Moving a tonehole, yes or no????

Uilleann Pipes
1

I am aware that this is a very controversial subject and hold the view that chanters should not normally be messed with.

I was wondering if this is an exceptional case and what the opinions of makers and others might be.

I’ve put this picture up on a previous thread on tonehole spacing.

The F#-E spacing is exactly 40mm. (Centre to centre)

I am planning to lend this chanter to the local pipers club to be part of a loan set for those interested in trying the uilleann pipes. It’s severe F#-E spacing could cause undue difficulty for a beginner, as it did for me.

It was my first chanter (wide bore D), I bought it second hand, opinion is it may be Alan Ginsberg’s work but this is unconfirmed. I have been told this spacing may be to try to solve tuning issues. The E hole looks like it has been “whittled” slightly prior to my ownership.

I welcome all opinions on this issue and have not come to any decision myself at this point.

David

2

Personally, I wouldn’t alter it in any way.
The spacing seems bizzare to me, but if it
plays in tune with itself, then leave it as is.

3

I agree with Joseph.

However, if it gave you trouble, you might question the merits of loaning it out. There is no guarantee that moving the tonehole would help matters (in terms of overall performance). Although your intention is laudable, perhaps this would not be the best candidate for a new learner to start on…

4

Is the chanter in tune with itself? If so, don’t mess with it.

5

I meant to say that. :smiley:

6

i agree whole heartedly. the extreme spacing would be difficult to adjust to for an experienced piper never mind someone just starting the pipes.

don’t adjust it in any case if it’s in tune with itself.

7

Being an owner of a Ginsberg set myself, where my back ‘D’ is slightly off to the inside, I haven’t adjusted the hole. It’s in tune and it does mean that my thumb is slightly off centre but you get used to it. Ginsberg chanters have a little dragon carved into the top of the chanter above the B hole. If your chanter has this stamp, then it’s a Ginsberg. If it doesn’t, then it’s not his.

Hope that helps?

Andy

8

Thanks for the advice. I get the impression that everyone thinks the hole should not be moved. I am happy to go with that.

But could I just push the arguement slightly, as so far no one is batting for the other side.

As was said above:

the extreme spacing would be difficult to adjust to for an experienced piper never mind someone just starting the pipes

The concensus also seem to be that this chanter is of no use to beginner, it is probably of no use to an experienced player either as it stands. The E tuning is as off as most chanters. It is not a “special chanter” as far as I am aware. (It has no Dragon, thanks Andy, so it’s origin is still undecided).

It has sat on a shelf for 19 years. Should it go back on the shelf?

Would any serious piper consider adapting to it’s spacing?


David

9

Considering the circumstances… I say have it worked on.

A while back I sent a 2 key chanter back to the original maker for 2 additional keys. His newer chanters have one of the bottom holes placed slightly different (more evenly spaced) and he asked me if I wanted the adjustment. It invloved plugging the hole and drilling a new one. I’m sure it was more to it than that simple explaination… but the end result wasn’t to change the sound of the chanter. I had no problem playing the chanter as designed and didn’t wish to alter it.

It wasn’t broke, so I didn’t need to ‘fix it’
Your case is different.

Since the original maker is not known and you’re having a problem with the chanter, finding a pipemaker who is willing to do the modification may get you a more playable chanter. I think it’s worth the try.

10

don’t know if i agree.

if you can’t find the original maker, anyone who works on it will be guessing effectively where the hole should be moved to. it may be quite hard to find someone who’s prepared to do this work for you.

the work is going to cost quite a bit, and there’s no guarantee that the end result will be satisfactory.

if the chanter has been on a shelf for 19 years, there may be more problems than the E spacing.

you may be as well find a new chanter that’ll be more playable.

11

It’s been on a shelf as I have been more than happy (most of the time) with my Williams chanter. I’ve lent it out a couple of times over the years.

I don’t need a new chanter, I was trying (laudably :slight_smile: ) to see if it could be of use to someone else.

David

12

SInce you are into the learning pipemaking game and since it is a shelf sitter, if I was in your position my curiosity would naturally get the better of me and I would attempt it myself (after having sought instruction on how to move a hole - Pat Sky’s manual has a bit on it).

What have you got to lose? Not much; a ‘no special chanter’ with and E tuning already ‘as off as other chanters’. You can always plug the holes again and reopen the original ones if you stuff up.

What have you got to gain? The most important thing in pipemaking - EXPERIENCE.

Cheers,

DavidG

13

Is there a poll I can answer anonymously? :smiling_imp:

14

if you are a budding maker, i say leave the hole where it is and make a dozen. then move ALL OF THOSE holes around if you want to learn what happens - to the cross-fingered C natural, for example.

someone may have “fixed” the chanter once already, true…but i say don’t go to a proctologist unless you really need to or just can’t help yourself. you can always sell the chanter ‘as is’ if it is just collecting dust. it is likely better than a lot of stuff being sold to the newbies on Ebay.

15

Hi David
As an interested party.
I was going to ask for a loan of the club set to compare with my set, I think you should ‘fix it’.

It looks to me that you could put a new hole in without overlapping the present hole then with the careful positioning of tape & wax & wire praps it may be OKish. :laughing:
Les Hanrahan.

16

Thanks pudinka. My “buddingness” is very limited by the time I have available. Also my guess is that this chanter is not the best candidate for devoting that degree of effort to.

Hi Les, the current set (given to us by Dave Williams) is out on loan. We have the promise of a chanter and a practice set by two UK makers. We have applied for a grant to purchase 3 more practice sets and will know the outcome in the next few weeks. We are trying to put together some practice sets using odds and ends local pipers have on shelves.

You are welcome to have a loan of my “odd holed” chanter in the mean time. Also if anyone out there thinks they can learn anything from this chanter and can verify their identity they are welcome to have a loan. Somehow I don’t think pipers will be queing at my door. :smiley: :smiley:

Just in case anyone missed it earlier I’ve pasted below the statement on chanter modification by many learned pipers and makers.

Rest easy guys I’ll leave the hole where it is. :wink:

David

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 Wooff

17

Well ,this chanter is very interesting ,the E tonehole is very big (almost the same diameter than the G ) ,but position is down repect the “standard” of almost 6-7 mm . Seems the pipemaker has wanted to cure a commun issue(in must of chanter !!) ; E on the first octave too hight repect the pitch and a E second octave too low .
So as position from the top of the tone hole should deal with the first octave then the diameter bigger should compensed a potential low second E octave .
So David would be interesting to know what the tuning of the E on the first and second octave :boggle:
Didier

18

Chanter holes seem to be all over the place when you look at the long history of the pipes. For instance, the Willie Clancy Coyne B chanter has some very non-typical hole placements.

If the chanter is awkward to play and not historically significant, it is probably worth attempting to redrill hole(s). Of course, the tuning needs to be respected, too.

19

The human body is an amazing thing. It will adapt to the most unusual conditions. I would suggest getting it reeded properly and playing it. I would not move the hole. Just get used to it. A beginner, unless very young or with particularly short fingers perhaps, will be able to get used to it in my experience.

All the best,

Patrick.

20

There’s growing interest in the pastoral pipe - the forerunner to the union pipe. The pastoral chanter had an extra “foot joint” - an extension that you could slip on to the bottom of the chanter, that would turn the ghost D into a D natural and the bottom D into a C natural. There’s a very small number of pastoral pipes around - mostly in museums where we can’t play them.

We don’t really understand the transition from the pastoral pipe - played entirely off the knee - to the union pipe that was sometimes played on the knee. It seems that some toneholes got moved. For example, you can make many uilleann chanters into something like a pastoral chanter by inserting a rolled-up piece of paper into the bottom, but then a number of notes will be out of tune. You might have to tape up the ghost D hole and perhaps the F sharp hole to get a tolerable scale.

If there’s any chance that this instrument might shed some light on that period (roughly speaking 1780 - 1830) then for goodness’ sake please don’t mess with it!

Ross