Talk:Bagpipes/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Temporary: In use

Removed here from article by Mais oui!.

I'm starting a major edit of this page just now - I intend to thin it down a bit, move much of the content to other pages and generally turn the page into one about bagpipes and not just a directory listing of types as it currently is. Calum 09:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Á

I left a comment at the User's page explaining that you cannot leave comments on articles. I would like to emphasise that it is not me planning to work on this article!
Please remove the "inuse" template within the next hour or so, or immediately after editing.--Mais oui! 09:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
A quick note to say that editing continues, despite the passage of time! Calum 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Calum's big edit

I am heavily re-editing the article and so most of the stuff on this discussion page is now irrelevant, so have blanked it. I appreciate after a major rework like this everyone with an interest in this page will wish to work on it, but please bear in mind it is a generic page about bagpipes and not a listing of every kind and genre of bagpipe in existence. Give them their own article. Calum 10:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but please do not remove comments from talk pages. The comments about different types of bagpipes *were* relevant to the history of this article, so they should be kept. I don't mind if they're copied to other talk pages. Graham/pianoman87 talk 10:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
So should comments never be removed unless copied? A lot of the comments will be meaningless when this re-edit is done - for example - my discussion with Finlay over a year ago is already out-of-date and irrelevant. Is there a guideline on this? Calum 10:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the material on types of pipes and putting most of it in their own article pages, where the information isn't already there.

OK, good. Talk pages on here are usually archived when they become outdated; for more details see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page. If I've removed any sections from here that need to be on the main page, feel free to put them back. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, much has been moved. A lot of material doesn't have an obvious home; for example the linguistic discussion on the term 'gaita'. It isn't finished yet - the lists of music/bands needs clobbered as well. The history section needs revisiting (I've only patched up one sentence). New pages I've created or unredirected:
Enjoy! Calum 13:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
As it reads now, the "types of bagpipes" section is not good. It is very vague and mysterious about exactly where pipes exist. When moving or deleting large areas of text from an article, one needs to at least retain a skeleton of what was there; this means at least mentioning some of the names of individual pipes and the places they are used. It would be great if you could re-add this. Badagnani 07:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Even worse--the Iberic gaitas section seems to be completely missing from all articles. How could this be allowed to happen? If such a big edit was made with such mistakes, how can we be sure that other important content wasn't "lost"? Please make small edits from now on, so that other editors can more easily check on changes. We are all working together here. Badagnani 07:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I pulled the Iberic gaitas discussion out of history and stuck it in Types of bagpipes. Yes, it's unfortunate that this happened, but it was easily fixed. Please feel free to enhance Types of bagpipes with other material you feel should be in there. Perhaps looking at the pre-Calum version will help.
I can't fault Calum for his work, though. The article was way too long before he started. Please note that WP:BOLD is a widely-accepted Wikipedia guideline! Remember, your (very good!) work was not lost, just hidden in history. It can easily be retrieved and made to fit in the new (and better, I think) article structure. Happy editing! --Craig Stuntz 13:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for this, but how can we be sure other things weren't lost "accidentally" as well? Doesn't matter "boldness" or "too big," the bagpipes article needs to have at least a glancing description of the various regions and types of pipe that exist. Someone new to the subject could leave without knowing that unique pipes exist in Spain, France, Italy...which doesn't really make any sense. That was the idea all along, to move the exhaustive descriptions of each pipe to separate articles, while keeping the basic information. This wasn't done here (while I hate to say it, my perception is that the "big edit" was done sloppily) and the reader suffers. Badagnani 17:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You'll find the Iberian stuff at Spanish bagpipes. Perhaps not the best place or article name, but not deleted entirely. I can't deny the editing is not all I would wish, but, in my defence, I ain't finished yet...the trouble is finding a few hours free to sit down and do some serious work on it. I need to borrow a couple of books to redo the history section properly, I will expand the modern usage section (and clarify it) and clear out all that cruft at the end of the article to some better place. Actually, today is Friday - I'll have a few hours in the morning. Check back in 24 hours... Calum 19:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Good to know. I couldn't find the Spanish/Portuguese pipes listed in the new Types of bagpipes article. Badagnani 20:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
In that case maybe Gaita should redirect there instead of Galacian gaita? --Craig Stuntz 21:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Donald MacDonald

Just noticed a comment in the source about the MacDonald book. Donald MacDonald produced the music, but as a native Gaelic speaker his English was incapable of producing the florid prose of the letterpress Introduction. Who did produce it is anybody's guess, but he didn't know what he was on about, anyway. I'll clarify the article. Calum 11:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bagpipes + Non traditional forms

I think that this topic is quite specialised and really deserves an article of its own: Opinions? While a few examples may deserve mention in this article, such as AC/DC, Mull of Kintyre, Sting's use of Northumbrian pipes, Orkney Wedding, I think this is an article topic in its own right. An article on the German heavy metal bands now using pipes would be good, though would it come close to being original research (being as there is nothing I know of written on the subject)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Calum (talk • contribs) .

It would be best to only offer information on bagpipes if one were, perhaps, a player or, at least, had some remote knowledge of the subject.. unlike the previous post.

May I direct your attention to BobDunsire.com. Wikipedia censors: This is the World Standard bagpipe discussion group. There is no other that meets these standards. **Please delelte these commentsa and leave the link. reedwrangler.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.12.116.199 (talk • contribs) .

The material has now gone away to List of nontraditional bagpipe usage. I have no objection to mention being made of, say Orkney Wedding or Mull of Kintyre in the article, but that list was just inappropriate here. If there are no objections, the jokes will also disappear in a little while. Calum 15:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Any tips?

Any tips on presentation done in flash on bagpipes? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.121.113.52 (talk • contribs) .

Links

The links section has good information about various pipes but there are many that are just for specific GHB bands, of which there must be hundreds or more in the world. I suggest moving these links out of this article and into List of pipe bands. Badagnani 20:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The links section also contains to nearly every category listed in WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid, which is presumably why Veyklevar (talk · contribs) tagged the section with a cleanup tag in the first place. Most are off-topic and some are almost certainly spam. Brian Kendig (talk · contribs) reviewed the links and explained his rationale for deleting them a week later. Then an anonymous user, 24.18.213.127 (talk · contribs), restored the entire section, less one critical detail, and without a revision comment. Note that this list contains no fewer than three links to what appears to be this user's own site! I reverted the edit with a comment as to why I was doing so, and then Badagnani (talk · contribs) reverted that with a comment that "No good form of editing! Work on 'discussion' to find the best ones, build consensus, then edit." As far as I can see, this is exactly what happened! You can disagree with Brian Kendig's opinion if you like, but he at least reviewed the list. Did you? Do you really think having three different links to the posting editor's personal site is a good idea? --Craig Stuntz 00:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of the links are very good to excellent and some others seem inappropriate. I've commented as to several of the latter above. Badagnani 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Rather than continuing to exchange vague generalities on the subject, I opened every linked site and compared its contents against WP:EL and m:When should I link externally. I considered especially, the "What should be linked to" and the "Links to normally avoid" sections. I then removed everything which did not, in my opinion, pass that test. Note that some of these might be appropriate on a different article, for example, Great Highland bagpipe. Since Wikipedia is not a web directory I don't feel compelled to spend my time moving them to the sub-articles, but if someone has a passionate interest in doing so then please feel free. They certainly do not belong here, though. If you feel that there are specific links I eliminated which pass the WP:EL guidelines and are better suited to the general Bagpipes article than the individual sub-articles for the different types of bagpipes then you can certainly add those particular sites back. --Craig Stuntz 14:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Number one, you should have "discussed" here before you deleted, not after (you appear to have done the opposite, possibly to make a point), and number two, yes, you do need to reinsert the good links into specific bagpipe articles. Not to do so, I'm sorry to say, shows the same laziness that other editors have manifested here in the past by blanking large areas of text and then simply saying I'm quite busy with my job, etc., I'll get to it at some undetermined future time. No good. This kind of thing gives pipers a bad name. Further, without discussing here first, now you've unilaterally decided that Swiss or Swedish bagpipes cannot have a link here, even if there is no such article for that instrument and if the site is excellent, authoritative, and educational about pipes in general. Badagnani 17:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I will not continue conversations with you if you will not assume good faith. Please consider that link before responding because I see no need to carry on a conversation with someone who attacks me in particular and pipers in general. Please also note that although I disagree with you on this subject I have never accused you of disruption or bad faith. I am willing to carry on a constructive discussion whether or not I happen to agree with you, but I'm not going to get involved in namecalling.
I spent a good bit of time studying policies and guidelines and selecting links I felt were appropriate out of a large list of clearly inappropriate items, and clearly, based on other edits to the page, I am not alone in this opinion. You are free to disagree with my choices, but calling my work "lazy" is not a good way to have a constructive discussion. I'll judge "laziness" via actions and not words, thank you. Think the Swedish link is most appropriate here (as opposed to, say, Swedish bagpipes, which, in my opinion, would be a better place)? Well, you have an "edit" link too, right? My judgment on what is and is not appropriate is far from final; you or anyone else can go ahead and add whatever you like to the list. As I've stated, the only real objection I would have is to uncritically adding the entire list back without doing the same evaluation that both Brian Kendig (talk • contribs) and I did. I don't think it's necessary to keep a cluttered list around in article space so that someone, someday, maybe, can go through it and possibly have an opinion more like yours than mine. The list is in history and it's not going away. Please use it if it helps you improve the article.
I also feel you aren't really expressing the wiki process, one of the only five real rules that exist here, accurately in the comment above. It is not necessary to have a discussion before changing content; witness the number of articles where the Talk page is completely unused. It's polite to do so before making a controversial change, yes, but cleaning up spamlinks is not particularly controversial, and Wikipedia is not intended to be a web directory even for legitimate links. Good-faith edits with edit summaries are themselves a conversation over content, and they're one which is resulting in a steadily improving article, rather than merely hot air expended. Nevertheless, I'm spending time discussing the issue here since I think it's worthwhile to resolve differences of opinion amicably.
For as much as you talk about the need to discuss individual additions and deletions I find your comments here to be quite general and short on specifics. Had you expressed opinions about which sites you felt were valuable before I made my changes I would have considered your opinions in addition to my own and the noted policies. You're still free to add those sites in now; my version of the list is not final. This article is a living document with a freely-accessible history, just like everything else on Wikipedia. --Craig Stuntz 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
All I asked was to discuss before deleting. That (reasonable, I thought) request apparently failed so I did feel it was appropriate to insist that if links are blanked that the helpful ones be moved into articles deemed appropriate to the deleter. You are the one that seems most determined to charge ahead, take the bull by the horns, etc., so you're also the one who should do the job in a complete way. It's like fixing redirects when moving an article title--part of the "job description." No personal or general insults meant; it was just a reaction to the emphatically stated "I'll blank now and then, maybe, get to wiping up later" attitude I've seen before at this article. Badagnani 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The links I added to internet streaming radio sites that play bagpipe music were wiped out with the rest of the external links. I'm considering reposting them in the Great Highland Bagpipe entry, but first wanted to give people an opportunity to discuss why they may or should not be included. I included them only in order to allow the reader to hear samples of the musical instrument; I have no affiliation with either site, so they aren't spam. I read the various Wiki articles on what external links to avoid, and none of the criteria seemed to fit my inclusions. But, maybe there's something I missed. If you have an opinion on this matter, please post your comments on the Talk/Discussion page of the Great Highland Bagpipe entry. If there are no comments there, I'll probably repost them. and_e_r 17:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I started a piping specific wiki at Wikia: http://bagpipes.wikia.com/ - at present I am struggling for time to work on it but I will leave it to others to decide whether it merits a link from the article. Calum 17:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Proscription of bagpipes after the '45

While the bagpipe is not specifically cited in the Act of Proscription, a court-martial at Carlisle in 1746, trying a piper who had served with the Royal army and was captured while returning to Scotland with his pipes in his possession, deemed the instrument to be "a Weapon of war" and thus proscribed under the Act (see Peter Hume Brown, History of Scotland, 3 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909), 3: 328n.). This seems to provide some legal basis for the undoubted discouragement of the playing of the instrument, in addition to the natural decline caused by the deliberate efforts of the Government to destroy the Highland culture. Parmst 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Since you have a reference that lends some credibility to the story and it's really off-topic in this article (as presently used, anyway), you might consider removing it from this article. You could discuss the issue in Great Highland bagpipe, if you feel it's appropriate. --Craig Stuntz 16:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the guidance. I wrote the comment on this article in response to the statement in the "History" section, "For example, an oft-repeated claim is that the Great Highland Bagpipe was banned after the '45 Rising. This claim is untrue; there is no mention of the bagpipe in the Act of Proscription, and the entire myth seems to stem...", before I became fully aware of the thrust of the major editorial effort in progress. As soon as I've done a little more verification, I'll move it as you suggest. Parmst 20:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

See my reply below as to why this comment existed in the first place. As for the hapless James Reid (the poor chap had no idea what he was starting), his pipes had absolutely nothing to do with his trial; the various Disarming Acts were not even in force at the time of his trial and he was hanged quite simply as a traitor. The reference to the bagpipe was a failed defence ploy claiming that Reid was not a soldier at all. His treatment was suprisingly harsh, but it had absolutely no effect on the policing of the later Disarming Acts in the Highlands (see John Gibson's Traditional Gaelic Bagpiping, particularly chapters 2-3). The only point I am really trying to make here is that many early (and indeed modern) writers on the bagpipe do not meet Wikipedia's standards! Calum 12:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
The main page should be a general page about the bagpipe and not get into specifics about any particular bagpipe. Short description of various bagpipes, then a general concise history, then a list of the various bagpipes(there are many!), with various links etc. More pictures of various bagpipes including old paintings and sculptures etc.(about 7 images would do)LadyJaneMay 00:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


I think the article as it stands does this fairly well - at least it is what I was trying to achieve last time I undertook a major edit of the page. There is an general overview of the parts of the bagpipe (which has since been edited and now needs more work, but never mind) - chanter, drones, bag, etc. There is a history, which, as I am an English speaker and can only really speak with any certainty on British (and Breton) piping, could do with some knowledgable expansion. Really, there is very little to say about the history of the generic bagpipe: "It was invented a long time ago, and now exists in many places" is about as useful a summary as a generic history can provide. Before I edited the article it was exactly what you describe and it was an unencylopaedic mess (which parts of it still are). Anyone wishing to learn what a bagpipe was was given a description of a half dozen different (Anglo/Celtic) bagpipes and left to get on with it. There is now a Types_of_bagpipes page which lists every type Wikipedia knows about, and that is the best place for such a list. As for illustrations, I would agree some more would be good - I particularly dislike having two GHB photos on this page, though I think the first picture is ideal - however, historical paintings and sculpture are as reliable as Grattan Flood as to details of the pipes (just compare modern illustrations or sculptures of the GHB to the actual instrument to see what I mean). The guiding constraint for images should be: are they suited to an encyclopedia article on "bagpipes" or would they be better off illustrating a particular species of the family? Calum 20:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Un-encyclopedic paragraph

Badagnani has restored my deleation [[1]]. Really this paragraph has no place on the main bagpipe page and it should be put, if at all on the highland pipe page. The paragraph is only an opinion and is not encyclopedic. LadyJaneMay 10:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Worse, he restored it with the comment, "Use 'discussion' before deleting large areas of text, thank you," when in fact you and Parmst (talk • contribs) had already done exactly that! I do think your edit summary could have been clearer, though. There is no policy on Wikipedia requiring use of the Talk page before deleting a paragraph, especially when it makes an un-sourced and off-topic claim. I'm going to re-delete the paragraph for reasons both of you have already explained in Proscription of bagpipes after the '45. We have a good reason, with a source, to believe that the claim LadyJaneMay deleted isn't true. --Craig Stuntz 13:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

IMHO moving the deleted paragraph to the article on The Great Highland Bagpipe would be preferable to simply deleting it here. Everything in it is useful, and it really only needs a couple of citations to make it acceptable. Grattan Flood's reliability was exploded so long ago that I'd forgotten about it till I read this article a couple of days ago, and the commentary on Donald Macdonald's Collection of Ceol Mor also echoes reputable sources; no, I can't produce citations off the top of my head at this moment, which is why I'm still in the discussion domain, not the published article, but give me a little time to delve.... Parmst 17:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You can still do that! I'm uncomfortable with it as it stands based on your citation here in talk, but if you have the citations to fix it, feel free. Do note, however, that I didn't delete the part about Gratten Flood (LadyJaneMay did, but my changes are different than hers). I just added a {{fact}} template and toned down the POV in the language. But I agree that the proscription part would go well in the GHB article if factually tweaked and properly sourced. I just don't have the references on hand that you seem to have. --Craig Stuntz 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I fail to understand why this review of the Grattan Flood book, "The Story of the Bagpipe", is placed on the main bagpipe page. I have in fact lately read the book, and it is quite interesting. Really if editors have a problem with it, then why mention it at all, the "anti" comment just shouldn't be on the main page. There are other books on the bagpipe too! LadyJaneMay 10:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I added the original paragraph some years ago, IIRC, though what you deleted has been altered several times since. I would agree that it is not ideal for an encyclopaedia article; the reason I wrote it to begin with is that (as you all well know) bagpipes are an astonishing magnet for all sorts of nonsense, and given the state of the article back then I thought a gentle prod to those who good intentions outstripped their knowledge was in order. The time is probably right for its removal. As for Grattan Flood, it is just fantasy. Try and find supporting references for the stuff he comes up with; there isn't any. Good quality work on piping history is very hard to come by - many other secondary sources are poor quality as well. Many fail to cite references, or to check facts (witness the myth of the proscription of the GHB). Calum 12:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Anglo/Celtic route

Unfortunately, and may I point out again that the Bagpipe page is basically focusing on British and Irish bagpiping. These traditions have their own respective pages and we don't need this detail at the expense of other Asian and European histories. Please editors, much of the bagpipe page should be rewritten with this in mind. LadyJaneMay 00:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't overstate the case as many world bagpipes are mentioned, but it's true that more on other pipes would be good to have. It all has to do with the expertise of the editors, many of whom are GHB players and know most about these pipes. But it's also important to note that the worldwide use of British Isles pipes vastly outnumbers the use of the other pipes, for many of which there may be fewer than a few dozen players left. If you'd like to add more on the other pipes, please do so. Sean Folsom's "hotpipes" page has good information on many of them. Badagnani 00:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I am very strongly against having reams of material on individual types of bagpipe in this article - that was the situation before and it was a mess. As the article stands it does not describe any particular bagpipe in detail, although it does name many and it is indeed Euro-centric. Unfortunately, the vast mass of scholarship (such as it is) concentrates on Britain, Ireland, and Europe, and has very little about the rest of the world. Do regions such as Asia or Africa have any indigenous piping traditions at all? I know of hardly anything. Calum 16:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the comment meant that great detail be added about each pipe. We've been through that before. It meant that the article should equitably cover pipes as they're found throughout Europe, Asia, and North Africa (Middle East). Yes, of course indigenous pipes are found the latter areas. Some of these pipes are covered in the List of bagpipes. Badagnani 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments on the previous Paragraphs

1. I believe Calum did a neat job of cleaning up the entire page.

2. As for the comments by Badagnani, i believe what Calum has done, has made the bagpipe description more universal. we still use too many reference to scottish and irish and maybe that can be fixed. In my life time i have seen pipe bands from india, pakistan, korea, japan, iraq, eqypt, new zealand, australia, spain, brittany france, and i will bet i can come with five more. of course, they all play the highland pipe, and maybe one country had a bomborde band. There may be a way to play on the universality of the highland pipe itself.

3. i have been reluctant to tinker with the work done by calum. so this may be a good place to mention: the practice chanter is a key part of the bagpipe and should be mentioned somewhere; it is a different instrucment and it has cousins. also footpedals are used on some pipes and perhaps should be mentioned. finally we have a new animal: the electronic bagpipe. i have (or had) six different models and play all of them. the GHBoyd bagpipe synthesizer is quite good and produces great sound Where should that be mentioned? Maybe on its own page. Maybe i should write something?

4. The final item is William Henry Grattan Flood. i just finished reading it for the fourth time. it is very interesting. it is also controversial because of the nature of Flood. But that is what makes it interesting. it does speak to the history and universality of the bagpipe. One of the editors above mentioned that the Grattan Flood myth has been exploded. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO EXPLODED THE MYTH. i have done an exhaustive search of the internet and have found some criticism but the facts do not support the assertions. i will talk about this in a few days because i have pages of notes that i need to tidy up.

joe 03:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
In terms of pipe bands, there are GHB bands, Breton bands, and Galician and Asturian pipe bands. As far as I know those are the only distinct types of pipe bands in existence. The practice chanter is only relevant to the GHB and does indeed have its own article. I will edit the article to include a note on electronic pipes, and create a link to a new article on the subject - good point. Can you give an example of a bagpipe with footpedals? I have never seen or heard of one. As for Grattan Flood, no, there is not much good material on the internet. IIRC the best refutation is in Roderick Canon's book. The trouble is that Flood's work is a tangled web of truth, assertion, hopeful mistranslation and occasional nonsense, and carrying out a detailed point by point analysis would be painful and not particularly productive. By all means follow up information in it, but relying on it as a source is a bad idea. Calum 17:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
maybe some mention of breton, galician, asturian pipe bands might satisfy what Badagnani is looking for. i met a breton band in brittany, as well as a galacian band in spain on the same trip and they were using the highland pipes.
as for footpedals, i guess there arenot any in wide use. maybe i was thinking about the portative organ of years ago. my teachers, donald lindsay does use a foot pedal for pitch bending on an electronic pipe made by ghboyd, and my other teacher hamish moore did make an experimental cauld wind pipe with extra drones with a foot pedal to act as a regulator. but the project was scraped.
i just ordered the book by canon to check his credentials.

joe 04:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Tannahill Weavers used to use foot pedals (Moog Taurus, I think) in pipe music, but that's a separate instrument, of course. --Craig Stuntz 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Piobaireachd Pibrock

i cant find an article on piobaireach. if not, is calum or anyone else going to write an article for it.

i am too busy now to write an article, but if nobody comes to the rescue, then maybe someday i will write an article on it.

joe 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Cancel the above comments. I found piobaireachd. i forgot the d at the end. joe 22:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Transposition

Firstly, I am not sure the discussion on transposition belongs here. The majority of bagpipes, I would suspect, are primarily focused on aural transmission rather than literate transmission as happened in the UK anb Ireland. Generally transposition (in GHB, Uilleann, and Northumbrian piping) is only an aid to make the music simpler to read and write (early attempts at writing down GHB music were sometimes done in D; the Dixon MS uses a four line staff), and is generally done with little consideration of the sounding pitch of the instrument.

Secondly, the information is a little bit misleading or questionable: for example, in 1820, Donald MacDonald was makinf pipe chanters that pitch at about modern B flat, and in 1885 the standard A=440Hz did not exist. Indeed, Leo Rowsome made many concert sets in what is now a flat Eb, because the A of the time was about 453Hz. As for the comments on tuning (of GHB chanters), I am highly suspect of them. Although the D was certainly tuned sharper in the past, making the interval between C and D a limma, I do not believe that any piper fifty or more years ago could have tuned to two different whole tone intervals even if he had wanted to. And without doing a scientific survey, I am fairly sure that the stock of purely pentatonic piobaireachd is more like 50-60%. Many of the highest tunes of the art are not pentatonic. Calum 19:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Calum:
this is an important subject and is covered in the texts by Seaumus MacNeil and Roderick Cannon. but it is confusing. It is also mentioned in some of the important tutors like the RSPBA. I changed the title to Transposing Instrument because that is what the subject matter is about and it illustrates the great flexibility of the GHB. I will comment more tomorrow. I just got back from Cape Breton and PEI and I am swamped with mail and stuff. joe 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
After a bit of thought, I've decided to remove the paragraph entirely. I don't think a discussion of the transpositions of specific instruments belongs here - it is discussed in the GHB, Uilleann, and Northumbrian articles, and that is where it belongs, because each of these has particular nuances of interest (like the Northumbrian F+, etc). I think most of the information you had in the paragraph is represented elsewhere anyway.
I think the biggest challenge with this article is to resist the urge to add instrument-specific information - this is a perfect example of something that while interesting in itself is probably best addressed elsewhere. Calum 17:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Bagpipe jokes

Considering the ease with which one can find pages of bagpipe jokes on the internet, shouldn't something be said of bagpipes as a subject of humor? I'll admit I've seen pages of jokes aimed at other instruments, too. tharkun860 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A section on bagpipe jokes inevitably degenerates into a list of poor examples, usually mutated viola jokes. There aren't all that many jokes specific to bagpipes and as you say, if you want to find bagpipe jokes GIYF. I clobbered the jokes section back in June last year and no-one objected. Perhaps an article on bagpipe jokes? Calum 17:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, everyone knows that Bagpipes were given to the Scots by the Irish as a joke - but the Scots have not realised that yet!

Inhaling or Exhaling

I think the recent mod done in the "air supply" section is wrong .."Inhaling" was right. If the blow pipe has now valve the piper should close it with his tongue while inhaling ... (not exhaling) ... when exhaling the blow pipe must be open ....

Bag section is written with a mouth-blown POV

I'd like to note that the bag section assumes a mouth-blown pipe. I am going to recast the section to not be specific to mouth-blown pipes. It seems to be part of a lingering GHB-centric perspective to piping... +Fenevad 23:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Pipes and the Scottish British embassy

I just removed the following addition made overnight by Camusgoalie:

Time Magazine (27 September 1963) reports that a violent mob besieged the British Embassy in Djakarta, Indonesia earlier that month. British Ambassador, Andrew Gilchrist, a proud Scot, is reported to have shown his contempt for the mob by sending his military attache (also Scottish) to parade up and down (inside the fence) in front of the mob playing the bagpipes. The wisdom of this was doubtful - two days later the mob returned and ransacked the embassy before burning it down.

It was placed in the types section -- clearly the wrong place -- and I don't think it belongs in the article, but if someone wants to argue for its inclusion, please clean up the writing (it's pretty pro-Scottish) and place it back in the appropriate place.

--Fenevad 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hittite bagpipe link

The following item has been added (and removed) from the article twice:

proto IE Bagpipes

While there is nothing wrong with the item, the problem is that the link is to what is claimed to be proto-IE bagpipes, but there is nothing on the site to contextualize or explain the image. It is asserted that the image is of bagpipes, but it is not self-evident that the image shows bagpipes (it looks like it could be, but I wouldn't bet that it is). The link would be GREAT if it went to a page that analyzed the image and explained why scholars believe it to be bagpipes. Alternately, if you are to include it, please put in a paragraph in the section on history that links to the image and explains it.

A bare link, however, is not the way to handle this item +Fenevad 13:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

(Also, be careful if it is your conclusion that the images are of bagpipes but that conclusion has not been published. Wikipedia specifically excludes original research as it is unverifiable +Fenevad 13:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC))


Yes you are right, we need quote, I find one i'll stick it back ... other reader my think that this Hittite stone man may blow Bubblegum and the horn like thinks are stacked straws. :) Nasz 10:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA! Badagnani 10:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable uses

I'm curious how to decide what comprises "notable" non-traditional uses of bagpipes. Someone just added an AC-DC song, which I think is getting out there, but then there is no way to decide what is notable and what isn't since that is POV. That little section may need to be worked on somewhat to figure out some way to keep it from growing in the long run into a list of everything people happen to know of that uses bagpipes. (We had a similar problem over on Hurdy gurdy, and eventually had to move the whole list to subarticle because everyone wanted to add something...) -Fenevad 19:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

i think most notable use of 'hand blow' (Polish style kobza or dudy) bagpipes was to produce first man made iron by Hyttites, but it may be again original :) research Anyway my time expenses was 1 minute to write this sentence Nasz 12:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There is a sub-article for all and every kind of nonsense that people have managed to get up to with a bag and sticks - I think as far as this article goes, there should not be more than five specific examples, there should be a good variety, and most people should have heard of them. So while most people have heard of Orkeny Wedding or Mull of Kintyre, I would suggest that Korn might not be on that list (though I accept that it obviously varies according to your culture... Calum 21:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Silius Italicus

Does anyone have a reference to suggest that the passage has been correctly translated to refer to bagpipes? I am inclined to believe it is yet another case of optimistic translation on slender grounds. I've added a cite tag, and will delete the relevant material in a short while if nobody has any objections. Calum 17:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Piob Mhor

The Great Irish Warpipes and the Great Highland Bagpipes virtually the same instrument. The distinction came about in the British Army, with the invention of those names. The 3 chanter pipes have been played in Ireland for as long as they have been played in Scotland, and 150 years ago they were known as the pipes, or the Piob Mhor. I believe that the reference to the GIW should not have been removed, and I am reinstating it for the above reasons. Gold_heart 01:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The historical (18th century and earlier) large Irish bagpipe, commonly termed the warpipes, was a distinct instrument from the modern GHB. That bagpipe disappeared sometime in the 1700s and we know so little about it it's not funny. The Scottish bagpipe moved into Ireland during the 18th century and was seized upon by the nationalist/revival crowd as the authentic article. The naming controversy is down to them, it has nothing to do with the Army. The term 'Great Highland Bagpipe' owes more to 19th century manufacturers catalogues than anything else. Anyway, I've added a cite tag; if anyone wants to back up the above argument, I'd love to hear from you. Otherwise I'll expunge it in a couple of days. 195.62.202.107 20:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC) - Blast it, I'm Calum. Can't log in for some reason. 195.62.202.107 20:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if nothing is known about it, how do you know it was different? With the very close ties between Gaelic Scotland and Ireland in former times, it would be more surprising if they were not the same, allowing for slight regional variations as even happened in different parts of the Highlands.

Health concerns

I remember hearing a news report that long-term playing of the bagpipes can lead to lung problems from the dust inhaled from the bag on par with smoking several cigarettes a day. Is this true, and is it a serious enough problem to merit mention? Sloverlord 00:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No. A natural (hide/leather) bag is moist and there is no dust. Synthetic bags are not dusty either (unless severely unplayed ;) There are occasionally news reports, generally from reporters too lazy to do any actual fact checking (as opposed to being happy with two opposing soundbites), condemning the bagpipe for all kinds of unhealthy nonsense. I don't know and have never heard of any pipers with lung problems caused by piping. Calum 18:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps if there's no dust, there may be mold spores in a poorly maintained set. Badagnani 18:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Quite possibly true, although in general such sets generally don't often come within sufficient proximity of a piper to cause health concerns ;) Calum 19:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

More infomation

I came to this page hoping to get a cutaway or some such to better understand how bagpipes work/create sound. Is there a page out there with a basic cutaway that explains this? e.g., after reading this page it is still not clear to me where the reed is exactly.

Perhaps this might be of assistance. The reed is inserted in the top of the chanter (where the yellow hemp is) and the top on the right covers it. As for how it works - basically any woodwind instrument works by creating a column of air (by enclosing it with an instrument like a chanter or drone) and then vibrating it at a frequency that causes the column of air to resonate. Vibrating is done with a reed of some kind or by moving air over a fipple. [2] has some useful visuals - off the top of my head the measurements do not look like good ones but they are a decent representation. Calum 15:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The Photo of the bagpipe player

There is a little bit of a minor problem with the photo of the bagpipe player at the top of the article. Thechnically its okay, but the thing is that this guy is not a "real" highland scot bagpipe player. I know this guy and he acually is a Dutch guy living near Amsterdam. Even better, this photo is taken right in front of the Royal Palace on the Dam Square in Amsterdam. Check the photo at high resolution of the palace, in particular the base of the structure and compare it to the background of the piper photo.

Now, I have heard the guy play, and he is quite good at it. He's no amateur that is for shure! But then, its a bit strange to have a photo of a Dutchguy dressed up like a scot in the middle of Amsterdam playin' the pipes to dipict such a icon of Scottish culture! Perhaps it would be better to replace this photo with one of a "real" scotsman. No offence ofcourse to the exelent player that is depicted here!

Bobby Siecker 22-7-2007 The Netherlands

Well, he's good enough for the Scottish Socialists (they pinched the image for their election literature - without citation). More to the point, it is a decent image, well lit, the subject is reasonably well dressed and the instrument is in reasonable condition. No reason it has to be a Scot. Indeed, there's no reason it has to be a Highland Piper - the main argument for it is that it is the best known bagpipe and what nine out of ten people landing here will expect to see. Calum 19:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)