Hello,
I’m wonder if anyone can recommend a good maker of C# chanters?
Thanks,
DavidG
C sharp chanters makers
Andreas Rogge: copy of Seamus Ennis Coyne set
Alain G. Froment: modelled on a set by Coyne circa 1840
Geoff Wooff: design from a set by J.Coyne Dublin 1856
Alan Ginsberg: copy of a Egan
Bruce C. Childress
Joe Kennedy
Ray Sloan
What about David Quinn does he make C sharp set also.
Would that be from before or after he altered…er, I mean “improved” the original?
kjp
Can someone direct me to posts on the Ennis chanter alterations?
t
Joe Kennedy is your man. He just made Harry Bradley a C# set. Are you still here Harry… what are your opinions on it so far?
Patrick.
Joe’s in Ireland at the moment. Don’t expect to hear back from him for a few weeks if you’re trying to get a hold of him.
djm
Great chanter and sound as bedrock drones. Joe sent me over some narrower and slightly tougher reeds some time ago which really opened the set up to my ear.
Joe’s over here at the moment with his own C sharp half set. It’s every bit as good as my own but set up considerably lighter to play.
Regards,
Harry.
Can someone direct me to posts on the Ennis chanter alterations
Tom,
I’m not sure if there are any previous posts on this topic but Andreas Rogge took a slice out the bore of the Coyne chanter.
From the time the Coyne set was in posession of the Ennis family there always was a problem with the bottom D gurgling.
But Rogge fixed it. He made an exact copy of the chanter, warts and all, same density of wood too.
Then he copied any reeds O’Flynn had and made a bunch of others with various designs. Andreas did the math and realised there was a section of the bore that was a hairs breath too wide. The amount was so small it could have been a result of shrinkage or settling of wood, after all the chanter was made about 150 years ago.
He re-reamed the copy and it fixed the problem. After much deliberation O’Flynn decided to go ahead with the same process on the Coyne chanter. The chanter sounds the same except theres no gurgle in the bottom D.
It may be a topic that could provoke a lot of debate, it was a controversial move but one thing is certain, the chances of hearing Liam O’Flynn play the Coyne set more often have increased one hundred fold.
O’Flynn has had problems with his low D in the Rowsome pipes over the years and you can imagine it can be a royal pain in the hole when you don’t know whats going to happen each time you go to play low D. Will it squeal, will it gurgle, etc. No matter who made a set of pipes, if you have to deal with that kind of uncertainty, its not fun. If your concert set can act up now and again you’d be less inclined to play a flat set with the same problems.
So now with the Coyne chanter singing just like new, I’d say we’ll hear quite a bit more of it.
Tommy
The following is one result of that unfortunate incident:
We the undersigned would like to go on record as follows:
The pipes made by the old masters such as Kenna, Colgan, Reid, Coyne, Egan, Harrington, Taylor, Rowsome etc. are an endangered and significant part of our heritage and must be preserved at all costs. They should never be altered in a way that cannot be easily reversed. Any work on them should be very carefully documented with before and after measurements, photographs and recorded sound. These records should then be copied to the NPU archive and the ITMA so that future generations may examine them and draw comparisons as knowledge and technology improve.
We believe that it is evident that we do not know all that the great makers knew and therefore all of their work, even if previously modified by others, must be preserved as it is. Only in this way will we ever be able to ascertain exactly how they were made and even adjusted in later times.
If anyone wishes to modify an old instrument, the proper course is to make a copy and do whatever he or she wish with it, leaving the original unchanged.
Pipes made by living makers should be returned to that maker, if correction is thought to be necessary and never adjusted by any other person.
We think this vital to the protection of our inheritance and the future development of the pipes.
Signed;
Ken McLeod
David Quinn
Wilbert Garvin
Craig Fischer
Bill Ochs
Kevin Popejoy
Bill Hanneman
John Hughes
Mark Walstrom
Bennedict Koehler
Jimmy O’Brien Moran
P.S. tommykleen, I left you a PM. k
edited to add the postscript
Here was the final mail on the topic dated Wed, 24 Jan 2001:
Dear List
Here is the final version of the STATEMENT and the names of people who agree
to its content and will, in future, abide by these guidelines until such
times as permanent guidelines are proposed and accepted by all of the bodies
involved with the promotion and nurturing of our favourite and very special
instrument.To: The UP List.
We the undersigned would like to go on record as follows:
Pipes made by old masters such as Kenna, Colgan, Reid, Coyne, Egan,
Harrington, Taylor, Rowsome etc. are an endangered and significant part of
our heritage, which must be preserved at all costs. Such pipes should never
be altered in any way that cannot be easily reversed. Any work that is
carried out on them should be meticulously documented with before and after
accurate measurements, photographs, reed recipes and recorded sound. These
records should then be copied to the NPU archive and the ITMA so that future
generations may examine them and draw comparisons as knowledge and
technology improve.We believe that we do not know all that the great makers knew and therefore
all of their work, even if previously modified by others, must be preserved
as it is. Only in this way will we ever be able to ascertain exactly how
their pipes were made and even adjusted in later times.If anyone deems it necessary to modify an old instrument, the proper course
is to make a copy and do with it whatever he or she wishes, leaving the
original unchanged.If correction is thought to be necessary on pipes made by living makers they
should be returned to that maker and never modified by anyone else.We think that these recommendations are vital to the protection of our
inheritance and future development of the pipes.Signed:
Patrick d’Arcy; Wally Charm; David Daye; Michael Dooley; Robert van Dyke;
Craig Fischer; Wilbert Garvin; Bill Hanneman; John Hughes; Benedict Koehler;
Kynch; Peter Laban; Ken McLeod; Pat Mitchell; Mick O’Brien; Jimmy O’Brien
Moran; Barry O’Neill; Bill Ochs; Kevin Popejoy; David Quinn; Andreas Rogge;
Mark Walstrom; Damien Woodings; Geoff WooffKen McLeod
Discussions on the ethics of altering old pipes aside, I’d like to thank those who have responded to my initial request. I’m a Concert D devotee and generally found flat sets somewhat not to my liking, except for a C# set I once heard. I would have to say that C# is the perfect pitch for UPs. Kind of eliminates the occasional harshness of concert D sets, yet also doesn’t leave me with the feeling in my gut that the whole set of pipes is about to implode as some flat sets seem to do.
Cheers,
DavidG
Note that I said SOME flat sets 
There are some magic sounding B, C and Bflat sets too just as there are some horrid sounding concert sets. But I’m sure I don’t really need to qualify that statement as we’re all mature adults here 
Cheers,
DavidG
Hi Patrick and Harry,
I just visited Joe Kennedy’s website. Aside from having trouble catching the links as they float up and down the screen , I noticed he doesn’t mention anything about C# sets. But I’m taking your professional word that he does make them and are worth considering.
Harry, do you remember what sort of prices he asks for C# chanters and sets?
Cheers,
DavidG
The website is just out of date. He’s been focusing on making pipes and getting his designs together… a better persuit of happiness for us all
Patrick.
There was a post here about a certain flutemaker modifying an old chanter. I was told he reamed out the bore of the chanter, and enlarged the fingerholes - shoving the drills into the back in the process. Why hork out a priceless antique in such a manner? “It wasn’t playing in A=440.” Natch.
These old pipes are destined for extinction.
Am I the only person who thinks that the “Conservation Manifesto” quoted above is the greatest load of sanctimonious twaddle ever written?
I am sympathetic to sentiment it presents and I am inclined to leave the old stuff well enough alone (yeah, like I would know what I was doing anyway…), but I am a little confused about the need to put these things down in writing, sign the form and present it in such a way that might (might, I say) infer retribution or ‘black-balling’ of those who are in violation of its code.
In principle, I like it. In practice, it seems like so much ado about something that the ‘signees’ wouldn’t do normally. Just a simple musing on my behalf. :roll:
I wonder if, as the value of aesthetics, tradition, skill etc., is more recognised, it would seem less likely that people getting their hands on a marvellous old set would get their ego out and dick up the instrument. But maybe not. shrug.
Regarding copies, are they a suitable replacement instrument for your original that needed a mere tweak or two?
(Talking copy not ‘based on’).
Alan
Other people on this forum have pointed out that the owner of an instrument can do with it, or have done to it, anything he likes. There’s no law, as yet, against buggering up old chanters because of ignorance and arrogance. While we are waiting for the One World Government to pass such a law (hopefully not with retroactive sanctions), some of the options left to us are shunning and tongue clicking. I sincerely hope they will work.
I know for sure and certain that not everyone on that list of signatories is innocent of offenses similar to the ones warned against in the petition. But we all agreed that the importance of learning from the past outweighs the convenience of “improving” old instruments. If by opening myself to the accusation of being party to sanctimonious twaddle I can prevent one headstrong experimenter from ruining an instrument that I might be able to learn something from, then I will twaddle like you’ve never seen twaddling.