When you look at sets made by the great 19th century pipemakers you’ll find in most cases they are full of lovely detail, exquisite turning in some Kennas, the stark, strudy functionality of he Coynes, the small and neatly crafted Robert Reids etc etc.
Geoff Wooff’s Harrington is one I have looked at many times up close. The set is made with care, the maker has put in a lot of thought to get all proportions right, to make nothing look out of balance with tubing subtly tapered, the bass drone folded back neatly to protect the other drones sitting in the lap of the piper and the drones and regs angling out of the stock in a way that ensures nothing is crowded and always easy to reach.
Now, I see a lot of pictures of pipes posted on the forum that make me wonder if they were made by a blind maker or someone who has never heard of the concept of the golden ratio or maybe just someone who couldn’t give a toss. Strange gaps between drones, no relation at all between the length of wood and metal and the mounts, tenor drones that can never be reached, bass drone bends going in all directions crowding the lay out or just sticking out in a seemingly random way. Materials that don’t seem to be pleasing combinations to my eye. All that and more.
And surprisingly there’s always a reaction saying ‘WOW these are really beautiful’.
It raises the question, what makes a good looking set of pipes in the eyes of you guys? Or will any old thing do you?
Peter, you’ve never been one who’s shy or lacking in opinion. I agree with you’re premise. In you’re eyes, who do you* think makes attractive pipes? Ultimately, beauty is in the eye of the beholder..but at some level…ugly is just ugly.
I know what I like and don’t like but I would prefer to keep this, for starters anyway, more general. Just to kick around a few ideas and opinions. I think there are a lot of pipemakers out there who don’t have a very good eye for visual aesthetics. Or maybe they get away with bunging together loveless looking bits and pieces because pipers at this point are happy to get their hands on anything sort of working. I don’t know but I think a good craftsman would strike a balance between functionality and visual attractiveness that is sorely lacking in a lot of pipes out there.
I would have to agree with you Peter. It seems from what I have seen that a lot of pipemakers perhaps are more interested in tone and function than artistic beauty. I am sure that their pipes sound fine, but I know when I was looking for my set I was also concerned about the beauty of the turnings and proportions as well.
I was even so persistent in this that I asked my pipemaker to make some artistic additions to the set which he did with some hesitation, saying, “that’s not usually how I make them”.
He did add my requests to my pipes except for one thing…the turning at the end of the bass regulator tube. His was a flat pancake sort of turning that was totally unpleasing to my eye. So…I had my highland bagpipe maker turn me a beautiful turning in blackwood, silver, and imitation ivory for it. I designed the turning and sent him detailed drawings. He was happy to do it and it is a beautiful highlight to my set visually.
My set sounds wonderful and I am totally pleased with its look as well. It is in very good keeping with the older style of uilleann pipes from the early makers I think.
Cheers! Richard http://katzwerk.com/infopage.htm
The trouble with this sort of over-generalised griping is that you have not given any concrete examples of what you don’t like. It is meaningless, as some would not have the perspective to be able to judge, and others will have different personal tastes from yours. Your vague descriptions could be applied to the sets of a dozen makers, old and new.
I suspect you are trying to avoid being too specific to avoid being controversial and having the thread locked up, but I can’t see how you can have a meaningful discussion of esthetics without giving some concrete examples that others can look at and respond to.
Well DJM if someone proudly posts a picture of their set on this site do you want me to link it to this thread and list all the reasons I think it looks particularly ugly?
It’s easily done but also quite useless.
I think for now it’s not impossible to toss the notion around that some makers appear to have a better ability to strike a balance between the functional and the pleasing looking and list a few reasons why. Did you never look at a set and wonder why the maker didn’t register the ferrules were way too long in comparison to the amount of wood or that a mount was much too light or too heavy looking for the regulator it was attached to.
I am not particularly looking for fancy turnings I for example like the workhorse feel some of the Coyne sets have about them. They are efficiently made without frills yet maintaining pleasing lines.
Another set I was just thinking of that would be an example of what I am getting at here is a Willie Rowsome body played by a student of mine, the set JC Talty had on the cover of the latest Piobaire. While that body is not made with the greatest refinement or particularly good materials (it looks as it was made on a budget) it is obviously made by a craftsman who had some grounding in the aesthetics of his craft, the package of drones is sitting together very neatly without bits touching eachother or without awkward open spaces. There is a balance between the various elements in weight shape and form. In fairness it’s hard to get at the tenor drone for tuning but overall there’s a sense that the maker knew what he was doing. The mounts, made out of thin slices of ivory to save material grow out of the regulators with a pleasing curve, they don’t look they were randomly stuck on the length of the ferrules has a pleasing relation to the overall length of the regulator, the thickness of the wood they are placed on and the mounts they hold on the end. There’s balance there even if some bits are fairly roughly made.
That’s what I am getting at. And I think that aspect can be discussed without pointing the finger and saying so and so 's pipes look butt ugly. Try approach it from the positive, try describing what you find pleasing about the design of your pipes for example.
The question at hand is “…what makes a good looking set of pipes in the eyes of you guys? Or will any old thing do you?” So, I’ll start by saying I like simplicity and compactness, with a touch of classical elegance. Of the old makers, I would have to say my favorites are Coyne and Reid. I prefer 3/4 sets to full sets, as the “bolted on” aspect of the bass regulator spoils the lines on many sets of pipes, and for me, the less metal on a set, the better.
Is that the sort of comment you’re looking for Peter?
I definitely go for the more classic look, Coyne particularly. I have a D Gallagher and Angus B full sets. On both the proportions of the mounts are good - elegant curves on the regulator ends; symmetry; a good balance between the ebony, metal, and lighter mounts.
I like nickel sliver, silver and brass but not that chrome plate look.
I honestly wouldn’t buy some makers’ work because of their style - bulbous out of proportion mounts or reg keys that look like they belong on a '58 Chevy.
Pipes, aesthetically, remind me of boats in that they are a combination of wood and metal and that the media must mix with a combination of functionality and grace. I’m predisposed towards timbers and finishes that do not make a spectacle of the grain, as these always look like bowling balls to me. Brass and silver look better than stainless steel or gold, as I think their optical volume level is closer to that of wood and they harmonize better. Keys, both chanter and reg, have the greatest potential to add discord to the flow of a set and make it look like a machine instead of an instrument, and I think both the basic shape and the mounting method have to be chosen with real care. Sets that are too heavily ornamented look dumb to me, even if said ornamentation is clearly executed with skill and may be “beautiful” for that reason. All things put together, Coynes look the best to me.
The most important element, I believe, is the maturity and sober self-assessment of the maker. Not everyone can do everything well and when someone tries and fails the result is much more painful to the eye than something simple and well done. It boils down to clarity of vision from the maker’s standpoint and a design that plays to that maker’s strengths.
Peter, I can wax lyrical about what I like, but I then would start to sound like a used-car salesman. Without some basis of comparison, this becomes nothing but gassing. What does “elegant lines” mean? When I refer to something as elegant, is it the same thing you mean when you use the same word? This, I think, is where pictures come in handy, and yes, if you are referring to the work of a particular pipemaker or a particular style or a certain set of pipes, then I think you should come forward and say, “This is what I’m on about”.
So much of this is personal taste, as well, I think. What I may see as exquisite, someone else might consider a rococo monstrosity. I like my Coyne-style sets. I abhor the Taylor-style stuff. This is just my personal taste. But these are concrete terms that others can relate to. Using superfluous superlatives and hyperbole does little to convey one’s meaning to others IMHO.
Do you have any links to photos of Mr Wooff’s Harrington set? As a mid-western US piper I don’t get a chance to see lots of different maker’s sets, especially historical makers. I’m having a hard time picturing the “protective” bass drone bend you mentioned.
On this page the top photo gives you a vague idea of what Peter is saying. The bass reg double fold under the regulators is positioned on his Harrington set (and also on his own sets) to fit very neatly between the tenor and the bass drones. This also allows the bend to be an artistic visual element of the set as well as a protective “bumper” for the fragile tenor drone.
Inevitably, many thought this set was gorgeous, and some expressed their dislike of this level of ornament.
For me, the wood, or combinations of wood make a set of pipes beautiful, or occassionally ugly. No matter how skilled or artistic the maker, I could never love a set of pipes made out of several different types and shades of wood.
JVF
For me, the wood, or combinations of wood make a set of pipes beautiful, or occassionally ugly. No matter how skilled or artistic the maker, I could never love a set of pipes made out of several different types and shades of wood.
JVF
Funny you mention that, with all the experimentation with different kinds of wood I have seen a few sets recently using three totally different types of wood and thought that was way off.
Mind you, it has always been common to use a fruitwood for the stock, occasionally hiding this by staining it black (although a black gloss paint has been know to be used as well). A bit of care and restraint on the pipemaker’s side should avoid mismatches.
Don’t read the whole article, just read enough to understand what I may be inadequately trying to explain
I appreciate an instrument that is proportional (amount of wood compared to metal, appropriate sized tubing compared to the wood turning) more than I do one with intricate turning/engraving but no proportion.
