Talk:Great Irish warpipes

Which Direction
Should Irish Warpipes direct to Great Irish Warpipes (this is the Status Quo at present)? Or should it be the other way round? Red blaze 17:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * At the risk of irritating the Irish contingent, I would say that the article should be directed to Great Highland Bagpipe, as the instruments are identical apart from some dubious revivalist tinkering by the Grattan Flood crowd. The original mouth blown Irish warpipe we know practically nothing about, not enough for a meaningful article IMO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.62.204.75 (talk • contribs).


 * Not irritating in the slightest. There is such a lack of detailed documented history of both Irish and Scottish pipes.  We know they were there alright, but we lack the photos :-).  In fact they are both the practically same instrument. Red blaze 15:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, they aren't. The surviving evidence suggests that the original Irish warpipe was rather larger and lower pitched than its Highland cousin.  We know nothing about the scale or playing methods, though I suspect the chanter would have been structurally similar to the GHB.  The idea that the modern GHB is in some way the same thing that was played at Fontenoy is attributable to the above mentioned Grattan Flood crowd.  There is no continuous tradition of Irish warpipe playing (sadly) and no survivng instruments, and lastly very little hard detail on them - as the above post says, just not enough to justify a seperate article. Calum 20:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The GHB pipes have a questionable past too. The name seems to have been an invention around 1900 by the British Army. The name GIW appears some years later.  Unfortunately there is very little original history on the WWW as it's a case of the internet feeding from the internet for relevant material.  Pre 1900, they were just called the pipes, or great pipes, whichever was easiest to say.  There were many different pipes about, depending on the makers, and now everything is (sadly) standardized to suit modern times. I believe we should go back pre 1900 and have the article called The Great Bagpipes, and to hell with all this modern nonsense. Red blaze 01:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

rv 01-July-2006
As it stands now, the article needs expert update with citations etc. The additions which I have deleted, although very interesting, is more of an essay on the subject and is not the way forward. Please correct me if I am wrong. Anon user 71.242.134.24 writes about pictures in manuscripts etc, well surely history is not only about pictures and carvings to prove the point. Nobody is writing that the bagpipe originated in Ireland, (although the world's oldest musical pipes are from Co. Wicklow, Ireland,) but the Piob Mhor is as much part of Irish history as the piano is to Italian history. Below and quoted in italics are the removed edits of user 71.242.134.24.Red blaze 22:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ''The Irish great pipe (often called "war" pipe) probably entered Ireland from the province of Galicia in Northern Spain. Galicians and Irish sailors and fishermen have always had close contacts and are well documented in the early Norman period in Ireland when they probably were introduced to the country. While there is a romantic desire to claim great age for bagpipes in Ireland, there is little evidence to support the notion that bagpipes were played anywhere in Europe much before the 11th or 12th century, much less in Ireland. There is in fact evidence in Irish Gaelic literature from the 15th and 16th centuries which demonstrate that some musical professionals in Ireland considered bagpipes an innovation, and not always a welcomed one.


 * ''Illustrations from this period invariably show a one or two droned, moth blown instrument. The more realistic illustrations suggest an instrument which in design is quite reminiscent of the contemporary Gaita Galega of Galicia. The last known form of the traditional Irish Great Pipe (Píob Mhór) had two drones, probably tenor and bass. It was often, but not always depicted as having a common stock to mount the drones in the bag, and was probably not much different from Scottish instruments of the time. It must be kept in mind that the best professional musicians among the Scots Gael were trained in Ireland until the 1600s and this promoted a measure of standardization up to that time.


 * ''After the fall of the last independent Irish kings, the bagpipe was subject to repressive laws and gradually died out in Ireland. At about the same time a new bagpipe (the Uillean pipes) was introduced and in the folk memory, this was seen as a modification of the old to allow it to be undetected. Contemporary records and musical commonsense argue against this view, but it holds a strong emotional tie for Irish musicians.


 * ''The Irish pipes were documented as having been played by the Irish in the French Army at the Battle of Fountenoy and also by an Irish brigrade during the American revolution. It this last was true, it was probably the last time the Old Irish Warpipes saw active duty.


 * Only a few decades later, when an Irish regiment of the British Army decided to mount a pipe band, they modeled their instrument upon the contemporary Scottish instrument, removing one tenor drone. This convention demonstrated a recollection of the old instrument but also that there were no existing instruments available to replicate. Since that time a variety of fanciful replicas have been invented including the so-called "Brian Boru" Pipes, a late victorian curiosity.71.242.134.24

Article needs more work
Article needs subheadings for easier reading, also citations. Should bring to talk before removing input. Gold♥ 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Before deletion, it should be brought to talk first, and reasons for deletion, there is a mass of information that can be added. Also, best keep the article tidy. Gold♥  13:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nearly a half-decade later, but I added some subheadings. :) However, it needs a fair bit of work on all the history bits, and there's way too much OR/synthesis. MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Revisions to 08-July-2007

 * I would remove "Great" from the title, but otherwise I would not redirect this article to GHB, I think it is good to have a section which explains the analogous Irish-Scottish warpiping tradition. I have uploaded a new article; virtually everything is my work on the page now. I try to consolidate all the known "technical" information that seems to be there, and some of the most worthy technical references. I uploaded it earlier this year, and after a number of minor edits, have also included references. I have done extensive research on this topic. My theory, which admittedly has not yet been proven but remains speculation, is that the instrument was more or less the same in Scotland and Ireland. If you want to find out why I believe this, read the article, esp. the later part. I present my theories and also make a rather dry but IMO fairly necessary list of all the images and other spots of "technical information", if such it can be called, on this topic. I have deleted several times (the last time, today) some faulty information that someone seems to keep uploading to esp. the introduction about the pipes being played in Ireland for at least 1500 years" (or the later reference to pipes on Irish high crosses similarly old - I can't recall the reference, but while these apparently show, on one occasion at least, a pipe player, he is not a bagpiper nor do there seem to be any depicted on these crosses. -erracht

April 2015 - Article is 75% original research and synthesis.
And it appears to have a vested contributor squatting on top of it as well. No need to name names, I suspect they'll show up shortly to blanket revert with a snarky, non-descriptive response very soon. Despite 75% of the content being blatant and unapologetic original research and synthesis from the scanty primary sources available. That's how it usually goes with low-traffic articles with a 500-lb gorilla squatting on them. Oh well, here we go. 74.70.30.57 (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Multiple templates since 2015
The issues should be either posted here for discussion or the templates should be removed. Somebody is VERY upset by this article and put a horrifying hodgepodge of disruptive templates in every section, evidently to express the depth of their displeasure. Unfortunately this falls under disruptive templating. I've left the single template at the header in the hopes these issues with sourcing and neutrality can be fixed, resolved or otherwise ameliorated. 45.47.168.184 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2017 (UTC)