Standardisation of pipes and piping?

Uilleann Pipes
1

In the thread ‘What exactly makes a good set of pipes’ presently running on this forum Brian Lee put forward that it would be great if a standard would be agreed among pipemakers so that they would be making the same set of pipes but with different looks [for the sake of discussion I simplify things, Brian in fact said pipemakers could continue to do their own things as well as a sideline].
I deleted my initial reply to this, but the issue of standardisation of pipes and piping is an issue that would make interesting stuff for discussion.
In the same vein, Gay McKeown in his recent editorial in An Piobaire [vol 4 no 21] proposed a standard for uilleann pipers, suggesting ‘many pipers are envious of the rigid structures employed by our Highland Cousins’. In his discussion he also put forward that ‘teachers should adhere rigidly to the format’.
Personally I have a deep suspicion of any rigid structure that anybody should be made to adhere to. If I change my mind I can always get my music teachers accreditation from Comhaltas.
I understand where Gay is coming from though and at least considering the matter won’t hurt and may even throw up something positive towards improving the overall standard of piping. Before he puts his proposal forward in more specific terms I wouldn’t like to go into it too deeply, other than saying I look at what is put forward at the moment [which is no more than some general ideas to start a discussion of the subject] with some distinct unease.

Overall I like the pipes and Irish music in general because it is so diverse and I fear that while the intentions are good some sort of uniformity will creep in that will damage the very nature of the thing. Are pipes roughly all sounding the same, played by pipers adhering roughly to the same style and technique [and while they are at it probably standard ‘correct’ settings of tunes as well, if only to make it easier to look up the ABCs on the Internet] really want we want?

2

Hi Peter,

Let me clarify just a few points here regarding what I was implying in the previous thread. When I mentioned some form of standardization, it was simply to offer some idea of reproduceability which seems to be quite good alredy for some makers, and others…well, we all know at least one or two “others” I think.

Anyway, as you correctly mention, I did propose a specific design that would exhibit the same playing characteristics from one maker to the next and that could be easily reeded by the same. That, simply put, is what I was thinking of. Very likely nothing spectacular (though wouldn’t that be nice?) but something tried, and true, that WORKS.

I also said I wished for makers to continue to experiment and to promote their “own” designs as well, and for this to remain their main focus - which I believe you correctly understood here.

I suppose there is some envy in my mind over the ease with which a Highland piper can go into a store ANY store and buy a perfect reed every time, which he knows exactly how it will play every time. And he doesn’t have to worry if it dies after a week or a month - they’re inexpensive enough to warrant buying two or three at a time. (BTW, does anyone know of GH pipers who make their own reeds as a curiosity??)

Now Peter, you bring up an interesting point that I hadn’t thought of: If there is standardization in the pipes themselves, will that bleed over into the tunes and teaching styles of pipers playing as well? I must wholeheartedly agree with you that the Irish pipes greatest allure to me is their flexibility and range of personal expression.

I don’t really fear any of this taking place (for better or worse) in either case during my lifetime, but who knows what developments we’ll see a few years down the road. Fifteen years ago, the pipes were still in the shadows for most of us - I don’t think I even SAW a set of uilleann pipes till '95 or '96, while most oof us know what GHPs are by about age two. Either way, I fully intend to make the most of what I have and what I can afford in future. Thanks for your thoughts.

Bri~

3

Don’t underestimate how quick these changes may take place, piping now is vastly different in many ways from how it was twenty, twenty five years ago, much through the teaching at NPU. And if you listen to recordings made at competitions, where you get to hear a variety ofplayers outside the usual famous set of names, during the early 60s the whole soundscape was again very different.
I don’t think pipemaking will be standardised, certainly not as long there are no more formal ways developed in which pipemaking skills are taught or passed on [altough there has been a marked change in the general ideas about reedmaking and overall sound again within the time I have been piping myself].
I can’t help wondering what will happen to piping styles when an organisation like NPU develops a standard for teaching and makes teachers stick to that [wonder how they propose to do that outside events they organise themselves, accreditation maybe?]

4

Very interesting to hear Peter. Can you expand a bit on some of the differences between piping today and several years back? As I understand things, while NPU’s idea is a sound one, they are trying to “take over” much of the piping world in that they seem to want everything done “their way” and everyone should follow suit. Is this their answer to standardization? My only direct experience with NPU has been through their videos honestly - I’ve never dealt with them on a higher level than that.

5

There are many differences but the rapid development of a styel, referred soemtimes to as the Dublin or NPU style is one of them. If you create a situation where certain people teach large numbers of pipers, through weekly classes or at tionols, summerschools etc their styles and approaches will spread very rapidly.
Then again, Gay in his article speaks of trying to take the subjective element out of teaching so it may well be he is trying to counteract the above.
I don’t think NPU is trying to take over the pipingworld, you must realise that without them there probably wouldn’t be a piping world as we know it, I do think they are a bit overwhelmed by their succes and don’t quite know what to do next now the instrument is saved. While they are not in any danger yet to become an imposing body like Comhaltas I think it’s healthy to identify and discuss issues.

6

Peter, are you close enough to NPU to know what is going on with this “standardisation”? I have been one of the people asking NPU to set some sort of standard for starting people off on UPs. I am interested to hear from you that they are actually looking into it, as NPU has not actually published anything about this to date. The intention was to get at least minimum requirements published so that teachers would have a working list of material that should be covered (and that they themselves should know).

This led to a great hue and cry from NPU over losing various styles of piping and blah, blah, blah, but the intention was only that all people starting off should get all the basic information they need to form correct playing habits from the very beginning, with further development of style and technique still left open to the individual in the loose-knit fabric of the UP community that we have today.

As to setting a basis for building UPs themselves, I don’t think there is anywhere near enough pipers or pipemakers to ever bring this about. UPs are a solo instrument, with a huge variety of parameters for makers to play with, so that setting any standards here would probably cause more harm than good.

It is the nature of this tiny market that prospective buyers seldom get the opportunity to try out many sets from many makers, so its difficult to know what to buy and what to avoid. Hopefully, the continued good will amongst the piping community can help to steer newbies in the right direction.

djm

7

Good points.

When I think about it, the biggest thing that required standardization of GHP was regimental stuff - war marches, or tattoos and now highland games and so an so’s band is ranked # whatever in the nation. BAH!

WE WANT NONE OF THIS HERE! :laughing:

While the UP’s were created and predominantly played as a solo instrument, they haven’t been used primarliy as such for decades. I would certainly like to have a stick I could offer to new players without reservation that would be predictable and have docile tuning requirements and reeding capabilities.

But perhaps it’s just going to take a LOT of expensive trial and error to find such an animal already in existance from X maker.

Thanks Peter for your insights. If ever I make it over to Miltown, I think we could talk for hours!

8

DJM, I only know what I have read i nthe Piobaire, Gay was trying t ostart a discussion on standardisation, it ran paralel with an article on teaching by Mick Coyne which could be an indication there may be a grander scheme somewhere. The discussion wa not taken up however except for an article by Tom Kannmacher in the latest Piobaire. I have been thinking about the issue a bit but Gay seems only to have put forward some thoughts so it wasn’t compeltely clear what he was thinking off.

I didn’t mean they should move towards producing pipes, I do think however gathering and disseminating knowledge about pipemaking more actively is within the aims of the organistaion and they shoud really more actively pursue this. It’s all fine half the world wants to take up the pipes but whats the point when there are hardly any makers to provide decent instruments for wannabee pipers [so waiting lists and prices have rocketed beyond the ridiculous].

9

Highland pipers standardized their technique, tunes, tune settings, and judging many years ago. One situation is that a Highland piper can play the same competitive set of tunes for 25 years. I remember hearing about the stir when a Highland pipe band introduced a slur or wipe into another note.

So, within Irish pipes, it might be best to ‘standardize’ technique - what’s a short roll, what’s a long roll, double-cut roll, etc. - and teach it/disseminate to interested students. Important to also teach that it is not the exclusive way to do something but maybe along the lines of ‘this is the way Liam O’Flynn plays his rolls’.

So, I don’t see anyone standardized settings or tunes or making competitions come to the front of our activities (how many ribbons do you have this year?).

The instrument and the current landscape defy instrument standardization. Since no one agrees on how pipes should be tuned, turned, tempered, touched (played), or tampered with (restored), how could it be?

10

Peter,

You make a very good point. How do most beginning pipers decide what determines a quality set and what doesn’t? If almost no one drove a car, how would someone who wanted to buy be able to make a reliable desicion based on what the car manufacturer tries to sell you on, and the price. And if the guys making Chevy’s (I drive one so I can say this!) wanted to charge the same as the guys making BMWs how can an unsuspecting buyer truly know what he’s getting?

I would think that some standardizations could help to increase quality and lower production costs, both in sets and in reeds. But again, this may just be a"pipe dream" ha ha ha…ha har har…te hee…yeah, OK so I still need some ccoffee this morning. :boggle:

11

I agree, there’ll never be a standard for pipes. The time may come though that there will be a standard for beginners to intermediates…something reliable to get started on. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

A while back BC revealed his rough drill dimensions for boring his chanters. I never thought about it at the time, but that was a pretty safe thing to do. It’s the dimension of the reamer that is critical…and we’ll never know.

About the time a standard pipe comes about, some newbie of the future will discover one of our old sets we left behind and just be “taken” with the difference. Then there’ll be a war for a new standard. Kinda like what goes around comes around, right? Been going through this for hundreds of years.

Last year when we were discussing this, Ted made some interesting points…like can anyone imagine standardizing an old Coyne set, a Rowsome or Eagan? Each is unique and for this reason the more sought after pipes will aways be unique. And besides, if there was a standard in the UP world, wouldn’t there have to be agreement? Oh the horror!

12

I agree that there should be a top quality set of pipes available for anyone who wants to learn how to play them, without paying an exorbitant amount of money, and without having to wait… Even mass-produced, though on a smaller scale.

But, unlike most instruments, I don’t forsee the Uilleann pipes becoming anywhere near as popular as guitars, violins, or drums for example… but then, one never knows.

As far as teaching, I don’t know. Learning all the techniques is not only the best way to learn how to play the instrument, but teaches one all that the instrument is capable of doing. The tradition is the ground-work, which should be learned… all the styles and manners of playing are important, I think.

I know one piper who is very good, has played for some time, but doesn’t know any of the the traditional tunes. They have, however, played in groups that play Irish music, and I think being an accomplished musician they have played in a more improvisational manner. Seems that one can play the pipes, and play them well, and almost make up things that fit in with the music played… or at least play the accompaniment, at the right moments, sounding quite nice.

Don’t know if I said that right, in the last paragraph, so I hope that was understood. That would seem to be a more contemporary method of playing, say along the lines of Spillane on the more jazzy CDs. This is something else, perhaps, that should be taught.

Now, kick me, if I’m talking foolishness.

13

I don’t think any formal standard will ever be achieveable but it’s interesting to toss around the subject a bit further.

While preparing my dinner I was thinking a bit further about DJM’s desire to implement a sort of check-list for teachers, what to achieve on the way to becoming a piper.

Pat Mitchell in the introduction to his first SRS article on Rhythm and Structure in Irish traditional Dance Music, by far the most wonderful piece written n the subject as far as I am concerned, puts forward a couple of interesting questions, one of them being ‘what is a piper?’. In other words can a piper be defined by the number of ‘piping movements’ he employs in his music or is there something else. They are questions closely related to this issue. Pat’s treatment of them is a must read.

Let’s just say I have a number of pupils in the age group between twelve and seventeen, they are all very different and I try to approach them in a way that suits each indivdually. One girl, who has been coming to me the longest, has quite a musical pedigree and I have always been aware that the style she has inherited [when she started the pipes she was at twelve an already very stylish and accomplished whistle player] should not in any way be compromised. She also does not at all like a large number of piping techniques, specifically most tight triplets. While I made sure she was able to use them I do not fuss over her not using them. Now after four years or so she is really a nice piper with wonderful little touches in her music. Would she have been taught in the same manner if she had gone to a teacher who strctly adhered to a particular standard and how would she have done in that case in wonder. I think working with the pupils preferences, tastes and abilities is far more important than sticking with a set program.


[fixed a number of typos in this and some previous posts]

14

Nice discussions. Have to say that I largely agree in principle with Mr. Laban.

15

Peter, you have described exactly the scenario I would hope to avoid. As long as your student knows how to hold the pipes, knows how to hold the chanter, can work the bellows efficiently, and can hit all the notes with ease, that would be the end of any standardization I would hope to see.

I consider all the above to be basic and essential, and to be taught even before learning tunes. This is not happening here!

It would be beneficial if the student knows how to do all the different ornamentation, but not necessary. If we look back to piping at the beginning of the 20th century, there wasn’t much if any cranning or rolls, just lots of very tight, very fast piping. How could anyone claim to be setting a standard if they ignore all these different styles? They can’t and they shouldn’t. Standardization should definitely stop with the items I listed above.

Someone who is teaching should know all of the above, and more importantly, know how to teach it. Just because someone knows something doesn’t make them a teacher. Some assistance on how to teach would be a welcome addition to any standard.

I have not been to any of the Irish tionóls, but I understand that students are briefly interviewed before being placed in a class. That doesn’t happen here at the ones I’ve attended. It would be a great help to have absolute beginners put in their own class where they could learn the basics I have mentioned above. It would be helpful to all if some moderate levels of capability were outlined in order to place all students in the appropriate class at a tionól, so that everyone could benefit.

Note that none of this has anything to do with learning to play in specific styles! None of it has anything to do with limiting anyone’s progress. Let’s keep things in perspective, please. No-one here is talking about going the route of GHB military bands. I am simply looking to get a little control over the current chaos that is occurring here regarding learning UPs (at least, from my own experiences).

djm

16

DJM, I am not sure exactly what situation I described that you don’t want but I don’t see what standardisation you would need to explain pupils the very basics, it’s only natural you deal with those. If your teacher doesn’t deal with those issues, you con’t need standards, you need a different teacher. While there are man yimprovements possible and teaching ca nvary enormously fro mone teacher to the next I don’t think the chaos you experience in teaching is fully representative of the piping world at large.

In my mind there was a lot more going on I nearly 20th century piping than just ‘very fast very tight’ playing, I don’t know what gave you that idea.

I do think pupils should learn the basic ornamentation, different rolls, crans triplets. They are the tools of the piper’s trade. I always tell them it’s fine if they choose not to use them, but it’s a choice they will have to make deliberately, not because they don’t want to make the effort of practising them. It’s fine if you want to make a painting discarding the colour red but as a choice not because you can’t be bothered to open the container.

17

Teachers? What teachers? I am referring to the published how-to material, which is all that is available for most people here. I was playing for a year and a half before I met a teacher. I was playing for three years before I got a full-time teacher. Hopefully, you can see where the gaps come from. I have not fully unlearned all the bad habits I developed trying to teach myself.

A set of basic instructions published by NPU that preceed their videos is what I am looking for. A list of necessary beginning instructions to act as a teaching guide would also benefit instructors. A basic method for setting up classes at tionóls would help the well meaning, but not necessarily well-informed, people who are attempting to bring occasional instructors in to their localities, to help all the good folks trying to teach themselves.

My point is that there is lots of room for standardizing the simple stuff without people going off the deep end and start claiming that standardization will crimp someone’s style. Hope that’s a bit clearer.

djm

18

Believe it or not, GHP’s are not as standardized as you might think (closer to it than UP’s,but..). There are some heated discussions at any gathering of GHP players as to which reeds, chanters, drones, bags and blowpipes work best. Some reeds will not work with certain chanters or balance with other drone reeds. Even the settings are up for discussion and preference. I’ve got my own preferences, my teacher has his. The only time standardization comes into play is when we’re playing as a group.
I don’t think a rigid standard is possible in the UP world for the meer fact that not enough pipers get the chance to play together(not in unison but at gatherings) often enough. I guess if a maker did enough production, advertisment and leg work to get his pipes in everybody’s
hands, that would eventually become the standard. Who made the most sets in the 19th century? Is that makers work close to the standard or ideal sound makers shoot for today? Henry Ford’s cars weren’t the best available at the turn of the last century, but he got enough of them out there to become the standard for production.
Marc

19

Interesting stuff, everyone.

As I don’t think I have a whole lot to add to the “piping standardization” bit at the moment, I’d like to perhaps turn back toward the subject of standards of pipemaking.

Someone, it might have been Kevin, mentioned recently that R&D in the world of pipemaking was seriously lackluster at the moment. Let’s face it: go to most pipemakers’ webpages, and you’ll see a whole lot of “based on” or “modeled after” Rowsome/Coyne/Egan/Harrington, etc. A bit like going to a violin maker’s webpage and seeing “based on designs by Stradivarius.” Of course, that doesn’t bother most people. They’d love to have an instrument derived from such a “classic” precursor. From the maker’s perspective, huge waiting lists and a small profit margin don’t make for a whole lot of R&D time. They go for something known to be “good”, tweak the design to suit their tastes and improve what little things they can, and that’s about it.

Several years ago, I attended a lecture by the trumpet maker David Monette, arguably the best maker of trumpets currently alive (and if you don’t believe me, ask Art Farmer, Winton Marsalis, and quite a few principal trumpet players in many of the world’s most respected symphony orchestras). He was talking about how for the past few centuries violin makers have been striving to make a violin that sounds every bit as good as a Strad. Every variable has been considered but while some violins have come very, very, close, none have ever really surpassed a Stradivarius, let alone pushed the violin to a new evolutionary stage. Monette’s take on this is: maybe Stradivarius took this particular design as far as it could possibly go. Maybe rather than trying to spend all our time trying to more or less copy that design and come up with something that sounds about as good, we need to experiment with different designs altogether.

That’s exactly what Monette did with the trumpet and his design radically changed the instrument. It would be great if pipemakers had the luxury to devote more time to such innovations as well. I have a lot more to say on this topic, but I have to cut it short for now…In the meantime, any comments?

20

I think it’s really hard to bring up the GHB when talking about the UP. You’ve got to remember, as has been alluded to, that much of the standardization has come about to facilitate ensemble play. It seems to me that a large portion of the standardization of the instrument came about for the same reason. Whereas there are still heated debates as to what drone style (Henderson, Lawrie, Macdougall, etc.), usually in reference to bore size and harmonics . . . and what chanter sounds the best . . . these are also usually of UTMOST importance to group play.

However, I would disagree with my learned colleague if there’s a suggestion that individual playing styles are encouraged in highland piping. I feel that it is in fact the opposite. We have an idea, a very good idea, of how those ornaments should be played. Really, there’s only ONE gracing (heavy vs. light D throws) that engenders any kind of debate at all. Grips are grips, birls are birls, etc. In solo play, there is ZERO question (in competition) as to how the instrument should be played. And the ingraining runs deep. I have to admit that when I hear excellent traditional Cape Breton pipers play in Cape Breton style, which is supposedly “more historically accurate” than the standardized Scots-Guards-esque play stule . . . well, Cape Breton sounds “wrong” or even “bad.” Same thing with smallpipes and borders: when people play them “authentically,” it sounds amateurish. I’m brainwashed. But it’s a powerful thing, especially in the Highland tradition.

But back to the UP. I think we’ve also got some misconceptions about standardization. Professional symphonic reed players can’t buy reeds off the store shelf and have them work. There is more than a modicum of tweaking that goes into single-reeds, and double-reeds . . . forget it. The best double-reeds are handmade, and the reedmakers fully expect that the instrumentalist will make the adjustments he/she needs for the instrument to play to his/her expectations.

We’re really not in all that different a position, in my opinion. We have some degree of standardization, particularly in the concert set. Sure, there are some wacky regs out there, but by and large everyone plays a 4ish-keyed chanter with three drones, and upwards of two regs. Mostly in D. C#,C,B,Bb, and other, wackier keys for the afficionados out there who like to break the mold.

As for reeds . . . there aren’t really that many companies, for example, that make oboe reeds. Or even clarinet reeds. Just a few. And that’s for ALL the bajillions of clarinets, saxes, and oboes out there. Mass-produced reeds just aren’t feasible for the UP. They ARE for highland pipes, but just not for us, I don’t think.

And there’s another thing about the symphonic reeds vs. GHB vs. UP. The UP seriously pushes the envelope. Think about it. The GHB chanter is more like a reg than like a chanter. Nine notes, no overblowing, just that one scale and Bob’s-your-uncle. That’s it. The UP chanter tries to be chromatic, and not just in one octave, in TWO. That’s big stuff, particularly for the beloved double-reed. Any of you who play symphonic double reeds will know what I mean . . . you do some serious adjustment of the embouchure to bring each and every note into tune. Not to mention the octave jump. We take that same reed, stick it in a stock with no possibility of embouchure adjustment, and expect it to do not one but two chromatic octaves. I’m personally amazed any of our instruments are in tune.

SO . . . maybe I’m completely missing the point of standardization, and what’s meant. I think we’ve got two issues: the instrument and the technique. The first issue, I think we’re there. Add to my observations on the reed (and our lack of embouchure) the fact that everyone blows differently (bag and bellows pressure), and you’ve got to do some personalization. The technique . . . well, do we really want to be highland pipers? We usually play solo, UP-wise, and when we do play together. . . yeesh, have you heard recordings of unison UP-playing or even Irish trad. whistling? It’s a rare thing when everyone’s gracing co-incides. But we can still play tight, and if we want that ensemble sound, we can get it.

I apologize for this LONG long LONG post . . . but I hope there’s something in it for you.


Stuart