I am infamous in some circles for being willing to work on other makers’ pipes. Mostly I have worked on Pakistani made pipes to make a bad investment into something that works quite well in most ways. No one seems to take issue with that. I have also made adjustments to the work of what I’ll describe as amateur makers, and on rarer occasions the work of more generally respected makers. Very occasionally I have worked on instruments made by makers long since dead. Sometimes those adjustments were very minor such as adjusting the key placement for ergonomics that better suited the owner. I have often added completely reversible tuning slides to the reed seats. I have often added reversible tubing inserts into bass drones or even some of the smaller drones when the bores were strangely large rendering them unable to play steadily at pitch. I have often filed back the key blocks so they were more out of the way of the fingers. And most significantly, I have sometimes re-reamed a chanter and changed some hole positions. This last is considered absolute sacrilege by some.
Although it may be possible to get certain designs to work, it can be very challenging to reed them. Some designs have a slower taper in the top half of the chanter and then taper more quickly in the bottom half. They start and end with the usual dimensions of a 3/16" throat and 1/2" bottom end, roughly speaking, for a D chanter, but can be much smaller than a typical Rowsome style chanter between the back D and G holes. This makes the already chronic issue of breaking back D all but unavoidable and the second octave A and B will generally be sharp. Reaming the bore to something approximating a straighter taper will cure this. Often the C hole is too far “south” to accommodate an in tune C#. Moving the C hole up while making it smaller will allow for both Cs to be in tune. If the G hole is not big enough it will sometimes completely preclude getting a one finger G in the first octave let alone an in tune one. Making it bigger and moving it down very slightly cures this with no side effects, thus making staccato G’s a lot easier and more satisfying.
Obviously, doing these kinds of alterations should not be done unless you are skilled and knowledgeable. The bottom line is there are many “improvements” that are simple, small and clearly have no down side. Others are more questionable but still possibly worth considering. Some are reversible, some not so much. I could talk for days about the different design issues and what I have concluded is workable or advisable or downright unworkable and why.
The state of the art of pipe making is a very non-standardized and not well understood state in many ways. In my experience, even the very best makers are not as comprehensibly knowledgable and/or capable in all the various areas required to make pipes, as they could be, myself included. Historical makers are not immune to this. If anything the best makers today are more knowledgeable than those of old. The instrument is not that old and has had precious little opportunity to evolve compared to classical instruments. In my opinion, there are many makers who, with the best of intentions, don’t seem to be capable of doing what would be considered anything near professional level work for any other more standardized instrument. Personally, I have absolutely no qualms about “improving” these instruments in the interest of helping their owners chip away at the considerable challenges of learning, and reeding their instruments. Many makers are not the best players and/or are not subjecting their instruments to the rigueurs of a professional piper’s life, and are thus not in a position to appreciate some of the finer points of design. For those makers who know what they’re doing relatively speaking, I approach their instruments and designs more carefully, but being an experienced maker I can tell when something is worthy of improvement.
Personally, I have never made changes without the consent of the owner. And although I have sometimes tried to convince the owner of the benefits of changes to no avail, I ultimately am compelled to respect the wishes of the owner regardless of the advisability of their conclusions. I always fully explain what and why I plan on doing. Most are eager to take advantage of my knowledge. Others are more wary since they are understandably not in any position to confirm the efficacy of my claims.
I understand the concept of respecting the work of others but I am ultimately more interested in helping out the owners in getting their instruments to be more playable and enjoyable. Obviously, there are some issues which have little to no potential to undermine the integrity of the design and others that are more invasive and need to be well considered. A consultation with the maker is sometimes advisable, sometimes irrelevant. I can certainly relate to feeling concerned about anyone working on instruments I’ve made, but I am also not exactly inexperienced as a pipe maker, reed maker or player. And IME, one needs to accomplished at all three in order to be competent at the first.
Clearly, there are more and more makers these days that have deeply considered their designs, and many that have not. Boring out chanters made by the former is obviously questionable, but worshipping at the alter of the latter out of ignorance and fear may be understandable, but is also questionable. There also may indeed be very few makers that are in any position to even begin to judge the difference.
hmmm… a pub in Majorca…
