Talk:Bagpipes

EL WUATONpURRIES UN FLTOQ LO ODIAN

"In the modern era the use of bagpipes has become a common tradition for military and police funerals and memorials in the anglophone world, and they are often used at the funerals of high-ranking civilian public officials as well. Weddings, dances and parties are also venues for piping."

Bagpipes have been played at the funerals of all (or at least most) Scottish peoples funerals in recent times, yet the only mention is in military/police and high-ranking officials? I'm not sure what the article is trying to imply here, but it sounds limited to these situations and could do with being clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.80.248 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Plastic chanter reed advert.

Was the following section written by a manufacturer of plastic reeds?:

Plastic chanter reeds for the Great Highland Bagpipe are known to exist. However, they have not made the break into popular use as the ubiquitous plastic drone reeds have done. Piping on the GHB will be transformed when a synthetic chanter reed is fully developed. This will break the barrier of reed maintenance, alleviating one of the greatest struggles any piper faces. It is likely to unleash a wave of new talent by making the art of piping more accessible to all. Pipe bands would benefit also from being able to match chanters more easily.

Because it really sounds like advertising to me, especially the line about unleashing new talent. I mean, what are these statements based on? Nothingbutmeat 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone with more optimism than sense, I think. This paragraph is speculative, non-factual (and plain wrong), and irrelevant to the article. I'm going to knock it off. Calum 11:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, Calum. I wasn't sure if I should do it myself...Nothingbutmeat 06:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article

I've just deleted a statement from the top of the article stating that the article was mostly about pipes from the British Isles. I think we can agree that while there are still a few too many examples drawn from Britain, that the article is not heavily biased, and at least does try to be inclusive. I have also decided to delete the Maintenance section, on the grounds that a discussion of bagpipe maintenance is beyond the scope of an encyclopedia (the information was not that accurate in any case, and was GHB specific - again). On another note, I am just reading up on the process for getting this article ready for Featured Article status. It would be nice to see if we could tidy up the loose ends and get it there. Calum 17:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

When reading this article I can't tell if I'm reading an article about bagpipes in general or specifically about the Great Highland Pipes from Scotland. Since I happen to know a lot about bagpipe in general it is easy for me to filter this out, but for a lot of people who only are familiar with the Scottish pipes I think the article could be confusing. The "Playership" section of the article particularly seems to be written with only the GHB in mind. I think anything that is specific to the Highland pipes should be in the separate article on Highland pipes or should at least be explicitly noted. Zampognaro (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I assume you play the gran zampogna of southern Italy or Sicily? Badagnani (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I play the Sicilian ciaramedda from the region of Catania, Sicily. Though this summer I plan on getting a larger "4 Palmi" (tuned to either C "DO" or D "RE") zampogna from the region of Salerno which you could classify as a "gran" zampogna given its length. I know a lot about Italian bagpipes and have made some corrections to the Zampogna page, but haven't really extended the article because I wouldn't know where to stop. Zampognaro (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the ciaramedda the same as the ciaramella (like a piffaro, a shawm that plays along with the bagpipe)? Badagnani (talk) 01:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes and no. It's confusing because the name for the piffaro is also called Ciaramella. But in Sicily and Calabria they call a certain type of bagpipe the "ciaramella" or "ciaramedda" as well (in the Sicilan dialect the double ll's always go to dd's). This is because the bagpipe is essentially two piffaros stuck into a stock with 3 drones. This type of bagpipe can also be called "a paru," where paru means pair, which is referencing the fact that the chanters are of equal length. However, despite the fact that the chanters are of equal length, the finger holes are different, so that between the two chanters you can play a complete octave(3 notes overlap). On my pipe it plays from C to C, but it is in the key of F so there is an A#. The drones play C which is the 5th of the F scale. This type of double reed pipe playing can also be seen played without a bag, where the player plays both the pipes directly through the mouth, but these are played with double reeds. (this is seen in the region of Campania accompanying the gran zampognas.) Also, the right chanter on my Ciaramedda has extra finger holes so that you can pull it out of the stock and play it directly with two hands and play a full 8 note scale. In this sense it is similar to the piffero, except that it only has a single reed as opposed to a double reed. Also, I should point out that the Ciaramedda is played solo and is not traditionally accompanied by a piffero (they would clash as they are both high pitched). Only the larger "a chiave" pipes from the mainland are accompanied by the piffero. "chiave" means key - it is called this because the lowest note on the bass chanter is played by depressing a metal key. On the "a chiave" pipe, the chanters are in octaves and have a limited range so thus the ciaramella/piffaro picks up the slack and plays the melody while the bagpipe does the chord changes..... Zampognaro (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Given that this article is about (in general) the class of instruments rather than one specific instrument, does anybody else feel that the infobox is not really appropriate? The classification redirects to this article, the playing range varies by instrument, and the 'related instruments' has an entire article of its own already! I appreciate the work someone put into this, but I feel it doesn't really serve much of a purpose...any thoughts? Calum (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No objections, so I've reverted it to the picture. Calum (talk) 13:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Origins

The collection of places where bagpipes are said to be found is rather haphazard: there are or have been of have been resurrected bagpipes in many other places like Flanders, much of France, Germany, Czech republic, Poland, much of the balkans. I even briefly played a reconstruction form Sweden I believe. The most primitive ones are the launedda's from Sardinia and Germany has a Plattenspiel with a pigs bladder as bag. The ultimate origins are possible pre-Roman (Egypt?). Jcwf (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Illustration

An illustration with the different parts of bagpipes highlighted would be very nice. --Cantalamessa (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Like this?

There is a better version as well, I think on one of the other language articles. Calum (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Triple pipes

There is significant iconography for triple pipes (the launeddas simply being the only surviving one), as far west as the British Isles, dating back to Medieval times, and these should probably be mentioned in regard to their relationship with bagpipes. Badagnani (talk) 08:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This video contains numerous examples. Badagnani (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding references to the History section

I understand that the history of the bagpipe is a subject full of emotion, national pride, pet theories, etc. However, the current History section has a lot of very strong statements with no references, that are being bandied around the rest of the Internet as authoritative. There are several competing theories regarding bagpipes (created by Romans and introduced to Britain during the conquest, spread from the Middle East by crusaders, brought west from India by the Roma, etc). It'd certainly be fair to give shrift to the various theories, but only when they can be referenced to reputable published sources. Collinson has a ton of good info, so if anyone is near a library (I'm working overseas, so can't do it myself), cracking open Collinson and adding some footnotes would do a world of good. If nobody steps forward to verify the extremely strong statements about visual evidence of Roman bagpipes, I vote that it be deleted rather than potentially mislead readers. Either there is a coin of Nero playing the bagpipe in the 1927 whatever dictionary, or there isn't. Should be reasonably easy to settle the matter.MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas. An image of the coin should be shown. Regarding all else, start with Grove and move on from there, cross-checking all suspect statements. Badagnani (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going for the gusto. I'm going to go and do some re-vamp on history. I'll replace a few unsubstantiated comments with referenced materials. I mean no disrespect to those that added the info, but some pretty strong claims are made with no link or pic. I'll go put in some Cantigas info, cite Chaucer, link a Commons pic, etc. and see if the other claims can provide similar levels of proof. To make my personal bias clear, I'll admit I'm most leery of British Romanticism or whatever you'd call such theories. I'm inclined to believe the argument that bagpipes originated somewhere in Annatolia or the Eastern Med and then spread West. If there is indisputable evidence of bagpipes in the British Isles prior to 1000AD, please correct me. The Roman issue is fascinating, but appears to be based on textual clues, so as I understand it it's not totally clear as to whether the Romans had pipes or no, and whether such pipes (if they did exist) spread out from Rome, or died out there and were replaced by Annatolian/Med pipes 600yrs later or so. Let's get all the good ideas and theories out there, but only when they can be attested by reputable sources. MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Make sure to see Askaules (apparently derived from the Greek words for "bag" and "double pipe") and [1] Badagnani (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The bronze coin of Tasciovanus apparently shows a centaur playing a double pipe, not a bagpipe.[2] Badagnani (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Aristophanes

I believe the Aristophanes reference (in The Acharnians) not to refer to bagpipes, but to the aulos or double flute. According to [3], the quote says that the Theban pipers' annoying bone pipes should be stuck up the ass of a dog. In Ancient Greece, the ass of a dog was, in vulgar expression, where something unwanted should be placed. It certainly doesn't mean that the Theban piper was playing a bagpipe with a bag made of dog skin (no matter how much any previous writer may have wished was the case). Badagnani (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC) Badagnani (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This should be addressed. Badagnani (talk) 08:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hittite slab

An image of the Hittite slab (which was first mentioned in English journals about 100 years ago) should be found and added, if it's real. Badagnani (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. Google pops up references of it all over the dang place, but nary a pic. Anyone have a copy of Collins? Is it perhaps in there? I went to go mention that the Aristophanes has been cited as a bagpipe, but might actually just be an obscene joke about an aulos, but I hit an editing conflict. Found a great reference about "Images of Irelande", so linked that. There's no Wiki article on that book, so I might create one and try to upload a pic or two. That brings up the question: is pre-20th C artwork fair game, or does the photo of the artwork count as copyrighted? We could get all meta, and ask "If John Smith's photo of this tapestry is copyrighted, can I take my own photo of his photo, and then it's my own work?". MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you get an editing conflict go down to the bottom of the page, and your new text will be there, in the screen at the bottom. You can click "Edit" again and copy the text in. Badagnani (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Where is Eyuk? Is it possibly a misspelling of Çatalhöyük? Here is more information: http://www.revisedhistory.org/forum/showthread.aspx?m=161789&tree=1 Badagnani (talk) 08:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like it might be Kara Eyuk (also called Kül Tepe), in Azerbaijan. Badagnani (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Aristophanes, again

From the New Grove Dictionary:

“ Aristophanes in Lysistrata (411 bc) mentioned a wind instrument called a phusallis (a word derived from ‘bladder’), so the bladder pipe may have originated in the ancient world. ”

The Wikipedia article Bladder pipe doesn't mention this instrument.

Badagnani (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This source also mentions it. Badagnani (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also here. Badagnani (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Original languages

Can we get the original Latin and Greek texts of the ancient references, to add as footnotes? Badagnani (talk) 20:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

BagpipeWiki

If anyone could make one of these for BagpipeWiki.com that would be great, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nic Alba (talk • contribs) 16:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Primary pic to replace Skye Boat Song clip?

Does anyone else find it odd that the opening pic slot is taken up by a sound clip? I'd vote that we move the song clip lower and put an actual pic at the head of the article. I think it'd be great to feature some simple form of bagpipe rather than the GHB, so that the reader is more aware that the article is about bagpipes generically rather than the GHB specifically, since many readers might not know there is more than one kind of bagpipe. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)