I just thought to post some (crazy?) ideas I’ve come up with which could possibly improve the current UP chanter design or at least bring more variation to the instument. I’d like to find out if anyone has ever tried these modifications before and what do people think about them.
The first idea would be an additional tone chamber on top of the reed cap/chanter top. I got the idea when I noticed that switching to a longer chanter top made my reed easier to play, possibly due to an increase in the amount of air that presses the reed to sound. I was wondering what would happen if one inserted a larger diameter tube or a ball or whatever hollow shape on top of the chanter, and I tried this by cutting a hole into an empty beer can, removed the plug on top of my reed cap and secured the beer can in place with blu-tac. This in turn made the beer can resonate when the reed was played and it greatly enhanced the volume of the chanter as well as made the tone crisper. This way I could make an easy blowing silent reed into an easier playing loud one with additional high frequency crispness. It looks stupid but makes a noticable change to tone and volume and the octaves sound more blended. My idea is that there could be different sizes of tone chambers made of different materials with different wall thicknesses that could just be plugged in on top of the chanter for different sounds and volume levels, much in the same way electric guitar players use effects pedals.
The second idea is about tuning. I haven’t tried this myself but I cannot see a reason why pipemakers couldn’t asseble sliding metal sheets with holes in them on top of of the ordinary (scalloped) holes in the wood. Instead of using the traditional method of taping the notes or using a tuning screw one could slide these metal sheets up or down along the chanter to tune individual notes. The range of pitch that is possible to get from each tone hole would also become wider, and maybe one could even “permanently” tune the chanter in semi tones to other scales without the need of keys or half fingering of notes. The greatest improvement to the traditional taping method would be that notes could be also tuned up and not only down.
Edit:
3rd idea I forgot to include at first: Another sliding switch under the bottom hand’s thumb on the back of the chanter, which would be connected to the reed seat to move it up and down the chanter in a telescope fashion. One could adjust the reed height in the seat without taking the chanter top off and produce slides from note to note that aren’t possible with the current design. The most useful function of this switch would be to lower the chanter range beyond the lowest notes it can normally produce, introducing a low C# and maybe even C to a D chanter. A spring could be used to return the reed back to the original height.
I’d like to know if anyone has tried these modifications before and what were the results?
OK
havin a bit o trouble wrappin my brain around this…
presumably:
If the can was empty, wouldnt it already have a hole in it;
that (maybe) the beer (or original contents of the can) was firstly consumed out of?
so,
my question is;
did you first SEAL UP the drinking hole ? ; (& how did you do that, really? specially if it was one of these pull-tabs that stay attached, not the old fashioned kind that one could make lengthy chains, jewlery, toys, etc out of, if so inclined?)
and THEN cut yet another, second hole in the can,
thus making it an ersatz hemholtz-ish resonator?
OR,
didja just ,make ONE hole in the bottom of the can, drain the beer into a nice glass,( or maybe a stein or something,) then attach it to the chantercap?
Basicly I just enlarged the already existing hole to be big enough for the open end of the chanter top to fit inside and then sealed the two together with blu-tac. A really crude way of doing it but it was enough to test the idea Of course the resonance would be better with an exact fit without the blu-tac. And yes - the beer was already consumed.
welcome to board …thougth also about bimetal/ heat moisture effected bridle what keeps lips position always its proper place…also stopvalve prototype with few special shape magnets(no more wires or springs)..
doublestroke inflated bellows…
Some nice ideas have been mentioned and I wouldn’t want to rubbish them. But someone has to try and implement them:- that’s the difficult bit and that’s always the difference between dreams and wonderful (and sometimes diabolical) inventions.
Exactly. If I was a pipemaker I would try out these ideas after I’d mastered the traditional chanter design, but I’m not. However, I do have a wish to apprentice some pipe maker in Ireland after next year, as I’ll have to fulfil the university’s wish to live in an English speaking country for some time. Anyways, no musical instrument should be regarded as sacred because after all it’s only the instrument through which you are supposed to express your musical ideas.
welll…anykinda experiment can create something .. it is always sensible?,perhaps not, but can lead u totally different kind of world of thinking ..imagines product can sometimes become real thing…think about mobilephones
I think your basic premise is flawed. You think that improving the chanter design is necessary to improve tone and tuning. However, assuming the chanter is properly made, if the reed is properly fitted to this chanter, tone and tuning will not need adjustment.
I agree with you partly, but I wouldn’t see it in such a black & white way. It all depends on what you want to do. If you need more volume to cut through in a situation where it otherwise wouldn’t be enough, this beer can prototype can give that to any reed. With further developed, it might even become popular to use such “plug-ins” for different situations or just for fun.
And about tuning: one has to tune the tone holes with tape throughout the year in any case, at least if the climate changes are as severe as they are for example here where I live. A good chanter and reed combination is the starting point, of course! Still I wouldn’t say my basic premise flawed when I’m only looking to do more things that can be done with the current design. I wouldn’t mind having an extra bottom note either. I’m sure it can be done, it only needs doing.
Respectfully, I think a new learner should focus on learning the pipes - as they exist - first. They are a subtle and demanding instrument. Only after years of experience will you have the understanding to evaluate new ideas.
Thank you Bill. I respect your experience and yours skills (Mikko’s pipes are great) and I know that you are right. However, as I don’t have access to proper tools to learn and experiment building a chanter myself I might as well voice my ideas in public and ask if anyone who has seen the effort to educate him/herself in making the pipes has tried these things before. I personally believe anything is possible if it’s only done properly and if there is enough will to see it through. I apologise if any of my postings have appeared to be too bold or naive, I am only curious.
It’s good to be curious, and good to keep asking questions! (of yourself and others, too). I just would urge people to keep it in context. Every now and then (I mean of course all the time) someone comes to this instrument as a newbie but in a rush of enthusiasm tries to re-invent everything. The resulting talk almost always turns out to be unhelpful noise.
On the other hand, sometimes experienced people get the idea that the way that works for them is the only correct way - which is equally bad!
“Beginner’s mind” is a good state to be in; thinking you know more than you actually do - which happens to newcomers as well as old-timers - is I think the opposite of beginner’s mind.
Thanks for your answer, Bill. I would by no means try to change everything, just add some new possibilities to the existing design. I also wouldn’t regard myself as a complete newbie to the pipes anymore, the first seven years on the chanter are already behind even though I suffered from a bad reed for a long time. I’ve been studying and making reeds myself for some time now and sometimes a good one comes. I believe the current reed in M’s bass regulator is one that I made. In my teens I made a whistle with a wooden mouthpiece and plastic body, it had many faults and it’s not the same thing as making a chanter, but anyways. What I’m saying is I acknowledge I’ve got lots to learn but still I can’t see my ideas as being utterfly unhelpful noise. Maybe they are that and if it so I wouldn’t mind someone proving that.
Since the opening of this thread I came up with a simpler way to add an extra note below the low D (or the usual bottom note on any chanter). A lower hand thumb operated sliding metal tube with a spring (or a strong magnet and a piece of iron, why not?) to pull it back up. It really can’t be impossible to build such a simple mechanism and I’m sure it would work. One extra note and no modifications to the bore or tone holes, just a longer than usual metal tube to the bottom which could be moved with the thumb. What do you think?
Having played the Uilleann pipes for around 14 years I have always found them to be very limiting musically, I see nothing wrong with suggestions for improvements/modifications to the existing design (which is extremely primitive). Uilleann pipe makers have us by the balls and these kind of suggestions just make them uneasy!
Of course the resonance would be better with an exact fit without the blu-tac. And yes - the beer was already consumed.
