While browsng some recent topics, I saw several assertions that tonehole spacing was an important consideration in “flat versus D” chanters, and that flat chanters as a rule had larger tonehole spreads.
But this isn’t always true - and it doesn’t match my experience. Anyone who is concerned about tonehole spacing when ordering a chanter should ask the maker for right-hand tonehole spacing, and in particular the spread between the second and third right-hand toneholes (i.e between "F# " and the “top E” hole). The E-F spread seems to be the usual limiting factor, as it’s usually the widest spread on the ‘bottom hand’ and also happens to be a more awkward spread for the hand than the spread between first-and-second or third-and-fourth fingers.
To make my point, I give some measuments for historic chanter toneholes - the total “bottom hand spread” , and the spread between F# and E1. I have chosen one chanter from each maker for each pitch - other chanters from the same maker may have larger or smaller gaps, but I did not pick-and-choose, I picked the first example of each maker and pitch which I had to hand. I am not at liberty to publish all the tonehole data but I think the data below doesn’t disclose any secrets, as the measurements are relative:
For comparison, the approximate spacing for a DDaye ‘Penny Chanter’:
Daye/D (A440) 92.5 31
One interesting thing about this is the fact that there is only a very small difference between the Coyne C#, C, and B - in fact the Coyne C that I measured has a smaller span than the Coyne C#. The Coynes (or at least one Coyne) were clever enough to achieve the necessary tuning adjustments in the bore. So if a modern maker is making faithful copies of historic chanters, it’s not necessary for the spread to increase markedly as the pitch drops. In fact, a modern maker who stretched a classic Rowsome design to bring it down to A-440 might easily end up with a bottom hand stretch larger than even the Coyne B!
By the same logic, it may be possible to produce a chanter with even closer tonehole spacing, if someone requires it. I have a NBD that I made for a student with very small hands with RH spread of 88 mm and F#-E1 of 29.5 mm. So far, so good…
When you are measuring tone hole spacing, are you measuring from the centre of the tone hole? If not, you would have to account for different sizes of the tone holes themselves from one chanter to the next.
There are several ways to modify the tone hole spacing, including angling the chimney of the tone hole. My understanding is that many of these changes can have significant effects on the tone of the individual notes, not just the tuning. The way one maker does something compared to another may have more to do with what the individual maker was trying to achive for that note.
Also, I am a bit concerned about slavishly copying old sets just because they are old. The older the set, the more likely the wood has moved from its original shape through aging. It is a myth that old-time makers had some mystical understanding that no one today can reproduce, or that they were capable of achieving timbres that are unattainable by modern makers. That being said, there are certainly some fine sounding older sets still around.
There are several ways to modify the tone hole spacing, including angling the chimney of the tone hole.
Not what I am referring to here. The toneholes in question are not appreciably angled. On the narrow bore chanters they are also very similar to one another in size. As for the notion that ‘age’ has caused them to migrate around the bore…
My understanding is that many of these changes can have significant effects on the tone of the individual notes, not just the tuning.
Well, I for one rather like the tone of the old Coynes
I heard Seamus Rochain briefly last week and it struck me that even while the chanter has had a toncillectomy there’s something in the overall sound of these sets hat you won’t be likely to find in today’s instruments (some come close though, in fairness)
I think it’s not a matter of taking an old chanter and play it in standard finerings liek you’ve been taught and keep the chanter glued to your knee that will bring out the difference, it’s opening your ear and mind to the possibilities hidden in in the chanter that will blow your mind and show you the difference in the approaches between older makers and the modern ones.
IN relation to the Coynes Sean Donnelly long a go made the point to me that they were also making flutes and oboes in Dublin, at the time as he said the second city in the empire, the second most important city in the world. As he put it ‘these men were no fools’.
Flutes, I knew, but I didn’t know about oboes - that’s very interesting (given the relatively sophisticated state of bore tuning for baroque oboes of the time). Are you aware of any extant examples of Coyne oboes?
Some years back I played a couple of Rogge (contemporary maker) flat chanters. The C# I played had even less of a stretch than his D chanters at that time. His B chanter was also much less of a stretch than all the other B chanter’s I had handled.
Sean did mention at least one example, I think this was mentioned in one of his earlier articles as well. I can’t recall where it is, possibly the national museum but as I said I am not sure (and I surely hope my memory didn’t let me down and made me confuse Coyne with Kenna).
The point is ofcourse these men were highly skilled makers who knew what they were doing and had complex ways to alter the bores of their instruments in order to achieve what they were looking for.
Not quite (though the bore can affect overall pitch). Chanters do tend to get longer as the pitch drops and vice-versa.
The principle is more that the bore can be modified to alter the ideal placement of the toneholes. So the relative tonehole placement can be held more-or-less constant even though the chanter itself gets longer.
Let’s say for example that you wanted to keep the relative finger spacing on your hands about the same for chanters of several pitches - maybe because of comfort, or maybe just to make switching back-and-forth easier. Thus the relative spacing between the holes on the right hand needs to stay about the same, and the spacing on the left hand should be about the same, but you can change the spacing between the hands, for instance between the ‘A’ tonehole and ‘G’ tonehole, for different pitches. Small difference in the bores (and tonehole size) can substitute for stretching the tonehole spacings within each hand.
Most (all?) modern makers tune their chanters by modifying the toneholes - either moving them around, undercutting them, drilling them at angles, or making them bigger/smaller. The evidence from old chanters (and other instruments, like oboes and recorders - and acoustic theory) shows that tuning can also be accomplished/affected by small, localized modifications to the chanter bore. The details of exactly how this was done by past pipemakers are lost, unfortunately. I am told that some literature (in German and Czech) survives regarding how this was done for recorders and oboes, but AFAIK none has been translated into English.
I can certainly vouch for the difference in distance between the E and F# holes. On my B chanter it feels like I am splitting my hand in a V, like making the Vulcan “peace” sign.
B chanter
diameter lengthwise of E hole - 4.5 mm
diameter lengthwise of F# hole - 6 mm
distance on centre E to F# - 35 mm
D chanter
diameter lengthwise of E hole - 5 mm
diameter lengthwiseof F# hole - 9.5 mm
distance on centre E to F# - 24 mm
P Brown D = 29.21 mm
Angus Narrow Bore D = 31.75 mm
Angus Bb = 35.56 mm
Uniform hole spacing and size were the norm on baroque flutes, when English virtuoso Charles Nicholson popularized the flute with larger holes and attendant increase in tonal power this uniformity was lost. Old Rudall Rose flutes sometimes look a bit like Rowsome’s chanters - a tiny E placed much lower than you’d expect. One of Theobald Boehm’s concerns with his designs was to restore this uniformity of hole size. Of course we now value this quality in wooden flutes. (tonal unequality from note to note - the character each note has, instead of the flat dynamic of the silver flute)
The same process obtained with Irish pipes, the Taylors often had to make the E smaller and more remote than before to keep it in tune. Rowsome’s Es are often even more dinky than the usual Taylor.
I heard Geoff Wooff talking on a tape about one of the possible factors in the tone of old pipes - all the filth that had accrued in the bores from hundreds of years of smoke from stoves, Peterson pipes, etc. Indeed I am breaking in a great maple reed for my Bb bass drone, that has heaps of stray fibres in its bore. Perhaps if I’d cleaned all that out it wouldn’t sound as buzzy as it does - and it sounds buzzier than any other reed I’ve put in there, as well as playing steady as a rock.
Pat Sky’s Kenna B chanter was about the dirtiest sounding stick I’ve ever heard, and I like dirt. A great tone, very full of character. Part of the great sound Ennis and Reck got was, I’m now convinced, simply from “slop” - vibrato here, little doubled grace there, up with the chanter and down again there. An always varying sound. I’ve heard other pipers playing great sets - antique or newer versions of the same - and just not getting much of that tone. If they’re playing Noisy Pitch stuff it’s even more of a lost cause.
I hear the same thing with old flute players puffing and throating on notes, almost at random, and such a sound they’d have compared to just pushing out a sine wave.
Also regarding the old flute makers not being fools, they did persist with bad designs sometimes - Terry McGee outlines some of their quirks on his website, the flat bottom D for instance, which they stuck with for ages for some reason. I’ve played a Rudall that had that in spades, on a tune like the Plains of Boyle it was really sour. Or the metal lined headjoint, which would often crack no matter how well seasoned the wood or the quality of work.
The overall RH spread is longer by 4mm than the Coyne B that Bill mentioned in the first post, but E to F# is the same, so maybe Froment copied another Coyne?
