One of the booster/members of the local UP club has a chanter by Mr. O’Grady, which in terms of appearance looks as if it would go very well with the set pictured in ausdag’s post. I asked for permission to play it, and was very pleasantly surprised. Nicely in tune, with quite good Es. The reed was by our Nick Whitmer, who was also present at the time.
I had an O’Grady. Same comments as above. I ended up grinding (shortening) the Bb key so it didn’t touch the Cnat by accident. The lower block met my Dremel tool and became more comfortable. Also a thing to repair… the chanter inlet tube is only soldered in place. When this comes loose you should push it into the reedcap tube 1/8" deeper and add a bead of solder from the inside to reinforce it.
..
All these comments plus comments I’ve heard in the past suggest to me that if Mr O’Grady were to attend to some external design changes he would benefit positively. He obviously has a great reputation for tonality but he appears to draw some reservations when it comes to external appearance.
Some may argue that he is producing ‘budget’ sets as the prices seem quite reasonable. If that’s the case, my response is, why does a budget set have to look ‘budget’? Budget clarinets don’t look noticeably different from higher quality ones.
Cheers,
DavidG
I’ve played two different O’Grady sets. One half and one full. Both were very easy to play and had a lovely tone. Initially I was put off by the aesthetics - in particular, I found the mounts to be a bit chunky. However, I’m growing to like his style. Also, as NO’G is beginning to get notice for the sound of his pipes, I believe he should keep the unique style. It sets his work apart and makes it readily recognisable.
However, some minor tweaking could greatly benefit the feel of the chanter such as, as previously mentioned, a more comfortable position for the right thumb.
Ah, but budget clarinets sound and feel different than pro ones. I’d rather a budget set of pipes sound as good as a top-end one and skimp a bit on aesthetics instead. Ergonomics, though, are a major consideration in any case.
My O’Grady set. Sweet chanter and rock steady drones. But has some problem with the Regs
1.The key spring is too hard to press, must find a way to soften them.
2.The first row (cac) is too close to the end of the mainstock and difficult to press.
3.The Baritone dorone is lower than the other two Regs
3.The Baritone D key is flat and low ,so it’s very difficult to Press the D key with the tenor f#key
Which is harder - make a set that sounds good or make a set that looks good? Of course, the trick is to combine the two, but getting the right tone, tuning, bore, etc. seems to me to be much more difficult than deciding whether brass or chrome looks better with ABW, Cocobolo, etc.
Getting back to O’Grady sets, I think that his sets are as dinstictive looking as Taylor sets. The latter style has been copied by modern-day makers, even though it’s not universally loved.
Visually, the O’Grady sets I have seen are without a lot of ornate milling or turning… a simplicity of craftmanship would seem to be the rule. I have no problems with simplicity, especially if the set rings true.
On the other hand, I am a sucker for brilliant milling and turning… an over-all ‘prettiness’ factor to the design of the Uilleann Pipes.
Shaker furniture, Southwest Airlines & Ted & now Aer Lingus, Rocha Waterford (crystal with less cuts), Leo Rowsome ‘practice’ or starter chanters - delivering a streamlined service/product makes a lot of sense. Most pipemakers really do put a lot into their design - they want their pipes to be distinctive for style and way the thing works.
My old Lambe drones aren’t exactly top-notch in the aesthetic and design department and the price was quite good back in 1991 - I’d almost consider them ‘budget’. The sound is good and compared to the O’Grady pics above, it’s amazing how much of a difference a few quick and simple grooves turned into the brass makes to the overall appearance.