I guess the pipes are made to complement the playing style.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/29/19174446-bagpipes-play-up-a-storm-in-pakistans-boomtown?lite&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=pulsenews
Too bad the clip only shows the big pipes.
Slow news day. I kinda wonder that the motive was behind this piece: NBC looking for a regional feelgood story? hmm.
Anyway, this will likely get moved to “non-uilleann”, so as Ive said many times before, if cunning Pakistani craftsmen wish to manufacture close emulations of the Highland Pipe, to expose & expound their own particlar repertoire for that instrument: fine. Go for it. Im all for weird ethnic, localized music.
But, to forcibly, ceaselessly, agressively, push their creations worldwide as a “just-as-good-yet-cheaper” substitute for an actual Highland pipe, and then attempt to reproduce the instruments “authentic” traditional repertoire on that substandard instrument, I personally find to be …problematic. 
but Im in a good mood these days. 
Indeed the thread is now moved to Non-Uilleann Piping, but with a link back so you don’t lose this important thread - Mod.
Truth to tell, if we had a “Non-Pipes” forum, I think I would have moved it there. 
tried real hard to work the word “trombone” humorously into the ‘non-pipes’ concept somehow…but no luck so far…
“important”… very funny. 
“3000 bagpipe exports per year”!
That’s quite a lot of wasted money.
Kinda makes me wonder where all those sh!te pipes end up.
I see hundreds of these horrid Pakistani pipes on Ebay every day. Where do they all go? Who buys them? For what purpose?
I and every other Highland piper has had many people show up at the door over the years for their first lesson with a set of these. “My wife got them for me off Ebay” or “my mother bought them on vacation in Scotland” or what have you. Then you have to break the bad news to them.
I sort of answered my own question. I do know where some of them go!
What astounds me is when, on Ebay, I see a vintage set from a quality Scottish maker at a price lower than some of the Pakistani sets, and no one is bidding! Ignorant shoppers probably think that a new set must be better than an old set.
tried hard to refrain, but I’m done with the whole ‘vintage’ ideal as far as pipes go. Fact is, mouthblown WW instruments have a useable lifespan.. I understand now why there are such things a ‘musical instrument museums’ and have changed my opinion over the years. There’s good reason why top 5 orchestral players get brand new horns every other year.
Should these old instruments be studied, measured & reproduced with 21st C accuracy?? Yes! Should they be more highly valued than new instruments? IMO, no. Leaving the Sialkotti trash out of the mix. (and Uilleann, NSP, generally ALL bellows pipes…as their lifespan is more like the string family- far longer) So thats why I;m still a bit miffed when I look at the Mercer Taylor under glass, but yet have no problem with the Iain Dall chanter in it’s climate controlled box.
I personally feel that there;s a ‘golden window’ in a mouthblown woodwind;s life, after it’s broken in, settled, so it sings its best- before the natural forces of time and decay set in…and once it’s past its prime, it’s done. I’d never play the kind of prices folks want today for a 100+ year old highland pipe.
Charlie, as someone who doesn’t play any music current after the demise of the dinosaurs (read: Medieval and perhaps a bit of Renaissance) , there is a completely different angle to the question. I (along with a lot of other freaks) would like to play the music the way it was played at the time of the dinosaurs. Allowing, of course for “artistic” interpretation", but only within limits that would have been recognisable and accepted at that very time. (65 million years, as far as I can remember… been a long time..) Well, the instruments have changed since those times, you know. Yeah, you can play Bach on a synthesizer, but you know, it’s not really quite the same. Hence the overwhelming urge to recreate the actual instruments current at the time of the dinos. The only two places you can come across them is either in private collections, or in museums. Being a backwater slob as I am, I have no connection with high-flying private collectors. All I can rely on is information given out by museums. Which is exactly what I rely on. (all right, granted, not in bagpipes, but certainly in early recorders and other weird instruments.)
All of which doesn’t touch on the 100 year old GHB sets, in which particular case I probably would agree with you. But it does touch on the role of museums.
I don’t know about your ‘usable lifespan’ theory. At least that lifespan is quite long! Because there are plenty of people playing Baroque music on original instruments. I have a number of albums of people playing Baroque flute music on original 18th century flutes and it sounds fantastic.
For years I played a Rudall & Rose flute, boxwood, made at their 1827-1837 address. This flute was in superb condition, looking like it was made a week ago. It played very well!
There are plenty of people playing uilleann pipes made in the 1780-1840 period.
In the Highland world, when I started playing in the 70s all the good players were playing pipes made in the 1880-1930 period and most of them still are! I’ve spent a lot of time around the LA Scots (Grade One) pipe band and as you go round the circle nearly all the pipes were made in this period. In the last pipe band I played in nearly all the pipes were made in this period. It’s a fairly common thing in the pipe band world for an extremely talented youngster to join a top band, still playing his decent new set that he started out on, and be given a fine vintage pipe on loan to play in the band.
My current set was made c1900 and it simply plays better than anything made today, except perhaps an Atherton. For years I played an early Alexander Glen set, made in the mid-19th century, and it played just fine.
With Highland pipes, new pipes are OK but there’s a reason that most of the top players, and even most of the decent players, are playing vintage sets.
My Scottish Smallpipes are likewise around 100 years old and they’re great.
I remain unmoved . The whole ‘vintage instrument’ idea, IMHO, is a total, complete money-raking sham.
and Im not posting this because i want one 
ew.
There’s useable instruments, and ‘historic’ ones. Yuri is 100% right that historic insts. should be preserved, and copied. However, to presume that an instrument is better simply because it;s older, dosent float for me. There 's a point of no return on all manmade objects.
I absolutely confess to changing my tune on this issue over the years. Old horns can be finickey, persnickety, resistant to every approach except that of the period in which they were crafted, and frankly; what working musician has the time and inclination to fuss with an undependable tool that produces only after intense mollycoddling, and even then its a gamble as to if its up to snuff for todays demands of instant satisfaction?
Now, copying and faithfully reproducing; with an eye to what is available in terms of materials and advancements today; is something entirely different. You’s can keep all your overpriced 100 year old Hendy’s, Glens, Thows, etc. Give me a recently made pipe any day. 
What I wonder is: Why is there (seemingly) never any journalistic push-back on articles like this? Where are the legions of cringing, outraged bagpipers contacting the reporter (in this case, Amna Nawaz) and editors to alert them to the pernicious truth behind this “feel good” human interest piece. Where is whatever is the GHB equivalent of NPU, acting as a press watchdog with the authority and gravitas to redress the balance? Where is the follow-up article? Is no one (except us) paying attention?
Pieces like this do as much damage as any advertising to promote and legitimate the product and perpetuate the problem. Griping among ourselves is merely preaching to the choir, and does nothing to influence readers of the article who may be potential, very sorry buyers.
As is unfortunately typical of news sites, the online Comments to this article are a mix of sheer ignorance and vile Islamophobic racism, and clearly not a proper forum for serious feedback.
When I was a Board Officer of the AMTA (Assn. for Machine Translation), we kept track of press writing about MT - at the time, by subscribing to a clipping service before the era of Google, Bing, etc. Stepping in to counter bad, harmful public information was part of our brief. For example, I remember a heated public argument with the NY Times’ prominent self-appointed tech maven, who was a notoriously biased hater of the technology. Prestige of affiliation was no excuse for misinformation.
In the case of the Sialkot plague, who are the responsible parties and organizations? In the hackneyed phrase: If we’re not an effective part of the solution, we’re all a part of the problem. With apologies for the rant.
Is no one (except us) paying attention?
Well, no, not really. How should anyone else know what this whole thing means?
And as to the other subject.
In recreating ancient instruments it’s not really copying as such that is done. Truly copying a, say, Renaissance recorder is stupid in the extreme. At least for playing purposes. The problems are manifold, let’s mention just the simple fact that after some 500 years the instrument sitting in a glass cabinet somewhere hundreds of miles away from where it has been made and played is a rather different instrument from what it has been when new. Wood shrinkage, wear and tear, etc. Also, even when you have an instrument in good playing order, chances are that it will not be in A=440. Just about anything else, but not this. So it’s unusable in a group setting.
The whole idea is not so much copy old instruments, as re-learn just how they were made in the first place and recreate not t5he instruments, but the making process, at the same time applying it to modern realities, like the abovementioned A=440, or for another example, the different timbers available. That’s not quite the same as taking a micrometer to an old kazoo, and faithfully reproducing the whole lot.
Because knowing is part of the responsibility of traditional music organizations and associations to the communities of musicians they’re supposed to represent?
I already cited NPU as one example; we’ve all seen Pakistani uilleann pipes on the market. I’d reckon there are similar organizations for GHB, the focus of the article/video. What about Comhaltas (CCE)? A government subsidized organization tasked with promoting Irish music and culture, to which shoddy Pakistani pipes and flutes are a market threat.
If notified by us (who are paying attention) to news coverage like this, would these organizations act to represent our interests?
This isn’t actually true. There have been two very important copies made of highland pipes in the last few years. One from the chanter of Iain “Dall” MacKay, Gairloch and the other from the Black Set of Kintail. The MacKay chanter, copies from the over 300 year old original, taking into consideration shrinking and warping, is just sharp of Bb and plays with a beautiful soft tone. The 1785 Black Set of Kintail were copied by Hamish Moore. They came out at A440 and are now played by the group Seudan - Angus MacKenzie and Angus Nicolson from Skye, Allan MacDonald of Glenuig and Hamish’s son Fin Moore.
These two sets along prove the the proclamations of original bagpipe pitch are unfounded and they also give us an idea of tone and intonation from over 300 years ago.
actually MT The AFM glossy runs a regular feature on innovative products. Last year (iirc) the ed’s unknowingly promoted a Sialkotti ghb. Ray Hair (new to the presidency at that time) was innundated with email from pipers regarding this substandard import, mfd’d by offshore non-union labor. It was a real wake up call apparently, pretty sure they did a retraction. and I got a sincere apology pledging better vetting as to which products are featured. Musicians DO check stuff out that they find in this magazine, so a minor victory.
From time to time I get inquiries from beginners and folks that want to get into piping: within the first three sentences of my reply is always “Dont get one made in Pakistan”, so it’s more of a drip, drip, drip balance-redress than a full frontal assault. Most pipers pull their weight concerning the promotion of ACTUAL ghb’s. The real floodgates are in import and resale, neither of which the bagpipe community has enough juice in, so any effective action needs to be heavy & accross the board in both these sectors, which would do much more harm.
By the way, Im looking for a set of Sialkotti drones, so I can spray paint them green for a chroma key shot.
and there’s no need to apologise for your rant.
Yuri- you’ve, perhaps inadvertently, proved my point? That after a certain period of time these instruments become far more problematic than they’re worth, from a user end. But thank s for correcting me that its not copying, as opposed to recreation. An important aspect I negelcted 
Well, in reply to Bogman.
I have to slightly modify my previous statement. It is still true what I said about the copying for playing purposes. However, copying for research is quite a different matter. What you non-maker guys/gals probably don’t know is that any cylindrical, bored-out piece of wood, (unless drilled out exactly in the middle, which would make far bigger problems of another kind) will become oval fairly quickly. Now, if you start trying to ream out a piece of wood to an oval profile, you are going to go nuts. While it is strictly speaking possible, the logistics don’t bear thinking about. Plus, the main point, it is not only unnecessary, it’s (in this case unreservedly)plainly stupid. The oval was not put there by the maker, but by eventual shrinkage differences on quartersawn v. slabsawn sides. So in the first place, the most faithful “reproduction” will already, by definition , be not all that faithful. And that is only the very start. But you get the subtle drift of my meaning…