Hello Barry and others, Well this is certainly interesting.
Firstly can anyone (i.e you, Julia!) throw any light on Fenwick & his background? > Was Mr. Fenwick right? I think he was, in the 1885 context of the aims of that tutor and the unfamiliarity of the instrument. > I would suggest a better description Yes, I agree that it is, being a fuller scientific description of what is required, and more suitable to the more sophisticated, experienced and knowledgeable reader, by which I mean any subscriber to the Dartmouth List! Scientific too, in that it has resulted not only from careful listening to proponents of a certain style but your electronic examination thereof. > Mr Fenwick's description seems to me to owe a lot to the style of playing > appropriate to open ended pipes such as GHB. I don't believe it is influenced by anything other than an attempt to explain in simpler (and less musical) terms than yours the basic principles of closed fingering. > Initially the gaps between the notes will be large, but with practise they > *will* come down to an appropriate length. I like the parallels drawn with the psychology of effective sports coaching. Concerning your remark above, there is much to discuss about what is appropriate. Playing Rothbury Hills in the style of Meggy's Foot might improve it a lot! I suppose after all, Fenwick did a reasonable job though there are factual inaccuracies and much needless repetition. As a member of the (very small) Northumbrian Small-Pipes Society of the time he may have been the best person to undertake this task. Francis Francis On 22 Jun 2011, at 22:56, [email protected] wrote: > > In the instruction book published by the Northumbrian Smallpipes Society in > 1896, > Mr Fenwick wrote, > > 'The note G is sounded by lifting the fourth finger off the bottom hole. To > produce A, replace the fourth finger on the hole, and raise the third finger. > The other notes are produced by closing and opening one hole at a time as > given in the scale.' > > It seems to me that there are some deficiencies in this description. If we > follow the instruction in the first sentence, we are left with a G sounding. > This will go on until we decide to play another note. In order to play that > other note we have to move two fingers in a coordinated fashion. > > I would suggest a better description as > > A note of G is sounded by lifting the fourth finger off the bottom hole for > the length of time appropriate to the note and then replacing it. Other notes > are played in the same fashion either by lifting a finger or thumb to open a > tone-hole for the required duration and then replacing the finger or thumb or > by depressing a key for the appropriate length of time and then releasing it. > > The major difference is that every note has a length as well as a pitch, the > player is aware of the length of the note when he starts to play it, and the > note isn't complete until it has been stopped. > > Mr Fenwick's description seems to me to owe a lot to the style of playing > appropriate to open ended pipes such as GHB. Once the pipes are started, a > stream of sound emanates from the chanter and the player is engaged in > directing this to various pitches. It is a bit like operating a garden hose > with no access to the tap. You can direct where the water goes but you cannot > stop it. > > Conversely, with a closed end chanter NSP can produce distinct notes, and I > think this is the way the instrument is best approached. Once we know how to > play a G quaver, we can decide to play a G quaver without worrying about > where the note will end. Our training will kick in and the fourth finger will > descend at the appropriate time. we should imagine the whole of the note in > our head before playing it. > > We can decide to follow that G with an A and to do that we lift the third > finger at the appropriate time. and the fourth finger has already closed the > G hole. Initially the gaps between the notes will be large, but with practise > they *will* come down to an appropriate length. > > This description is my own but it owes much to detailed listening to > recordings of Chris Ormston, to practice methods described by Inky-Adrian and > discussions with other pipers who shall for now remain nameless. I feel that > there are parallels with the methods used by Sports psychologists and coaches > who encourage those they are teaching to break down the actions they require > into well defined segments, and to have a clear vision of the outcome they > wish to achieve before they start the action - we should 'think' the note > before we play it. > > Does this make any sort of sense? > > Barry > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
