Talk:Northumbrian smallpipes

Name

Most Northumbrian websites seem to have it as "smallpipes," not "smallpipe." Badagnani 07:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but as with most types of bagpipe, if you actually asked someone which they preferred, they would probably consider it an a level with questions like "Do you prefer your tables cooked or raw?". Calum 12:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Terminology is a running problem throughout the piping pages. One of the biggest problems is the use of non-English language to categorise types of bagpipe: many of these simply mean 'bagpipe'. The plural/singular question is another area of potential confusion. Speaking as a piper, there are certain ways to use the singular or plural that definitely 'feel' wrong, and there are some that are agnostic. When naming a particular kind of bagpipe, I would use the singular (as here), but in talking about my own set I would talk about my pipes. Calum 20:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Changed Northumberland to Northumbria. Northumberland and Northumbria are _not_ the same, but are infact two different areas. The name of the pipes is Northumbrian Pipes, not Northumberland Pipes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.128.155 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 9 May 2006

Northumberland is a modern county - Northumbria was a much larger Anglo-Saxon kingdom. 'Northumbria' is only used loosely for the region including Northumberland and Tyneside. But 'Northumbrian'is now pretty standard as the adjective describing things from this region. JohnGibbons 23:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Repeated change: Changed Northumberland to Northumbria. Northumberland and Northumbria are _not_ the same, but are infact two different areas. The name of the pipes is Northumbrian Pipes, not Northumberland Pipes.

Please do not change the article without discussing your changes or citing your sources. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eponymous one (talk • contribs) 17:28, 28 May 2006

I'd always thought that (a) 'Northumbrian' was the adjective relating to Northumberland, and (b) the use of 'Northumbria' to refer to Northumberland + County Durham + associated unitary authorities was mainly a Tourist Board usage. It's also worth remembering that Newcastle is in the traditional county of Northumberland. However, you're right in saying that they're played extensively outside the county of Northumberland - I'd changed it in an attempt to make the opening sentence sound less as if it was stating the obvious, and if I cut County Durham out of the picture it was unintentional. Nonetheless I don't think this article is the place for discussion of what Northumbria means (that's what the link is for), so I've made the geographical reference more general with a reference to England - especially useful as most people think bagpipes are the exclusive preserve of Scotland! -- Blisco 00:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Technically, Newcastle is not 'in' Northumberland - there is a boundary between them. It has had its own corporation for centuries. JohnGibbons 23:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

About Northumbria

Source definition: www.dictionary.com:

North·um·bri·an Pronunciation Key (nôr-thmbr-n) adj.

  1. Of or relating to Northumbria or its Old English dialect.
  2. Of or relating to the former or present-day county of Northumberland in northeast England.

As one can see, the definition can be used to describe Northumbria as well as Northumberland.

Therefore it is not correct to say that the pipes are from and played in Northumberland only.

Source: wiki page on Northumbria:

"The name reflects that of the southern limit to the kingdom's territory, which was the River Humber.."

also

"At its greatest the kingdom extended from the Humber to the Forth. The later earldom was bounded by the River Tees in the south and the River Tweed in the north (broadly similar to the modern North East England) and was recognised as part of England by the Anglo-Scottish Treaty of York in 1237."

Unless anyone has evidence to the contrary, the information regarding origins should not be changed. -Eponymous

That argument is competely illogical. You might as well say: "the dictionary defines Highland as: 1. Relating to elevated land. 2. Relating to the Scottish Highlands. As one can see, the definition can be used to describe any high ground, not just in Scotland. Therefore it is not correct to say that the Highland pipes are from and played in the Scottish Highlands only." Dictionaries give all accepted meanings of a term, and you can't select the one you like best in order to support your own thesis.

Besides, nobody's arguing that the Northumbrian pipes are played only in the modern county of Northumberland. Like the Highland pipes, the NSP is played all over the world, but with a concentration of players not only in Northumberland, but in the whole of NE England (Northumbria, if you will). Similarly, the Highland pipes originated in the Scottish Highlands, but are today associated with Scotland as a whole, and also have players worldwide. It's as ridiculous to claim that because there are pipers in Edinburgh and Glasgow the Highland pipes are therefore not "from the Highlands" as it is to claim that they come from the Highlands of Ethiopia or where have you.

In any case, we don't need to resort to the dictionary to determine where the pipes are from. According to the Northumbrian Pipers Society website, "The current form of the pipes was developed by makers in Newcastle-on-Tyne and North Shields towards the end of the 18th century". While it may be debated whether or not those places are or were in Northumberland (the Association of British Counties certainly think they are [1]), the Northumbrian Smallpipes Encyclopedia gives the distinct impression that the early development of the NSP took place in Northumberland proper. [2] [3]

Having made my case I'd rather avoid a petty dispute over terminology, so I've edited the opening paragraph to avoid all reference to anywhere beginning with Northumb. Hardly a satisfactory solution, but I hope I've left a version that no-one will disagree with. -- Blisco 22:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I object! They're played on the Scottish side of the Border too! In all seriousness, it's a good solution. Calum 19:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Supplemental

I fail to see whats illogical about my arguement.

Your argument is illogical for the reason I gave above. If that isn't enough, here's another example. I live in Cambridge, Cambridgeshire. Suppose I invent a new instrument, and call it the Cambridge hurdy-gurdy after its place of invention. It is taken up by musicians all over the world, but especially in Cambridge, Massachusetts. You then claim that it originated in the USA, on the basis that 1) there are players there, and 2) Wikipedia states that there are other uses of the name Cambridge, therefore it's not correct to say that the Cambridge hurdy gurdy comes from Cambridge in England. Your argument above is like that: you're basically saying "the Northumbrian pipes come from Northumbria, not Northumberland: they must do because the dictionary says that the word Northumbrian relates to Northumbria, not just Northumberland." Another example: the White Rhinoceros is grey, not white. A dictionary will tell you what colour white is, but to find out what colour the rhino is you need to look at the rhino, not the dictionary. Is that any clearer?

Also, it's incorrect to say that Newcastle and North Shields are in Northumberland. I know for a fact that they are part of Tyne & Wear, which is NOT Northumberland.

SO I guess your arguement could suggest we call the pipes "Tyne & Wear Pipes".

Tyne and Wear has only existed since 1974. The Northumbrian pipes have existed for 200 years in their present form alone. Before 1974 Newcastle and North Shields may not have been controlled by Northumberland County Council (they were County boroughs), but they were certainly considered part of Northumberland. (That's what I meant by "it may be debated whether or not those places are or were in Northumberland" above). Read Tyne and Wear#Identity - here are the most relevant bits:

The metropolitan county crosses the traditional border between Northumberland, and County Durham: the River Tyne. Newcastle upon Tyne and North Tyneside are in north of it, and Gateshead, Sunderland and South Tyneside are in the south. [...] Some organisations do not use Tyne and Wear as a county, instead retaining the traditional boundary between Northumberland and County Durham. [...] Additionally, administrative convenience, demographics and loyalty mean that many sporting organisations also use the traditional boundary; For example, the Northumberland Football Association is based in Newcastle upon Tyne, as is the minor counties Northumberland County Cricket Club and its four regular grounds.

You don't change the name of something just because boundaries or geographical names change. We don't talk about Iranian cats or Thai twins any more than Tyne and Wear pipes. Liverpudlians still talk about the East Lancs Road even though it now goes to Greater Manchester. If you want further explanation of how former county divisions can still be used even though they don't appear on the map, see Traditional counties of the British Isles.

This further re-enforces my point that "Northumbrian" from "Northumbrian Pipes" refers to the NE as a whole, not just Northumberland.

- Eponymous

I think it's been fairly well established that the NSP as we know it was developed in Northumberland - not exclusively the modern administrative county, but certainly the traditional county of which Newcastle has long been considered a part. It's up to you to come up with evidence that the pipes originated or were significantly developed (not just played or made) in County Durham, Gateshead, Sunderland, South Shields, or anywhere else that could be considered Northumbria but has never been part of Northumberland.

Oh, and by the way, please could you sign your posts by typing four squiggles, like this: ~~~~. That produces a link to your user page and the date, making threads easier to follow. Like this: Blisco 19:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Adrian D.Schofield

Adrian D. Schofield - one of the most tattoo'd men in the UK is also Adrian Schofield one of the top Northumbrian pipers in the world. His general appearance has changed over the years and the stories of him walking into rural pubs, giving the regulars heart attacks and then amazing them with music is legend - not something that's referencable.. but this is:

• Causeway Dulcimer festical: http://www.causewaymusic.co.uk/cdfsmp.html (at the bottom)
• Bagpipe Society Meet 1999: http://www.flickr.com/photos/a-evans/380759455/
• Or more recently: http://mk-mk.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=7265630&op=1&o=global&view=global&subj=74776306150&id=823245633
• And from the man himself: http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu/13188910.html

Suggested Category: "Strange but true"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.164.55 (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaker keys & Overblowing

I just removed the reference to speaker keys and overblowing from the main section. Whilst these things may be possible, it's not in any way a core part of the instrument. You can also remove the end and play open fingering or you could use the chanter as drumstick or even dispense with the bag and blow down it...

If you want it back in - make music with these techniques, get it heard and accepted and maybe in 100 years it will be a 'standard' part of the instrument. In the meantime it can only be considered as part of avant garde or experimental approaches to the instrument - hence the deletion. Feel free to argue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.209.116 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree, these sorts of methods are a surefire way to bugger up your reed Mr anonymous username (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Staccato

Near the beginning of the article, it is stated that

'Northumbrian piping is staccato in style'

This is a position which has been restated over many years and I think is both inaccurate and does a disservice to the Northumbrian piping tradition.

A noted characteristic of Northumbrian piping is that the notes are separated from one another and this is unusual in the world of bagpiping.

The entry on staccato on wikipedia is simplistic and not helpful in this situation. On the other hand, I recall seeing an entry on a website which stated that staccato is a 50:50 split -- half note, half rest. This certainly does not represent the best of Northumbrian piping.

Detached playing is a discipline which some pipers choose to adopt to a greater or lesser extent. Staccato is a musical effect which can be effective in some circumstances but if carried to extreme .....?

Bleedon63 (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary performers & their repertoire

I added a few paragraphs on contemporary players Alistair Anderson and Kathryn Tickell, both of whom are major performers on this instrument. Both play a mixture of traditional material and their own self-penned repertoire. Someone (anonymous contribution from 86.158.53.112) saw fit to remove this on the following grounds "Removed modern compositions listing they are not typical of NSP music - these belong individual pages". They are perhaps not typical of NSP music if you consider the smallpipes as a fossilized, historical relic. But they certainly do belong in an article on NSP, as they reflect an aspect of the repertoire of the pipes. The pipes are constantly evolving, and so is their repertoire. Had this been written 50 or 60 years ago you would no doubt be disallowing those "untypical" compositions by Billy Pigg. (And they also belong on the individuals' pages.) So I'm reinstating the paras in question. SiGarb | (Talk) 21:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The section on repetoire should be neutral and reflect the whole of the repetoire. Unfortunately the pieces you refer to are not yet part of the repeyoire - they are outliers. There are numerous other composers within the tradition whose music *is* widely played (Ormston, Dagg, Dodd, Hugman, Scott etc) but who have nothing like the popular profile of Alistair and Kathryn. You make a good point about Billys music (which is not currently in as much favour as it once was) - the point is that his music is widely payed and adopted by pipers. Archie's Fancy, the Wild Hills, Bill Charlton's are all standard repetoire. To compare, few of KT or AAs compositions have reached that level of penetration and certainly not their orchestral pieces, which are not played at all - they really are exceptions. Some may regard them as exceptional but you'll not find pipers queueing up to play them. When they do - then they merit a place in the core repetoire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.177.112.11 (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have reinstated the new compositions yet again. This time I have separated them off in a subsection of Repertoire, which should, as you say, reflect the whole of the repertoire. But it should do so to show the broadening of interest in the instrument by classical composers, and the more adventurous experiments by notable players of the instrument. To restrict your definition of "repertoire" to what is widely played on the instrument is like restricting piano repertoire to Chopsticks. SiGarb | (Talk) 13:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The section on contemporary performances and repertoire says nothing of significance about the modern pieces - it concentrates rather on the performers who have commissioned or composed them. It says nothing about the modern traditional-style repertoire. It may have a place on Wikipedia, but rather on the pages referring to these performers, rather than on the page about the instrument itself. John Gibbons 3 (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, here we go again. The slow-motion edit war recommences. The section that I have now returned to the article says nothing about the modern traditional-style repertoire, because that's not what it is about. And no, it's not in detail, because, as you've said, this is not the place to be going into detail. This is a brief section to highlight the fact that new pieces are being written for and by some of the current virtuosi of the instrument; you obviously love the instrument, so you should be proud of these players and of the fact that important and influential musicians in other disciplines are interested in them and what they can do. They are complicated and ambitious pieces that have brought the pipes to a wider audience. Why deny it by hiding the facts? They are not, and were never meant to be, additions to what you call the "core repertoire", but they may, in time, lead to new developments in the instrument. They may, equally, be a dead end, but only time will tell, and even the, they would be an important and interesting dead end and worthy of a brief section in this article. We'd all be stuck listening to 'Jimmy Allen' and 'Salmon Tails' ad infinitum, and nothing else, if past players hadn't pushed the envelope bit by bit. Shall we call for an outside arbitrator to settle this? SiGarb | (Talk) 20:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)