Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998
From: Bill Telfer <telomsha@netvigator.com>
I would just mention that for those who enjoyed this thread, many aspects
of which were discussed at the LBPS 'Dixon' Collogue in Peebles last November,
(including a paper by Dick Hensold), the full 'Proceedings' of that Collogue
are to "be presented as a document in its own right." When? I dont know,
I'm only quoting from Common Stock of Dec 97.
I guess there can be endless speculation about the whys, whens and
wherefores of the music and influences in particular, and even more speculation
on the meanings of ancient manuscripts and drawings, but isn’t there quite
a direct line of enquiry on the What’s of the instrument readily available
to us that could perhaps give a clear impression of how it (pre-keyed chanter,
pre stopped end) was played and sounded?. I mean a systematic examination,
cataloguing, measurement and reeding of all the old instruments in museums
and collections by our current generation of expert pipemakers, who should
be commissioned for this purpose.
Here I am just echoing the call of Matt Seattle in that same issue
of Common Stock, but in his case he's advocating such research on the Lowland
pipes. Whereas Matt says this is the 'crucial thing' the LBPS should be
doing it seems to me a perfect area for a co-operative venture on all the
historical bellowws pipes on either side of the Border.
Maybe I'm wrong, maybe all the smallpipes have been reproduced, or maybe there aren’t any more, other than the so-called Montgomery smallpipe already copied by Julian Goodacre? Anybody able to draw up a provisional list of extant examples of pre-1800 Northumbrian/Lowland Scottish bellows pipes?
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 1998
From: Dick Hensold <dick@uswest.net>
Actually, this is a pretty fair description of the research project
that Julian Goodacre and I have designed. We're merely waiting for the
right opportunity do do it.
I've got a list right here. Let me list for you the museums that I
have registers from, and if any of you know of any museums that are not
on my list that have old smallpipes let me know, please.
Boosey & Hawkes Collection, Boston Mus. of Fine Arts, Metropolitan
Mus. Of Art (NY), Morpeth Chantry, A. Duncan Fraser Collection and the
Nat. Mus. Of Antiquities of Scotland, both at the Queen Street Museum,
the V&A Mus, Pitt Rivers Mus, Inverness, Smithsonian Institution, Piping
Center in Glasgow, Reid School of Music Instrument collection, Royal College
of Music, Horniman Mus, Stearns collection (MI, USA).
As you can see, I've been fairly thorough with the US and UK, and very poor elsewhere. Although I've contacted the National Mus in Dublin and I suppose I will soon have info from them. Given the associations with other early pipes, I should make sure I know what they have in the collections in countries like France, the Netherlands, Germany. Has anyone seen any smallpipes in the Gemente Museum, for example?
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 1998
From: Bill Telfer <telomsha@netvigator.com>
You mean the two of you are going to do this alone? All power to your
elbows. How many pipes do you think might be out there?
So there's no role for the LBPS or NPS in such a project?
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 1998
From: Dick Hensold <dick@uswest.net>
I'm not against having a complicated network of collaborators, but
somebody has to co-ordinate it. The scope of the project is currently not
precisely defined; so far, different people have approached us to do the
same thing with both lowland pipes and highland pipes. That would definitely
be too much, but if others were willing to work on other types of pipes,
we could certainly share documentary sources and have a great time arguing
with each other at collogues!
How many pipes? The count is complicated by the definition of what
is being counted, but so far I've found about 25-35 old smallpipe chanters.
I wouldn't say there was no role (for the LBPS or NPS), but we're not looking to small organizations to be primary funders. Actually, the LBPS gave us a good deal of help already by having me participate in the '97 collogue. While I was in Scotland, Julian and I had a great meeting at the Edinburgh University Reid School of Music collection with Hugh Cheape and Arnold Myers. Cases were opened, boxes brought up from the basement. We discussed dating by turning styles, methodology, early smallpipe typology, etc. I could talk a little about that if you're not already bored to tears with this thread.
From: Helen Cook <hcook@taranaki.ac.nz>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998
I don't remember if either have anything that would be of interest,
but were you aware of the bagpipe museums in Straconice, in the Czech Republic
and I think it is in Montlucon in France?
From: Rosspipes@aol.com
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998
I think that all this talk of examining "X" numbers of chanters is
largely a waste of time as you will be doing no more than looking at the
work of mainly amateurs.
They will be "one off " examples of work as a sideline to the bulk
of their activity and will most likely not have been properly tuned very
much in the way practice chanters are today. What useful information could
one expect to obtain from measuring up these instruments?
If these smallpipe chanters in museums were the products of such makers
as Hotteterre who was concerned in producing an instrument like the Musette
to play along with other instruments, then because of the quantity of chanters
he produced and the obvious quality of his work one could benefit from
studying his work.I am afraid I would have no such confidence in regard
to other makers.
If you have made a number of smallpipe chanters, as I have, of both
the open and closed end types then you get to know about bores, hole spacings,
hole diameters, and how to design the chanter to play in a certain pitch.
You also know about the effect of reeds on the chanter and the pressure
they should be played at. This makes the study of other chanters largely
academic and only useful in determining the pitch.
By all means go and measure up the chanters but apply the experience
of today’s pipemakers to them to arrive at a playable instrument.
From: "Douglas Ewart" <Doug-Ewart@email.msn.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998
Colin refers to an instrument maker called Hotteterre in his recent
contribution. Is this pronounced Hotair ? Surely it should be Cauldwind
to qualify for the discussion.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998
From: J M Say
> They will be "one off " examples of work
which is why they're in museums in the first place? Was it Barry who
last year postulated that it was the failed experiments which have survived
to be kept in museums?
> This makes the study of other chanters largely academic and only
useful in determining the pitch.
But might mean we end up with proper, detailed descriptions of the
Cocks collection - I was under the impression that had either not been
done, or at least was not publicly available. Look on it as a cataloguing
exercise, maybe?
Personally I am interested in determining a date range for the stopped end, if we can, because I think it affects the way we look at the older repertoire. I am also interested in whether there is likely to have been an open ended chanter (parallel) which was actually played much (and if so, in what key(s), and with which type of sevenths) Is it, for example. an accident that there are versions of tunes, with a high sharp seventh, but a flat bottom one, or this the result of a particular design of chanter? (I just noticed that the Vickers 'Hoop her and Gird her' c.1770 is like this, for instance)
I'm also interested in the origins and approximate dates of the older style tunes (particularly how some of them acquired their colourful titles and whether they are related to the music itself - some of them seem to be! J ). And what other instruments / combinations are likely to have played them.
But Colin's post is a timely warning not to get too bogged down in technicalities
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998
From: Dr John Gibbons <j.gibbons@ic.ac.uk>
Do you believe Vickers' accidentals? Though some Fs sharp, some natural,
can be convincing, some of the other key signatures are seriously weird.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998
From: J M Say
I tried playing that version as I described it, and it seemed to make
sense to me. Thats the way Matt's printed it - he could of course have
edited it to be like that - I didn’t check in the notes
And I *did* get my knuckles sort of rapped - apparently one of the
top F#'s also works as an F nat. J
I must admit to not having gone through V. in detail - only picked
out versions of tunes I thought I'd heard pipers play, on the 'Whats that,
I must try it' selection procedure.
Up till now I've only had access to Matt's edited version, but there
is a photocopy in the Museum, so maybe I'll get round to looking at that
sometime
The MS was apparently written out by a fiddler, so I suppose we have
to expect weird keys! J
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 1998
From: Dick Hensold <dick@uswest.net>
Colin Ross wrote:
>I think that all this talk of examining "X" numbers of chanters
is largely a waste of time as you will be doing no more than looking at
the work of mainly amateurs.
This is what makes musicology more of an art than a science. It's always
a judgement call to decide what to study. I think the advantage to locating
a larger number of chanters for investigation is that you can focus on
a larger number of good ones and not spend too much time on the rest. By
looking at a larger number you might be able to come up with a more accurate
view of the smallpipe typology of the period, but I'm not sure how much
confidence I would have in making a conclusion like that.
I don't expect any of them to play perfectly in tune. As I understand,
copying instruments exactly from old ones is not done much in the early
instrument making business anymore, but they still measure the old ones
to learn from them.
I don't think we ever thought that we were studying all these chanters
because we were looking for the perfect original to copy. Although it *would*
be a serendipitous by-product. As I said, I don't expect perfect tuning;
I'm mainly looking for trends, similarities, and differences. We will be
checking for evidence of stopped bores (understanding that it would be
impossible to draw firm conclusions either way), we will be looking for
old chanter reeds (did you know that Julian found one already, in an instrument
in NY?), and whatever appropriate questions we can think of before we actually
start.
From:Colin Ross
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 1998
I suppose I have done as much research as I need to, and only want to
get on with making and playing the pipes. My own research in experimenting
with reeds, bores, hole positions, etc., in relation to the type of music
I want to play keeps me pretty busy, and leaves no time to go off and examine
other pipes of dubious provenance.
I did check out the Lissieux musette chanter, and found it played in
tune as it was supposed to according to the various fingering charts, which
I would assume would be the case with any chanters made by "Hot Air".,
In this world there are those that do and those that theorise on what can
be done, with some of us doing a bit of both. In piping I think that the
practice of making and playing need to go hand in hand to verify research,
and not the other way round, which is why I will always be wary of any
theoretician telling me that I should be doing anything that goes against
what I have found out in practice works.
That is one of the things I have against the so called Montgomery set.
The bore of the chanter is so narrow that it has to be blown at too high
a pressure to get it to work.
Small pipe players tend to play at low pressure rather than high in
my experience, so it is going in the face of general practice to go the
opposite way. For the record the average playing pressure is about 15"
water gauge, with players like Adrian and Pauline playing at around 12"
water gauge. This is the practicality of it.
By all means keep on with the research - there are still things we
need to know about the past, especially if it is to shed some light on
old music and instruments, but let us not be persuaded to do things that
go against our understanding of our instrument and its music.
End of history part 5