I own concert chanter, powerful, loud and bright sound, still very rich and sweet and very good in tune. What I am thinking now is to get also one super sounding flat chanter.
I am totaly isolated from other pipers and very busy, so I don’t have chance to travel to be able to listen or try different flat chanters in live, from different makers, which I know would be the best. What I would like to have is flat chanter (I don’t care which pitch), but I would like it to be completly different in characteristics and feel than concert chanters.
The words which came in my mind to describe it are: HUGE VERY COMPLEX CHARACHTER & EXTREMLY EXTREMLY EXPRESSIVE
I have few makers in my mind (I know they have long lists): Joe Kennedy C or C# as I think he prefers C# more then B’s, Bill Hanemann Kenna B, Hunter B …
I don’t care which wood, metal, how it looks, not how loud it will be or hard to learn, not hole spacing - but just to find out which bore design (Coyne, Egan, Kenna, Harrington) and which maker to choose, to get Extremly expressive complex flat sound …
First of all, stop thinking in terms of ‘Kenna, Coyne, Harrington’. You will only get those when they have actually made it. Even Geoff Wooff’s C chanters, while they come as close as you will get them, are not quite the same as his Harrington.
Look at makers and take them on their own merits.
Flexibility and tone colour doesn’t come chiefly from the bore but depends on how the holes are voiced by the way.
And a chanter will only give you what you draw from it yourself. Listen for example to to Ennis playing and then to Liam Flynn playing the same Coyne set. Then try determine how much of the piper and how much of the pipes you are hearing.
Ditto what Mr. G said, and I’d like to add that I don’t think you’re correct about Joe Kennedy. He’s made more B instruments than C#. I prefer his B chanter, although I have a C as well and it’s great, too. I would start listening like made to pipers you like and try to figure out what pitch you want, first. Then start figuring out who will make something that will let you sound like that.
OK. 1. Mybe I wasn’t clear enought. From what I heard until now, I do somehow prefer B pitch. When I said about Joe Kennedy for his preference for C#'s is becouse I read it somewhere in this forum that he prefer’s the pitch of C# more then B, but I might be wrong. When I read that, I was thinking (if such a great maker prefer C# more then B, then mybe his C# are something very special in terms of rich sound, since most makers and players of Flat pitch do prefer B’s).
2.I do understand that modern makers while doing copies of old chanters, will still produce something which will not be totaly same. But again I read somewhere that Joe Kennedy prefers Coyne bore more then Harrington for his B’s - I forgot why – I think becouse chanters are mote tonefull, again I am mybe wrong.
From listening CD’s and on Internet & You tube you can’t realy get precise feel what are the differences realy from maker to maker. First of all recordings are not quality enought, secondly there is not a lot of recordings and third most of players play fast music (jigs and reels), so it is harder to determinate delicate naunces, colors, depth, warmth ect. which makes quality and expressive sound. It would be much easier while listening HD recordings of Slow airs.
If makers (best ones) would make for example recording of rich slow air playing, using C#, C, B and Bb chanter and every time using same microphone, then it would make much easier to decide, but I gues they don’t have time and also probably they think it is only way to try pipes in live.
From what can be heard on Internet, I do know that for example I prefer very much Ronan Browne’s B chanter sound; especialy from Vimeo recording in HD - Irish Music Weddings. But who can make chanter like this & again this sound is probably magic from Ronan Browne’s fingers moustly, that particular reed and good microphone/amplification/recording. And If he would have Woof B he would probably sound very similar and as great as with his Harrington…
Also I know for example that I prefer Hunter B sound more then Woof, since sound looks more complex, but that’s just recordings, which are mybe nonrealistic since in every of them different microfone is used ect. Ect. Ect. Ect…so it’s hard to decide… THANKS
I don’t think Joe prefers the C#, but I could be wrong. I’ll ask him this weekend.
Joe is using Coyne measurements for his B and C chanters for sure, and possibly for the C# as well. I think it has something to do with the completeness of the measurements, but definitely the sound as well. I mean, better to make a good copy of an historic instrument than to make a copy of a copy… But still, ultimately you’ll get something good from a lot of makers. I think for instance that Joe Kennedy and Bill Haneman might be using measurements from the same Coyne B set.
I agree somewhat about the CDs and internet, which is why you should go and hear them in person! As much as you can anyway. I think you should also be hearing lots of tone and nuance in fast tunes, and you’ll also likely hear how well a chanter speaks better that way.
Your last bit is a little contradictory, since as far as I know Hunter uses Coyne measurements for his Bs and Ronan is most likely playing his Harrington B chanter on those recordings – more similar to Geoff Woofe’s pipes I’d think! Likely what you should do is get over to the Willie Clancy week or some other festival with lots of pipers and ask them to hear and try their pipes (if you can!) Or go with a local maker and luck out. Another thing you could do is find out what your favourite piper plays. Or what he’d get if he didn’t have the antique set…
I would say that the tone of a chanter depends as much on the reed as on the design of the chanter itself. As anyone who has tried making their own reed knows, variables like the quality of the cane and the way the reed is made can produce hugely different sounds from the same stick.
Another thing you could do is find out what your favourite piper plays. Or what he’d get if he didn’t have the antique set…
I don’t think my favorite players like John Mcsherry, Finbar Furey ect. are very much interested for flat chanters, althought Liam O’Flynn played flat pipes few times and Ronan Browne prefers them.
Then I guess I don’t really see the point. I have a B set because of Tommy Reck. That sound is in my head and I want to be able to reproduce it. If your favourite pipers all play concert pitch, then I would have thought you’d want to have that sound as well…
Eric, I sent you a PM with the name of a pipe maker who has a B set available. I am unwilling to send pipemakers names to the forum, as that will quickly degrade into why one maker is better (or worse) than another. There’s no reason to go there!!
Plus, I also believe that the player has more control over the expressive qualities, as has been stated already in the forum. My example is a Tionol I went to years ago, where a player thought that their chanter was not playable and gave it to Mick O’Brien to try. He made that “unplayable” chanter sing! Good Luck finding the set you want.
Plus, I also believe that the player has more control over the expressive qualitie
There’s the caveat though that the chanter will have to allow you certain things. I know chanters by very well known makers (yes, let’s not go there in any more detail) that have notes that won’t shift their sound no matter what you do.
My favs are all the chanters that do (within expected “normal uilleann parameters”) what they are supposed to do, via players that have wonderful music in themselves. The ones I don’t like are all the rest!
‘What they are supposed to do’ can be subject to widely varying parameters. So it really means nothing.
I would hope standards pipemaking have moved slightly beyond the stage they were at during the seventies and early eighties. When anything that sort of worked was considered great.
I have attempted to contribute positively to this list for now for over 1000 posts, (not to mention to the UP community at large through the Piper’s Review for over a decade now). I know many good people who either don’t contribute, or have dumped this list altogether because of arrogant (amongst other kinds of) posts. I’m getting the impression that you have some sort of axe to grind with me personally. If you do, you can PM me, if not do all of us a favour, and quit with the cut and pasting pieces of sentences, just so you can paint an incomplete picture w/your broad stroke.
Just for the f*ck of it; Let me post this for you again “… (within expected "normal uilleann parameters).”
I don’t know what you’re on about, I have no axes to grind with you but do think throwing around perceived credentials is plain silly.
It seems obvious to me that ‘what pipes are supposed to do’ means as many things as there are pipers and pipemakers. What I think of what a set of pipes is supposed to do is likely to be very different from what the next man may think about the subject. Unless you will settle for the base requirement of playing an in tune scale (and even that can be subject to discussion).
Pipemakers obviously have widely varying notions of ‘what pipes are supposed to do’ and how they are ‘supposed’ to work. And so do pipers and people who listen to pipes.
If you think that’s an arrogant statement, that’s entirely your problem. Not mine.
I think it’s pretty well understood that different makers have different ideas about what a chanter should do. I didn’t think Mr. Gumby’s post was at all out of line. It’s a well known fact, I think!
Hard E and off the knee (pinky down) E. That’s an interesting one. There’s a while school of pipemaking that doesn’t allow for that and while I don’t think that makes the chanters from those pipemakers poor chanters, I do think it’s quite limiting having to go without. And both Es would fall within my ‘normal’ expectations, FWIW.
That reminds me of a reedmaker who, especially during the seventies and eighties, was very active helping people out (and he never quoted his achievements to anyone or took any financial reward for his efforts) who had set up his Rowsome chanter (which formerly belonged to Liam Walsh, the set was stamped by Leo but was obviously Willie, as an interesting aside). He told me he had it nearly pefect but his E of the knee would make that strange loud sound, like the bottom D. And that was the last thing he needed to solve, get that out of the way, before the chanter was going great.
I only smiled and suggested the sound could be useful.
‘Normal’ parameters? Or not?
Any amount of examples possible ofcourse. Do you think playing with your chanter glued to your knee in standard fingering is the ‘normal’ range? I have musically grown up listening to Ennis and expect a flexible chanter that will do many things, on or off the knee. Is that a ‘normal’ expectation? Why are many chanters by wellknown makers so limited in that respect then? Are they within ‘normal’ expectations?
In my experience, there seems to be a consensus amongst (the best of todays) pipemakers, and reedmakers as to generally what the acceptable pitch/performance boundaries are. The paradox being that these generalities operate within boundaries that have narrow parameters, when widening the proverbial “shot.” After having reeded at least 15 makers instruments, it’s amazing how similar they really are. Some work well, some not as well, some have this sharp, others went for the sacrifice of that, in exchange for more this.
Lucky for us there are some really brilliant makers on the forefront, along w/the elders, who are making their incredible instruments, playing well within even the tightest “tolerances” of pitch, tone and performance.
Doesn’t change my point of view about ‘normal’ performance and what that means in this context though. But I see you don’t care to go into detail and that’s fine. We’ll leave it at that then.
Those are all v. good questions, to my mind! Yes, I feel that is w/in “normal” paramaters.I wasn’t so much commenting on how one plays, but more how the chanter plays as per your other observations. Your “Why are many chanters by wellknown makers so limited in that respect then? Are they within ‘normal’ expectations?” is a very good question, which probably has a few prominent answers.
I think it’s root might be what the maker is actually going for:
I know of a brilliant pipemaker who doesn’t like the hard E in his concert chanters. I’m not 100% certain if he designed that element out of his chanter. He was also going from a particular historical model, in combinations with trying to solve the E1-e2 “issue.” Those were/are 2 of his particular motivators.
I know another pipemaker who also has modeled his chanter off a historical model. He believes the true pitch of E1, is the hard E. So, he goes for that. I own chanters that both play the hard E and ones that don’t. I’m with you… if feel the instrument should be flexible, because I really enjoy using those colours. There are others who couldn’t give a toss about hard Es. Yet there are those (few) who want a hard F! I feel this is all within normal parameters. To employ the awful overused cliche, “it’s all good!”
Also, I know a pipe maker who never thought about the hard E, one way or another. That too (and the results thereof), to me, I feel are within normal parameters.
Finally, in my travels I came across a well known pipemaker’s concert chanter that could be coaxed play a very lovely scale, but could only do so if the back d would totally break, and fold it in. The only way the back d would (barely) function would be if the reed were so thick and stiff, everything would sound and play terribly. THAT experience (which I’m trying hard to forget) was well outside the “normal parameters.”
There’s no reason to go there!!
