Talk:Chanter

message: The final paragraph (prior to my last edit) seemed to be talking about the practice chanter, but in a somewhat confused fashion. In addition, it was incorrectly asserted that plastic chanters are sometimes used for the extra volume. It is not the material of the chanter that lends a greater volume to it, but the shape of the bore hole. JFPerry 14:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chanter and practice chanter

message: I disagree with the merge proposal: A practice chanter is quite a specific object and unique from the chanter in general - and moreover the practice chanter article is of exemplary quality. Calum 12:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the talk page of the person who proposed the merge, I suggested merging the chanter article with that of the bagpipe and leaving the practice chanter article as a separate article for basically the same reason you just gave, namely, that it is a separate and unique instrument. How do you feel about merging chanter (not practice chanter) with bagpipes? JFPerry 15:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a bit of a wiggly hand issue, isn't it?  I assume there must be Wikipedia guidelines on this sort of situation; for my part, I would say that there is enough to be said about chanters in general - types, scales, construction, etc, to make for an article in itself.  Therefore, if someone wants to learn about bagpipes, they will find enough information on chanters to supply them with all they need to know on that page, and if they need to know more, there is a specialist article on the subject.  Calum @ 195.62.204.75 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: i agree with Calum that the Chanter deserves its own article.  There is a lot of material available.  I plan, time permitting to begin adding to this article, providing i do not hear cries of dissent. joejoe 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chanter article

message: Some years ago I was told by a bigpiper (Highland?) that the tuning of the chanter is G A B C# D E F# G A, but a bagpiper I recently met in the subway in Manhattan told me there are no sharps. The bagpipes I've heard clearly use C# and F# rather than C natural and F natural, so I suspect that the omission of sharps is a traditional matter of notation. I'd like to see some more detail in the article about how bagpipes are tuned, and an explanation of the omission of the sharps. John Link (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Tuning

message: "Chanters come in two main types, parallel and non-parallel bored (although there is no clear dividing line between the two)"
Seems to me that if the bore walls aren't parallel, then it's non-parallel. "Parallel" has a pretty exact definition. If "parallel" is used loosely here, then perhaps it could state that clearly; more like "roughly parallel". Also, it says in this article that the bore tapers, but it doesn't say anywhere which way it tapers. Does it go from wide to narrow, or vice versa? I had assumed while reading Bagpipes that the chanter started out wide, and ended with a narrower exit, but seeing the photo on this page, I am thinking I may have got it backwards; the chanter in the image looks as if it widened, like a trumpet or horn. But not being sure, I don't want to put it into the article myself. AnnaGoFast (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Trumpet-like: narrowest at the reed and opens out.  As for the "dividing line"; yes, from a logical point of view.  However, from a physical behaviour point of view - which is the only point of making the distinction - there is no dividing line.  A slightly non-parallel chanter behaves in accordance with the physics of a parallel bore, and changes smoothly as the bore becomes more conical.  So there isn't a point one can use as a dividing line, though in practice most types of chanter are very clearly one or the other. Calum (talk) 13:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parallel bore vs cylindrical bore