[NSP] Re: bag shape
Hi Richard, Excuse me while I mount my hobby-horse. The size of the bag relative to the body shape of the player can have a crucial effect on the perceived difficulty of playing the pipes. I observed the posture of many players in piping meetings and I came to the conclusion that those who had the bag tucked well up into their armpit leaving the forearm detached seemed to have the greatest freedom in playing the pipes, so I resolved to adopt this position. When playing, my bag rests in the crook of my elbow and 2/3 to 3/4 of my forearm is not in contact with the bag. The problem with adopting this stance is having the confidence that the bag will stay where it is put. It took me several years to get my pipes and my stance comfortable, but now I find that I can play almost any non-leaking pipes with relative ease. For a long time, the corner of my bellows was rubbing on my right wrist and causing an abrasion. Now there is 3 inch separation between the wrist and the corner. I dont remeber how I got rid of that problem. I am currently considering taking an inch off the neck of my bag to bring the chanter to a more comfortable position. I experimented with playing with the bag more in front of the body, but I found that this required active pressure from the arm to squeeze the bag, whereas with a standard bag I feel as though it is the weight of my arm which is compressing the bag. Does this help? Barry Richard York wrote: I'd welcome comments/advice on nsp bag shape, please. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Hello Richard and Barry, I agree entirely with the comments here. Comfort and the avoidance of stress are essential for the effective use of any instrument, and consequently for musicality. One aspect of this puzzles me. I have studied a large number of paintings and engravings showing pipes bags of the past. I have also examined many examples in museums. Whether they are from Breughel, Praetorius or any other picture showing a bag without a fabric cover, they are invariably inverted bags, i.e. with the seam inside the bag which has been turned inside out after sewing. An extra folded strip of leather is sewn between the cheeks of the bag but this does not project.Musettes are always constructed in this fashion and so are early bags from the time of the Reids and Dunn. In contrast modern bags have the sewn seam projecting as a narrow edge. This is not necessarily more uncomfortable than an internal seam but it has infinitely more potential to be so if the bag is an awkward shape or held in an inconvenient position. I wonder when and why this older and better method was discontinued. Examples here: Praetorius: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Syntagma07.png Dürer (click to enlarge - 150%?: http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/d/durer/2/13/4/076.html And of course, here! : http://www.richard-york.co.uk/past/bagpipicsmod.html Francis Francis On 26 Jan 2010, at 21:27, Barry Say wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Excuse me while I mount my hobby-horse. > > The size of the bag relative to the body shape of the player can have a > crucial effect on the perceived difficulty of playing the pipes. I observed > the posture of many players in piping meetings and I came to the conclusion > that those who had the bag tucked well up into their armpit leaving the > forearm detached seemed to have the greatest freedom in playing the pipes, so > I resolved to adopt this position. > > When playing, my bag rests in the crook of my elbow and 2/3 to 3/4 of my > forearm is not in contact with the bag. The problem with adopting this stance > is having the confidence that the bag will stay where it is put. It took me > several years to get my pipes and my stance comfortable, but now I find that > I can play almost any non-leaking pipes with relative ease. > > For a long time, the corner of my bellows was rubbing on my right wrist and > causing an abrasion. Now there is 3 inch separation between the wrist and the > corner. I dont remeber how I got rid of that problem. > > I am currently considering taking an inch off the neck of my bag to bring the > chanter to a more comfortable position. > > I experimented with playing with the bag more in front of the body, but I > found that this required active pressure from the arm to squeeze the bag, > whereas with a standard bag I feel as though it is the weight of my arm which > is compressing the bag. > > Does this help? > > Barry > > > Richard York wrote: >> I'd welcome comments/advice on nsp bag shape, please. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Allow me to offer two possible/likely explanations for leaving the seam facing outward: 1) To sew the whole bag and then turn it inside out sounds like a (Warning: Americanism Alert!) tin-plated bitch. I don't see either the chanter stock hole nor the drone stock hole being big enough to do this readily, if at all. 2) The bag seasoning is more likely to flow into the seam if the seam is left on the outside. Think of what the two versions look like from the inside: An outside-seam bag has a groove into which the goo will flow. If you were to invert the bag, then the seam would stick up from the inside surface of the bag, making it much harder to get the goo into the actual junction. In other words, I'd think an outside-seam bag would take seasoning better, and be a bit less leaky. One Man's Opinion--Your Mileage May Vary Alec MacLean In a message dated 1/26/2010 2:16:51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, oatenp...@googlemail.com writes: Hello Richard and Barry, I agree entirely with the comments here. Comfort and the avoidance of stress are essential for the effective use of any instrument, and consequently for musicality. One aspect of this puzzles me. I have studied a large number of paintings and engravings showing pipes bags of the past. I have also examined many examples in museums. Whether they are from Breughel, Praetorius or any other picture showing a bag without a fabric cover, they are invariably inverted bags, i.e. with the seam inside the bag which has been turned inside out after sewing. An extra folded strip of leather is sewn between the cheeks of the bag but this does not project.Musettes are always constructed in this fashion and so are early bags from the time of the Reids and Dunn. In contrast modern bags have the sewn seam projecting as a narrow edge. This is not necessarily more uncomfortable than an internal seam but it has infinitely more potential to be so if the bag is an awkward shape or held in an inconvenient position. I wonder when and why this older and better method was discontinued. Examples here: Praetorius: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Syntagma07.png Duerer (click to enlarge - 150%?: http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/d/durer/2/13/4/076.html And of course, here! : http://www.richard-york.co.uk/past/bagpipicsmod.html Francis Francis On 26 Jan 2010, at 21:27, Barry Say wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Excuse me while I mount my hobby-horse. > > The size of the bag relative to the body shape of the player can have a crucial effect on the perceived difficulty of playing the pipes. I observed the posture of many players in piping meetings and I came to the conclusion that those who had the bag tucked well up into their armpit leaving the forearm detached seemed to have the greatest freedom in playing the pipes, so I resolved to adopt this position. > > When playing, my bag rests in the crook of my elbow and 2/3 to 3/4 of my forearm is not in contact with the bag. The problem with adopting this stance is having the confidence that the bag will stay where it is put. It took me several years to get my pipes and my stance comfortable, but now I find that I can play almost any non-leaking pipes with relative ease. > > For a long time, the corner of my bellows was rubbing on my right wrist and causing an abrasion. Now there is 3 inch separation between the wrist and the corner. I dont remeber how I got rid of that problem. > > I am currently considering taking an inch off the neck of my bag to bring the chanter to a more comfortable position. > > I experimented with playing with the bag more in front of the body, but I found that this required active pressure from the arm to squeeze the bag, whereas with a standard bag I feel as though it is the weight of my arm which is compressing the bag. > > Does this help? > > Barry > > > Richard York wrote: >> I'd welcome comments/advice on nsp bag shape, please. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Hello Alex and all, You seem to suggest that turning the bag inside out is unlikely. I have two reasons for disagreeing, firstly because I have done so myself and secondly because I have seen many early bags constructed in this way. You will find that this was the usual method if you look at the available iconography or examine old examples. There has to be a good reason why this was adopted for many different kinds of pipes in different centuries and different countries. The method involves more effort, because of sewing through thicker seam containing the extra folded strip of leather as well as the Houdini-like contortions to pull the whole thing through the drone stock hole. Why would anyone do so if there is not a very significant advantage? Elegance and comfort is the probable answer. You may well be correct in your predictions about seasoning. Perhaps this is all about a balance of advantages. Francis On 27 Jan 2010, at 04:40, cal...@aol.com wrote: > Allow me to offer two possible/likely explanations for leaving the seam > facing outward: > 1) To sew the whole bag and then turn it inside out sounds like a > (Warning: Americanism Alert!) tin-plated bitch. I don't see either > the chanter stock hole nor the drone stock hole being big enough to do > this readily, if at all. > 2) The bag seasoning is more likely to flow into the seam if the seam > is left on the outside. Think of what the two versions look like from > the inside: An outside-seam bag has a groove into which the goo will > flow. If you were to invert the bag, then the seam would stick up from > the inside surface of the bag, making it much harder to get the goo > into the actual junction. In other words, I'd think an outside-seam > bag would take seasoning better, and be a bit less leaky. > One Man's Opinion--Your Mileage May Vary > Alec MacLean > > In a message dated 1/26/2010 2:16:51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, > oatenp...@googlemail.com writes: > > Hello Richard and Barry, > I agree entirely with the comments here. Comfort and the avoidance > of stress are essential for the effective use of any instrument, and > consequently for musicality. > One aspect of this puzzles me. I have studied a large number of > paintings and engravings showing pipes bags of the past. I have also > examined many examples in museums. Whether they are from Breughel, > Praetorius or any other picture showing a bag without a fabric > cover, they are invariably inverted bags, i.e. with the seam inside > the bag which has been turned inside out after sewing. An extra > folded strip of leather is sewn between the cheeks of the bag but > this does not project.Musettes are always constructed in this > fashion and so are early bags from the time of the Reids and Dunn. > In contrast modern bags have the sewn seam projecting as a narrow > edge. This is not necessarily more uncomfortable than an internal > seam but it has infinitely more potential to be so if the bag is an > awkward shape or held in an inconvenient position. > I wonder when and why this older and better method was discontinued. > Examples here: > Praetorius: > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Syntagma07.png > Duerer (click to enlarge - 150%?: > http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/d/durer/2/13/4/076.html > And of course, here! : > http://www.richard-york.co.uk/past/bagpipicsmod.html > Francis > Francis > On 26 Jan 2010, at 21:27, Barry Say wrote: >> Hi Richard, >> >> Excuse me while I mount my hobby-horse. >> >> The size of the bag relative to the body shape of the player can > have a crucial effect on the perceived difficulty of playing the > pipes. I observed the posture of many players in piping meetings and > I came to the conclusion that those who had the bag tucked well up > into their armpit leaving the forearm detached seemed to have the > greatest freedom in playing the pipes, so I resolved to adopt this > position. >> >> When playing, my bag rests in the crook of my elbow and 2/3 to 3/4 > of my forearm is not in contact with the bag. The problem with > adopting this stance is having the confidence that the bag will stay > where it is put. It took me several years to get my pipes and my > stance comfortable, but now I find that I can play almost any > non-leaking pipes with relative ease. >> >> For a long time, the corner of my bellows was rubbing on my right > wrist and causing an abrasion. Now there is 3 inch separation > between the wrist and the corner. I dont remeber how I got rid of > that problem. >> >> I am currently considering taking an inch off the neck of my bag > to bring the chanter to a more comfortable position. >> >> I experimented with playing with the bag more in front of the > body, but I found that this re
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Hello Richard, Many NSP bags can be slightly rectangular in aspect and the 'corner' near the blowpipe has the potential to annoy some players. If you find that experimentation in managing the bag differently does not help, a good solution would be to order a bag with the profile of that edge smoothed into a broader curve. Enough to make this more comfortable without significantly disturbing the position of the blowpipe stock. Jackie Boyce will make you anything you like. His bags are excellent: http://pipebagmaker.com/ Francis On 26 Jan 2010, at 18:18, Richard York wrote: > I'd welcome comments/advice on nsp bag shape, please. > > There's the conventional shape, and now I learn there's the tear-drop shape. > I've been playing other (non Scottish) bagpipes for quite a long time, with > various shaped bags, from medieval/renaissance large tear drop, held more in > front of the body, to nsp-like but bigger on Jon Swayne D border pipes, and > have got used to & comfortable with them. > I'm still finding my way on nsp's... I suspect this is a life-long state... > but find that after some 10 or so minutes of playing I'm getting a restricted > left hand movement, as my arm's getting pressure from the bulge of the bag > against my forearm where it restricts the blood flow or something; this is a > problem I don't get with my other sets. I've tried varying my arm > position/bag position/drone angle/position of jaw/general earth energy and > leyline alignment etc, but haven't yet cracked the problem. > > It seems logical to expect that the tear-drop shape, with most of the bag > further back under the arm, is going to leave my forearm more relaxed and > less pressured. > But until you've tried anything you don't know, and I'd like to hear from > anyone who has, please, either positive or negative experience of this shape. > > With thanks, > Richard. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
What a fascinating thread! The problem I see with an inverted bag is getting the chanter stock airtight in what amounts to a ridgy hole. It's bad enough with a nice soft bag with the seam on the outside and the usual leather wedges. I hate to admit it but the slightly deeper, shorter Northumbrian style bag is far less comfortable the GHB style. The narrower profile and sloped front of the latter makes hardly any left arm contact with seam (which is what used to cause me discomfort). Barry's comment that the majority of his forearm is not in bag contact at all makes me puzzled. I suppose if the bag neck was long enough the forearm could be well below the bag and not in contact but adopting such a position would surely make the wrists bend in two planes at once. Is this not tiring after a while? Barry's other comment about getting the bag well up towards the armpit is good advice but not a new idea. There is even a dialect saying for this process, "oxter yor blether" (oxter being armpit and blether being bag)! All perhaps another example of Bill Hedworth's gem , "Each has to find their own salvation with this instrument!" --- On Wed, 27/1/10, Francis Wood wrote: From: Francis Wood Hello Alex and all, You seem to suggest that turning the bag inside out is unlikely. I have two reasons for disagreeing, firstly because I have done so myself and secondly because I have seen many early bags constructed in this way. You will find that this was the usual method if you look at the available iconography or examine old examples. There has to be a good reason why this was adopted for many different kinds of pipes in different centuries and different countries. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
On 27 Jan 2010, at 08:46, Anthony Robb wrote: > The problem I see with an inverted bag is getting the chanter stock > airtight in what amounts to a ridgy hole. Hi Anthony, Yes, that's right. However, the seal is made effective by gouging a very substantial groove in the stock, into which the complex seam can be compressed. A couple of other things while I'm on this hobby-horse. Someone recently told me that a bagpipe kit from the Early Music Shop came with instructions including the suggestion that the bag should be heated in an oven before inverting it. Don't attempt this at home without a responsible adult in attendance, though. Finally, when I first tried turning a bag inside out, I was hugely pleased to find how easy it was . . . . until I realised that I now had the drone-stock hole on the wrong side. A mistake you wouldn't make twice! Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Thanks Francis - lovely stuff - it brightened a very grey morning!! Anthony --- On Wed, 27/1/10, Francis Wood wrote: From: Francis Wood Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape To: "Anthony Robb" Cc: "Nsplist NPS" Date: Wednesday, 27 January, 2010, 9:02 On 27 Jan 2010, at 08:46, Anthony Robb wrote: > The problem I see with an inverted bag is getting the chanter stock > airtight in what amounts to a ridgy hole. Hi Anthony, Yes, that's right. However, the seal is made effective by gouging a very substantial groove in the stock, into which the complex seam can be compressed. A couple of other things while I'm on this hobby-horse. Someone recently told me that a bagpipe kit from the Early Music Shop came with instructions including the suggestion that the bag should be heated in an oven before inverting it. Don't attempt this at home without a responsible adult in attendance, though. Finally, when I first tried turning a bag inside out, I was hugely pleased to find how easy it was . . . . until I realised that I now had the drone-stock hole on the wrong side. A mistake you wouldn't make twice! Francis To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Thanks greatly to one and all for these - great food for thought here. I'm interested that everyone's addressed the matter of how to make the existing bag shape comfortable, but no-one has offered experience of the tear-drop shape - are they very rare, or just deeply heretical? Meanwhile I shall try every position from armpit downwards for my existing bag, and seriously examine the matter of neck length. Its neck, not mine. (Thanks too, Mike S, for the off-list advice on position photo's - I'll try that.) I imagine, Barry, that bellows blowpipe length also came into your shifts of bag position? Interesting too the matter of which way the seam goes. I was convinced at first that it was the seam which was getting to me, but now think it's the bulge of the square bag shape - as suggested earlier in this string. Thanks Francis too for pointing up the pics on my own website... in fairness in have to say that while the Jon Swayne huge Flemish set and renaissance-type smaller set (both all brown) are comfortable, Jon does make the seam the modern way round. In the case of the massive Flemish set I've had to mend the protective strip on the outside of the seam more than once, as it's stuck rather than stitched in place. The Jim Parr medieval gaita-type ones (black bag, light boxwood) and the little hummelschen both have the seams on the inside and are very comfortable indeed. I've never had problems with the seasoning in them. Best wishes, Richard. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
.and isn't the language fascinating in its own right. "To blether on" in my experience is to talk at length/nonsense, such as you might expect from a wind-bag I'd presumed it came from the same root as bladder, but Chambers just goes back to Old Norse blathra - talk foolishly, which is where I come in Oxter is also given as a verb, to take under the arm. I had only heard the noun usage before. Tim - Original Message - From: "Anthony Robb" To: ; "Francis Wood" Cc: "Nsplist NPS" Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:46 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape What a fascinating thread! The problem I see with an inverted bag is getting the chanter stock airtight in what amounts to a ridgy hole. It's bad enough with a nice soft bag with the seam on the outside and the usual leather wedges. I hate to admit it but the slightly deeper, shorter Northumbrian style bag is far less comfortable the GHB style. The narrower profile and sloped front of the latter makes hardly any left arm contact with seam (which is what used to cause me discomfort). Barry's comment that the majority of his forearm is not in bag contact at all makes me puzzled. I suppose if the bag neck was long enough the forearm could be well below the bag and not in contact but adopting such a position would surely make the wrists bend in two planes at once. Is this not tiring after a while? Barry's other comment about getting the bag well up towards the armpit is good advice but not a new idea. There is even a dialect saying for this process, "oxter yor blether" (oxter being armpit and blether being bag)! All perhaps another example of Bill Hedworth's gem , "Each has to find their own salvation with this instrument!" --- On Wed, 27/1/10, Francis Wood wrote: From: Francis Wood Hello Alex and all, You seem to suggest that turning the bag inside out is unlikely. I have two reasons for disagreeing, firstly because I have done so myself and secondly because I have seen many early bags constructed in this way. You will find that this was the usual method if you look at the available iconography or examine old examples. There has to be a good reason why this was adopted for many different kinds of pipes in different centuries and different countries. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
On 26 Jan 2010, Francis Wood wrote: > I wonder when and why this older and better method was discontinued. I don't know for definite, but I wonder if it has to do with professional saddlers, and the introduction of machinery. IIRC, and I am not in front of any notes I have on the subject at present, there was a saddler in Morpeth c. 1900 who was noted for the neatness of his bags. There was another in the Tyne valley (was that Forster Oram?) who made bags in the early / mid C20. I know that Boyce bags are hand-sewn, although to look at them this seems incredible, they're so neat. Are there any later Reid sets still with the original bag and what pattern are they? What did the Cloughs do? (I connect them with the Morpeth saddler in my head, though.) What are Will Cocks' bags like? The inverted method may be historical and comfortable but it necessitates cutting the drone stock hole before sewing which seemed risky to me even before Francis admitted to having done it wrong, and the seasoning and tying on problems also would weigh with me. For the record I have made one "modern pattern" bag from scratch and yes, it is still in use, successfully. I agree with Barry that freeing the forearm is key to playing efficiency and comfort, but this depends so much on individual body shape and limb length that I would suggest there is no universal solution to an ideal shape / size for an nsp bag. Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
On 27 Jan 2010, at 11:04, Julia Say wrote: >> I wonder when and why this older and better method was discontinued. > > I don't know for definite, but I wonder if it has to do with professional > saddlers, > and the introduction of machinery. That's a very good observation. > Are there any later Reid sets still with the original bag and what pattern > are > they? I have a note somewhere about one I've seen. Can I find it? . . no! The last 'early style bag' I saw was the one on Robert Bewick's pipes in the Chantry. I also have an early bag here, sewn and inverted in the method described. Its shape and size are remarkably like Jackie Boyce's NSP bags. > What are Will Cocks' bags like? Awful! They were made out of Mackintosh material, rubberised cloth, and are in various stages of disgusting deterioration. A useful discussion, this. Bags are not inert components but an active part of the acoustical functioning of the instrument. Shape, volume and neck configuration all play their part and the bag itself radiates sound as touching its surface will confirm. And now for a new thread, perhaps on the relative merits of playing with or without a fabric cover. Should this be called 'Playing commando-style? Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Hi Richard, Other slight annoyances occuring when messing with bags/neck is "resonance" or a change in the resistance to airflow. Some bag/neck shapes give rise to top A and top B sounding flat at which point the unsuspecting will start chopping or scraping reeds - BEWARE Dave Singleton Richard York wrote: I'd welcome comments/advice on nsp bag shape, please. There's the conventional shape, and now I learn there's the tear-drop shape. I've been playing other (non Scottish) bagpipes for quite a long time, with various shaped bags, from medieval/renaissance large tear drop, held more in front of the body, to nsp-like but bigger on Jon Swayne D border pipes, and have got used to & comfortable with them. I'm still finding my way on nsp's... I suspect this is a life-long state... but find that after some 10 or so minutes of playing I'm getting a restricted left hand movement, as my arm's getting pressure from the bulge of the bag against my forearm where it restricts the blood flow or something; this is a problem I don't get with my other sets. I've tried varying my arm position/bag position/drone angle/position of jaw/general earth energy and leyline alignment etc, but haven't yet cracked the problem. It seems logical to expect that the tear-drop shape, with most of the bag further back under the arm, is going to leave my forearm more relaxed and less pressured. But until you've tried anything you don't know, and I'd like to hear from anyone who has, please, either positive or negative experience of this shape. With thanks, Richard. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.730 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2646 - Release Date: 01/26/10 08:46:00
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Hi all I've just returned from teaching beginner smallpipes and Irish pipes at Glasgows Celtic connections festival. Whilst I am a big fan of the Tear drop bag for my own pipes, all my teaching pipes are on Dagg style sausage bags. For whatever reason these are easier to casually fit to more generously bosomed ladies. I also carry a box full of blowpipes ranging from one to six inches in length so that all my students can be comfortably accomodated in the pipes. Sometimes 2 or 3 have to be tried out during a days instruction as the student settles in. Regarding fitting a bag I try to get the following ; If the elbow is place back against a wall and the fingers bent at the middle joint measure from the wall to the end of the bent joint. I then make the distance from the middle of the blowpipe stock hole to the whipping on the chanter stock equal to that length or a centimetre or so longer. Usually this will give a very relaxed grip on the chanter for the left hand. All the best Dave Dave Shaw, Northumbrian and Scottish Smallpipes, Irish Pipes and SHAW Whistles www.daveshaw.co.uk To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Hi again Whilst pondering if the old style stitching could be related to the production of wineskins, and tanning skins as a stitched up bag I found the following vid, how to make a wineskin. www.videojug.com/film/how-to-make-a-wineskin It shows it being stitched apparently wet and turned inside out thro the neck. Interesting. Dave Dave Shaw, Northumbrian and Scottish Smallpipes, Irish Pipes and SHAW Whistles www.daveshaw.co.uk To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Just out of interest, I have Reid "D" chanter, full working order, and a W.A. Cocks, Ryton, bellows. Neither for sale, but if you're in the Hexham area you're very welcome to come and see them - coffee provided. Marianne. > Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:31:42 + > To: julia@nspipes.co.uk > CC: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu > From: oatenp...@googlemail.com > Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape > > > On 27 Jan 2010, at 11:04, Julia Say wrote: > > >> I wonder when and why this older and better method was discontinued. > > > > I don't know for definite, but I wonder if it has to do with professional saddlers, > > and the introduction of machinery. > > That's a very good observation. > > > Are there any later Reid sets still with the original bag and what pattern are > > they? > > I have a note somewhere about one I've seen. Can I find it? . . no! > > The last 'early style bag' I saw was the one on Robert Bewick's pipes in the Chantry. > I also have an early bag here, sewn and inverted in the method described. Its shape and size are remarkably like Jackie Boyce's NSP bags. > > > What are Will Cocks' bags like? > > Awful! They were made out of Mackintosh material, rubberised cloth, and are in various stages of disgusting deterioration. > > A useful discussion, this. Bags are not inert components but an active part of the acoustical functioning of the instrument. Shape, volume and neck configuration all play their part and the bag itself radiates sound as touching its surface will confirm. And now for a new thread, perhaps on the relative merits of playing with or without a fabric cover. Should this be called 'Playing commando-style? > > Francis > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[NSP] Re: bag shape
This thread is great - thanks again all. Resonance affected by neck shape, air flow etc - forgive my ignorance but does the presence of a bit of foam in the top of the split stock, put there I assume to prevent either seasoning escaping into chanter or loose reed escaping into bag, not affect airflow more than bag shape? Does this still apply if the foam plug is in place? And stitching leather is easier for some jobs when it's wet, and for turning it inside out enormously so. All ye best, Richard. Dave S wrote: Hi Richard, Other slight annoyances occuring when messing with bags/neck is "resonance" or a change in the resistance to airflow. Some bag/neck shapes give rise to top A and top B sounding flat at which point the unsuspecting will start chopping or scraping reeds - BEWARE Dave Singleton To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
I always understood the point of the open-cell foam in the neck is to remove the neck resonance problem referred to earlier. The frequency of this resonance depends critically on the shape - if you model the bag as a big cavity with a narrow tubular neck,like a bottle, the formula for a Helmholtz resonator applies - see wikipedia for this. The formula will be quantitatively off as the shape doesn't really fit the 'bottle' model well, the neck broadening smoothly into the main cavity. But the order of magnitude should be fairly good. If this frequency falls in the range of the chanter, the chanter notes near this pitch will couple strongly to it and the pitch will be well away from what you would get with the same chanter in a different bag. Killing the bag/neck resonance means the chanter pitches will be truer. As air can flow easily through the foam at low frequencies but not at higher, the rapid oscillation of the bag/neck resonance is damped out, without badly affecting the supply of air to the chanter. I dread to think what clagging the open-cell foam with seasoning would do to the airflow, though... John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
And what's more interesting is that in Old Norse, the word "blathra" not only means "blather" but also "bladder," which takes us right back to pipe bags!! Alec In a message dated 1/27/2010 2:27:28 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, tim.ro...@btconnect.com writes: ..and isn't the language fascinating in its own right. "To blether on" in my experience is to talk at length/nonsense, such as you might expect from a wind-bag I'd presumed it came from the same root as bladder, but Chambers just goes back to Old Norse blathra - talk foolishly, which is where I come in Oxter is also given as a verb, to take under the arm. I had only heard the noun usage before. Tim - Original Message - From: "Anthony Robb" To: ; "Francis Wood" Cc: "Nsplist NPS" Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:46 AM Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape > > What a fascinating thread! > The problem I see with an inverted bag is getting the chanter stock > airtight in what amounts to a ridgy hole. It's bad enough with a nice > soft bag with the seam on the outside and the usual leather wedges. > I hate to admit it but the slightly deeper, shorter Northumbrian style > bag is far less comfortable the GHB style. The narrower profile and > sloped front of the latter makes hardly any left arm contact with seam > (which is what used to cause me discomfort). > Barry's comment that the majority of his forearm is not in bag contact > at all makes me puzzled. I suppose if the bag neck was long enough the > forearm could be well below the bag and not in contact but adopting > such a position would surely make the wrists bend in two planes at > once. Is this not tiring after a while? > Barry's other comment about getting the bag well up towards the armpit > is good advice but not a new idea. There is even a dialect saying for > this process, "oxter yor blether" (oxter being armpit and blether > being bag)! > All perhaps another example of Bill Hedworth's gem , "Each has to find > their own salvation with this instrument!" > --- On Wed, 27/1/10, Francis Wood wrote: > > From: Francis Wood > > Hello Alex and all, > You seem to suggest that turning the bag inside out is unlikely. > I have two reasons for disagreeing, firstly because I have done so > myself and secondly because I have seen many early bags constructed in > this way. You will find that this was the usual method if you look at > the available iconography or examine old examples. There has to be a > good reason why this was adopted for many different kinds of pipes in > different centuries and different countries. > > -- > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html > --
[NSP] Re: bag shape
I've found this thread fascinating, as I have also experienced strain on the wrists - strain generally in fact - when playing a set where the bag neck is too short, and consequently have started to use bags (from Jackie Boyce) with long necks when making my pipes. This keeps the chanter well forward, and leads to a much more relaxed playing position. However, I'm aware that there can be problems with the neck kinking and restricting the airflow if it is too long and narrow. John's post about Helmholtz resonators seems to suggest that a long narrow neck would cause more (or at least different) resonance problems than a bag where the neck opens out broadly from the narrowest point at the stock, "broadening smoothly into the main cavity" as he says. If a narrow long neck makes MORE problems, then obviously we makers should avoid that shape - if the gradually broadening shape makes DIFFERENT resonance, then how different? Are the resonating frequencies going to be higher or lower; more or less likely to coincide with chanter notes? I'm afraid my maths isn't up to the calculation, and anyway - on looking at the Wikipaedia article, I don't see anything about a cavity with pressurised air inside, where there is a constant flow (i.e. from bellows inlet through to chanter), let alone flexible resonators like pipe bags. No doubt the science has been done, and it would be interesting to have some ideas, even though there must be so many variables that it will be extremely difficult to come up anything better than vague generalistions. On the historical bag-shape question, the tear-drop shape of early bagpipes certainly seems more suited to mouth-blown pipes, with the bag held well up and in front of the body. Incidentally, I wonder if this shape is a natural development from using an animal's bladder, stomach, or whatever rather than making the bag from sewn leather? The swan-neck shape going into the chanter would also make for ease of playing and no kinking of the neck (see resonance discussion!). Adapted to the musette, and other early bellows blown pipes e.g. illustrated by Praetorius there was the need for a long flexible tube from the bellows. However, I would guess that both bag and bag-cover are much more difficult and time-consuming to make than the simple folded-over shape. Turning bags inside-out is surely only possible if the leather is soft, and the early bags seem to be mostly made from quite thin sheep or goat-skin. I wonder if the modern style of NSP bag - including the excessively stiff leather sometimes used - is an influence from the Highland pipe makers? What are the bags of the early sets in the Morpeth museum like? I examined them all myself years ago and recall a variety of small, dried-up bags and possibly early 20th-century replacements, but can't remember details just now. Generally speaking though, I think most early small-pipes, and also Irish pipes and Scottish lowland/border pipes which I have examined tend to have small, squarish bags, shorter front-to-back and slightly deeper top to bottom than what we use now. I don't recall the tear-drop shape used in any late 18th/19th century British pipes. However, several Reid sets I have seen had the most beautifully sewn and turned (inside-out) bellows outlet tube. Now that's another whole thread to become obsessed with! Philip - Original Message - From: To: Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:44 PM Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape I always understood the point of the open-cell foam in the neck is to remove the neck resonance problem referred to earlier. The frequency of this resonance depends critically on the shape - if you model the bag as a big cavity with a narrow tubular neck,like a bottle, the formula for a Helmholtz resonator applies - see wikipedia for this. The formula will be quantitatively off as the shape doesn't really fit the 'bottle' model well, the neck broadening smoothly into the main cavity. But the order of magnitude should be fairly good. If this frequency falls in the range of the chanter, the chanter notes near this pitch will couple strongly to it and the pitch will be well away from what you would get with the same chanter in a different bag. Killing the bag/neck resonance means the chanter pitches will be truer. As air can flow easily through the foam at low frequencies but not at higher, the rapid oscillation of the bag/neck resonance is damped out, without badly affecting the supply of air to the chanter. I dread to think what clagging the open-cell foam with seasoning would do to the airflow, though... John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG -
[NSP] Re: bag shape
I've seen the 'tear-drop' description used several times in this discussion. I think I know what it means but that remains my guess only.. For many others reading this discussion (if they are) it must be a fairly puzzling and unsatisfactory description. What exactly are we talking about here? Francis On 28 Jan 2010, at 10:57, Philip Gruar wrote: > I've found this thread fascinating, as I have also experienced strain on the > wrists - strain generally in fact - when playing a set where the bag neck is > too short, and consequently have started to use bags (from Jackie Boyce) > with long necks when making my pipes. This keeps the chanter well forward, > and leads to a much more relaxed playing position. However, I'm aware that > there can be problems with the neck kinking and restricting the airflow if > it is too long and narrow. John's post about Helmholtz resonators seems to > suggest that a long narrow neck would cause more (or at least different) > resonance problems than a bag where the neck opens out broadly from the > narrowest point at the stock, "broadening smoothly into the main cavity" as > he says. If a narrow long neck makes MORE problems, then obviously we makers > should avoid that shape - if the gradually broadening shape makes DIFFERENT > resonance, then how different? Are the resonating frequencies going to be > higher or lower; more or less likely to coincide with chanter notes? I'm > afraid my maths isn't up to the calculation, and anyway - on looking at the > Wikipaedia article, I don't see anything about a cavity with pressurised air > inside, where there is a constant flow (i.e. from bellows inlet through to > chanter), let alone flexible resonators like pipe bags. No doubt the science > has been done, and it would be interesting to have some ideas, even though > there must be so many variables that it will be extremely difficult to come > up anything better than vague generalistions. > > On the historical bag-shape question, the tear-drop shape of early bagpipes > certainly seems more suited to mouth-blown pipes, with the bag held well up > and in front of the body. Incidentally, I wonder if this shape is a natural > development from using an animal's bladder, stomach, or whatever rather than > making the bag from sewn leather? The swan-neck shape going into the chanter > would also make for ease of playing and no kinking of the neck (see > resonance discussion!). Adapted to the musette, and other early bellows > blown pipes e.g. illustrated by Praetorius there was the need for a long > flexible tube from the bellows. However, I would guess that both bag and > bag-cover are much more difficult and time-consuming to make than the simple > folded-over shape. Turning bags inside-out is surely only possible if the > leather is soft, and the early bags seem to be mostly made from quite thin > sheep or goat-skin. I wonder if the modern style of NSP bag - including the > excessively stiff leather sometimes used - is an influence from the Highland > pipe makers? What are the bags of the early sets in the Morpeth museum like? > I examined them all myself years ago and recall a variety of small, dried-up > bags and possibly early 20th-century replacements, but can't remember details > just now. Generally speaking though, I think most early small-pipes, and also > Irish pipes and Scottish lowland/border pipes which I have examined tend to > have small, squarish bags, shorter front-to-back and slightly deeper top to > bottom than what we use now. I don't recall the tear-drop shape used in any > late 18th/19th century British pipes. > However, several Reid sets I have seen had the most beautifully sewn and > turned (inside-out) bellows outlet tube. Now that's another whole thread to > become obsessed with! > > Philip > > > > > > - Original Message - From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:44 PM > Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape > > >> I always understood the point of the open-cell foam in the neck is to >> remove the neck resonance problem referred to earlier. The frequency of >> this resonance depends critically on the shape - if you model the bag >> as a big cavity with a narrow tubular neck,like a bottle, the formula >> for a Helmholtz resonator applies - see wikipedia for this. >> >> The formula will be quantitatively off as the shape doesn't really fit >> the 'bottle' model well, the neck broadening smoothly into the main >> cavity. But the order of magnitude should be fairly good. >> >> >> >> If this frequency falls in the range of the chanter, the chanter notes >> near this pitc
[NSP] Re: bag shape
As I understand it, the shape you get if a cartoonist wants to depict a drop of water: pointy top smoothly widening to rounded belly shape, and in my mind, the top is not straight but bends off to the side the chanter's going to go. Again, like the cartoon drop of water. If I'm wrong, someone please correct me. More mathematical descriptions are certainly available, and will be comprehensible to some Richard. Francis Wood wrote: I've seen the 'tear-drop' description used several times in this discussion. I think I know what it means but that remains my guess only.. For many others reading this discussion (if they are) it must be a fairly puzzling and unsatisfactory description. What exactly are we talking about here? Francis On 28 Jan 2010, at 10:57, Philip Gruar wrote: To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Hello Philip and others, Reading your post again brought to mind that I had completely forgotten to suggest a significant advantage of the inside-out bag. With the seam inside the neck, the neck is very much less liable to constriction with all the consequent advantages of strangulation. I have such a bag here which is very much like old examples I have seen in museums. Turned inside out with the additional folded strip of leather sewn into the seam. It could only have been reversed through the drone stock hole which is a smallish one to accommodate a 3 drone stock. Incidentally, whatever it was originally dressed with has preserved it beautifully and it remains supple and robust. The thickness of leather is variably 1.3mm to 1.5. Pretty much like your average bag from Jackie Boyce whose work I have always found excellent. Once one has conquered the thought of it, reversing a bag is not difficult. A bit like the current joke's punchline: Did I jump? Yes I did at first, but then got to quite like it. The rest is not suitable for this polite forum. Francis On 28 Jan 2010, at 10:57, Philip Gruar wrote: > I've found this thread fascinating, as I have also experienced strain on the > wrists - strain generally in fact - when playing a set where the bag neck is > too short, and consequently have started to use bags (from Jackie Boyce) > with long necks when making my pipes. This keeps the chanter well forward, > and leads to a much more relaxed playing position. However, I'm aware that > there can be problems with the neck kinking and restricting the airflow if > it is too long and narrow. John's post about Helmholtz resonators seems to > suggest that a long narrow neck would cause more (or at least different) > resonance problems than a bag where the neck opens out broadly from the > narrowest point at the stock, "broadening smoothly into the main cavity" as > he says. If a narrow long neck makes MORE problems, then obviously we makers > should avoid that shape - if the gradually broadening shape makes DIFFERENT > resonance, then how different? Are the resonating frequencies going to be > higher or lower; more or less likely to coincide with chanter notes? I'm > afraid my maths isn't up to the calculation, and anyway - on looking at the > Wikipaedia article, I don't see anything about a cavity with pressurised air > inside, where there is a constant flow (i.e. from bellows inlet through to > chanter), let alone flexible resonators like pipe bags. No doubt the science > has been done, and it would be interesting to have some ideas, even though > there must be so many variables that it will be extremely difficult to come > up anything better than vague generalistions. > > On the historical bag-shape question, the tear-drop shape of early bagpipes > certainly seems more suited to mouth-blown pipes, with the bag held well up > and in front of the body. Incidentally, I wonder if this shape is a natural > development from using an animal's bladder, stomach, or whatever rather than > making the bag from sewn leather? The swan-neck shape going into the chanter > would also make for ease of playing and no kinking of the neck (see > resonance discussion!). Adapted to the musette, and other early bellows > blown pipes e.g. illustrated by Praetorius there was the need for a long > flexible tube from the bellows. However, I would guess that both bag and > bag-cover are much more difficult and time-consuming to make than the simple > folded-over shape. Turning bags inside-out is surely only possible if the > leather is soft, and the early bags seem to be mostly made from quite thin > sheep or goat-skin. I wonder if the modern style of NSP bag - including the > excessively stiff leather sometimes used - is an influence from the Highland > pipe makers? What are the bags of the early sets in the Morpeth museum like? > I examined them all myself years ago and recall a variety of small, dried-up > bags and possibly early 20th-century replacements, but can't remember details > just now. Generally speaking though, I think most early small-pipes, and also > Irish pipes and Scottish lowland/border pipes which I have examined tend to > have small, squarish bags, shorter front-to-back and slightly deeper top to > bottom than what we use now. I don't recall the tear-drop shape used in any > late 18th/19th century British pipes. > However, several Reid sets I have seen had the most beautifully sewn and > turned (inside-out) bellows outlet tube. Now that's another whole thread to > become obsessed with! > > Philip > > > > > > - Original Message - From: > To: > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:44 PM > Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape > > >&
[NSP] Re: bag shape
> . . . . with all the consequent advantages of strangulation. I might possibly have meant 'disadvantages'. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Depends on the piper... We also have a choice of necks -Original Message- From: lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu [mailto:lute-...@cs.dartmouth.edu] On Behalf Of Francis Wood Sent: 28 January 2010 11:49 To: Philip Gruar Cc: Dartmouth NPS Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape > . . . . with all the consequent advantages of strangulation. I might possibly have meant 'disadvantages'. Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
On 28 Jan 2010, Gibbons, John wrote: >> ...strangulation > Depends on the piper... > We also have a choice of necks Do I detect a "Northumberland's most wanted" column somewhere? Julia To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
On 28 Jan 2010, at 13:16, Julia Say wrote: > Do I detect a "Northumberland's most wanted" column somewhere? Something along these lines, perhaps?: I've got a little list, I've got a little list Of Society offenders who might well be underground, And who never would be missed, they never would be missed! Francis To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Philip, You wrote:: John's post about Helmholtz resonators seems to suggest that a long narrow neck would cause more (or at least different) resonance problems than a bag where the neck opens out broadly from the narrowest point at the stock, " I did the sum earlier this evening - a bag with a conical neck has the same fundamental frequency (ish) as a bag of the same volume, but a cylindrical neck of the same length, with the same cross-section as halfway along the cone. So the advantage is mainly that you avoid sharp corners. It doesn't move the frequency much. The higher harmonics of the bag resonance will typically be way higher, whatever its shape - experimentally you can check this by blowing the harmonics of a beer bottle. A Newcastle Brown bottle is a good Helmholtz shape, and the 2nd harmonic is a lot higher than the fundamental, while the 3rd and 4th are far higher again -- ear-splitting! Good embouchure practice, and excellent for getting yourself thrown out of places. John -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
Can I fully support this e-mail for the reasons given. If Francis was more of a pipemaker he would have been aware of these drawbacks. Colin R -Original Message- From: cal...@aol.com To: oatenp...@googlemail.com; barr...@nspipes.co.uk CC: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 4:40 Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape Allow me to offer two possible/likely explanations for leaving the seam facing outward: 1) To sew the whole bag and then turn it inside out sounds like a (Warning: Americanism Alert!) tin-plated bitch. I don't see either the chanter stock hole nor the drone stock hole being big enough to do this readily, if at all. 2) The bag seasoning is more likely to flow into the seam if the seam is left on the outside. Think of what the two versions look like from the inside: An outside-seam bag has a groove into which the goo will flow. If you were to invert the bag, then the seam would stick up from the inside surface of the bag, making it much harder to get the goo into the actual junction. In other words, I'd think an outside-seam bag would take seasoning better, and be a bit less leaky. One Man's Opinion--Your Mileage May Vary Alec MacLean In a message dated 1/26/2010 2:16:51 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, oatenp...@googlemail.com writes: Hello Richard and Barry, I agree entirely with the comments here. Comfort and the avoidance of stress are essential for the effective use of any instrument, and consequently for musicality. One aspect of this puzzles me. I have studied a large number of paintings and engravings showing pipes bags of the past. I have also examined many examples in museums. Whether they are from Breughel, Praetorius or any other picture showing a bag without a fabric cover, they are invariably inverted bags, i.e. with the seam inside the bag which has been turned inside out after sewing. An extra folded strip of leather is sewn between the cheeks of the bag but this does not project.Musettes are always constructed in this fashion and so are early bags from the time of the Reids and Dunn. In contrast modern bags have the sewn seam projecting as a narrow edge. This is not necessarily more uncomfortable than an internal seam but it has infinitely more potential to be so if the bag is an awkward shape or held in an inconvenient position. I wonder when and why this older and better method was discontinued. Examples here: Praetorius: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Syntagma07.png Duerer (click to enlarge - 150%?: http://www.wga.hu/frames-e.html?/html/d/durer/2/13/4/076.html And of course, here! : http://www.richard-york.co.uk/past/bagpipicsmod.html Francis Francis On 26 Jan 2010, at 21:27, Barry Say wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Excuse me while I mount my hobby-horse. > > The size of the bag relative to the body shape of the player can have a crucial effect on the perceived difficulty of playing the pipes. I observed the posture of many players in piping meetings and I came to the conclusion that those who had the bag tucked well up into their armpit leaving the forearm detached seemed to have the greatest freedom in playing the pipes, so I resolved to adopt this position. > > When playing, my bag rests in the crook of my elbow and 2/3 to 3/4 of my forearm is not in contact with the bag. The problem with adopting this stance is having the confidence that the bag will stay where it is put. It took me several years to get my pipes and my stance comfortable, but now I find that I can play almost any non-leaking pipes with relative ease. > > For a long time, the corner of my bellows was rubbing on my right wrist and causing an abrasion. Now there is 3 inch separation between the wrist and the corner. I dont remeber how I got rid of that problem. > > I am currently considering taking an inch off the neck of my bag to bring the chanter to a more comfortable position. > > I experimented with playing with the bag more in front of the body, but I found that this required active pressure from the arm to squeeze the bag, whereas with a standard bag I feel as though it is the weight of my arm which is compressing the bag. > > Does this help? > > Barry > > > Richard York wrote: >> I'd welcome comments/advice on nsp bag shape, please. > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --
[NSP] Re: bag shape
The bags that Jackie makes are based on my sending him the shape of Burleigh bags which by the 1960's had proved to a good practical shape and size i.e. 21" in length, 9" deep with the bag approx. 12"x9" with the neck curving up steeply to avoid pressing against the left arm or wrist. I make the neck length 9" from where the drone stock is tied into the bag. Colin R -Original Message- From: Francis Wood To: Richard York CC: NSP group Sent: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 8:33 Subject: [NSP] Re: bag shape Hello Richard, Many NSP bags can be slightly rectangular in aspect and the 'corner' near the blowpipe has the potential to annoy some players. If you find that experimentation in managing the bag differently does not help, a good solution would be to order a bag with the profile of that edge smoothed into a broader curve. Enough to make this more comfortable without significantly disturbing the position of the blowpipe stock. Jackie Boyce will make you anything you like. His bags are excellent: http://pipebagmaker.com/ Francis On 26 Jan 2010, at 18:18, Richard York wrote: I'd welcome comments/advice on nsp bag shape, please. There's the conventional shape, and now I learn there's the tear-drop shape. I've been playing other (non Scottish) bagpipes for quite a long time, with various shaped bags, from medieval/renaissance large tear drop, held more in front of the body, to nsp-like but bigger on Jon Swayne D border pipes, and have got used to & comfortable with them. I'm still finding my way on nsp's... I suspect this is a life-long state... but find that after some 10 or so minutes of playing I'm getting a restricted left hand movement, as my arm's getting pressure from the bulge of the bag against my forearm where it restricts the blood flow or something; this is a problem I don't get with my other sets. I've tried varying my arm position/bag position/drone angle/position of jaw/general earth energy and leyline alignment etc, but haven't yet cracked the problem. It seems logical to expect that the tear-drop shape, with most of the bag further back under the arm, is going to leave my forearm more relaxed and less pressured. But until you've tried anything you don't know, and I'd like to hear from anyone who has, please, either positive or negative experience of this shape. With thanks, Richard. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
[NSP] Re: bag shape
rosspi...@aol.com wrote: The bags that Jackie makes are based on my sending him the shape of Burleigh bags which by the 1960's had proved to a good practical shape and size i.e. 21" in length, 9" deep with the bag approx. 12"x9" with the neck curving up steeply to avoid pressing against the left arm or wrist. I make the neck length 9" from where the drone stock is tied into the bag. Colin R Just to say that when I need to supplement the bags I make myself, I have always found Jackie to be very accommodating with regard to bag shapes and sizes, though I order several at a time, not one-offs. The dimensions I use are very similar to the above with perhaps a little extra length in the body. -- Anita Evans To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
