Any narrow bore players want to try to help me with this problem?
I just upgraded from a $1400 wide bore concert set to a $7000 narrow bore B set. It's new, a copy of a 1790(?) Coyne set, but the maker shall remain anonymous, as he has seemingly abandoned me concerning this problem. Here it is:
The chanter will not play a one-finger (index finger) low G after a rest. In other words, it will not play the one-finger G after a staccato F-sharp. I.e. it will not play "closed style" through the low G. In every case it will only produce the high octave G'.
A couple of days ago, I made sure it was not my fault via leakage (the new chanter being quite a bit larger than my old concert chanter, I'm still getting used to the wider finger placements). I taped up all the tone holes except the G index finger hole and tried all pressures, but still it would never speak a low G-- at all times only the high G'.
Can any one suggest reed modifications to correct this? Has anyone experienced this problem?
The minor 9th produced by trying to play "The Gander in the Pratie Hole," "Cherish the Ladies," and coutless other tunes that use the staccato F# to G pattern is really very ugly and unacceptable in any context.
I believe it is the reed, but maybe I've bought a lemon set. I don't want to believe this. the set sounds absolutely gorgeous in all other respects, except that the low E is sharp, but so it was on Paddy Keenan's old set, so I'm accepting this, but I just can't accept the G problem.
Have you tried any other reeds? It may be OK with another one, then it would just be a problem with that reed. If several reeds give the same result, it should be returned to the maker.
Have you tried any other reeds? It may be OK with another one, then it would just be a problem with that reed. If several reeds give the same result, it should be returned to the maker.
Several reeds by the maker have returned the same results. I don’t want to think it, but you may have hit the nail on the head. But then again, since it is a Coyne (copy) set, could it just be a reed problem? After all, isn’t Coyne a renowned pipe maker?
You’re going in the wrong direction with that one. It has nothing to do with Coyne that you’re high G doesn’t work.
Try playing the pipes in and see where you are once the reed knows what the purpose of it’s new form is. Also, if people knew the maker they may have more detailed information and help for you.
I have found that I have the exact same problem with my Penny Chanter with a David Daye reed. I have two reeds and they both are unable to sound the bottom one-finger open G. Hits second octave every time. I can do the FGF or FGA triplet by lifting both fingers for the G, but it’s not as tight a triplet.
Rick
Try playing the pipes in and see where you are once the reed knows what the purpose of it’s new form is.<
Well this is a rather esoteric response, but I appreciate it. however, When I say it is a “new” set, I have been struggling with this set now for over a year. And have tried four different reeds. i think we’re all coming up with the same answer.
You’re going in the wrong direction with that one. It has nothing to do with Coyne that you’re high G doesn’t work.
You may have misinterpreted. The high G works. The low G (one finger open) will not sound as a low G from a stop(all holes covered); it jumps to the second octave instead.
Rick
So play a two fingered G for legato, and if it’s staccato who gives a feck which octave it’s in?
This really doesn’t matter. Read what Pat Mitchell has to say in the Piping of Patsy Touhey. The effect of staccato is what’s important, not the note or the octave-look at the A-C#-A triplet. Is that “musical”?
I agree with Kevin, unless the tune is moving so slow that it really matters.
Let me ask you experts something…the chanter that Union Piper has is a B. If I remember correctly, and looking at the pictures of my old B, aren’t the toneholes the same size, more or less, up and down from the G? (meaning that any one of the open holes should work the same for staccato)
I know that it’s different with large bore chanters. The G hole tends to be much smaller than the rest, except for the E (but it has 2 vents anyway). The small G hole size makes it nearly impossible to get a lower G with just the one hole open…it needs two vents, right? With only one hole open, mine have nearly always gone to the octave, regardless of who made the reed, regardless of weather. I tried getting a low G with mine, with just the index finger off, and if I open the reed wider, I can get a low G, but just barely, and it’s a little flat, and much quieter. Benedict K. made this particular reed and had the chanter in hand when he reeded it, and never mentioned anything being abnormal.
Okay Rick. Same rule applies though… I don’t think any modern maker can blame one of the old masters for idiosyncrasies to pipes they made by themselves. No old set is so faithfully reproduced that this type of problem should arise and thus the original designer be blamed for the flaw.
I have had the exact same experience with both D and B chanters. My D is not entirely a narrow bore, but the tone holes are smaller than usual per my request, as I could never seem to cover the holes well.
The explanation I was given is that the tone holes on this chanter design are smaller than a wide bore, and don’t have sufficient venting to do a one finger G in the lower octave. I suspect the same probably applies on the B, where all the tone holes are much smaller than on a D. I miss the one-finger G as well, UPiper, but can live without it.
Pat: chanter designs do have their idiosyncracies. In fairness, I do belive it’s possible to copy a chanter failthfully enough to reproduce its quirks.
The one-finger low G is just not available on all chanters. If you are playing that stacatto, in practice it can be difficult to notice which octave the note lies in. Some of the old recordings exhibit second octave stacatto notes in a first octave run.
On the other hand, if the problem isn’t that the note jumps to the second octave, but that it doesn’t speak properly/is muffled, your complaint is probably justified. What does the maker say about this? (I know you say the maker is not very available ATM, but what info has the maker provided RE this note?)
Which Coyne would this be? Maurice, for instance, wasn’t around then. There is a C# set stamped ‘J. Coyne’ engraved 1809, but this ‘Coyne the Elder’ isn’t listed in Mark Walstrom’s list of makers. Maurice is listed as being active from 1840-1856, “John Coyne” is listed as being active from 1855-1864 Perhaps the ‘J’ in the elder Coyne is also ‘John’, but that’s not really known. I have heard people claim Maurice Coyne chanters from as early as 1830, but not earlier.
I think they can too, I’m not explaining myself very well. Why would the maker do it though if they knew there was a flaw. Maybe reproduce it and then work on it, but not knowingly leave their reproduction flawed and stamp their name to it.
As we say in software, “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature”
The chanter in question is purportedly a copy of a 1790 instrument. Personally I think the business of “improving” classic narrow bore chanter designs is overrated. As you know, you can’t really change anything in isolation on a chanter. Better a faithful reproduction of a a master instrument than a questionable ‘improvement’. Not saying it can’t be done, just pointing out that the standard of pipemaking is IMO still catching up with the likes of Kenna/Coyne/Harrington.
Take the business of the g… considering just tonehole adjustments (which are reasonably explainable, unlike the complexities of ‘fixing’ this in the bore). The root of the problem is partly the increased backpressure in the bore, making the hole larger will make the second octave require a little more pressure and make the single-hole note speak better in general. Depending on the chanter bore, it may either raise of lower the pitch in the first octave, and probably would raise the pitch in the second octave. Even if you managed to move the tonehole to keep the octaves in tune while enlarging it, you’d probably ruin the off-the-knee G in the process. On some chanters the forked fingering for C would also be affected. And enlarging the hole will affect the ‘equivalent bore volume’ at the G position, you might even destabilize bottom D!
Given the option of just coping with single-finger G jumping to the second octave, I can see why one would be tempting to leave well enough alone, especially if the original instrument was particularly nice otherwise.
