What is a Rowsome Style Chanter

[Mr.Gumby]

The pipes, or at least the chanter, does not 'require' a rush. Some designs do for one reason or another but I wouldn't think all chanters do.

I believe Cillian O Briain designed his take on the D chanter away from the Rowsome pattern.

[PJ]

I'm just curious, since the subject is up...if a quality maker - goes out of his/her way to make an "exact" copy of a particular chanter

I've never heard of anyone making an exact copy. There are always some "improvements" (size or placement of holes, etc.). Even if it were possible to make an exact copy, the reed would also need to be an exact copy to produce the same tone/tuning/volume etc.

Didn't Alain Froment (who some would put alongside Leo Rowsome in terms of skill as a pipemaker) always put a wire rush in the bore of his D chanters?

[misterpatrick]

Froment's D's are rushed, but not his flat chanters are not, at least the ones I've played.

[m4malious]

A couple of comments on some of the comments.....

- Froment rushes. Back in the 90's he was rushing as standard concert and flat (at least C) chanters. He may have stopped doing it at some point, dunno.

There's an interesting linkage from that to the "Rowsome style" topic....

- Alain (and later Keenan, from whom Alain was copying originally) explained to me that the early "short" 14" chanters from Leo were very difficult to get down to modern D. Hence rushing.
- around the same time I bought a Rowsome set made in 1940. That chanter was 14.25". Liam O'flynn went through a box of his reeds trying to test that - in all cases the chanter was flat of "D". His chanter of course being from 1936 and 14".

So, conclusion for me is;
- even Leo had some dramatic changes in at least length changes, in just a 4 year period - not to mention all his fitting variations. So, variable "style".
(It's interesting to posit that by 1940 Leo may have been responding to the 1938/1939 international agreement on British Standard Concert Pitch i.e. A=440, but before that was aiming for the A=452 or 455 sort of mark that was not uncommon).

- rushing, whilst frowned upon by the purists, is a tuning device used by even the big names

M

[benoit trémolières]

I have another explanation to add:To get a proper hard D, the lowest end of the chanter have to be at a certain diameter, depending of all other parameters: Average diameter of the bore, chanter length, and throat diameter (and, probably: position of the highest holes, wich affects greatly the hard D).
If this lowest diameter is too narrow, the note is not emited.
I'm pretty convinced this is an explanation of the more opened cone many chanters have under the lowest hand: If your "prototype" does'nt give the hard D, the easiest way to fix that consists to rebore this part with another of your existant reamers (A more "open" one).
You can reduce this end diameter, but the bore has to be wide enough.
It looks as if many makers used this trick in the past.
But widening this diameter affects the tuning.
You can be tempted to lengthen the chanter to set the hard D in tune, but it does'nt sound so good after. The E's tuning can be affected to, and even the second F#. So you have to make choice: Tuning, or Hard D?
Putting a rush inside the bore allows a sort of "too large"and "too short" bore, giving the hard D,with less tuning troubles,( because -generaly-it keeps this note working).
This could be why some makers ( as Alain Froment), assert that concert pitch chanters was made to play with a rush.

[Mr.Gumby]

I like Leo's pipes partly out of sentimental value, frankly, they aren't the greatest thing imaginable for tone, and some of the construction could be really crude.

Spot on Kevin, all of it.

A Leo set, well set is really the sound set in the memory most of us (and I mean that of my own generation) because most pipers we heard early on had that particular sound (although in fairness sitting across from Ennis, perhaps ten, fifteen foot away, at a concert was my first encounter with the pipes).


I taught a neighbour's daughter, she played a Leo chanter that was handpicked for her (Willie) set by Seán Reid. When reeded well, it would have that particular tone on some notes that Liam O Flynn has. Quite lovely mostly but overall it was always a struggle and she still doesn't use the drones because they sucked the air out of the bag at an enormous rate.

But it's that sound that I recall, sitting in Martin Rochford's kitchen with him trying to get your opinion if the Leo reed or the McFadden was the sweeter one (he knew ofcourse it was the McFadden one but he wanted to know if we'd agree) and likewise many other occasions.

My idea of a good concert pitch set with volume would be basically a louder Coyne, beautiful to see and hear, which I think has been done about twice?

Who's the other one?

[daveboling]

You can rush a bore that is sharp, but how do you shorten an instrument that is too flat? Blu tack on the bottom edge of tone holes will only get you so far. If you shorten the reed, you have to decide which note you want spot on. If you pick the back D, the notes below become increasingly flat. If you pick the bottom D, the ascending notes become increasingly sharp, and this is ignoring what this does to the relationship between the octaves.
Wood also moves, and although pipe makers go through many steps (selection, resting time, incremental machining, etc.) to make sure this movement is minimalized, it will still move over time. From what little I know of working wood (mainly building wooden boats - luddite warning ), unless a lot of moisture is involved, the movement will be shrinkage, which could make the instrument more flat.
If I've got this all wrong, I'd greatly appreciate any of the pipe makers who participate on this board to help me see the light.

dave boling

[geoff wooff]

Dave,

talking of a specific case or generally ?

If you need to raise the pitch of a chanter you would have more success by inserting the reed further (by shortening it if needs be) and bringing the Hard D up to pitch and then taping ( or using poster putty etc) the top sides of the finger holes to bring them down . This will perhaps only be usefull if the chanter is only slightly flat.

Another way is to make a reed with a faster 'reed head speed'. This is my phrase for the note produced when one tests the crow of a reed, sucking air from the lower end of the staple. I like to have my chanter reed's 'head speed' at the A note of the particular chanter... so for my Narrow Bore D's the reed gives an A when sucked...up to 20 cents sharp of A.

If one used a reed with a head speed of A in some Rowsome models they would play close to Eb. Most chanter reeds for Concert Pitch D's would have a head speed of G or even flatter.... this helps to get the pitch down to 440hz but can make the high notes of the upper octave more difficult to reach.

Using a Rush or wire in a chanter will have more effect on the lower octave than the upper as it changes the physical size of the bore.

I do not use any Rushes in my chanters because I do not see the need, it only deadens the tone and and creates a want for a stronger reed which then 'DRIVES' the chanter.... I prefer when my 'Chanter drives the Reed'.... in other words the reed is compliant enough for the commands coming from the chanter ( from the piper) to control the sound.

[benoit trémolières]

one more time: there's many ways to set a chanter at the pitch you want.
First, as says Geoff, you have to find the "note" the reed has to produce, to make the chanter playing at the desired pitch.
Any "type" of reed can do it, no matter its proportions are. You just start with a "standard" staple, and try to make a head high or low enough.

Then you check the "octaviation abilitys". That means: can the reed reach the high D (third octave).
If not, you have to reduce the head width, or widen the staple inner diameter.
After a few trys, you get a first idea of the balance between head and staple needed to play in this chanter.
-When you enlarge the staple, or reduce the head, the reed plays higher. You can fix that in lengthening the staple, reduce the reed stiffness or lengthen the head and scapping length.
-If the third octave is allright, you know that the staple diameter could be reduced, if needed.

Check the hard D.
If it doesn't work at all, a narrower staple is requierd.
-If the third D works well, you can do that, making it shorter to keep the pitch, if working on the head dimensions is not enough.
-If this third octave does'nt work, you can try to narrow only the last lower part of the staple. (in my last experiment, it is not the last mm that matter, but somewhere a few mm above.)
In such a case, you know that the deeper the lower part of the scrapping is, the better is the hard D. But you can not always do enough this way.

It's too long to explain everything by writing, but there's many other things that can be tryed.

When you get a proper hard D, then you start to fix all the other tuning troubles, working on the balance between head and staple, staple mesurements, type of scrapping, head proportions, shape of the tail and chest, bridle position and strongness, binding length and strongness, etc...
Since all of this have been tryed, you finalyse the last details with work on the holes and rush, if needed.

EVERYTHING CAN BE FIXED WITH THE REED! (But you can spend 20 years on a particular chanter )

[Kevin L. Rietmann]

My idea of a good concert pitch set with volume would be basically a louder Coyne, beautiful to see and hear, which I think has been done about twice?

Who's the other one?

Oh, I've always championed Brad Angus's stuff you know. Preston Howard's set has tons of buzz and is louder than hell to boot. I was kind of being charitable, or giving the benefit of the doubt. Forget if I've ever actually heard one of Geoff's D sets in person, aren't they just a step up from an Egan for decibels? They sound brilliant of course. But still a chamber instrument.

Quinn's pipes are in great tune and loud as all get out too, and pretty much lead the pack from what I've heard on records, well I've actually played a few of them too. Good sound but Brad's stuff buzzes. Dave likes a more plain jane set of harmonics. It's leagues ahead of all the yackety saxes out there though. What a waste of eardrums.

No doubt there are makers out there trying to improve on the revival standard. Bill Haneman's pipes look great and the sound samples on his site sounded great too. They never made it to my neck of the woods though, curious since Bill used to live round here.

[daveboling]

Dave,

talking of a specific case or generally ?

Geoff,
I was speaking generally. What I had in mind was building compensation for the eventual shrinking of the timber, but I was projecting the amount of wood movement I seen in boat building onto woods with drastically different properties, in an entirely different environment. As damp as the native land of the uilleann pipes can be, it doesn't begin to approach what the bottom of a wooden boat sees on a daily basis. Shows what a little reflection before posting could have done for me.
What, if any, effect will shortening the staple do regarding the relationship between the two octaves? Bring them closer together?
Every time you post, I learn something useful.

Thanks,

dave boling

[geoff wooff]

well Dave... it depends:

If you shorten the staple but maintain the distance between the top of the reed and the end of the chanter, then this action usually results in an apparent rise in pitch of G and the upper notes of the second octave.... the effect is usually marginal.

If you shorten the staple with a view to inserting it further into the chanter and you do push it in , then the upper hand notes will get sharper more quickly than those further away from the reeds...

If you wish to sharpen those upper octave notes... if your G or A is slightly flat... then a better action is to unwind your reed and insert the staple further into the head... say 1mm and carefully re-bind.... making sure that you replace the reed with the same amount of protrusion that you had prior to this adjustment.... with this you can gain those few vital cents which make even a 'meter correct' upper G and A sound better against the drones ... like the octaves have been clearly achieved. Keeping the original distance of the reed tips to the end of the chanter will maintain the gamut... keep your D's in the same place... etc.

By shortening the reed as I wrote a few posts above I was thinking to speed up the reed head by croping a very small amount off the top of the head. This does not always work and every move one makes to cure one fault will have an effect on other notes... not always in a good way....

[geoff wooff]

My idea of a good concert pitch set with volume would be basically a louder Coyne, beautiful to see and hear, which I think has been done about twice?

Who's the other one?

Oh, I've always championed Brad Angus's stuff you know. Preston Howard's set has tons of buzz and is louder than hell to boot. I was kind of being charitable, or giving the benefit of the doubt. Forget if I've ever actually heard one of Geoff's D sets in person, aren't they just a step up from an Egan for decibels? They sound brilliant of course. But still a chamber instrument.

Quinn's pipes are in great tune and loud as all get out too, and pretty much lead the pack from what I've heard on records, well I've actually played a few of them too. Good sound but Brad's stuff buzzes. Dave likes a more plain jane set of harmonics. It's leagues ahead of all the yackety saxes out there though. What a waste of eardrums.

No doubt there are makers out there trying to improve on the revival standard. Bill Haneman's pipes look great and the sound samples on his site sounded great too. They never made it to my neck of the woods though, curious since Bill used to live round here.

Kevin, tis a wee bit too general to suggest that a set is louder or quieter than an 'Egan' or a 'Rowsome'... so much depends on how the instrument is set up. I for one have never heard an Egan going properly ... and if I have not heard one I am sure that 99% of pipers alive today have also not experienced one.

My NBD concept was to create an instrument that would blend with other session instruments without dominating. The first and most important thing about a bagpipe is its general lack of dynamic ability... so once one has set the volume, it is not easy to change it at will. There are insensitive people who just play the things and care not a jot for the wrecking effect of loud pipes on a nice session and equally there are those who would not get their pipes out of the box from fear of spoiling things for others. So... I wanted to make a D Pipes which works like the C Pipes that I learned to play on.... with a loudness which would not drown a fiddle and a flute... would 'sit-in' a nice session as an equal member. I have found this NBD much aprieciated by the other musicians in comparison to those Concert Pipes which can be so overwhelming. Of course, if you play in a carpeted hotel lounge with a Paolo Soprani and a Banjo...your opinion may differ.

I was lucky enough to call into see Peter last autumn and to hear how the NBD is settling in... I put that set in the top draw along with the very best of the Flat sets I have made.

[Mr.Gumby]

I for one have never heard an Egan going properly

While not all parts may have been working each time I heard it, there's one that was making all the right noises.





It may have been the piper though.

[Ted]

I have seen Leo R. D sets reeded so they blend well in sessions. Same for K&Q and other Rowsome copies. The large bore concert pitch chanters need not be too loud. It all depends on how they are reeded. I once heard a Wooff narrow bore D set that was reeded very loud, as well as a couple of other NB concert chanters that were reeded as loud as any of the big bores. It is all in the reeds concerning volume. The tone is a bigger variable than volume IMO.