Last week, I heard an interview of a classical violinist who was speaking about the sound of his violin (a strad) and how it particularly suited his style of playing. Then he said that the combination of the two had allowed him to find his musical "voice" - in blunt terms, the unique tone he, and only he, was able to get from that particular instrument.
It got me thinking that there are very few pipers who have a distinctive tone or voice to their piping. Liam O'Flynn once spoke about Seamus Ennis's unique tone. I think Willie Clancy has a distinctive tone when he played slow airs but that this tone was not so apparent when he played dance music. Of the present generation of pipers, there are only a few few pipers who, IMHO, have found a distinctive "voice" to for their piping.
Are pipers more concerned with their piping technique than with the tone they produce? Should more attention be given to tone or to finding the "voice" of the instrument?
Tone and technique
-
djm
- Posts: 17853
- Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 5:47 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Canadia
- Contact:
Aren't we subconsciously building our tone as we practise tunes and technique? Aren't we always listening to what we play and what is coming out of our pipes? Whenever we work on getting our pipes to sound the way we want them to I think we are, at some level, creating our own tone.
To consciously work to master one's tone I think would require us to be beyond the stage of, say, "only" working on technique, or "only" working to build our repertoire. At that point I would expect we would be fairly advanced pipers, and that we would be polishing the tone we'd already developed over the years.
djm
To consciously work to master one's tone I think would require us to be beyond the stage of, say, "only" working on technique, or "only" working to build our repertoire. At that point I would expect we would be fairly advanced pipers, and that we would be polishing the tone we'd already developed over the years.
djm
I'd rather be atop the foothills than beneath them.
-
simonknight
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:53 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Southeastern PA USA
I can't speak for the violin, but I play a number of wind instruments and don't find the same scope for controlling the tone while actually playing the pipes (I'm not talking about reed quality or adjustment).
On the UPs I find that once the pressure is correct and there are no problems with finger leaks, the tone is what it is. On instruments where the reed is in the mouth, air column support, embouchure pressure and shape, throat shape and chest cavity make a huge difference to tone production. The range of dynamics and tone qualities is larger - you can produce a note in tune over a range of dynamics and produce both subtle changes in resonance and radically different tone colors. Some instruments do seem to match the player better: I have picked up otherwise very good instruments which just haven't made the right sound for me.
Obviously there are other ways of adding texture to UP playing.
I can hear distinct differences in some chanter designs - Gallagher vs. K&Q. Reed preference must make a difference to tone. David Power has a distinctive sound on his Froment set.
On the UPs I find that once the pressure is correct and there are no problems with finger leaks, the tone is what it is. On instruments where the reed is in the mouth, air column support, embouchure pressure and shape, throat shape and chest cavity make a huge difference to tone production. The range of dynamics and tone qualities is larger - you can produce a note in tune over a range of dynamics and produce both subtle changes in resonance and radically different tone colors. Some instruments do seem to match the player better: I have picked up otherwise very good instruments which just haven't made the right sound for me.
Obviously there are other ways of adding texture to UP playing.
I can hear distinct differences in some chanter designs - Gallagher vs. K&Q. Reed preference must make a difference to tone. David Power has a distinctive sound on his Froment set.
Simon
-
PJ
- Posts: 5889
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:23 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: ......................................................................................................
- Location: Baychimo
I think that there's much more to tone than just technique. In fact, I think that technique and tone can be (but are not necessarily) entirely distinct from one another. Mastering tone requires the piper to know what tone he or she wants and how to get it. Reedmaking and pipemaking would be a big part of this.
PJ
-
misterpatrick
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:20 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota
I think one thing we have to always keep in mind is that in this day and age we are often listening to recordings of pipers and not the pipers themselves. Take a listen to a recording of two contemporary pipers and you'll notice a huge difference in tone that may or may not have anything to do with their pipes. For example, David Power's has a huge sound on his C set and while that is a big sounding set live, a lot of that has to do with the style in which it was recorded.
I think what people refer to as that special tone Ennis was able to get out of his set came from an intimate familiarity with the set. When you really know what a particular chanter can do you're able to get that special "tone" out of it. One that someone just casually strapping the set on isn't going to be able to do. If you strap on David's Fromment set you won't find yourself sounding like David even though you're playing his set. You'll also wonder what kind of steroids he's on because, man, those are some hard reeds.
Just a few thoughts.
I think what people refer to as that special tone Ennis was able to get out of his set came from an intimate familiarity with the set. When you really know what a particular chanter can do you're able to get that special "tone" out of it. One that someone just casually strapping the set on isn't going to be able to do. If you strap on David's Fromment set you won't find yourself sounding like David even though you're playing his set. You'll also wonder what kind of steroids he's on because, man, those are some hard reeds.
Just a few thoughts.
-
simonknight
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:53 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Southeastern PA USA
If you strap on David's set and play a note competently with the same bag pressure I bet you will produce the same tone. But I agree that if you play a tune on his set you won't end up sounding the same . A player's overall sound is a lot more than their tone production. What we hear is the basic tone of the instrument plus the texture that the player adds.misterpatrick wrote:If you strap on David's Fromment set you won't find yourself sounding like David even though you're playing his set.
I firmly believe that UPs often suffer from bad microphone placement whenever they are close miced, especially if separate ones are used for chanter and drones. The sound can't blend and you get phase cancellation with two mics so close to each other. Whatever the result, EQ will required and the sound will be processed rather than natural.
I recall David saying that in the studio he was recorded with a single mic placed high and a few feet away, so his sound should be more natural.
Simon
-
misterpatrick
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 9:20 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Saint Paul, Minnesota
Simon,
you bring up an interesting topic. What are some effective methods for recording the pipes? I've seen several methods but would love to hear what other people have done or seen done for live and studio. There appears to be the single overhead, the bass drone/chanter dual-mic flat capture, the reed-cap or reed mic thing that Spillane and Rigert seem to use. Choice there would seem to be how flat or how natural you want to record the sound and how much post processing you want to do to it.
For example, I have a Zoom H4 which has those crossed stereo mics. Let's say I'm recording myself or someone else, where is the best place to capture to the full sounds. I usually figure about four feet away in order to capture some of the room ambiance and allow the lower notes to fully form and pointing at the chanter. I haven't experimented or anything so am not sure if that works best with my setup.
you bring up an interesting topic. What are some effective methods for recording the pipes? I've seen several methods but would love to hear what other people have done or seen done for live and studio. There appears to be the single overhead, the bass drone/chanter dual-mic flat capture, the reed-cap or reed mic thing that Spillane and Rigert seem to use. Choice there would seem to be how flat or how natural you want to record the sound and how much post processing you want to do to it.
For example, I have a Zoom H4 which has those crossed stereo mics. Let's say I'm recording myself or someone else, where is the best place to capture to the full sounds. I usually figure about four feet away in order to capture some of the room ambiance and allow the lower notes to fully form and pointing at the chanter. I haven't experimented or anything so am not sure if that works best with my setup.
-
Brazenkane
- Posts: 1600
- Joined: Fri May 28, 2004 6:19 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Boobyville
w/all due respect to the author of the first post: I wanted to address one point:
Just because we hear or don't hear something doesn't necessarily mean it's fact. I humbly advise that you not draw any proverbial lines in the sand about what you do and do not yet hear. You are not yet able to hear what is very apparent to many, regarding Clancy's dance music and that's "ok." Keep investigating, asking, and especially try to ask a very experienced player, "what am I missing here?" Help me hear what it is."
No one on this list or anywhere is born with great listening skills. Listening, the act thereof is cultivated throughout the life of a musician. In fact, it's much like the pipes you play. It must be practiced. Someone who has been piping for 7yrs will not have the same level of listening skills after he's been playing for 15yrs (hopefully). It is a hard earned skill, and it does slip if you don't work on it. Fine hearing skills do not come w/out HUGE amounts of effort.
The good news is that it can be learned. If your a late bloomer to music, you might have to work extra hard to solidify things. It is only when one becomes a hardcore student of this music can the ground work for an original voice be laid. Even then, nothing is guaranteed. Ennis, Clancy, Doran, O'Flynn and the list goes on. ALL those boys were serious listeners, constantly studying what they were hearing, always analyzing what they were hearing. Did they do it like we do it today? Perhaps yes and no. We have the aid of computers etc. That said, we do know they did the work. How do we know this? Well as the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding."
Just because we hear or don't hear something doesn't necessarily mean it's fact. I humbly advise that you not draw any proverbial lines in the sand about what you do and do not yet hear. You are not yet able to hear what is very apparent to many, regarding Clancy's dance music and that's "ok." Keep investigating, asking, and especially try to ask a very experienced player, "what am I missing here?" Help me hear what it is."
No one on this list or anywhere is born with great listening skills. Listening, the act thereof is cultivated throughout the life of a musician. In fact, it's much like the pipes you play. It must be practiced. Someone who has been piping for 7yrs will not have the same level of listening skills after he's been playing for 15yrs (hopefully). It is a hard earned skill, and it does slip if you don't work on it. Fine hearing skills do not come w/out HUGE amounts of effort.
The good news is that it can be learned. If your a late bloomer to music, you might have to work extra hard to solidify things. It is only when one becomes a hardcore student of this music can the ground work for an original voice be laid. Even then, nothing is guaranteed. Ennis, Clancy, Doran, O'Flynn and the list goes on. ALL those boys were serious listeners, constantly studying what they were hearing, always analyzing what they were hearing. Did they do it like we do it today? Perhaps yes and no. We have the aid of computers etc. That said, we do know they did the work. How do we know this? Well as the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding."
-
simonknight
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:53 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Southeastern PA USA
I wholeheartedly agree with this. I came to the pipes with a lot of experience of other instruments, but I would estimate I could only hear a fraction of what was being played. It took time to understand what is really going on with ornaments, especially some of the rhythmic subtleties. Then there are layer upon layer of textures that players add to notes. (I was boggled when someone described Liam O'Flynn as one dimensional). I think the fact that the instrument itself has some many limits in terms of dynamic range and responsiveness, players have devised techniques to add texture, musicality and phrasing that are not immediately obvious until you learn to hear them.Brazenkaine wrote:w/all due respect to the author of the first post: I wanted to address one point:
Just because we hear or don't hear something doesn't necessarily mean it's fact. I humbly advise that you not draw any proverbial lines in the sand about what you do and do not yet hear. You are not yet able to hear what is very apparent to many, regarding Clancy's dance music and that's "ok." Keep investigating, asking, and especially try to ask a very experienced player, "what am I missing here?" Help me hear what it is."
No one on this list or anywhere is born with great listening skills. Listening, the act thereof is cultivated throughout the life of a musician. In fact, it's much like the pipes you play. It must be practiced. Someone who has been piping for 7yrs will not have the same level of listening skills after he's been playing for 15yrs (hopefully). It is a hard earned skill, and it does slip if you don't work on it. Fine hearing skills do not come w/out HUGE amounts of effort.
The good news is that it can be learned. If your a late bloomer to music, you might have to work extra hard to solidify things. It is only when one becomes a hardcore student of this music can the ground work for an original voice be laid. Even then, nothing is guaranteed. Ennis, Clancy, Doran, O'Flynn and the list goes on. ALL those boys were serious listeners, constantly studying what they were hearing, always analyzing what they were hearing. Did they do it like we do it today? Perhaps yes and no. We have the aid of computers etc. That said, we do know they did the work. How do we know this? Well as the old saying goes, "the proof is in the pudding."
Simon
-
PJ
- Posts: 5889
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:23 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: ......................................................................................................
- Location: Baychimo
I didn't mean to suggest that Clancy's dance music was in any way bad. However, I find his slow airs much more distinctively Clancy - by which I mean I hear it and know it could ONLY be him - than his dance music. (I'm listen to the Bright Lady as I type this).Brazenkaine wrote:w/all due respect to the author of the first post: I wanted to address one point...
I agree entirely with what you say about learning to listen. However, until relatively recently when listening to other pipers, I've paid patricular attention to their technique (ornamentation, variation, tempo, tight/open playing etc. they employed) but not gave enough attention to the tone they managed to obtain from their pipes, which has less to do with technique than appears.
PJ
-
simonknight
- Posts: 375
- Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 7:53 am
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: Southeastern PA USA
On the subject of recording the pipes, I haven't done anything outside of my home studio. I have setup live and recordings of other instrument and I'm familiar with the theory of sound reinforcement / recording.
I have tried a coincident stereo pair and a large diameter condenser. Having the main mic at about 6 feet then the pair way back allows you to control the amount of room in the mix.
I did set up David P in Philly once. You have remember the 'rule of three' if you are close micing. Try to keep the drone mic at at least 3x the distance from the chanter as the main mic to avoid noticeable phase cancellation. The pipes also produce wicked transients 20dB higher than the average level. They don't get caught by an analog meter and clip my valve pre-amp unless I watch the levels.
For studio work a condenser will give a truer sound, but is more prone to clipping. For live work a dynamic mic is more robust and less likely to let the peaks cause a problem. I wouldn't put a ribbon mic within six feet of a concert chanter.
I have tried a coincident stereo pair and a large diameter condenser. Having the main mic at about 6 feet then the pair way back allows you to control the amount of room in the mix.
I did set up David P in Philly once. You have remember the 'rule of three' if you are close micing. Try to keep the drone mic at at least 3x the distance from the chanter as the main mic to avoid noticeable phase cancellation. The pipes also produce wicked transients 20dB higher than the average level. They don't get caught by an analog meter and clip my valve pre-amp unless I watch the levels.
For studio work a condenser will give a truer sound, but is more prone to clipping. For live work a dynamic mic is more robust and less likely to let the peaks cause a problem. I wouldn't put a ribbon mic within six feet of a concert chanter.
Simon
-
maze
- Posts: 396
- Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2002 6:00 pm
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 1
- Location: The Swamp (go Gators!)
- Contact:
tone
I would have to agree with brazenkane with this one - which is why at a lot of tionol's and workshops there are specific courses to learn how to listen... not just learn technique and tunes... without the first, the second and third aspects of playing cannot be appropriately applied to the art.
Simply take some folks with nearly-identical instruments (at least chanters) - Brian McNamara, Jerry O'Sullivan, Cillian Vallely, Paddy Keenan, etc... and (and i did say nearly so as to not start a war of words) - completely different tone aside from technique. Each has their own idiomatic tonality... I have seen personally each of these folks take my chanter, by the same make, and sound like themselves tone-wise. Dr. McNamara even sounds like himself on two completely different machines in two different keys. He argues that there are some things he cannot do on one or the other... and that you simply learn to play the set you have with all of its innate characteristics... but still whether in C or in D, he sounds like himself... why? Because he has listened for decades, knows what he wants to sound like, and works hard to sound that way.
But what do I know?... I still only sound like me!
Simply take some folks with nearly-identical instruments (at least chanters) - Brian McNamara, Jerry O'Sullivan, Cillian Vallely, Paddy Keenan, etc... and (and i did say nearly so as to not start a war of words) - completely different tone aside from technique. Each has their own idiomatic tonality... I have seen personally each of these folks take my chanter, by the same make, and sound like themselves tone-wise. Dr. McNamara even sounds like himself on two completely different machines in two different keys. He argues that there are some things he cannot do on one or the other... and that you simply learn to play the set you have with all of its innate characteristics... but still whether in C or in D, he sounds like himself... why? Because he has listened for decades, knows what he wants to sound like, and works hard to sound that way.
But what do I know?... I still only sound like me!
Maze
-
PJ
- Posts: 5889
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 12:23 pm
- antispam: No
- Please enter the next number in sequence: 8
- Tell us something.: ......................................................................................................
- Location: Baychimo
Re: tone
I'm not sure if I'm making myself clear but again I'll try: The "voice" a good piper produces on his instrument is achieved by something more than just good piping technique or a good set of pipes. It's probably what separates the good from the great. You can learn good piping technique, to make reeds, pipes, etc. But I think that what is neglected is learning to listen not just to the technique used by great pipers, but to the unique "voice" that they can produce.
Most of the piping classes I've been to have been about learning tunes, technique or reedmaking. As pointed out above, the fairly recent development on learning to listen is, IMHO, a step in the right direction. I've not yet been to such a class but would hope that the student is taught not just to listen to the ornaments and variations but to the voice of the instrument.
Most of the piping classes I've been to have been about learning tunes, technique or reedmaking. As pointed out above, the fairly recent development on learning to listen is, IMHO, a step in the right direction. I've not yet been to such a class but would hope that the student is taught not just to listen to the ornaments and variations but to the voice of the instrument.
PJ