Hello all. I hope this post finds you relaxed and sipping a beverage.
Been doing a bit of research as of late, and realized something I can’t believe hadn’t come to my attention before: there are different styles of chanter engineering. Now this may not come as a surprise to most of you, but I was wondering what it meant with regards to tone, volume, color, and the like. I read that Froment crafted Rowsome Style chanters and it occurred to me that other pipe makers advertise similar achievements.
What does it all mean? How is a Rowsome different from a Coyne, etc? Are there defining qualities? Do some chanter varieties fall out of favor as the ‘zeitgeist’ changes? Could someone more knowledgeable shed some light?
It means (to me at least) that the internal design (bore, hole placement, throat, etc.) are based on Rowsome’s work.
There doesn’t seem to be one definitive Rowsome design. What most likely happpens is that a maker will measure the bore, throat, etc of a Rowsome chanter (or use the measurements which someone else has taken) and use these as the basis for his chanter.
Leo Rowsome made (mainly) wide bore concert pitch (D) pipes. Maurice Coyne made narrow bore flat pitch (B, C, C#). Narrow bore tends to be (but is not always) quieter and mellower than wide bore. As Rowsome is a common model for wide bore D pipes, Coyne is a common model for narrow bore flat sets.
I agree with PJ Not Just bore size but hole size as well. I have just made a Rowsome bore chanter and have used P Hunter outside block and turning style. I am now making a set of regulators using Geoff Woofs plan of an Egan full set. The building and set are for my enjoyment and will not be sold. My issue is intellectual copyright. Do I call it a BWHER an apt acronym. Is there an issue or maybe a need for pipe makers to pass on skills and tradition ?
All WB concert pitch chanters that came after William Rowsome are Rowsome style chanters. Its more a term of the time scale of devolopment than any kind of bore and tonehole measurements .
Rory has a good point although i suppose there must be a handful of makers who adopted a Taylor-based pattern instead. And i’m sure some makers would say they have come up with a new design without reference to a historical design.
All that being said i think the term ‘Rowsome-style’ is a bit vague. Certainly most concert D chanters will be ‘Rowsome style’ in the broadest sense although some strive to be much closer to the distinctive sound and feel of the originals than others!
All that being said i think the term ‘Rowsome-style’ is a bit vague. Certainly most concert D chanters will be ‘Rowsome style’ in the broadest sense although some strive to be much closer to the distinctive sound and feel of the originals than others!
Most chanter designs are a list of choices and compromises. Leo Rowsome had a long career in making, but seemed to have a preference for certain elements. He liked to have a variety of effects available in playing the C-,C+,C#+/- notes and the ability to get ‘yelps’ and slides on F#. Accomplished players can probably wring these effects from most any stick, but they’re there for the asking on a good Rowsome example.
I would agree with much of what has been said already. The variety of meanings attached to “Rowsome style chanter” is so wide as to make the phrase essentially meaningless.
While it is true that there is much variation within Leo Rowsome’s output, the vast majority of “Rowsome style” chanters out there do not lie anywhere within that scatter plot.
If I were to assign terminology [of course no one is asking me :roll:] I might suggest something like this:
“Rowsome inspired” (possibly inspired by the sound alone)
“Rowsome influenced”
“Rowsome derived”
“Modified Rowsome”
“Rowsome Copy” (a notoriously inaccurate description in most cases)
“Authentic Rowsome style” (meaning, consistent in detail with actual Rowsome chanters )
“Copy of a specific Rowsome chanter”
The numbers of modern chanters in those last two categories is vanishingly small.
I remember Chris Langan telling me about the first chanter he made, which was a copy of his own Rowsome chanter. On a trip over he had a very young Mick O’Brien try it. Mick heard the sharp lower E and the flat 2nd octave E. “Copy of one of Leo’s is it?” he said.
So Rowsome-esque used to mean “with out of tune Es!”
The reasons for that quirk are now (I believe) better understood, and BK certainly has no problem reeding Chris’ Rowsome chanter in tune.
I recently discovered that the E’s tuning is directly correlated with the stiffness of the reed"chest"(the part between bridle and the eye of the staple).
This stiffness is depending of the cane, of the thickness of the slip, and of the widness of the head. The binding is of considerable influence too.
It has to be mentioned that the more you lengthen the scrapping to the lower part of the head, the more you soften the chest.
Then, as usual, a lot of parameters have to be dealt with, to master this variable.
But it’s another way to tune these notes, without modifying the holes.
Strangely enough, I’d use “Rowsomesque” to describe the look of a set, rather than the internal design, particularly to distinguish it from Taylor(esque). It would suggest a certain style of mount on the chanter, as well as “tear-drop” regulator keys (as opposed to “fiddle” keys or “ribbon” keys).
Interesting! I wasn’t expecting to hear that ‘Rowsome’ basically referred to a wide bore D chanter, in so many words. The pipe maker I was talking to seemed particularly proud of the tone and responsiveness of his new design - and when I asked this I was wondering if this quality comes part and parcel with the “Rowsome Style”.
I guess that your maker therefore feels his new design to be very close to an original Rowsome chanter in terms of design and also sound. In my opinion that can only be a good thing!!!
For many people, myself included, a good Rowsome chanter is really the Holy Grail of concert pitch pipes in terms of tone!!
