Date: Fri, 15 May 1998
From: Dave Singleton <DaveSingleton_Lux@compuserve.com>
…. apropos the closed end----could it have happened even earlier, perhaps in the secular gatherings the prior would not allow any melodic accompaniment,so they stuffed the end of the chanter and had to make do with the DRONES and accidentally a bit of staccato slipped out while Mr J Dunn was in the congregation ????

Date: Fri, 15 May 1998
From: Ian Lawther <ian@northernlight.demon.co.uk>
My own feeling is that we shouldn't look at Northumbrian pipes in isolation. It seems to me that there was a period - perhaps from 1750 to 1830 when there was a lot going on in the development of British/Irish pipes. There are various examples of pastoral pipes and "hybrid union" pipes from Scotland in museums, and these are important in the development of what we now call uilleann pipes. At the same time the highland pipes were out of favour in Scotland following the '45 debacle and smaller Scottish pipes were able to fill the void (perhaps including said pastoral/hybrids). I suspect the Northumbrian piping was part of this melting pot - Reid made uilleann pipes as well asNorthumbrian.
So where does this rambling fit with the closing of the chanter? Well, the pastoral pipes had a bell ended chanter and didn't survive. The modern uillean pipe is similar but has a shorter chanter, which is stopped against the players thigh. It is perhaps because of this that their second octave worked, where simple overblowing on the pastoral chanter didn't. Interestingly the standard form of an uilleann pipe chanter looks almost like an instrument with its "foot" section missing, rather than something designed from scratch.

If there was a lot of pipe development going on based say in Dublin, Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Newcastle with a cross flow of ideas/information might it be that amongst all the trial and error someone in Newcastle/Northumberland picked up the same idea that gave rise to the uilleann developer "popping strap temporary chanter closure" and said lets try total closure?

Date: Fri, 15 May 1998)
From: Dick Hensold <dick@uswest.net>
Somehow the cultural/historical context doesn't seem quite right for that. To me "old" smallpiping as exemplified by Dixon/Peacock screams C17, not C18. There are pieces in the Division Violin (1684) that are very comparable to Peacock tunes, right down to figuration in the divisions. Also, the divisions of the late C16 and C17 were supposed to be articulated, not slurred. In this way, traditional Nsp’ing compares more closely with the older style than the later style of the C18, with it's many trills and other slurred ornaments. Also, the theory alluded to by Julia (that the chanter was stopped early with a bunch of gunk) is based on a fingering chart from about 1695. There were *lots* of innovations in the folk music world in the C18, (just look at the huge change in Scottish fiddle music in the C18) and it's my impression that most of them bypassed the smallpipe world until late. Northumbrian smallpiping has survived with such a unique old repertoire because Northumbrians seem to have been the most musically conservative folks on the block.
So as I said in the post that I sent to the wrong address, the Nsp chanter was closed at least by the 1770's. When were uillean pipes first played stopped on the knee? I thought much later than the 1770's. But I don't know. And the repertoire is so much different. The tunes in Geoghegan's tutor are mostly very modern. It strikes me as being aimed at a totally different audience.

But there was something very interesting going on around 1800, and you're right, the Nsp is just part of a larger story, one that involves the cultural reaction to the French revolution...

Date: Sun, 17 May 1998
From: Chris Bayer:
…the oldest of the British/Celtic stringed instruments was drone based and that, by 1300 or 1400, had developed a court music form which we now call Divisions. By 1600, Divisions had carried over not only to the fiddle or violin but also to the highland pipe--piobaireachd. For the most part, the oldest or basic form of division playing was not written down but was based on a method for inserting notes --dividing --into the Principle notes of a ground. In each figure, these inserted notes were often played by damping on the harp or by cutting on the highland pipes--were designed to be staccato. They lead to the Principle note which was, more or less, sustained. The absence of written sources for Divisions on instruments such as the NSP during the 18th century is not necessarily proof that it did not occur or was not a major influence.

Beginning around 1770 with Percy's Relicks, the growing English middle class began to articulate and support the romantic idea of minstrelsy--of a body of song that, it was held, derived from the medieval bards and that articulated a view of man's healthy relation to nature in contrast to the perversities of industrial times. By 1800, the focus of minstrelsy lay squarely on lowland Scotland and the border areas with England. These areas were held to be the richest source of such bardic song and much debate went into trying to determine why. These ideas permeated Britain and America by 1820 and remained strong through much of the 19th century. The 19^th century saw a ballad revival all through the English speaking world based on these songs and these ideas.
Virtually absent this discussion was consideration of instruments. This focus on song rather than instruments betrays the fact that, for the middle class, the old music needed to be adapted to the piano. Still, the middle class ballad revival that began during the mid-18th century, may have had a rural counterpart--parallel efforts to modify and improve instruments so as to keep alive the old music.
This may have been more associated with old music in general rather than with a specific musical instrument--hence at the end of the 18th century, the drone based Celtic harp was allowed to die out while the highland pipes was brought back to life. The universal feeling seems to have been that if the old forms of music were to survive, technology must be brought to the service of that music.
When you discuss origins you need to keep social and historical context in mind and fit what you know about technological innovations to that context. I don't know much about those technological innovations on the NSP. I will be interested to hear more. The question of potential influence by Divisions is a major one. Look at Jones' Relicks of The Welsh Bards for mid-19th century Welsh Harp Divisions, 1792, MacDonabld for Highland Bagpipe piobaireachd c.1760.
Finally, the notion of "folk music"--an idea invented during the late 18^th century for political reasons-- can be self defeating. It implies cultural isolation and communal creation in the absence of informed individual effort. My suggestion is that you think of NSP development as an interplay between creative individuals and the general needs of the time. Please keep working on this.

Two …. posts which summarise some of the area I’m fascinated by. I’ve not (yet) got hold of a copy of ‘The Division Violin’, but I’ve read ‘The Division Viol’ by Christopher Simpson, originally published in about 1660. Some of the examples of divisions could have come straight from our ‘old’ tunes, and particularly interesting are his examples of gracing movements, which are identical to some of those we use today.
It seems to me that if these tunes were being played, and notated by around 1700, they must be older than that, by at least 50 years, and probably more. I have just been corresponding with a Dr Colin Roth (no, that’s not a typing error – he’s at Sheffield Univ.) about a talk he recently gave to the Piobhaireachd Society on the influence of division playing on pipers in general. I haven’t yet seen a transcript, but he described the use of ground and variations as being common in European music, on many instruments, in the C16. His theory is that as court music became more polyphonic from around 1600, pipers (of various types) were forced to continue and develop the melodic variation tradition. The Scottish variety became piobhaireachd, other pipes kept the tunes as variation sets etc etc. As something approximating to orchestral music developed, pipers dropped out of court music.

I’m not sure I agree with the dates Chris Bayer is quoting – 1600 seems early for the violin in this country, and I have been told that divisions were a pastime of the C16 and C17 – but at this stage I would be hard pressed to find references to support myself.
I agree with Ian that we have to consider the NSP, UP, and Pastoral pipes as parallel developments – from a common Border-type ancestor?? Actually I think there would have been several basically similar designs, probably slightly, but not exclusively region specific – isn’t this the situation in France?
I think the question of smaller/quieter pipes filling a void left by the banning of GHB hasn’t been researched yet – I may be wrong. I am just reading a book about the Northumbrian Jacobites (many of the big landowners came into this category) and it appears that there was a piper (James Robson) out in the ’15 – from the Widdrington estates. Were Border pipes proscribed as well? Did this cause or aid the development of the (quieter) parallel chanters?
I noted in Thomas Bewick’s memoirs, he talked of a walking tour in Scotland during the proscription era, yet he talks of staying with people who happily played GHB for him. Has proscription been over emphasised?

The ‘huge changes’ and vast increase in interest in Scottish music in the 18thC certainly overflowed into Northumberland, and was one of the factors that sparked the idea of adding keys to nsp. I’m not sure what Dick means by ‘late’ but as I am sure he already knows, fiddle tunes mixed with pipe tunes are a feature of several of the late C18 MSS (Vickers, Peacock to name but two). Hardly a ‘bypass’ – they ultimately caused the transformation to the instrument we have today
I wonder if the ‘musical conservatism’ was actually a product of, and a hangover from, the fact that bagpipes continued a melodic tradition abandoned by ‘court’ musicians when orchestral polyphonic music broke out from the restrictions on harmony, placed there by the ‘old religion’. And if anyone wants to get in a complete tangle, does the ‘musical conservatism’ of Northumbrians postulated by Dick relate in any way to the fact that their landowners were largely Catholic by religion, even in the C17 and early C18?

Date: Mon, 25 May 1998
From: Dick Hensold <dick@uswest.net>
You guys missed your cue. You were supposed to jump on me with both feet at that comment about musical conservatism
I meant late C18, since the handful of tunes in Peacock which are *not* old style variation sets are mostly Scottish tunes in the late C18 style or new settings for the four-keyed chanter. I would also point out that the new influence in Peacock manifests itself in newer tunes and tune-types, and that the older tunes in Peacock are not "modernized", but mostly left intact. But my point was that the stopping of the chanter (which was Ian's original topic of discussion) occurred *before* this late burst of stylistic infiltration and technological development. The chanter was stopped either shortly before (just prior to the 1770's, as evidenced by the EB entry) or much earlier, as is suggested by the number of bits of softer evidence discussed earlier.

… the question that Barry put to me at my talk in Morpeth in '96: "Why should we assume that what was going on in the classical music world had any effect on the folk music world?" Good question, and the next one is, "If there is an obvious relationship, in what direction does the influence flow

In going through all the C17 division stuff for my talk last year, I think I found the answers to both questions. I looked at a bunch of different sources for stylistic correlates to the tunes in the Dixon MS, and the Division Violin had the largest number and the closest correlates. I found that there were two different types of division, or rather two different division techniques, one of which seemed to be more "classical", and the other more "folk". The "classical" technique derived the division very methodically from the harmonies of the ground bass, and was careful not to upset the traditional part-writing rules. These pieces also had a greater degree of rhythmic variety and seemed to show a broader stylistic influence.
I found Dixon-type figurations in these pieces, but not very many, and the variety of other figuration was considerable. The "folk" divisions resembled Dixon tunes very closely, and were characterized by many stock figurations, which were added in a repetitive fashion. The harmony of the stock figurations was often at odds with the ground bass, which had clearly been added later. The speed of the divisions in the folk tunes varied little, as if a dance rhythm were being preserved.
Anyway, it seemed apparent that classical divisions and folk divisions were distinct in the 1680's, the folk divisions appearing in the historical record only because there happened to be a fad for folk music in classical circles in the late C17. (The famous composers were, after all, ripping off folk tunes right and left at that time.) Since the folk style changed much more slowly than the classical, and since the folk style shows so little classical harmonic influence (please remember I'm talking late C17 and Dixon, *not* late C18) it argues that folk music had a greater influence on classical than classical music had on folk.

I found Dick Hensold's comparison of 17th century folk and classical divisions very interesting. I think you've got something here. However, … your conclusion…seems contradictory. If the folk style changed more slowly, than how can it be the source for movement away from the methodical Division form--you just got done saying that the "folk" style of divisions was less methodical--ie freer-- than the "classical" form of divisions?

Change your terms to avoid this contradiction. The idea that the loosening up of divisions came from outside court circles is very worth consideration. However, the terminology of "folk" and "classical" is too laden and restrictive. And they ignore the role of the middle class.
The source for change may have lain in the middle class. Note that the 17^th century was a period of growing general interest in peasant dance—the nascent contra dance movement in all its forms and with all its nascent romanticism. Contra Dance and related interests perhaps brought together the melodic emphasis of rural music with the technological innovations of the day. Hence, the possible German or other continental influence in the technology of the closed end.
Contra dance is only a suggestion and probably too narrow a definition of the times. The question remains--what was this music used for? Was the NSP played in court to praise the noble? Was it played for ritual harvest dances? Or was it played for middle class entertainment--entertainment modelled on but no identical to the aristocracy's growing interest in recreation? What was the nature of that entertainment? What did the non-musicians do? What was the model or the social patterns for these social events? Those models or patterns or connections should provide a link to the introduction of the closed end to the NSP.

Anyway, documenting the two division styles in the manuscripts would be worthwhile. The 17th century influence of non-harmonic—single note--instruments on Divisions, leading from the methodical form to a more melodic variation form is a very good idea.

Date: Mon, 25 May 1998
From: Barry Say <Barry.Say@nspipes.demon.co.uk>
My understanding of the local conditions in Northumberland would make artistic advances more likely in C17 than C16. There are apparently publications in local museums which suggested that the reivers recited poems and played smallpipes between raids and trods.
This seems very likely - not.
I think it is far more likely that they came from continental Europe than that they survived from Roman times.

There were a number of "three voice" pipes that were developed during the late Renaissance and early Baroque periods with a geographical spread from the Flemish regions of modern day Belgium right on South to the Languedoc region of Southern France. Most of these pipes took on the unique arrangement of a chanter and parellel tenor drone in a common stock while retaining the Medieval period shoulder bass drone. In the case of the 'Lardy' cornemuse of the Bass Auvergne area and later the 'two voiced' cabrettes d'Auvergne, the two pipes (drone-chanter) shared a common air supply using the "piggy-back" arrangement of stocks like the musette de cour (court musette). This arrangement might have been an attempt to emulate the design of the popular aristocratic instrument by the peasant society, or vice-versa. This drone-chanter development could have taken place much earlier as evidenced by the Renaissance decorative style of the 'chabra' and chabrettes of Limousin. More reseach (especially on my part) is required to find this out.

Has proscription been over emphasised?
Could be, with regard to pipe development in the Border regions and Scottish Lowlands. I think that the development of smaller quieter pipes probably had very little to do with proscription, and was really an attempt to copy what was taking place on the Continent with the 'court' instruments

(incl. the musette). It seems that many of those instruments were being transformed during the Late Renaissance/Early Baroque Period. The wind instruments became quieter and less "buzzy", while the stringed ones developed more resonant and refined voices. I believe that the changes in the architecture of "public spaces" in aristocratic homes and palaces may have greatly influenced these refinements. No longer did one find the 'Peerage' using the rustic "great halls" of the Renaissance palaces. They were replaced by more intimate 'drawing rooms'. The instruments of the court needed to be adapted to these new conditions. Also, the increased desire to play wind and string instruments together meant that one instrument shouldn't really overpower another.

Bagpipes, once pretty much solo instruments of a rural peasant society, having adapted to these changes in the way music was being played, made their way into the homes and public (indoor) spaces of an increasingly urban merchant and working class society. I'm sure that the effects of these 'drawing room' developments, especially in the case of the NSPs, eventually increased their use in the countryside as well.

End of Part 2