Talk:Scottish smallpipes

Rating
I have to say I don't understand Wikipedia's current thinking on what makes a stub these days. By my reading of the quality scale, this article looks like a B-grade to me. Oh well. Calum 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies
The Scottish small pipes existed long before 1980 (and do not owe much, if anything to the totally different, higher pitched, end stopped and close -fingered Northumbrian pipes.) They used to be better known as Chamber Pipes. The chanter used is identical to the practice chanter in bore and fingering. The "goose" or practice chanter with bag, has existed for a very long time. It only needed drones to be added to form the Small Pipes in their mouth blown form. I remember in the 1960s sets of small mouth blown pipes being sold, with the chanter being a practice chanter and the drones narrow bored. They probably existed long before then. The drones, incidentally sound in the keynote (tenor), the octave below (bass) and the fifth between (baritone) not the fifth above the keynote as the article claims.


 * Find me one example of a Scottish smallpipe in A in the modern pattern prior to Colin Ross. Gooses (geese?) and GHB makers' 'chamber pipes' are not the same thing as the traditional nine-note smallpipe, which was effectively dead by the 20th century.  You are correct that the baritone is usually an octave below the chanter E.  I suspect the editor confused the drone scheme of Border pipes, which frequently do have an alto e - however, that is still an octave below the chanter E as a conical bore sounds at twice the pitch.  I'll edit the article to reflect this. Calum 18:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can find you several - in the museum of the Piping Centre in Glasgow, going right back to the late 18th and early nineteenth centuries and identical to the ones available today. Go their yourself and have a look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.171.21.138 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find you physical examples of old Scottish smallpipes, as I live in the northeast US, and stuff as old as what you're saying is relatively lacking here. However, there are quite a few books much older than us that go into detail about the old Scottish smallpipes along with the history of the Great Highland bagpipe, Northumbrian pipes, Uilleann pipes, musette, Irish warpipes, etc, etc, etc. (One of these books being Francis Collinson's "The Bagpipe".) Even if the modern Scottish smallpipes we see today are not the product of a continuous history, it doesn't make sense to detach it from it's historical inspiration. There should be mention of this older instrument and that simply it was the basis for the instrument that was reinvented in the 1980s. Spettro9 (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Inaccuracies??
Sets of SSP are currently made with at least 2 tuning patterns. One is Bass/Tenor/Alto, similar to Border pipes, another is Bass/Baritone/Tenor, analogous to Northumbrian smallpipes. The earlier text was an attempt to explain both; Calum's current revision explains only one. Another revision is needed. John Gibbons2 23:45 8th July 2007


 * Although both patterns exist, most good makers would now agree that an alto drone isn't suitable for use with a smallpipe chanter - the reason is that it is in the same octave as the chanter and so there is a very strong dissonance on D/F. The border chanter being an octave higher, this effect doesn't occur.  Calum 14:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Calum's comment about some makers feeling a high e drone to be more dissonant seems to be justified by a quick search of makers' websites; the recent LBPS tutor considers both possibilities though, and of course it should be borne in mind that a good bass A drone will have a strong high e harmonic anyway. The point of much pipe music is that some chanter notes are consonant, some dissonant, with the drones; the clash is thus not a defect, but a feature. Music such as in the Dixon MS uses this contrast structurally. I find the effect, on SSP with an alto drone, where the chanter voice sounds at similar pitch to the upper drones, is pleasing, on a well-balanced set. I feel both possibilities should be mentioned - it is not Wikipedia's job to prescribe pipemaking practice, but to describe the instrument as it is - both patterns are still current. John Gibbons2 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusion
"A further distinction from the Northumbrian smallpipes is that the Scottish Smallpipes lack an unbroken line of traditional playing." What does that mean? Is it an unbroken line in music, or in history, or what exactly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.8.15 (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It means that, although we know smallpipes existed historically and were played, we don't have a continuous line of playing tradition, so we don't know anything about particular playing techniques or repertoire. Calum (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Scottish smallpipes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080106111802/http://www.piperjones.com:80/tidycottagesmallpipes.html to http://piperjones.com/tidycottagesmallpipes.html#smallpipes

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)