Talk:Great Highland bagpipe

Inacurate info
At the start of the article it says "The bagpipe is first attested in Scotland around 1400,[1]" There is a source but no details.

This is a well known urban legend in the piping community, the source comes from Melrose Abbey which a is a 12th century abbey that has gargoyles one of these gargoyles is a pig playing a set of bagpipes. (how the author got 1400 from a 12th century Abbey I am not sure.) Investigation into the pig gargoyle led researchers to discover the abbey was renovated in the 18th century and records shows the gargoyles replaced. So the pig dates from the 18th century not 1400.

The correct information about the origin of the bagpipes in Scotland, accepted by the Bagpipe Society and all modern scholarly sources is quite well described in this article in the Scotsman. "The first clear reference to the use of the Scottish Highland bagpipes is from a French history, which mentions their use at the Battle of Pinkie Cleugh in 1547. George Buchanan (1506–82) claimed that they had replaced the trumpet on the battlefield."

https://www.scotsman.com/arts-and-culture/scottish-fact-week-international-bagpipe-day-1510635

History of GHB
As the GHB has played such an important role in the forming of cultural aspects of Scottish national movement, does anyone have access to sources on the matter? I feel it would be most beneficial to have a section on history of the pipes and their role as a cultural icon in the 1800 Scottish national movement.

Capitalization of title
Proposal: change capitalization of title to "Great highland bagpipe" (as it is not a proper noun). Badagnani 07:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A fair point, but in practice most of the literature does capitalise it. I know I always do. Calum 12:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As for me, I was disappointed to discover that this article did not concern an operetta set in Scotland.--Wetman (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani pipes
I'm a bit leery of an unqualified mention of Pakistan's GHB manufacture. I've known a few people who have bought GHB pipes made in Pakistan and have found that not only are they unplayable but cannot be made playable by a qualified pipe maker. I have personally heard pipe maker Jerry Gibson warn neophytes about purchasing pipes from Pakistan since there is no way of ensuring you'll get a playable or even fixable set. Then there's this article from The Piper's :Review where a restorer tries to make a Uilleann set of Pakistani origin playable. See also this post from pipe maker Tim Britton, discussing his experiences trying to make Pakistani pipes playable. The usual conclusion is that they have little value beyond decoration.

None of this, of course, means that there aren't any legitimate Pakistani pipe makers producing playable pipes, but (1) most Pakistani pipes on sale in various outlets don't name their maker at all, making it hard to know what you're getting (and sometimes the country of origin isn't mentioned at all, particularly on eBay), and (2) completely unplayable pipes appear to be common enough that players without substantial expertise in judging the wheat from the chaff are generally advised to avoid pipes of Pakistani origin altogether, and similarly for flutes.

In order to avoid discussing this tangential issue in the article, I'd like to suggest removing the parenthetical comment. I don't think the comment could stand without a discussion of quality. --Craig Stuntz 18:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that - in any case, I don't beleive that the size of the industry in Pakistan is in fact larger than in Scotland. There are actually a few decent makers over there (GHB making isn't rocket science, after all), but the mjority are just turning out sticks with holes in them.  Calum 17:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Music
This paragraph deals almost exclusively with a description of Ceòl Mor. It should be replaced by a short description of Ceòl Mor, Ceòl Beag and Ceòl Meadhonach with links to the relevant Wiki pages; and the present text should be merged into the Ceòl Mor page. Renaud OLGIATI (talk) 10:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Key?
On the Border Pipes "It is usually manufactured in the key of A, rather than the GHB's Bb", while at the beginning of the GHB article, it's clearly stated that the GHB is in A. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Music for the GHB is always notated in the key of A, but the pitch produced by the instrument is actually B flat, making it a transposing instrument. To be strictly accurate, the pipe should be called a D flat instrument (transposing up a minor 2nd from written - the instrument's written C corresponds to a concert D flat). Not that the bagpipe can actually play a "written C" though, only a C# (Mixolydian scale - written G, A, B, C#, D, E, F#, G, A). Haha, but the relevant part is that the relationship is that of a minor 2nd (concert Ab, Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb).


 * To complicate matters even further, most pipers tune sharp of concert pitch (where Bb = 466.16 Hz) by about 10 - 15 Hz. So a written A actually corresponds to a sharp B flat (around B flat 475 Hz to B flat 480 Hz).


 * Crazy, isn't it? Anybody want to condense that into a logical, cogent paragraph? I don't have time right now but I might be able to sometime in the near future. --Taylordonaldson (talk) 04:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not entirely correct. GHB music is noted in D (two sharps; A would have three sharps); the scale of the chanter is actually D mixolydian, with an added low G.  You're right about the tuning standard being high by around a semitone, though.


 * Don't worry. Grade one bands are in the process of cleaning this mess up by redefining the low A to be pitched at B.  The average pitch at this years final was 489, and the new Shepherd chanter will get it up the rest of the way to 493.  Calum (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Really needs work, and it gets 6000 hits a month!
As a musician and editor, I think this article really needs some work seeing how many people come to this page for info. I've re-written the intro, added some basic early history, partially to cut off any romantic misinformation about the bagpipes in general being a uniquely Scottish instrument of thousands of years' heritage (as opposed to 600-700 years). Still, more cleanup would be great.

Among the glaring issues: lots of pipe band content, almost nothing about Pìobaireachd. Anyone got at least a little info on that so that new readers understand the GHB has a use outside of marching around in kilts? Some more history would be great, especially explaining when Pìobaireachd and military uses diverged, when the pipes made their way into the Brit Army, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To what does the asterisk refer?
The Design section includes the following sentence:

"It has a range from one whole tone lower than the tonic to one octave above it (in piper's parlance: "Low G, Low A, B, C, D, E, F, High G, and High A"; the C and F should be called sharp but this is invariably omitted).*"

Does that asterisk refer to something in the article? If so, I can't find it. If not, it suggests to me that the entire sentence, and maybe more, was copied from somewhere else and the copier forgot to remove the asterisk.

John Link (talk) 09:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 9 November 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Great Highland bagpipe. Fuortu (talk) 10:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Great Highland Bagpipe → Great highland bagpipe – Please place your rationale for the proposed move here. Tony  (talk)  03:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSCAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. In addition, WP:MOSCAPS says that a compound item should not be upcased just because it is abbreviated with caps. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony  (talk)  03:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Highland has a capital letter, it is taken directly from the place name. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Support lower-case "bagpipe", but Highland is part of the place name, and as that this seems like a move that could be made as uncontroversial. Randy Kryn 17:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Move to Great Highland bagpipe per Randy Kryn above. — Andy W. ( talk ) 04:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Doubtful History?
A 2008 book review in the Guardian seems highly pertinent. Cassandra

"In a new [2008] book 'Bagpipes - a National Collection of a National Instrument' to be published by the National Museums of Scotland, Hugh Cheape, a leading Gaelic historian and expert piper, argues that the origins of the instrument have been confused by decades of mythology and deliberate invention; even, he hints, by deception."

"Like most tartan regalia and the modern kilt, the great Highland bagpipe and many of its traditions known worldwide were manufactured by the Scots middle classes in the early 1800s in their romantic quest to rediscover their past."

"The written and received history of the great Highland bagpipe reflects in many of its parts the triumph of sentiment over fact ... an orthodoxy has emerged from surprisingly modest origins in the first half of the 19th century and it was elaborated by repetition, speculation and guesswork in the second," Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Ref full text: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/19/scotland
 * After all these years you still fail to appreciate or to accept what Wikipedia article talk pages are for. Cheape is authorative, his book is comprehensive and well-researched and the views as expressed in this review are compelling. Typically though you have not related any of this to the actual content of this article or its improvement, the purpose of this page. Does any of the content of this article perpetuate any of the mythology referred to in the review as being covered in the book? As you have cited the review rather than the book itself, it's a fair assumption you haven't read the latter so can't comment. Nonetheless, you just assume that the mythologies perpetuated in the common perception of the subject are also perpetuated here, without even knowing what they are. How bad faith is that? This is not a forum for uninformed and baseless speculation about the reliability of the content of this article, or indeed anything else. If you have some specifics, specify them but if not, stop time wasting. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)