Talk:Swedish bagpipes

Interwiki link
Currently this article is linked to the Swedish article of the same name. However, while this (English) article is about a particular type of bagpipe, the Swedish article is about bagpipes in general (and, indeed, interwiki'd back to the English article Bagpipes). This is undesirable. If there were an entry such as 'svensk säckpipa' (Swedish bagpipe) in the Swedish Wikipedia, that would be the page to link to. Removing the current interwiki link could be considered, but letting it stay can't do much harm. EldKatt 19:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I fixed the link to point to "pôsu" instead. // Liftarn


 * Perfect! --EldKatt 11:12, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Move to Swedish bagpipes?
For as Swede, säckpipa is what we call all the bagpipes including the Scottish, much bigger ones. To me it would make a lot more sense to place the article at Swedish bagpipes. Note that the title of the corresponding article at Swedish Wikipedia, svensk säckpipa, means just that. However, if our Swedish variant is known to the world as "säckpipa" then this is the correct place for the article. My guess is, though, that "the world" doesn't know about it at all, and so a standard name doesn't exist. /Habj 14:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Olle Gällmo refers to it as a "Swedish bagpipe" on his website, and I agree that it's the most natural way for a Swede to talk about it. A quick google reveals many other examples. "The Universe of Bagpipes" calls it "sackpipa", but the credibility of this as a common term is diminished by the fact that the author doesn't seem to know a lot about the Swedish bagpipe in particular. I won't account for my findings in any more detail, but "Swedish bagpipe" appears to be predominant among those who know what they're talking about. I'd say a move would be quite justified. --EldKatt 20:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alban Faust image
The picture of a (heavily "modernised") bagpipe by Alban Faust seems a bit misleading to me. As it stands now, it could give a reader the impression that most modern Swedish bagpipes are equipped with bellows and multiple drones. This Faust pipe is not a standard of some sort, but rather an experimentation. This should be pointed out. I'll fix it soonish, if there are no objections. EldKatt (Talk) 21:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Hope this version is better worded? / Habj 19:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Slight modification
I changed harmonic minor scale to melodic minor scale in "The instrument" section. It would be a harmonic minor scale if it was A major with a flat third and a flat sixth.

Misconceptions about the revival
The section on the revival should be rephrased on two accounts.
 * It was Ture Gudmundsson who managed to build an instrument and recorded the two tunes for the Swedish Radio, not Mats Rehnberg.

/Olle Gällmo 10 February 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.11.68 (talk) 10:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is suggested here that Leif Eriksson did the reconstruction himself and only then presented it to Per Gudmundson. This was not the case. It was a collaboration between the two, and a third party - Gunnar Ternhag, then at Dalarnas museum.


 * Corrected the first point (by mistake anonymously, I was not logged in). Olle Gällmo (talk) 10:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Bagpipe, not bagpipes
Shouldn't the article be called Swedish bagpipe, not Swedish bagpipes? Singular not plural. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.157.76 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is tricky. Since most instruments in the bagpipe family consists of several sounding pipes (in one bag), even single instruments are sometimes referred to in plural. However this does not appear to be consistent in the literature. Some writers always refer to them in plural, sometimes it seems to be type dependent. You rarely see Uilleann pipes (Irish) referred to in singular, for example. Olle Gällmo (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)