470-474 pitch chanters and "optimal pitch" for harmonic interaction

[Hakamettin]

I've noticed that at least one current maker on each side of the Atlantic has introduced a "re-proportioned" version of an existing production band chanter, made to play at a lower 470-474 Hertz pitch range. (Because a prominent customer requested this and/or there was conceivably a market for a non-competition pitched band chanter somewhere.)

Can anyone comment from experience on what it is like musically to play one of these lower-470s pitched chanters for solo or non-competition use?

I'm wondering if it might be desirable to set up my "busking set" of pipes with a lower-470s chanter, if that would mean that the chanter scale interacts more with the overtones provided by the drones compared to a higher-470s chanter, perhaps making for a fuller-sounding instrument.

(I recall reading a comment written long ago that "you cannot get low-end harmonics playing a dog whistle," but for all I know the chanters in the high 470s or 480s may stand out as "brighter" or "cleaner" against a drone background for this very reason.)

What do you personally feel is the optimal pitch for playing a piobaireachd for enjoyment?

And is concert B-flat, 466 Hertz too low, for some or another musical reason?

[Calum]

I do think there is a lot of over-exaggerated nonsense talked about how "awful" competition pitch is or how "rich" lower-pitched instruments sound. You're talking about an overall difference of less than a semitone; piano players don't sit around moaning that F# sounds great but, oh, that G, man, it's way too high.

I do think trying to play an instrument at the outer limits of the current competition pitch is something that requires a bit of knowledge of how to do so, and most people are going to be easier and happier not chasing that pitch. Part of the appeal of a lower pitched chanter is not having to deal with that.

Likewise I wouldn't say B flat is too low but again you do need a bit of work to get an instrument to sit there comfortably.

[pancelticpiper]

Can anyone comment from experience on what it is like musically to play one of these lower-470s pitched chanters for solo or non-competition use?

I'm wondering if it might be desirable to set up my "busking set" of pipes with a lower-470s chanter, if that would mean that the chanter scale interacts more with the overtones provided by the drones compared to a higher-470s chanter, perhaps making for a fuller-sounding instrument...for all I know the chanters in the high 470s or 480s may stand out as "brighter" or "cleaner" against a drone background for this very reason.

I, and all the pipers of my generation, began piping when everyone was playing around 466, and played solo and in pipe bands during the rapid pitch rise in the 1980s and 1990s.

The pipes eventually landed around 480, a quartertone higher than Concert B flat, that is, halfway between Concert B flat and Concert B natural.

I'm no acoustician but with every other woodwind an instrument a quartertone higher would be a bit smaller with fingerholes a bit closer together.

The fact that a 480 chanter pretty much looks the same on the outside as a 466 chanter suggests that it's different on the inside. There are two ways to raise the pitch of a woodwind 1) make the instrument shorter or 2) make the bore wider. A wider bore has less impedence and will play sharper all things being equal.

I haven't measured chanter bores but I suppose that a 480 chanter has not only bigger holes and thinner walls but also a wider bore, perhaps especially in the throat, than a vintage 466 wooden chanter.

These things all make for a brighter tone. In other words it's not the pitch itself that makes the tone brighter. You can have a small higher-pitched woodwind with a dark tone and a big lower-pitched woodwind with a bright tone. "Dark" and "bright" aren't about pitch or volume but about timbre, which is the presence and strength of various harmonics.

What do you personally feel is the optimal pitch for playing a piobaireachd for enjoyment?

And is concert B-flat, 466 Hertz too low, for some or another musical reason?

Concert B flat, 466, was the standard Highland pitch for some time. No pitch is too high or too low, look at a Pipe Organ. That is, until you get too high or too low to be heard by human ears.

Bagpipes have been made over an octave lower than the Great Highland pipe, and an octave higher too.

But personally I prefer 466 over 480 for playing in general, and particularly for gigs.

[TwitchyFingers]

Can anyone comment from experience on what it is like musically to play one of these lower-470s pitched chanters for solo or non-competition use?

And is concert B-flat, 466 Hertz too low, for some or another musical reason?

I have a Kintail from what I think was the late 1970s/early 80's. It pitches at almost 466 to around 472 and is an incredibly pleasant chanter to play. Similarly, an old Hardie from the 1960s is a little more finicky to reed, but still plays very well at lower pitch.
Two things I've noticed in comparing old chanters to more modern ones:
1. The wood wall thickness of the chanter is thicker on the old chanters.
2 The holes tend to be a bit bigger on modern chanters
Thinning the chanter wall can give a brighter sound, but I think it loses some of the warmer, darker charm. Someone got the idea that the larger holes somehow allow for more volume (don't even get me started on the oval holes to allow for greater taping). Personally, I think oval/larger holes can lead to stability problems, particularly on a sloppy change from B to E, where leaving the ring finger up can result in D#. Smaller holes and thicker chanter walls also tend to allow more possibility for controlled sharps and flats like G sharp, C & F natural.
If you were looking to experience the lower pitch, I would look for a older chanter that someone thinks is redundant instead of plunking down $$$ for a reproportioned chanter.
As to concert B flat 466 being too low, the only problem you might have is finding drone reeds to accommodate that pitch in modern pipes without using extending tubes. The only other difficulty I've had with playing true B flat with brass instruments or organs is our just intonation tends to be very flat on G, C# and F# compared to equal temperament of concert instruments. In those cases, I prefer 469-470. It brings the 3rd and 6th notes up just enough to not be too grating to the audience's ear.

[crow]

Not true 1st hand experience, but our piping instructor says that the B flat pitched chanters (and drones) are a lot easier to reed, and have stay rock steady pitch-wise.

[Hakamettin]

Thank you so much for these three very different responses to my inquiry, each quite informative in its own way.

I appreciate the discussion of chanter bore width and wall thickness, and how this pertains to timbre (as distinct from pitch). This was the very kind of feedback I was latently hoping to find.

I will take the advice not to buy a reproportioned chanter sight unseen, especially since I have no idea where the finger holes might lie (especially the ring and pinky of the bottom hand). This was a serious issue with the one "modern" B-flat chanter I purchased a while back.

Interestingly it seems from a review that R.G. Hardie must have built its B-flat version of the Infinity chanter precisely by altering the bore and walls, while keeping the fingerhole placement typical of a present-day competition chanter. This might not automatically be a bad purchase decision, if I want the pipes to sound more agreeable to non-pipers in a busking or gig context.

[pancelticpiper]

Interestingly it seems from a review that R.G. Hardie must have built its B-flat version of the Infinity chanter precisely by altering the bore and walls, while keeping the fingerhole placement typical of a present-day competition chanter.

Yes it is interesting.

The opposite is also true: present-day high-pitch chanters kept, to a remarkable extent, the same hole spacing as much lower-pitch chanters from the 1960s, and even from the 18th century.

This goes against usual woodwind-making methods, in which a higher pitch would be achieved by making the entire instrument shorter, and fingerholes closer together.

I'm guessing that pipers over the centuries have been resistant to changing the feel of their chanters. Today pipers will complain about a chanter that has a hole a millimeter higher or lower than what they're used to.

Whereas players of certain woodwinds will play, at the same gig, instruments with holes an inch further apart than their others with no problems.

Here are some of my Irish whistles with a ruler and a McCallum pipe chanter.

[Hakamettin]

I'm guessing that pipers over the centuries have been resistant to changing the feel of their chanters. Today pipers will complain about a chanter that has a hole a millimeter higher or lower than what they're used to.

Hey pancelticpiper, thanks for the followup comment (and the image) pertaining to finger-hole spread on pipe chanters, and indeed other woodwinds.

Since you posted a McCallum chanter for comparison, I remembered that there is another forum member and piping blogger (Patrick McLaurin) who has relatively small palms, and reports difficulty with the finger-hole spread on at least a couple major pipe chanters on the market. He mentioned that just about every model from McCallum (as well as the MacLellan) has the hole for the right-hand middle finger placed a bit higher than is typical, possibly so that the note "C” will never be flat with any reed. But his hands are so small that his fingers could never learn to fall automatically where that finger-hole rests on the chanter.

Incidentally, the initial “common bagpipe” I bought inexpensively when I was first learning came with a different brand of chanter, on which it was the left-hand middle finger that I remember for being noticeably higher than usual. (I think the “C hole” of the right hand was probably a tad higher than equidistant, too, but that finger-hole never posed any problems for me.) The piper’s left hand automatically has to rest at a bit more of an angle when effectively covering or grace-noting all the upper finger-holes (whereas the right hand is rather level), and this made for some memorable problems of ergonomics and execution for me on “E” doublings. I no longer have that set, and I don’t miss that chanter one bit.

An unusually low-placed finger-hole for the right pinky would be the riskiest deviation from the norm of all, if that means you cannot birl comfortably on command. I once used a modern B-flat chanter (not the thick-walled R.G. Hardie model) that had that very problem.

Thanks to this thread and its respondents, I have moved away from an automatic fixation on lower-pitched chanters for my new Great Highland set. Because finger-hole placement is in some instances genuinely important, and because “pitch does not imply timbre” in the end.

I can conceivably contact any dealer or maker of a given pipe chanter if I want to know the right-hand’s overall index-to-pinky spread, before I might purchase that for my new pipes.

… So, what model or models of chanter do you most recommend for “great timbre, plus ease of reeding” in a non-pipe band context, regardless of pitch?

[pancelticpiper]

Just an example of how a great piper has no trouble whatsoever switching between a chanter with holes further apart than Highland chanters, and a chanter with holes MUCH further apart than Highland chanters.

(10) Comparing the pitch of two different uilleann pipe chanters - YouTube

And one of those big chanters played by a youth with small hands, again no troubles.

(10) Wonder-kid 10-Year-Old Uileann Pipe Player Cian Smith | The Late Late Show - YouTube

[Jim McGillivray]

Blind Archie MacNeill was once in G.S. McLennan's pipemaking shop in Aberdeen. G. S.. showed him his new chanter, which was pitched lower than other chanters of the day. G. S. thought chanter pitch was getting too high. This would be back around 1927 when the prevailing pitch was probably around 460!

[Hakamettin]

Dear Jim McGillivray:

Thank you so much for "piping" in, regarding flatter-pitch chanters (i.e., anything "flatter" compared to early 21st century standards of 480+).

I was wondering if you have any particular insights on the above discussion of "timbre," given that you have designed or commissioned a couple chanters aimed at bringing pitch below 475.

[Jim McGillivray]

Dear Jim McGillivray:

Thank you so much for "piping" in, regarding flatter-pitch chanters (i.e., anything "flatter" compared to early 21st century standards of 480+).

I was wondering if you have any particular insights on the above discussion of "timbre," given that you have designed or commissioned a couple chanters aimed at bringing pitch below 475.

I'm kind of flummoxed by the reality of rising pitch. When I first started playing in the late '60s, we weren't using tuning meters, but I'm going to say we were playing at 466-70. The pitch continued to rise, as it has since at least before 1900. When it got up to 474 we were all complaining that it was too high. As the pitch approached 479, I found that I was seeking that 474 pitch that I'd previously condemned, and I was liking it. Now, with pitch is approaching 490 in the top bands, even 479 sounds pretty good! I think we adapt and the instrument moves forward as it changes. Perhaps the clarity of the playing in bands that we hear today is a benefit of the higher pitch. I'm not sure we lose resonance with pitch. Funny, we complain about it -- I as much as anyone -- yet I've not yet heard of anyone giving up piping because the high pitch makes it not enjoyable.

I think if we heard Donald MacPherson's 1960 bagpipe followed by Roddy MacLeod's 2023 bagpipe we'd be blown away by both of them.

JM

[Hakamettin]

Dear Jim McGillivray,

Thank you so much for your comments (and honest reflections) on the pitch drift of the decades (and indeed the centuries).

I want to thank also Richard / "PanCelticPiper" for dropping a few different heuristic observations here, so that any learner like me can go seek more wisdom, through hands-on experience.

Any moderator can feel free to close this thread, for being both directionless and exhausted.

I'll just add that I'm still pondering the matter of psychoacoustics, given that non-pipers clearly react differently to bagpipe sounds of varying timbre and/or pitch... and I'm still not sure which of those variables (with respect to physical construction of a chanter) is by itself the more predictive of the psychoacoustics involved, if we pipers do want to evidence "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind."

But a chanter with relatively thick walls might be a good variable for me to control for as I go forward.

[pancelticpiper]

When I first started playing in the late '60s, we weren't using tuning meters, but I'm going to say we were playing at 466-70.

What I wonder is, since piano tuners had been using tuning forks for centuries, did people in the piping world use them?

Didn't Alexander Glen make clarinets etc in addition to pipes? I seem to recall him offering chanters in various pitches.

The pitch continued to rise, as it has since at least before 1900.

Interestingly, the pitch in Britain went down, a quartertone, around 1900, in the world of band and orchestral instruments.

In Victorian times the pitch in Britain settled at A=452. which, by the way, translates to Bb=479.

So a piper playing at 479 could play right in tune with the London Philharmonic in the 19th century!

When chanters reached that pitch I thought some sort of inherited memory thing might be at work, British pipers having Bb=479 in their bones somehow.

BTW many modern "long" or "fullsize" Practice Chanters play around 452.

[Jim McGillivray]

[QUOTE=pancelticpiper;n1382705]

What I wonder is, since piano tuners had been using tuning forks for centuries, did people in the piping world use them?

Didn't Alexander Glen make clarinets etc in addition to pipes? I seem to recall him offering chanters in various pitches.



I suppose makers might have used forks, but as far as I can tell the wider piping world didn't start using tuning meters until the Guelph band started using a Korg chromatic tuner in the early 70s.

Jim