Tracking the standard chanter

[MTGuru]

the huge difference that renders the comparison with UPs moot is that tuning and response can be controlled with the embouchre.

And different levels of moisture. They're played wet, and typically soaked before playing ... At least I remember the oboe/bassoon players I knew walking around with reeds in water glasses. And I think you might use reeds of slightly different stiffness and geometry for different applications - orchestral, chamber, solo, etc.

From what I've been told and read, all decent oboe and bassoon players make their own reeds. "Standard" reeds may be available, but they are rarely good enough for the high level players, and must be adjusted to suit actual conditions.

I think that's basically right, Nico. But in my day at least, the student double reed players in high school (even the good ones, including my girlfriend ) used pre-made store-bought reeds, perhaps scraping them a bit to suit. And they seemed to do quite well at that level. Which suggested to me that there's a greater degree of standardization that pipers would envy, and/or that wet embouchure reeds are simply much less fussy.

On the other hand, the studio of my clarinet teacher - who was primarily a Broadway pit oboist by profession - always looked like a bloody reed factory. And I always wondered how much of this was from necessity, or simply because when you can make your own reeds, the temptation to tinker is great.

But I have no horse in this race ... er, reed in this chanter ... I'm stickin' to whistles. At least for now ...

[simonknight]

They're played wet,

And I think you might use reeds of slightly different stiffness and geometry for different applications - orchestral, chamber, solo, etc.

A wet reed does eliminate the whole humidity dimension. You can buy store bought reeds, but different makers' reeds vary a great deal in dimensions. Overall you've got a lot more latitude due to embouchure control. The other factor that varies is the staple for oboe reeds and the bocal (the equivalent) on the bassoon. These are not standardized except within makers and have a significant effect on the instrument's response.

On the bassoon I don't use a different reed for delicate passage but I do use a different bocal. I do use a harder reed for very high passages.

In my opinion where a conical bore, double reed instrument is concerned there's no such thing as standard or perfect, only a balance of compromises.

[uillmann]

"There are no good reeds. We just learn to play the bad ones."

[pancelticpiper]

How on earth could you get a bunch of pipemakers to agree on what the "standard" bore and hole placement and reed design should be?

I'm sure they all have their own ideas about the things they want out of a chanter. Likewise every player does, I'm sure.

The most puzzling thing is the requirement that the chanter be in tune to itself.

I've never tried a chanter that was entirely in tune: the two E's and two B's are never exactly right, or rarely even approximately right.

As a professiona tuba player once told me, "The perfect wind instrument can't be made. We have to learn to play what he have, in tune."

[piperhahn]

Two thoughts come to mind when I think of this. The first is a quote from Kieran O'hare at a Tinol in Ann Arbor Michigan.. "If you wanted to play in tune you wouldn't have picked up the uilleann pipes". and the second is that maybe we should find a way to Clone Benedict Koehler, because I was able to call him up when I had a broken chanter reed and he said.. now If I remember correctly you chanter was.... (blah blah blah) and that should be similar enough to our current design that the standard reeds should work.. and then 2 weeks later another amazing chanter reed appeared in the mail which was placed in the pipes and played perfectly "in tune" we need to have an army of reed makers like that..

but that's just how I think I guess.

[Brazenkane]

As a professiona tuba player once told me, "The perfect wind instrument can't be made. We have to learn to play what he have, in tune."

Pro tuba players usually have loads to time to wax on about stuff!!!!!!!

[Jarlath.I]

I guess I should start by saying that I am a semi-pro tuba player (in other words I make money playing, but not enough to live on; just enough to help my piping habit) so I will try not to wax on.

The problem with trying to standardize uilleann pipes is that they are hand made by skilled craftsman, each having an opinion of what they want their pipes to look like and more importantly sound like. Players also have very strong opinions (don’t they? ), some even looking for a “standardized” sound. I have found over the years that some players love my pipes, and some hate them (sometimes not having an opinion until they hear who my pipe-maker is.)

As a pipemaker’s skills grow and new techniques learned, there may be changes that would make an early model set of pipes different that a later set, or a pipemaker may make sets to accommodate a players requests. I have also heard stories of reedmakers who will change tone holes to make the chanter fit their reed. I guess you could say that this is a form of standardization, although I believe is frowned upon by the general piping community.

Because of player’s opinions on what they like and dislike, I don’t see that we will ever be able to standardize pipes. Even advanced trumpet players will take a lead pipe off of one trumpet and put it on another trying to get the sound that they are looking for. That being said, I am thankful for people like Pat Sky, who will do their best, and deal with the frustrations, of making reeds for those who need help, no matter what pipemakers instrument they play.

I believe what would help would be to take the advise of NPU, especially if you are new to piping, and find a pipemaker close to where you are located. They can then help with reeds for the chanters that they have made. And if you buy elsewhere, then I guess you need to expect to pay extra for reeds.

Of course, these are my opinions alone, and probably are not shared by everyone, but I am rambling so I’ll stop and see if anyone agrees or disagrees.

[Ted]

Sorry Pat, nice try. This is not the first thread by Pat about standardizing UP chanters. The answer remains the same. It just won't happen and a generic reed for a generic chanter design is not on the horizon. Of course, it would make reed making SO much easier. But like cheese, some like it this way or that. But a Kraft American cheese chanter will not do for the blue cheese fans or feta fans, taking this analogy to its silly conclusion. Unfortunately, there are a large number of makers and only some of them produce gear that the best players will play, leaving reed-makers to struggle trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. There are a lot more choices out there than in years past, and not all will be great or even good. Part of the charm of piping. Let the buyer become informed.

[hpinson]

Pat. I ran into one of your chanters for the first time the other day, and it was about as well behaved and nicely toned an unkeyed Concert D chanter as I've played. If there were candidates for acoustical standardization, yours would be in the running. I also liked that you used for the reed a straight hobby tube staple and very common reed construction dimensions. It looks like you are striving for standardization in your own design.

Perhaps rather than standardization, the idea of "Best Practices" should be considered. I.e. acceptable and reasonably repeatable results are obtained using bore x, with tone holes placed y, with z depth, and a reed of a given dimension. This sort of thing would need to be pubished and peer reviewed, and no doubt would be subject to a certain amount of tweaking and improvement. I seem to remember David Daye saying he had something along these lines in mind when he published his modern specs, as did Craig Fischer at least so I have heard. The Daye published specifications certainly had the affect of moving the craft forwards and encouraging conversation.