Talk:Pibroch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ancient?[edit]

Why is pìoraireachd referred to as "ancient" multiple times in this article? That is a rather slippery term, but none of the evidence here points to it being older than the late Renaissance, which generally does not qualify as "ancient"?

My suspicion is that the term represents the "bagpipes are an ancient Celtic heritage" story put forth in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and still maintained by many. I am going to edit this word out. If someone has a justification for reverting, please do so, but explain why the term is justified or, better yet, use more precise terminology than ancient, which is very imprecise.

Also, given the use of dates in this article, some sort of citation is needed for the statements of fact. For instance, it states that most pìoraireachd was composed prior to 1745. How do we know that? I presume it has something to do with the Jacobite Rising, but the connection is obscure at present. +Fenevad 13:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if anyone has done any serious analysis of composition dates: it would be a fairly pointless endeavour as so much of the repertoire is undated. It seems a reasonable guess, though, that the split is about 50/50 pre and post c.1750 (there is no connection with the Jacobite Rising), the bulk being of 18th century origin. Some of the tunes have potential connections to events in the 14th and 15th centuries, although there is no evidence for their antiquity (other than internal). It is also possible that original melodies were later adopted for the pipe.
As for the use of the word 'ancient', most of the piping literature uses that term simply because of the time scale compared with the serious development of the light music. If it is inconsistent with the rest of the encylopedia, then there is no great reason to keep it. Calum 17:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. It's wearying to read all the myths surrounding Scottish heritage and particularly bagpipes - especially the tired old saw about the pipes being banned under Proscription or the notion that clan tartans existed before Culloden, etc. It is refereshing to see all this stuff put back into its proper historical perspective. If anyone can prove that piobaireachd dates back to before Proscription, feel free, but like the rest of the fantasy, I doubt anything concrete will turn up.139.48.25.61 (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tartans being specific to a particular clan were a quite "recent" invention by certain people in London at the time when "all things Scottish" became fashionable under Queen Victoria. Prior to that time, the Scots wore any tartan that pleased them. However, as a Highland piper since 1975, and having read from an excellent collection of piping history books, it is clear to me that the roots, at least, of Piobaireachd go back to around the Medieval time period. As to whether or not that constitutes "ancient" is probably a matter of opinion. I doubt if there is a hard definition of "ancient". Now, as far as the pipes being banned is concerned, Seumas MacNeill, in his preface to Angus MacKay's book, A Collection of Ancient Piobaireachd, first published in 1838, and republished in 1972, specifically says, "The Disarming Act, which lasted until 1782, made piping illegal." Although at this late date (in my life) I cannot specifically reference from which book I read about it, I do remember reading other details about "The Disarming Act". I also remember reading about a specific instance when a piper was hanged for violating this act. Perhaps further research is necessary. Calum's comments are quite accurate. KenGordon (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating piobaireachd is a mug's game. We know too little. Certain melodies almost certainly date from medieval times; the bulk though seem unlikely to be much earlier than 1600 or so. As for the Disarming Act, look up a copy and read it. Bagpipes are not mentioned and were never proscribed. The entire thing appears, as far as anyone has managed to show, to have been started in the introduction to Donald MacDonald's published book of piobaireach. Whoever wrote it, it was not MacDonald - apart from the flowery language of the Romantic period (MacDonald barely spoke English), he would have known perfectly well that pipes were never banned. James Reid was hanged for being a traitor (rightly or wrongly). He claimed somewhat disingenuously to have been only a musician, and the judge's remarks have gone down in history as the damning proof that pipers were severely oppressed. Calum (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some key issues here that need to be addressed. 1) Bagpipes themselves are known to be "ancient" as they have been depicted in carvings of ancient peoples such as the egyptians. The progression of piping instruments and piping styles has been a gradual and essentially continual process since anicient times, with several different idioms of piping having emerged. What this says is that Piobaireachd has to be considered a musical style which has derived from Celtic Cultures (not just Scotland) and adapted for use on the particular bagpipes used in the Celtic Cultures of Scotland and Ireland. Piobaireachd then has a dependence on the type of bagpipe that was in use at the time. I believe evidence exists that the Great Highland Pipe instrument has been around in it's basic form since Medieval times, circa 1500 AD, although no specimen of a GHP exists to my knowledge. 2) Piobaireachd as a musical idiom can be considered much older than the written music. Piobaireachd as well as other forms of pipe music has tradtionally been taught by singing and memorization. Most pipers in earlier periods and right up to the 18th century were often illiterate and not familiar with written musical scores. So, music was passed on by memory. This also the case with other Celtic music forms such as bardic histories, which were sung to the accompaniment of the clarsach, within Celtic circles. The earliest Piobaireachd was most likely an adaptation of simple musical phrases that were already in existence as bardic tunes or folk tunes. It would be difficult to place a timeframe on such tunes, other than we know the clarsach itself is also an "ancient" instrument and was commonly used by the Keltoi in Roman Britain where bardic practices existed.

So, In a sense I believe Piobaireachd can be considered an "old" musical idiom that was developed out of traditional bardic and folk music common in the Celtic people groups of ancient Britain. It is older than "classical music" but perhaps not as old as "ancient". I therefore recommend NOT using any time period, but introducing some background history to qualify the time epochs covered. Tom Na Glen (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are NOT carvings of Egyptians or other ancient mid-eastern peoples with bagpipes. There is a mention of the Roman emperor Nero being a piper, then NOTHING shows evidence of bagpipes anywhere in the world until the 9th century in Europe, after which time illuminated manuscripts, stone carvings, written descriptions, and paintings emerge around central, western, and southeastern Europe. There is no evidence for piping in any Arabic-speaking area until recently, not even in the medieval period. As for Great Highland Pipes, we know from the portrait of the Piper to the Laird of Grant that they existed in their present form in 1714, but prior to that, we can only guess; the closest thing are written descriptions that could be interpreted a variety of ways. User:ravenman2000 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to Egyptians and bagpipes the link that historians make is that there is believed to be a chanter like instrument that was played. In addition there is speculation that a drone may have been played in accompaniment to the chanter by a separate person. It is then believed that the addition of a bag to the mix was around the 9th century. Many people make the assumption that the pipes made their journey through Ireland along with Gaelic and that the Irish and Scottish pipes would have been comparable. It is however a purely Scottish act of introducing a second tenor drone. As has been mentioned that occurred some time before the 18th century. (Rtc872 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Fair enough, but just note that chanter-like instruments (and mouth-blown drone accompaniment, like the ancient British triple-pipe) were played all over the world from the earliest evidence, including Asia and Europe, not just Egypt, so an Egyptian origin is completely unfounded, as is any Egyptian influence on proto-bagpipes. The best evidence points to a central European development. In a romanticized attempt to instill a sense of antiquity to piping, the early College of Piping tutor claimed ancient Egyptian origins, pulling the statement out of thin air and with no evidence whatsoever. It's a shame, but that same make-believe statement has been repeated over-and-over so many times that many casual pipers today actually believe that ancient Egyptians somehow contributed to the eventual development of piping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravenman2000 (talk • contribs) 04:08, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Egyptians did have a bagpipe sort of thing. Certainly the Romans did and it is said the idea was picked up by the Celts from their contact with the Romans. It would be nice to know for sure. Gingermint (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pipes were brought back with the Crusaders in the early 12th century, but as the spread of what we know as the early classic musical styles, the pipes were marginalize in courtly music except in Scotland, Ireland and the North of Spain. As time went on, the pipes were replaced more and more across Europe, except in these remote areas, from what I have found.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just Scottish?[edit]

I'm wondering if this is a musical art form from Scotland. Or is it from Wales or Ireland and wound up in Scotland? And do all Celts have this music? I don't know and I'm not finding it out from this article. There's certain things assumed in this article that should not be. Gingermint (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a form of piping that is unique to Gaelic Scotland, it was developed separate from the continental music and used a different scale(or so I'm told as I'm tone deaf)[1] which does not exist outside of Scotland and was a central part of Scottish court culture.[2] I find the grand pipes best from a distance, but that is just me.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Example[edit]

It would be good to see a brief musical example in notation. Gingermint (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really a written music form. There is a sort of system for writing the music but it is basically useless to anybody who doesn't know the song and how it is to be played.Rtc872 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does occur in classical notation though. That said, how do you give a brief example of a type of music that only exists in long form? Prof Wrong (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well into the 1800s few pipers in Scotland were classically trained, most learned from teachers doing the Canntaireachd, literally chanting out a sound that was to match a note on the pipes. Few were written down but one of the few was the Campbell Canntaireachd.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 12:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Baroque[edit]

It is said that the style of Pìobaireachd is owed partly to the somewhat florid, intricate style of the Baroque. Can we find some sort of ... anything ... on this. Either a yay or nay, but it would be good to have this addressed. Gingermint (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a considerable stretch to say that it *developed* from the baroque (though it is equally important to stress that it didn't develop in a musical vacuum, either), but a fair point that there is a similarity, in that both tend to build ornate rhythmic structures on a theme. Calum (talk) 09:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPA pronunciation[edit]

Aren't the /p/ and /r/ supposed to be palatalized? 71.13.148.220 (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't speak IPA, so I can only be of limited help here. By palatalise, I presume you mean bringing the tongue up to the top of the palate? As pronounced by English speakers, I would say not - however, it's not an English word! The Gaelic pronunciation, though, will differ widely depending on the region. Calum (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word is "Pibroch"[edit]

I'm sorry, but the spelling "pìobaireachd" is reconstructive hogwash.

The Gaelic word "pìobaireachd" is not equivalent to "pibroch" as it merely means (as stated in the article) pipe music or the act of "piping". In Gaelic the term for pibroch music is "an ceòl mór" (lit. "the big music").

This sort of abuse of the Gaelic term is unwarranted and confusing to many people. Let's stick with the accepted term and not some illiterate, pretentious, hyper-correct Celtic mist nonsense, shall we?

80.192.26.229 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down. What did Donald MacDonald call it? What did MacLeod of Gesto call it? What does the foremost society dedicated to its study and performance call itself? The English word "pibroch" is an anglicisation, most likely due to Scott. It is no better or worse a term than piobaireachd, or ceol mor. And everybody and his dog now calls it piobaireachd, most often without the pretentious and hyper-correct grave accents. Calum (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, the Piobaireachd Society is about as pretentious as anything on this planet.
Besides, why shouldn't a word in English be anglicised?
80.192.26.229 (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is not an English word, it is a Gaelic word which does in fact have a specific meaning, as well as its general translation. And nonetheless, it has been the Piobaireachd Society for 106 years now and your point of view has yet to result in a name change. Just for giggles, what's the earliest cite you can find for the expression "ceol mor"? Calum (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The DSL has citations for "pibroch" going back as far as 1719, which is almost 3 times as long ago as the Society has been going, but of course that's Scots rather than English. It's worth noting that was before Walter Scott's birth, if that's the Scott you're referring to.
Prof Wrong (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, thanks for that. I had always assumed that Walter Scott had come up with the term. To be honest, though, most of the citations do not clarify what is actually meant by the word "pibroch" as used at that time...so I'm back to my original conclusion that in English, piobaireachd or ceol mor are probably better designations. Besides, I find "pibroch" aesthetically offensive :p Calum (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it seem a bit daft to have Gaelic pronunciation for a word that is allegedly now part of the English language?
As to the citations, I think there's more than enough in the quotes to conclude that they are for the most part referring to the ceòl mór:
*Quhyle, playand Pibrochs, Minstralls meit Afore him stately strade. The "stately" stride is still a major part of pibroch perfomance.
*Donald, ye may gang and entertain her with a pibroch of Macreemon's composition. The MacCrimmons were particularly famous for their pibrochs, weren't they?
*He breaks your rest with a jigg, and rushes on you with all the martial strains of a peebruch. By contrast with "jigg", it is clear that the author is using "peebruch" as a genre, not pipe music as a whole.
The dictionary makes it clear that the word has occasionally been extended beyond ceòl mór, but that the overwhelming body of evidence examined leads the compilers to conclude that the term generally does mean ceòl mór.
The DSL is a prime source, and it is not WP's place to be trying to reevaluate the data in one of the few primary sources available on this matter. You may still argue that the word "pibroch" shouldn't be the main article title as it is attested as Scots, not English, but it still deserves far more prominence than it currently has in the article.
Prof Wrong (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in a sense yes but only because this page is named badly. It should be at pibroch really. I must admit to this being OR but in all my time in the Gaelic scene I have never heard a Scot refer to it as pìobaireachd, it's always pibroch for non-Gaelic speakers. I'd personally recommend we move the page to Pibroch and put in a section explaining the derivation of it from pìobaireachd and the discrepancy to Gaelic ceòl mòr. Akerbeltz (talk) 15:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED also gives "pibroch" as the headword, with "piobaireachd" (no accent) as an alternative. (Of course, it cites the same (Scots) quotations as the DSL.) I'd give more weight to the OED as a primary source than the Society. Prof Wrong (talk) 19:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The poor man's corpus also would support pibroch being the more common English term with 86,000 for pibroch and 40,000 for piobaireachd (the latter of course includes all the Gaelic pages using the term). I say we move it. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works better now. Though we now need an admin to move it to Pibroch. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. JohnCD (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do the pipers call it? I don't know which spelling is older or which one was more common two hundred years ago, but I do know how it is spelled today by those who play it. As a grade 3 piper, I compete inside the BCPA. When I download entry forms for competitions, they always list the event as "Piobaireachd." I have always been under the impression that the English spelling was only used informally, so I was outraged when I saw that Wikipedia had changed the name of this article. Now I am wondering: does the usage of the two spellings vary by region? I have never traveled far, but none of the pipers I have met use "Pibroch" except in text messages or other informal contexts. Unless I am mistaken, the vast majority of those who are involved in this art form would consider the Gaelic spelling to be more appropriate in a formal setting such as an encyclopedia. Please reconsider this decision. 76.27.200.25 (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deindenting for clarity. The Scots Guard tunebooks use the term "Ceol Mor". The booklet accompanying the CD "Dastirum" by Allan MacDonald -- one of the most import pibroch recordings in history, by one of the greatest spokesmen for the form -- uses "pibroch" consistently. It's worth noting that Allan is a native Gael. Donald Black has made the world's only recording of "pibroch" on the harmonica. But yes, other people do use "piobaireachd". We could sit down and do a full statistical study of the usage of the term, but that would constitute original research, and would have no weight against the fact that the dictionary says "pibroch". Prof Wrong (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Scots Guards tunebooks were not written by scholars, but by practising musicians. The text for Dastirum was written by Barnaby Brown, who doesn't represent the mainstream of piobaireachd scholarship (not making a judgement here, by the way). And I don't really think harmonica players are relevant. As for dictionaries that have not been updated since the days when the Highlands were run as an English colony, I am not much swayed. Scholars like William Donaldson and Hugh Cheape use the Gaelic spelling. The piping media use the Gaelic spelling. Pipers use the Gaelic spelling. The Piobaireachd Society uses the Gaelic spelling. The editor of Grove's dictionary might not, but the editors of Grove never asked a piper about anything when they wrote their dictionary. Calum (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was written by Barnaby AND Allen MacDonald and you can't complain about his credentials. I would just like to point out that piobaireachd is NOT the Gaelic spelling. Pìobaireachd is. And very few non-speakers manage the correct output, which is /pʰiːpɛɾʲəxk/ - however they spell it, it comes out as pib(e)roch. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't have a lot of time for many of Allan's theories, despite his musicianship, but expounding on it here would be pretty pointless, not to mention straying well into OR territory. The booklet is not credited to Allan. As for the grave accent, well, it's not in my McLennan :p Calum (talk) 22:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MacLennan's is the single most useless dictionary of Gaelic ever printed and I'd happily pay to have them all pulped. Secondly, it's a typo, even MacLennan has ì for all other words based on the root pìob. I'm all for "back to the roots" but in this instance, the piobaireachd spelling is just misleading on too many points. Even Scots dictionaries list pibroch, not pìobaireachd. Akerbeltz (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Insults aside, I have never seen a bagpiper run periodical or competition entry form that uses "pibroch." Concerning dictionaries: until one learns to play Pìobaireachd, they have no voice in this debate. Does the the language define the dictionary or the dictionary define the language? In this case the pipers have very clearly defined what they call their own music.
Between "Pìobaireachd" and "Piobaireachd," I always thought that "Pìobaireachd" was the proper spelling although my keyboard often forces me to ignore the accent. However, I am far from an authority on the proper use of accents in Gaelic words; as long as the article is not titled "Pibroch", I will be happy.--76.27.200.25 (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't an insult - you'll be hard pressed to find a Gaelic speaker who finds MacLennan reliable ;) It would seem to me this is actually more of a question of insider vs outsider language. From what your saying, it looks like the (serious) piping world is moving towards using pìobaireachd as the written form, however they pronounce it but that on the other hand non-specialists (including general dictionaries) are (still) using pibroch. Following WP Common Name it would seem to me that that still points to Pibroch rather than Pìobaireachd. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MacLennan may not be reliable, but "I'd happily pay to have them all pulped" is not called for. If that is the standard of formality expected from Wikipedia editors then I'm surprised that the site is as reliable as it is. Also, you are taking a lot for granted here. Serious pipers are not moving towards "Pìobaireachd," they have very firmly arrived there. Maybe that was not the case some hundred years ago, but all languages evolve and the current usage is all that is relevant here. Also, what "non-specialists" are you referring to that are "(still) using pibroch"? It seems to me that the history on this subject is too cluttered for you to say this with such certainty. "Pìobaireachd" may or may not be as old as the English spelling, but it is not a new word.
Regarding the page you linked, I disagree with your conclusion. "Pìobaireachd" is hardly an obscure spelling. Consider a later section of that same page: Considering title changes. This debate was originally started with the words "reconstructive hogwash". Insults aside again, I do not think there was any real reason to change the name of the page in the first place. This alteration should be reverted. --76.27.200.25 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a leading Gaelic lexicographer, I feel justified to call for MacLennans to be pulped. It has mislead generations of users and yet continues to be republished simply because it's the only larger bidirectional dictionary. You'd probably call for pulpin too if you had had to untangle so many learners' MacLennan mistakes ;) Failing that, take it as a tongue in cheek comment.
Non-specialists are people who are not pipers or students of piping. I have *never* come across anyone who - when speaking English - used a term that in pronunciation even vaguely approached pìobaireachd. The SCOTS corpus only has one instance where amusingly the Scots text uses piobaireachd (sic) and the English gloss uses pibroch [3]. The BNC has 4 instances of piobaireachd (sic) but two of them are proper nouns [4], 3 of pibroch where one appears to be used as a proper noun [5]. COCA has one publication that uses piobaireachd (sic) [6] but the publications claims that the word is pronounced peabrock (sic). Not even close to the Gaelic. Using the poor man's corpus, a search for "piobaireachd Scottish" gets 83,800 GHITS, "pibroch Scottish" 93,600 (using "Scottish" to filter our Gaelic language pages that would skew the count). At best, I would say the corpus evidence is inconclusive and given the preponderence of pibroch in dictionaries, pibroch it stays. Of course usage may change but at the moment I don't think the argument for pìobaireachd is convincing. Akerbeltz (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being a "leading Gaelic lexicographer" does not give you the freedom to start insulting anything you don't like. There are many polite and formal ways to point out that someone is using an unreliable source as I am about to demonstrate.
I recommend that you read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. It might help you understand the limitations of your carefully gathered statistics. The article you referenced earlier on common names uses guinea pigs as an example. Wikipedia uses "Guinea pig" as the title instead of the binomial name which is "Cavia porcellus." This is an example of the scientific name against the common name most that people know about. What we are discussing is not two names for the same music form. There is only one name for the heavy music we are discussing. You could walk up to someone and have a long verbal discussion about Piobaireachd without ever knowing how they spell it. The fact that they may be mispronouncing it is no indication here. What we are discussing is two spellings for the same word. Doing searches for the spellings yields a very clumsy picture because the numbers do not represent the context of the words they are finding, which is what is important to this discussion. On an online bagpipe forum, I just found a piper (you would call him an "insider") who used both spellings in the same post. The first time he used the word, he spelled it "Piobaireachd" (yes, without the accent). The next two times he switched to "Pibroch." An internet search would give an extra point to the informal spelling here, but the context would not have been taken into consideration. I have no idea why the piper opened his post with the formal spelling and then switched to the informal one (normally they use one or the other exclusively), but the example does establish that simple searches for quantity of use are not relevant here. Your numbers could easily be lying to you. That same piper would almost certainly have stayed with the formal spelling if he had been writing in a more formal environment. I have also seen other pipers use "Pibroch" informally who would switch spellings if writing formally. We should be considering context of use.
Those who use the informal spelling are clearly aware of what they are doing, at least in most cases. Anyone familiar with the music should at least be aware that there is a formal and an informal spelling. Lets consider people who are not aware that heavy music even exists. They go to the highland games to see the pipers and notice that some of the pipers are competing with some weird style of music that the outsider has never heard of. So the outsider runs to Wikipedia to look the term up and is astonished to find that the pipers are not even using the right word for their own music, or is it Wikipedia that is full of it? They will not know, but they are sure to jump to conclusions one way or the other. Yes, some strangers will stumble across the informal term outside of the highland games, but it will be more apparent that that is not what we (the pipers) call it.
Wikipedia should use "Pìobaireachd" for a minimum of confusion and a maximum of accuracy. 76.27.200.25 (talk) 08:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. As I already pointed out, dictionaries do not play Piobaireachd and those who write them are not unbiased. Most dictionaries define my religion as "A follower of false gods." If I burned every dictionary I found that had an error in it (whether intentional or not), there would be no dictionaries left. Calum made some very good comments on dictionaries earlier in this discussion on 20:22, 20 May 2010. Let that be an end to it; this site is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --76.27.200.25 (talk) 08:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I did not solely rely on a Google search but also checked the larger English corpora but you decided to ignore that bit. Your turn to come up with data other than "in my experience..." please. Akerbeltz (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS I wasn't insulting any Wikipedia user, at best, I was insulting MacLennan and he's not on here. Akerbeltz (talk) 11:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point fighting over figures. Wikipedia's policies state quite clearly that we're not allowed to use original research -- even a simple statistical tally. That means you've got to get some authority to make that declaration for you.

Right now, the best authority is the dictionary. The mere fact that the Society or any given competition uses that spelling is not enough to overrule the dictionary -- it would take a heck of an important piece of research to do that.

Dictionary says pibroch. Prof Wrong (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with that. We have quite a reasonable explanation for the historical disparity and the greater incidence of the English spelling in the corpus. We have a perfectly reasonable case that the dictionary is not the final word. And we have a considerable amount of evidence that the vast majority of scholars and performers of this music use the Gaelic spelling. Wikipedia does indeed have policies on original research, but it does also have policies on using common sense. This is a change that can and should be made for perfectly sound reasons and waving policy around is generally the sign of a bad argument. Calum (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The policies aside, I fail to see how you derive a good case for pìobaireachd from the corpus data as it does not come down on any side significantly. Akerbeltz (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have quite a reasonable explanation for ... the greater incidence of the English spelling in the corpus.
Yes. The reasonable explanation for the greater incidence of the English spelling is that we are looking at the English language.
We have a perfectly reasonable case that the dictionary is not the final word.
No we don't.
And we have a considerable amount of evidence that the vast majority of scholars and performers of this music use the Gaelic spelling.
Where? You have created a circular definition, by selecting your sources. First you dismiss the work of the Scots Guard as "not written by scholars, but by practising musicians" and Donald Black doesn't count because he plays his pibrochs on the wrong sort of instrument. But now you're interested in what players say again. Allan MacDonald doesn't count because his theory about Gaelic music being related to Gaelic somehow seems wrong to you, and neither does Barnaby Brown because he doesn't "reflect the mainstream". You have your own personal justification for why everyone who disagrees with you doesn't count, and that lets you reinforce your own bias. This is human nature, and this is no small part of why Wikipedia demands sources.
Wikipedia does indeed have policies on original research, but it does also have policies on using common sense.
OK, let's talk about common sense.
Farmers, the recognised experts on agriculture, count "head of cattle". Common people count "cows". Should we change every Wikipedia reference to "cows" to "head of cattle" because of the experts?
Common sense should also reflect common use... and there's a policy on that too, as previously mentioned.
This is a change that can and should be made for perfectly sound reasons and waving policy around is generally the sign of a bad argument.
Another sign of a bad argument is telling others that their argument is the sign of a bad argument. (Unpicking the irony in that sentence is left as an exercise to the reader.)
Anyway, have you tried that argument in court? "Your honour, I demand that the case against my client be dismissed -- the prosecution is quoting the law, which is generally the sign of a bad argument!"
The reason I cited policy is that the argument is going round in circles. We present the corpus figures, you say that these include too many non-expert references. You declare that the "vast majority" of experts spell it your way. You provide no figures. We provide counterexamples. You say they don't really count because the "vast majority" of experts spell it your way. You provide no figures. We say that policy favours our spelling. You say policy is irrelevant because the "vast majority" of experts spell it your way. You provide no figures.
As far as I can see, the only way to break out of the deadlock is to defer to policy. I'm not only saying that because it agrees with me -- I've had to bow out of arguments in the past on the basis of policy.
Prof Wrong (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find your summary amusing, as it is not even an accurate account of the arguments used. It is always far easier to argue against what you wish the other side had said by redefining the terms involved. Why not defer to this policy: "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." I think everyone has their own agenda in this discussion and no one is going to back down. Piobaireachd is an oral tradition, so you'll be hard pressed to find any meaningful sources regarding its vernacular. Too much time has been wasted here already. To repeat what has already been said: The only way to break out of this deadlock is to defer to policy. I'm not saying that just because it agrees with me; I have also had to bow out of arguments in the past on the basis of policy. This debate needs to be settled one way or another and policy seems to be the only arbitrator. 76.27.200.25 (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you take a look at the page history, you will find that the article title "Pibroch" is the oldest term used by Wikipedia and it had been relatively stable for 4 years before being revised to Piobaireachd late last year. By that token, policy still favours "pibroch".
Besides of which, there is no "controversy" here as the dictionaries favour "pibroch". Just because there is an disagreement between editors doesn't mean that the topic is controversial.
Prof Wrong (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The eminent lexicographer Sir James Murray in his 1873 work The Dialects of the Southern Counties of Scotland (page 54) describes how the English words ‘pipe’ and ‘piper’ were imported into Gaelic and Gaelisised, leading in turn to the Gaelic word ‘piobaireachd’.

According to Murray that new term was then later re-imported back into English and Anglicised to become ‘pibroch’ in the early 18th century.


‘Pibroch’ first appears in the English Language (or arguably ‘Scots’ language) in 1719 in verse XXII of the poem Hardyknute.

“Quhyle, playand pibrochs, minstalls meit”.

The poem was claimed to be much older than its publication date, allegedly being an ancient fragment recently discovered. It was in fact a fake composed in Fife by Elizabeth, Lady Wardlaw.

The later (and current) use by many bagpipe aficionados of the Gaelic rather than the English word seems likely to have arisen from a wish to appear maximally ‘authentic’. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.234.53 (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specific recordings[edit]

One particular editor has been making frequent references to recordings by Ann Heymann.

Am I alone in thinking that this is unsuitable? As most of these performances are of pieces documented in the Campbell cainntearach or others -- so I assume we should only be referencing the pieces by their prime source.

I'm of the opinion that the only place that individual recordings should be considered as citations in this piece is where the artists involved in the harp pibroch revival are first mentioned.

Your thoughts? Prof Wrong (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The footnoted music reference was not provided as "support" for the harp origins of the tune, it was a referencing of this canntaireachd having been transposed recently to the harp.

REF tags should be used to supply supporting evidence to an assertion made in the preceding text. By your own admission, your "reference" is not intended for this purpose, and thus should not be there.

I have deleted it -- again. Please do not include references that do not support the article. Prof Wrong (talk) 12:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


While I initially disagreed with the reading that the music references were supporting a particular theory of origins, I do agree in principle that the music recordings should be referenced in the context of the later section that introduces and discusses the performance revival.

Again, in principle I also agree that the primary Manuscript sources should be listed as the primary reference for a composition. Im happy to amend any other instances where they don't.

For a number of the revived cainntearach compositions the recordings discussed in the article are the only recordings available and therefore have relevance as a secondary referenced documentation of the music being discussed.

Transposition from revived cainntearach and other early manuscript documents is also a significant recent development in the history of pibroch that is worthy of mention.

The authority of scored notations of pibroch is a contested issue for bagpipe performance as the traditional competition sanctioned versions of pibroch repertoire based on PS edited and published scores differ significantly from some of the playing styles passed down through an oral tradition of instruction that have been documented primarily through recorded performance. In that context, some recordings are a primary reference.

The likely harp origins of Ceol Mor are widely discussed and broadly accepted in contemporary published scholarship. The harp heavy emphasis of some of the recent contributions could nevertheless do with some editing to balance the article. Some of the detail in the body text could be better placed as reference notes. Some of the more detailed performance technique and music theory discussion could be reorganised into a seperate section.

The other related issue is that the bagpipe specific history in the article remains brief and could benefit from further development. A paragraph on different playing style lineages would be helpful. And further discussion of the aristocratic patronage of hereditary bagpiping families with referenced examples would situate the rise and fall of the old order, and the continuities and breaks evident in the subsequent bagpipe pibroch survival/revival.

regards,

(Longtale (talk) 07:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Harp theory -- new section...?[edit]

I notice that the History section has become exceptionally long, and is going into a lot of detail about the harp.

While I personally find the idea that the Ceòl Mór tradition predates the pipes to be both intuitively and logically sound, it is still not all that widely accepted, so I don't think it should be allowed to dominate in this way.

I reckon we should be starting a section specifically related to harp-pibroch theory.

Prof Wrong (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am short of time and not at all knowledgeable about this subject but I agree with both of your last two remarks here. Ben MacDui 19:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously seriously seriously... Longtale, any chance of you not making the article longer, more complicated and more difficult to edit until we've split the article into something better structured?

I can't do it if the article's different every time I try to look at it. Prof Wrong (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pibroch/Ceol Mor terminology for related music on other instruments[edit]

Stickler4accuracy2, regarding your recent edits introducing the term "Fidhleireachd" as a new, and presumably more "authentically" Gaelic designation for "Fiddle pibroch" compositions, it is not the role of an encylopedia to establish new "corrected" usage, but rather to describe, document and situate existing and historical usage, with all of its complexities, contradictions, conventions and mis-translations.

You make this point yourself in your User talk posts when you note that "Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptive, not normative. Therefore, we are stuck with saying "pibroch" encompasses all ceòl mór." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Stickler4accuracy2)

While I appreciate the logic of your argument in your User Talk post that "there would be less confusion if other instrumentalists would always use terms specific to their instruments", determining a new useage outside of current scholarship or accepted common useage amounts to an "original" contribution which is outside of the mandate of the encyclopedia format.

The reference to the Gaelic dictionary definition of "Fidhleireachd" as "fiddling" doesn't support or document the point being made that "Fidhleireachd" is a term that better describes ceòl mór played on the fiddle, other than that it replicates the confusion resulting from taking "piobaireachd", the general Gaelic term for "piping", as being synonymous with ceòl mór.

Also the usage of the term "Fidhleireachd" in the edits of the opening paragraphs does not adequately account for harp ceòl mór repertoire being one of the likely sources of fiddle pibroch.

Clearly the designation "Fiddle Pibroch" has problems given it implies the fiddle repertoire is derived from and imitative of Bagpipe Pibroch. Current research would suggest rather that a core number of Fiddle Pibroch compositions are simply not readily playable on the bagpipes and are likely to have been adapted directly from the wire-strung harp repertoire or composed specifically for the fiddle.

Some fiddle pibroch repertoire however, does seem to be more or less equivalent to bagpipe ceòl mór/pibroch and this would suggest a concurrent interchange of repertoire and performance techniques across the instruments, and supports the commonly used pibroch nomenclature.

This interchange has also characterised the recent revival of the genre with bagpipe pibroch/ceòl mór compositions being newly transcribed to the fiddle, wire-harp and flute.

Regarding the User Talk argument that the "broadening of meaning of the word pibroch represents recent English practice" its worth noting that the "Dictionary of the Scots language" gives the earliest documentation of the term pibroch in 1719 (see ref 5).

Regarding your user talk argument that "others have wanted to use the term for similar music on their instruments" and your edit to the article stating that "recent publications for English-speaking audiences have extended the use of piobaireachd to instruments other than bagpipes", the assumption that this is only a recent occurance is not supported by recent scholarship.

The Henry Atkinson manuscript, 1694 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Atkinson_manuscript) is a Northern English fiddlers tune book compiled by Henry Atkinson, with bowing indications and tunes requiring scordatura. It includes the composition "A Highland Pibroch – The Irish Gilekrankey (HA101)". The pibroch designation was written by hand at a later date (assumed to be in the 18th century). The piece has an analogous theme and variation structure to pibroch but is not playable on the bagpipes and is presumed to have been transcribed from the wire-harp repertoire. (for an analysis of the tune, see: http://www.village-music-project.org.uk/info_files/atkinson_info.htm)

A Gaelic precedent for the term "fiddle pibroch" can also be found with the lyric "pìobaireachd's fidhleireachd" employed in the Gaelic language song "Baile na Traghad" composed by Michael Mor Domhnullach (Big Michael MacDonald) in the late 18th century (published in Rev. A. MacLean Sinclair's "Gaelic Bards," 1896) which perhaps suggests that "fiddle pibroch" is a Scots anglicisation of 18th century gaelic useage and convention.

On balance, the current consensus amongst scholars and musicians, and particularly Gaelic speaking pipers, would be to use the general term ceòl mór.

Pibroch/piobaireachd is also generally accepted through useage as being synonymous with ceòl mór, and is assumed to primarily refer to bagpipe ceòl mór unless another instrument is explicitly named.

Some of your edits to the article have tidied up collective contributions in the opening paragraphs. However, I wanted to give you some more detailed background to further re-edits I will be making to bring the article into line with its encyclopedia criteria.

Have a happy New Year.

Longtale (talk) 07:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, it seems a bit odd to try to construct a new English-language word from Gaelic etymology which would not be transparent to any English native readership. The reason most people don't have a problem with "pibroch" is that they don't see any link with piping. Consider how we use the French word "vintage" in English. If I told you that vintage was to wine what brewing is to beer, would you object to me describing classic cars as "vintage"? Prof Wrong (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pibroch. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 20:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pibroch. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on Pibroch. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pibroch&oldid=1207183110"