Talk:Bagpipes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Funerals

"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)

-Why has any mention of funerals been completely ommitted from the article? I think that it is worth mentioning that, in the United States (for example), the most common bagpipe music a person is likely to encounter is "Amazing Grace" being played at a funeral. In fact, "Amzaing Grace" played on bagpipes is arguably the single most common piece of funeral music in the country. The absence of any mention of this song (and funerals in general) in this article seems odd to me. -70.251.100.102 (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That usage is specific to the Great Highland Bagpipe, as people don't ever play Amazing Grace for funerals on the Northumbrian smallpipe or the gaita. That is a legitimate point though, I'd bring it up over on the GHB Discussion page. We're really trying to keep this page pipe-neutral rather than let one type of pipes be covered more than others. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2009 (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)

This article should only discuss bagpipes in a generic sense. Part 1 could be a description of what the minimal construction would be to class an instrument as a bagpipe. Part 2 could discuss the use of bagpipes in "classical or art music" from the period 800AD to 1300AD aprox. Part 3 can mention that bagipes have servived, since then, in regional and folk cultures. From there, each "modern" folk and national bagpipe should have a seperate Wikapedaia article.Columbiarun4me (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. You may want to start a new talk page section to discuss this proposal, since this one is over a year old. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to-how do I do this?--Columbiarun4me (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

With the "New section" link, just next to where it says "Edit this page". Graham87 04:15, 14 July 2009 (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)

Mittelalter rock redux

I had noticed someone had mentioned in the archives about Mittelalter rock bands, but it seems either any mention was deleted or just never mentioned. So I added a little blurb under the modern section, with an example of two very popular/notable artists of the genre. I think it's quite important to mention, as it seems to be the only genre of modern rock music to use a bagpipe as a primary instrumen. If anyone see's the need to expand it, feel free to do so. Also, I think it would be very nice to get a photo example up, as it is a unique variation of the dudelsack (ie. the horns)JanderVK (talk) 15:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bagpipes#Periodicals

In keeping with the overall "this article is not just about the GHB" vibe, should we remove any periodical which is about the Great Highland Pipe, rather than bagpiping in general? Ditto union and NSP pipes. Are any of the periodicals on the list, at all, about bagpipes in general? If not, might as well ditch the whole section and just leave the list of books about bagpipes (in general), with all specific books/periodicals being on the page of their specific pipe, or on a comprehensive list of bahgpipe books/periodicals. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits by 75.170.53.35

I'd like to get editor consensus on these edits; to my mind, as stated in the original rollback reason, the reference has almost nothing (beyond one sentence) to do with the text it is citing. Further, the page linked seems to be in violation of WP:ELNO as it provides links to an online store and a blog. These two things together seem a bit to quack like a duck. I haven't reverted the latest re-add to avoid falling into 3RR and have instead requested protection of the article while this gets discussed — so please give your comments on this issue. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

His subsequent edit was unsubstantiated historical claims (which I've elsewhere seen discredited as false history), and some random folklore. So I reverted that. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Practice Chanter Image

The image of the boy holding the practice chanter displays the boy holding the practice chanter completely wrong. He is playing a High A; however, his fingers on his right hand are first of all curled, and he is not covering the proper holes with his right hand. To play the High A note, it is proper to cover the A, B, and C note holes using the index, middle, and fourth finger. In order to be professional on here, that image should be replaced with a different image of a practice chanter. Thank you. -- Dsherret (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Surnames

Requesting some comments on the list of surnames which has mushroomed in the middle of the article. Is it necessary? Is it notable? Is it suitable for an encyclopedia entry? Calum (talk) 10:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering about that, I don't think it's too vital, personally. But should it be chunked somewhere else (Piper?), just deleted completely, or what? I don't think it adds much value to persons wanting to know more about bagpipes, especially relative to how large the paragraph has become. If we get a few more votes for delete without much objection, I wouldn't mind seeing it gone. MatthewVanitas (talk) 12:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was put somewhere else, I think you can lay money it would go for speedy almost instantly, and probably rightly so. It's a great example of one of those little sentences on Wikipedia that just grow and grow beyond all reason (another example is that list of non-traditional use, which has an insatiable appetite for growth). And of course, it's not cited, and it would amuse me greatly if someone was to turn up that "Piper" is in fact a surname that comes from an ancestor having been a plumber... Calum (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if the list disappeared. A list like that is more suitable for a dictionary like Wiktionary. Graham87 15:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It is highly necessary and notable. Badagnani (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe it is, but why? And if it's notable, can you provide a citation? I have to admit I'm sceptical that all those surnames exist and actually have the etymology that is claimed for them. Calum (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

International aspect of article

I don't really understand this sentence:

"Though the Scottish Great Highland Bagpipe and Irish uilleann pipes have the greatest international visibility, bagpipes have historically been found throughout Europe, Northern Africa, the Persian Gulf, and the Caucasus."

Firstly, I think that the "greatest international visibility" of the Scottish and Irish pipes should be referenced. Bagpipes form a part of so many cultures around the globe, that this part of the sentence seems only to reflect the fact that this article is being written chiefly by native English speakers. I also disagree with the idea that these bagpipes have been found "historically" in other countries, as though they are no longer played in the present day. I have seen pipes playing traditional music in Italy, Spain (Galicia and Catalunya), Hungary, Slovakia, Romania amongst others. I think that this is not reflected in the least in the sentence and that it should be rewritten.Jimjamjak (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I could see the "historically" part being tweaked, though you must admit that the vast majority of bagpipes outside the British Isles suffered great decline in the 19th and 20th centuries. The Swedish bagpipes either died out completely or was down to like two players, and many types of pipes were just recently revived from museum examples, or in some cases didn't even have physical examples and had to be reconstructed from artwork. So far as "greatest international visibility", try hitting any of the language options on the right sidebar, and you'll see that basically all of the dozens of languages with a WP article on "bagpipes" start off talking about the GHB, and then tend to mention the uilleann, before going on to describe other variants. This isn't just an English-speaker thing. I've actually had to explain Swedish bagpipes, pull up YouTube footage, etc. to explain to Swedes that they even have their own bagpipe. The Scottish, and to a lesser degree Irish pipes just show up in tons of films that are seen internationally, and thus are the go-to concept of "bagpipes" for most of the world. The point of that intro isn't to make the article focus on the GHB, it's to let folks know right-off "there are more bagpipes in the world than the one or two you're probably thinking of." MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that I "must admit" a great decline in the 19th and 20th centuries. I would be glad to consider this if you could point me in the directin of a source for this information. Perhaps my knowledge of central and eastern Europe and the Balkans is rather narrow compared to the potential scope of bagpipe playing around the world, but I see no particular evidence of a decline in bagpipe use in these particular countries. What I see is a decline in shepherds (who might have been more inclined to play them), and a concomitant increase in folk music and dance groups using these "traditional" instruments. I am afraid to say that I don't know anything about the Swedish bagpipes, but I would be surprised to find anyone from countries touched by the Carpathian mountain range who don't know what gajdy/dudy (or various other spellings) are. I took your advice to look at the other articles, out of interest, and note that Scottish pipes are often mentioned first, but I fail to see what this proves other than the fact that these articles might not be very developed at the moment i.e. if they are wikis of languages with a relatively low number of editors, it is rather likely that they are based on the English article. I agree with your comment on films, but consider that "international visibility" is not so useful a concept to address here. For example, by far the majority of films available in the world featuring cars, feature those made in the USA, and yet we don't need to mention this in the article on automobiles. Couldn't the article just begin with something more like "bagpipes are found throughout Europe, Northern Africa, the Persian Gulf, and the Caucasus." This way we don't need to deal with unsourced claims of the demise of bagpipes in other countries, or which particular varieties have featured in the international media.Jimjamjak (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I would be very interested to see the stats, if they exist, for what happens when people land on this article. Where do they click through to and how long do they remain? Does this information exist? Calum (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how easily those stats are found, but for starters you can dig http://stats.grok.se/, which has at least basic hit counts over time. That was part of my intent with the intro: people are presumably coming to this page having no idea there are other bagpipes than the GHB and maybe uilleann pipes, so thought it'd be helpful to address that issue early on. Funny though it is, not how hits on Bagpipes peak around St. Patrick's day. My overall point was that there's a large popular misconception about how narrowly bagpipes are distributed, so attempting to clarify that early on is good. That's why I also proposed, and later moved, the Brueggel painting to the first position rather than it being a GHB piper like everyone would expect. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. My suspicion is that a substantial number of people coming here want information on the GHB, and that's really what I was driving at. I do agree with you regarding the scope of the article, but I do think it's worth looking in terms of how people use it. Calum (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Improving this article

This article should only discuss bagpipes in a generic sense. Part 1 could be a description of what the minimal construction would be to class an instrument as a bagpipe. Part 2 could discuss the use of bagpipes in "classical or art music" from the period 800AD to 1300AD aprox. Part 3 can mention that bagipes have servived, since then, in regional and folk cultures. From there, each "modern" folk and national bagpipe should have a seperate Wikapedaia article.Columbiarun4me (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the time or resources to write a new article. Those who own books like The Bains Pitt River Museum book and others could try it. I would help proof it.

Dispite my oppnion of the article, it is satisfactory in that the reader walks away learning that the pipes are not some odd invention in Scotland, but an old and widspread instrument universal to Europe and parts of the Middle East and North Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Columbiarun4me (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Archived

I have archived recent discussions on this page, as most seem to have died off. Please move any back if you feel they are still needing looked at. Calum (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Clobberation of the "Terminology and Grammar section"

I suspect "pipists" is an elaborate hoax. If not, please provide a cite both for it and the claim that purists still call pipers pipists (there's a beauty of a tongue-twister in there somewhere...). I have also clobbered the surnames as not being particularly relevant. I don't think anyone reads this article for the surnames. Calum (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Great Article

• The history section is deep. Well Done..--Oracleofottawa (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Another early source

I have another (possible) early source. The Mishna (basic part of the Talmud, redacted c.200 in Israel), refers to an instrument called a chemet challilin, literally a water-skin of flutes. The commentators generally presumt this to be a bagpipe, and this is the word in moden Hebrew. Seems to me this is at least as good as the other source, unless someone know of some other instrument that could meet such a description. (Interestingly, the commentator Tosafot Yom Tov (c.1700) mentions they they were common is Russia in his day (he calls it a sackfife in German.)

Any comments? I would like to put in the basic statement from the Mishna.--93.172.150.67 (talk) 21:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That still seems to fall into the category of "interesting theory, but by no means conclusive." There are tons of vague descriptions in old Latin, Greek and Hebrew texts that people think apply to bagpipes, but I'm not aware of any true authority on organology who seriously believes those. It seems to always be linguists with minimal musical experience and an interest in novelty who push the "bagpipes were used in ancient times" line. Given the lack of iconographic evidence (despite tons of iconographic evidence for other ancient instruments), I'd be leery of putting it into the article. To the best of my knowledge, there is little to no visual evidence of bagpipes until the 1200s or so, after which point they appear all over the place in all kinds of artwork. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the warning. Any idea what it might be? A Chemet is a bag made by skinning an animal whole, and a challil is generally assumed to be a flute. I had just thought it was at least as conclusive as the other example given.--62.219.96.219 (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that though we can speculate for kicks, it's not really authoritative unless a musicologist publishes a book/article backing it. Otherwise it's "original research" per WP:OR. We actually removed several other claims of Hittite and Ancient Greek bagpipes because the arguments for them either couldn't be documented, or had been disproven in later scholarship. The only reason the Roman ones are still there (and I, personally, am not convinced by them) is that Anthony Baines, the single biggest bagpipe organologist, mentions them as possible leads in his book. So your points are certainly interesting (though I personally am skeptical on principle), but to list them in the article would take clearer documented research, as opposed to "here's how some translators see it." MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I find your arguments for not putting it in convincing, and will refrain. However, I do not see that it violates the OR rule, just that the secondary sources are not musicologists, and therefore, less usable.--84.229.51.101 (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Musical mode

What Musical mode are bagpipes in? 23:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Refer to the articles about specific types of pipes for details of tuning, as different kinds of pipes have different kinds of tuning. If you're asking for the Great Highland Bagpipes (GHB) and Scottish smallpipes (SSP), it's the Myxolydian scale (major scale with a flat 7th). MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I think that would be good to have in the article. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 16:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Burmese moushog bagpipe?

I'm tracking down info on rare bagpipes to expand WP coverage, and have found one vague mention of what appears to be a Burmese bagpipe, the moushog: here's all I can see of Podnos on GoogleBooks snippet:

“ India has the masak, Burma the moushog. After the fifth century, the invading Saxons of England played the Sweghleot\at, meaning "sounding skin." The Latin term uter (leather bag) is listed in Chart I under Italy as utriculus, ... ”

It's from this book: Theodor H. Podnos (1974). Bagpipes and tunings. Information Coordinators. p. 47. Retrieved 23 April 2011.. If anyone can help dig up clearer data, I'd love to have an article on the furthest-east indigenous bagpipe I've ever heard of. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Is the Bagpipe a reed aerophone?

I know the bagpipe is an odd instrument, but I was wondering why it's not considered a reed aerophone (like the clarinet). Just making sure before I put it into Category:Reed_aerophones. yuor faec (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

All members of the bagpipe family are indeed reed aerophones (some single-reed, some double-reed). The only way they differ from the clarinet or oboe is the the bagpipe has (in almost all cases) multiple "clarinets" or "oboes" inserted into a bag which supplies the air to work the reeds. Rather than just this one article, maybe best to put the whole Category:Bagpipes so that all the bagpipe variants, as a category, fall into your cat. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

So it is actually no different than an organ.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.138.33 (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It is quite different from an organ.User talk:Unfriend12 07:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Way too many pictures.

Way. User talk:Unfriend12 00:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, perhaps not. If one goal of Wikipedia is broadening the scope of an article as much as possible to reduce unnecessary focus on one region or culture and if "a picture is worth a thousand words" then maybe the inclusion of so many pictures at the bottom of the entry may serve to meet that goal until such time as, if ever, enough research has been done to enlarge the written portion of the article in a meaningful way. If nothing else, the pictures do illustrate the fact that the term "bagpipes" refers not only to the Great Highland Pipes. NorthCoastReader (talk) 01:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Right, but there is a practical limit. Maybe we should reach some consensus as to the "right" number of images, post it here, and put up a hidden notice in that section telling editors to come check the consensus here before adding more photos or removing current ones? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Notability of the various revivals?

The section on "revivals" is getting a bit long as people add more and more pipes to the list:

“ n recent years many of these pipes have seen a resurgence or revival as musicians have sought them out; for example, the Irish piping tradition, which by the mid 20th century had declined to a handful of master players is today alive, well, and flourishing a situation similar to that of the Asturian gaita, the Galician gaita, the Aragonese gaita de boto, Northumbrian smallpipes, the Breton biniou, the Balkan gaida, the Romanian cimpoi, the Black Sea tulum, the Scottish smallpipes and pastoral pipes, as well as other varieties. ”

Maybe the best way would be to start requiring an RS footnote to indicate that X pipe is undergoing a significant/notable revival? Arguably more than half the bagpipes out there had diminished in popularity going into the 20th century, and are increasing in popularity in the 21st. Rather than list out dozens of pipes, since it's hard to deny pipe X if pipe Y is already on the list, maybe we should set a higher footnoting bar. Thoughs? MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a general note that traditional/historical bagpipes have enjoyed a resurgence... if there is a source for that? I should think there would be, though I don't immediately know where I would have read it. Perhaps in reference to late-20th-century events... may have even been on an album sleeve. User talk:Unfriend12 19:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Took a cursory glance at gBooks, and though there are plenty of refs of individual bagpipe revivals, I didn't see one on the overall trend in the first couple pages. Though I did find a recent complaint that the Greek pipes are one of the few still sans-revival... and added that to tsampouna. I agree it would be good to find though, as otherwise it's hard to reckon which of several score reviving pipes rate being mentioned here. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Where did the bagpipe originate?

Sorry but this article does not shed any light on the actual origins of the bagpipe. If it originated in many different places independently then say so. If there was a single origin from which all others descended then say that. I'm just very curious but found no answer to that fundamental question here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.138.33 (talk) 05:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am uncertain this is sincere, but if so, perhaps looking under the "origins" header might shed some light.User talk:Unfriend12 07:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue is quite unclear among even academics. Unfortunately the answer is pretty much "nobody knows". On the bright side, it is pretty clear that it is neither Irish nor Scottish in origin, so at least that bit of nationalist legend is easily debunked. The article could do a better job lining out the specific theories for where the pipes came from, but there are only so many authors that even got into that, and it's a contentious subject. The "origins" section is a bit too anecdotal ("here's X evidence, and Y evidence") but even at its best the question is simply unsolved. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

et la cornemuse ? (and the French bagpipe?

Il est remarquable que cet article parvienne à ne parler de la France qu'une seule fois et seulement de la musette de cour lorsque le même article en français évoque dix-huit autres instruments ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.158.60 (talk) 06:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary: it's odd that the article doesn't talk much about France and its many pipes, mentioning only the musette de cour. The equivalent article in French mentions 18 kinds of French pipes

You raise an interesting point, and the answer would include:

• On an English-language page, there's a natural bias towards pipes familiar to English-language speakers
• Most of the mentions of specific pipes on the page are about technical details (drone, chanter, reeds, etc). Since in most of those cases French pipes have the same features as other pipes, it isn't necessary to single the French pipes out since an Irish uilleann is a somewhat more familiar example of "bellows" than most French pipes would be to an English speaker.
• In the "History" section, we don't happen to cover well the main historical issues where France would be prominent. Off the top of my head, significant historical aspects of French piping would include popularising bellows (that's French, yes?) and also the fashion for aristocrats playing bagpipes as a "pastoral" hipster statement, pretending to be "rustic" and all. Some brief proportional mention of either of those would be a way to mention France and also fill in a few gaps in the narrative. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Greek bagpipe

el:Γκάιντα please check out this page of greek gaida(macedonia and thrace) γκάιντα and tsampouna τσαμπούνα in greek islands so it could be written together with the other bagpipes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.129.63.49 (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, is the material you're referring to not properly covered at these:

• Tsampouna, a double-chantered, droneless bagpipe played mostly in the Greek Island
• Askomandoura, a Cretan bagpipe similar to the tsampouna
• Dankiyo, a bagpipe played in the historically ethnic Greek regions of Trabzon and Rize in what is now Turkey
• Gaida, a type of bagpipe played in northern Greece as well as parts of Macedonia and the Balkans

To help anyone looking for Greek bagpipes, I've made a disambiguation page to connect them all: Greek bagpipes.

MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Generalities that make for false statments

"especially among fire department, military and police forces in the United Kingdom". Not in most of England or Wales. Bagpipes are less common in Wales (Music of Wales) than male voice choirs are in Scotland (Music of Scotland)! -- PBS (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Bagpipes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130211205152/http://www.northport-bagpipes.org/bagpipes.htm to http://www.northport-bagpipes.org/bagpipes.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Bagpipe related illness

Not sure if this should be put in the Bagpipes article. Apparently one man never cleaned his bagpipes, and the various fungi that lived in it would get into his lungs every time he played, eventually causing his death. Cleaning out the bagpipes would have fixed the problem. The University Hospital of South Manchester coined the term "bagpipe lung" for this, although there are not other deaths attributed to it yet (?).

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/article97743657.html

Ll1324 (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No; there's no evidence that the guy's illness had anything to do with the pipes, and in fact the set of pipes were unusually well looked after. No fungi from his pipes were found in his lungs. In short, it's a bizarre story that came along at a quiet time for the media, hence it's popularity. Calum (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Very poor quality recording/performance in article

The Skye Boat Song clip in the second paragraph is very low quality and doesn't work great as a representative work of bagpipe music - both in terms of recording quality and artistry.

If I could provide a copyright-free clip of the same tune with better recording quality and performance, would it be eligible to be in the article? 128.61.13.56 (talk) 02:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Bagpipes and gaida are the same

Resolved

 – Gaida was merged to, and redirects to, Bagpipes

I am Bulgarian. I propose merge of the entire endoctrination. I already made references in the introduction. I propose immediate merge. It's essentially called "gaida", but there's even professional education in NMA "National Musical Academy" in Sofia. I don't, I am drummer, and smoker, I don't have breath. Really. Hard tests. But we call it as "gaida in bagpipe". Merge, immediately.

Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

The way this proposal is currently framed by the tag on this article, it could be seen as to merge bagpipes into gaida and is stated thus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Article alerts. Can I assume that the intent is in fact to merge gaida into bagpipes, in which case please alter the tagging to the {{mergefrom}} form? (On the off-chance the tag is as intended, I would oppose.) Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)