1. Oral transmission of tunes. In piping, this is done via the solfege system, known in Gaelic as canntaireachd (lit. “singing” or “chanting”), in which each note of the pipe scale has a syllable to which prefixes and suffixes are added to indicate grace notes/ornaments. Compared to the tablature system of qin music, written notation was introduced to bagpipe music quite late. The earliest recorded bagpipe music is written- out canntaireachd; writing this music in staff notation is a later development. 2. Both great highland bagpipe and qin music place a heavy emphasis on grace notes and elaborate systems of ornamentation. These are used for different purposes, and there are technical differences in the types of ornaments played (which owes to their being a wind/ reed instrument and a plucked string instrument, respectively), but each tradition attaches great importance to such musical devices.

3. Piobaireachd is always organized in a theme-and-variation structure, consisting of a ground (urlar in Gaelic) followed by a sequence of variations. This, while not the only form of qin music, is well represented in that genre. It appears to Jason from discussions at our meeting that some of the specific ways in which variations are used in qin music parallel what is done in piobaireachd, but this thought needs further research.

4. Both ghb and qin use a mean-tone temperament tuning system. In the case of the qin, this seems to owe at least partly to the frequent use of plucked harmonics; with the ghb, this is a function of the steady background of 3 drones, two of which are an octave below the fundamental and another that is two octaves below. The nature of the instrument is these drones produce strong harmonics. A near-perfect Pythagorean scale is attainable on the bagpipe chanter, owing to its extremely limited compass (nine notes, with no accidentals).

5. Both instruments are felt to convey profound feelings and to be capable of inducing particular moods dependent on the type of music played. In addition, tunes are frequently composed to commemorate specific events.

6. As alluded to above, both instruments are quintessentially solo instruments, especially when the ghb is taken in the context of piobaireachd, which is invariably performed solo.

7. An interesting difference between the two is that many qin players are and were amateurs, with mastery of the qin considered the accomplishment of a gentleman. By contrast, until quite recently (and to some degree this is still the case in Scotland), playing the ghb was usually limited to a professional class of pipers, often governed by family lineages. Many practitioners underwent elaborate professional training: the most famous of these schools, the college of the MacCrimmon family at Borreraig and on the Isle of Skye, is a seven-year program. Additionally, there is nothing in the piping tradition to compare with the elaborate literary references and symbolism found in discussions of the qin in traditional Chinese literature, partly because there was much less of a literary tradition in pre-modern highland culture than there is in China.

8. In both traditions, the timing of the music is quite unusual and does not follow a strict metrical pattern (although for both, the historicity of this is now somewhat contested; see point 9 below). Qin tablature does not convey rhythm, only the notes to be played, which is also true of written canntaireachd. Modern staff notation of piobaireachd uses rhythmic indicators, including fermatas and, in at least one case, an absence of bar lines to better indicate correct phrasing. However, it is taught that such notation is only approximate and that the proper phrasing of a piobaireachd can be learned only through exacting study of that particular piece with a teacher of sound lineage who has in turn learned that piece from one of his teachers. Of Jason’s two principal teachers, one refused to teach him any tune he had not himself learned. The other would do so only rarely, and then only with obscure tunes that are rarely performed and little-known. He always prefaced his remarks by saying that, while he had not received instruction in that tune, he had studied it and formed some thoughts of his own about it based on his long experience and knowledge of the genre. As to lineage, even in Jason’s case approximately three quarters of the tunes he has learned can trace the lineage of their teaching back to the late 1700/early 1800s; specifically to MacCrimmon College on Skye mentioned above. (On a personal note, Jason was fortunate to have visited MacCrimmon College two years ago and played several piobaireachds for his teacher, a moving experience).

9. Modern research devoted to reconstructing older styles of playing is ongoing for both instruments. In piobaireachd, an older style may have differed from current performing practice, especially in the following areas. One is tempo, which many believe was faster in ancient times. The topic of rhythmic regularity is especially controversial, with some contending that piobaireachd were played in a more regular rhythm than is typically the case at present; that is, that modern phrasing has more rubato than was the case traditionally. The main proponent of this theory is Allan MacDonald, a native Gaelic speaker who has reconstructed a performance style based on the rhythms of Gaelic speech and songs (some of which are based on piobaireachd and – intriguingly – vice versa). In addition, there is evidence suggesting that some of the oldest piobaireachd melodies may have been taken from the pre-existing harp tradition, which largely died out (at least in the highlands) not long after the adoption of the bagpipe in Scotland. It is supposed that some bagpipe ornamentation is imitative of harp technique (note that the harp, like the qin, is a plucked-string instrument, albeit without stopped notes). From discussion at our meeting, it would appear that there is considerable overlap of the above factors with much of the ongoing research into and reconstruction of historical styles of qin playing.

Previous page