>The adapted pc design,
>or
> the latter D chanter w/NSP reed technology, thereby resulting in a
>significant
> departure, i.e. "hybrid", from the "adapted" pc design instrument ?
It's essentially the same bore. Or if not you run a drill through it
and it's soon the same bore. Stick an NSP reed in a standard practice
chanter and it comes out close to D. Hack up the chanter a bit and
redrill it and you have an NSP chanter in D. I've done the same thing
myself, before I found out Colin was doing it. I just didn't bother
persuing it any. I got my first set of NSP from Burleigh in about 1980
and the first thing I did was stick a few NSP reeds into a few
practice chanters and see how it sounded. It's a very convenient,
pre-drilled stick to mess around with in that regard. If you made a
long NSP chanter you'd end up with the same stick just about, which,
after farting with PC's, is what Colin obviously went to doing, having
worked out the rough parameters of the instrument-to-be.
>Colin's "hybrid" instrument, i.e. D chanter/NBP-style reed, is the basis for
>my belief that true SSP represent a significant departure from pc-into-drones
>technology, and is the basis for my annoyance with the idea that SSP merely
>consist of pc-plugged-into-drones. If Colin himself describes the first
>set, literally, as "adapted" pc, then perhaps I stand very much corrected in my
>earlier comments.
Yeah. Maybe we ought to just stick to what Colin had to say about it
himself. Funny you and Richard hadn't read these?
Royce Lerwick
<bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>
>"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote
>
>
>> Richard Evans had me
>> questioning my own sanity a bit when he said Colin himself had denied
>> any credit at all for any sort of invention in the matter. I don't
>> subscribe to the smallpipes list (Jim and fellows thereon heave a sigh
>> of relief) but I am amazed a bit that all the material I've covered on
>> RMMB has already been covered by Colin himself there, and Matt and Mr.
>> Evans who must both subscribe to this list seem unaware of it.
>
>Uhhh, Royce, I purposefully solicated Colin's comment on the list on Friday
>because
>I was tired of hearing you speak for Colin. You are the one unaware of
>what's been happening
>on the list the past 48 hours.
I don't subscribe to the list--he said again. But then again, a lot of
us here are tired of hearing you and Richard speak for Colin as
well--or you speak for Hamish Moore for that matter.
>
>Richard and I have NEVER suggested the Colin did not conceive the modern SSP
>configuration.
Well, yes you did and I'll leave the NG to decide that matter. You've
claimed Hamish Moore and others could have and or have just been able
to look at ancient instruments and make their own "SSP," and Richard
has claimed that Colin really didn't do anything but change the key
and maybe one note of an existing instrument. It amounts very clearly
to saying he didn't do squat.
>I stated that I have never in 16 years of North Hero lectures heard Colin
>claim invention.
No, he just went into lengthy detail explaining the entire invention
process, and you were incapable of deducing that what he did qualifies
for use of the term "invention."
>I further simply stated that some form of SSP existed prior to Colin's
>innovation. Although you
>continue not to like it, semantics is an important element here.
I agree, and in that case you should stop calling Ross-design Highland
system smallpipes "SSP" because that puts them into some sort of
junk-category in your circle of terminology that is far to wide a
definition to be meaningful.
>
>Similarly, I've never heard that John Walsh himself maintains that he
>invented his "shuttle" drone design.
Because he didn't.
>As most alternative piper-types know, the shuttle design is ancient. So, by
>plugging a Highland pc
>into shuttle drones, did John Walsh "invent" shuttle pipes ? Hmmm.
No, and calling them "shuttle pipes" is likewise meaningless. They're
"Walsh Shuttle Pipes," that's their name, and that's what you should
call them. That's a very specific definition and you should stop
calling them "shuttle pipes" because that's a broad and meaningless
junk label.
>> I don't mean any offense to Hamish Moore or anyone else making
>> "Scottish Smallpipes" of whatever description, but I do believe it
>> very important to prevent the historical blurring of a fad, a craze,
>> and explosion of a new piping tradition by obfuscating what is really
>> a very clear provenance of the instrument's "invention" or "development."
>
>Why would you offend Hamish. He knows the history here as well as anyone,
>especially given the fact that he played one of Colin's very first D chanter
>instruments and spread the gospel around the world.
Get your story straight Matt, a few posts back you were saying he used
ancient museum pieces to produce his own "SSP." No, he copied Colin
Ross's innovative new chanter design and maybe came up with his own
drones and there was no invention in either of those elements. Hamish
spread the Ross gospel because Ross was a new invention the world
hadn't seen or heard yet. Then he copied Ross.
The history of the "Scottish" smallpipe is irrelevant to the GHB
player prior to Colin Ross.
Royce
Royce Lerwick
wrote:
>The ONLY reason I am following up to this long thread about SSPs is that
>I'm surprised no one's quoted Hamish Moore's essay on his pipemaking. I
>appreciate Jim's quoting Ross's stuff as well, and I think Moore makes a
>few comments that are helpful to the discussion.
>
> Colin had developed an hybrid instrument, which was to form the basis
> of a renaissance in the Highland piping world as significant as any
> single event since the inception of the first piping competition in
> 1781. When we came to start making Scottish Small Pipes in 1985, we
> used a set of Highland small pipes as our model for the drones,
> bellows and bag rather than the Northumbrian pipes on which Colin had
> based his instrument. The chanter/ reed combination however was based
> on Colin零 revolutionary work,
Thanks Stuart. Wish you'd jumped in earlier, would have saved me a lot
of arguing with Matt.
Royce
(How is it I don't even subscribe to the smallpipers list and I don't
go to North Hero for 16 years and I still know all this stuff and
those guys who do, don't?)
Matthew Buckley
"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote >
> You'll have to explain what assumption I made about what he plays. I'm
> seriously not following what you mean.
You appeared to have assumed he play an SSP with a plastic chanter reed.
I just thought I'd inform you otherwise.
Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote
> No, what Colin said was fundamentally different on a *literal* level,
> not a semantic one. Colin Ross said there was an historical basic for
> *an* instrument in the smallpipe family called "Scottish." He then
> goes on in great detail how he totally departed from this.
Again, we agree. And again, I ask that you point out where I have said
otherwise.
Cheers. Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Royce Lerwick" <pmle...@mn.mediaone.net> wrote
> Furthermore, you've personally claimed that Hamish Moore developed his
> "SSP" from ancient historical examples, which is clearly not the case.
> His drones may be inspired by ancient examples, but those are
> essentially nothing more on a functional basis than standard NSP
> drones in any case. Moore's chanters are in fact not based on ancient
> examples at all and are made after the modern Ross pattern. So on this
> score you too have really denied any credit at all to Ross for the
> modern instrument.
Regarding the chanter, I corrected myself long ago in this thread. As to
the drones,
we'll have to ask Hamish to support your claim regarding the "standard NSP"
bit.
> It's essentially the same bore. Or if not you run a drill through it
> and it's soon the same bore. Stick an NSP reed in a standard practice
> chanter and it comes out close to D. Hack up the chanter a bit and
> redrill it and you have an NSP chanter in D. I've done the same thing
> myself, before I found out Colin was doing it. I just didn't bother
> persuing it ...
Good. Now we know the true inventor of modern SSP.
> >Colin's "hybrid" instrument, i.e. D chanter/NBP-style reed, is the basis
for
> >my belief that true SSP represent a significant departure from
pc-into-drones
> >technology, and is the basis for my annoyance with the idea that SSP
merely
> >consist of pc-plugged-into-drones. If Colin himself describes the first
> >set, literally, as "adapted" pc, then perhaps I stand very much corrected
in my
> >earlier comments.
> Yeah. Maybe we ought to just stick to what Colin had to say about it
> himself. Funny you and Richard hadn't read these?
That's what we're trying to do here, Royce. Just stick to what Colin had to
say.
Matt
Matthew Buckley
> >Uhhh, Royce, I purposefully solicated Colin's comment on the list on
Friday
> >because
> >I was tired of hearing you speak for Colin. You are the one unaware of
> Well, yes you did and I'll leave the NG to decide that matter. You've
> claimed Hamish Moore and others could have and or have just been able
> to look at ancient instruments and make their own "SSP,"
Find the post where I stated this. I simply stated that Hamish based his
drone
design on an ancient instrument.
> Get your story straight Matt, a few posts back you were saying he used
> ancient museum pieces to produce his own "SSP." No, he copied Colin
> Ross's innovative new chanter design and maybe came up with his own
> drones and there was no invention in either of those elements. Hamish
> spread the Ross gospel because Ross was a new invention the world
> hadn't seen or heard yet. Then he copied Ross.
Again, I corrected myself chanter-wise on this long ago. Relax.
Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Matthew Buckley" <bdrp...@together.net> wrote
For the record, I said, with editorial comment, as follows:
> My understanding has always been that Colin and the other early
> makers did not have practice chanters in mind as they developed their
> wonderful instruments. [apparently, he did]
> As you are aware, some form of SSP has been in
> existence for well over two hundred years, although Colin is credited with
> using the Highland scale in producing an instrument suited to demands of
> modern-era pipers.
Cheers. Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Matthew Buckley" <bdrp...@together.net> wrote
> Rubbish. SSP have a solid historical foundation. The real issue is
pitch,
> scale and semantics.
> Colin Ross's principal innovation was to make a set with the flattened
7th.
> Historically, what little evidence we have (e.g. Montgomery chanter)
> suggests that ancient SSP probably had a sharpened seventh. But it's not
as
> if Colin created bag-bellows-chanter-instrument from scratch. Many early
> makers, e.g. Hamish, copied instruments from the Museum of Antiquities
and,
> therefore, could attempt to claim [although they do not] greater
historical
> accuracy than Colin.
[I should have clarified I was speaking only as to historical accuracy as
relates to
drone design. I thought this was clear from my earlier credit to Colin
regarding
chanter design]
> Again, Hamish and
> others have carefully copied historical instruments from the Museum
> of Antiquities and elsewhere
[Again, I thought it was clear that I was not speaking of the flatted-7th
chanter
innovation of Colin, having earlier credited him with such]
Cheers. Matt
Matthew Buckley
"Matthew Buckley" <bdrp...@together.net>
> > If Hamish Moore
> > copied antiquities, pray tell why are all his "Smallpipes" in modern
> > keys with natural 7ths and set up for the GHB player?
> Good point. I should have differentiated between drones and chanter. My
> understanding is that he copied drones. The issue of pitch of the 7th
remans open.
Cheers. Matt
.
Royce Lerwick
<bdrp...@together.net> wrote:
>Regarding the chanter, I corrected myself long ago in this thread. As to
>the drones,
>we'll have to ask Hamish to support your claim regarding the "standard NSP"
>bit.
The drones are largely irrelevant to the question of "invention" here
because, or maybe you still miss my point, the "Scotch" or "Scottish"
pipes of ancient vintage you keep referring to are nothing more than
primitive NSP--and this is particularly true of the drones.
>> It's essentially the same bore. Or if not you run a drill through it
>> and it's soon the same bore. Stick an NSP reed in a standard practice
>> chanter and it comes out close to D. Hack up the chanter a bit and
>> redrill it and you have an NSP chanter in D. I've done the same thing
>> myself, before I found out Colin was doing it. I just didn't bother
>> persuing it ...
>
>Good. Now we know the true inventor of modern SSP.
I should add though, that in Colin's original he no doubt had to
extend a staple from the NSP standard reed to get the upperhand into
pitch, because the PC layout uses the staple for the first couple of
inches of the bore. It's similar to UP, where you have a very very
long staple and this staple is extremely critical to the correct
playing of both octaves and so forth, because the reed is about
1/4-1/3 of the chanter, and at the most critical point in the bore.
The Ross smallpipes simply extended the top of the bore up to where
the staple would have been and used the stock NSP reed plugged into
it. Once you decide the reed and the pitch and the bore, the entire
rest of the chanter like hole placement is dictated by physics. The
cosmetics of the outside dimensions are almost inconsequential. It's a
bit like David Daye's Penny UP Chanter, in effect it's just a big reed
with holes in it--one giant brass staple, then he covers it up to make
a chanter appear around it.
Royce Lerwick
OK, saved me the trouble. Thanks Matt, that's where we really parted
company, and by inference or rather, the clear implication, you seemed
to be arguing (since Hamish's designs for a modern SSP chanter, the
*basic* invention being debated were essentially either Ross's or
based on them) that both he and Ross simply went back to these
primitive pipes and duplicated them. And more to the point, the above
suggested that Hamish actually did a better job of it.
hcstockŽ
Enjoy,
Curt
"Jim McGillivray" <jim...@aci.on.ca> wrote in message
news:3AC62611...@aci.on.ca...
> Jakmak wrote:
>
> > I play the GHB & would like to get a quieter set for indoors & hopefully
to
> > play with other musicians. I am trying to decide on the best way to go.
What do
> > folks think about Scottish small pipes? Border pipes? What key is best?
> >
> > Thanks for the benefit of your experience!
> >
> > Jack
>
> These two types of pipes sound quite different from each other. The best
sets are
> bellowsblown, though some mouth-blown Scottish smallpipes are being made
these days
> that are quite inexpensive and sound pretty good.
>
> The Scottish smallpipes are based on the practice chanter sound and
usually have
> three drone pitches -- bass, baritone and tenor, though some folks prefer
alto to
> baritone, and some makers offer four-drone sets. Bellows-blown smallpipes
by the
> good makers are very rich and very much an instrument in their own right.
>
> The Border pipes are a slightly larger instrument and sound like an
'indoor'
> Highland pipes. Three drone pitches again -- bass, tenor, alto. Like the
SSP they
> work with very low pressure.
>
> To my mind the Border pipes are a much more interesting sound, though if
you're
> accustomed to the big outdoor GHB sound you might initially find them
insipid, as I
> did. I quite like them now. They also carry better when being played with
other
> instruments. The SSP needs to be miked. Both instruments are really a lot
of fun to
> play once you master the bellows. While I love playing my big pipes, I
can't say I
> ever find it 'relaxing'. However, because of the reduced physical demands,
I find
> playing any kind of bellowspipe quite soothing and pure fun.
>
> Most Border pipes come in A440. SSP can come in A, Bb, C and D. Bb has the
closest
> finger spacing to the GHB. It is quite sweet, but is not good for playing
with
> other instruments. A is very versatile in this respect. D is sweet, high
and
> lovely, but the finger spacing is quite tight.
>
> Good SSP makers include Colin Ross (the 'inventor' of the instrument), Ray
Sloan,
> Hamish Moore, Richard Evans, Barry Say. Border pipe makers include Colin,
Ray,
> Hamish, Nigel Richard, John Burke.
>
> I will confess that I'm a big fan of Ray Sloan's. That's what I play and
> subsequently decided to sell. Ray is now also making a Border pipe which
can be
> played in a straigh Highland style, or cross-fingered for nearly a fully
chromatic
> scale. I have info on Ray's SSP and on SSP in general on my website --
> http://www.piping.on.ca
>
> I haven't added Ray's Border Pipes to my site yet, but have information on
them I
> can e-mail out.
>
> If you want to hear good sound samples of Scottish Smallpipes, Border
Pipes,
> Northumbrian Smallpipes and Uilleann pipes, go to Ray's site:
> http://www.ray-sloan.com and click on "Sound Samples." There are pictures
of all
> these different pipes there.
>
> Hope this helps provides information without being *too* self-promoting!
>
> Cheers,
> Jim McGillivray
>
> MCGILLIVRAY PIPING PARTNERSHIPS
> -- Select Bagpipes & Accessories
> www.piping.on.ca
> 905-726-4003
>
>