Consideration of Upper Limits on Numbers Following the Demise of two Grade 1 Bands

Recently, two first grade pipe bands ceased operations, unable to attract enough competent pipers and drummers to compete confidently at the top level.

This reduction highlights a growing issue: the remaining top bands have become so large that they absorb much of the available talent, leaving fewer skilled players to sustain other Grade 1 or 2 bands.

By Allan Hamilton

Historically, a greater number of strong bands existed precisely because they operated successfully with smaller rosters of pipers and drummers.

A number of questions arise from current discussions about setting a maximum number of players in competition pipe bands.

Over the past two decades, there has been a clear trend toward larger ensembles. In Grade 1, it is now common to see 23–27 pipers, 9–12 side drummers, and 4–6 tenor drummers plus a bass drummer—amounting to 37–44 players in total. Occasionally, these numbers rise even higher, with some bands fielding 30 or more pipers.

The reasons for this expansion are not entirely convincing. Whilst large bands may look impressive and seem to produce a fuller sound, studies suggest that adding pipers beyond 22 does not significantly increase perceived volume for listeners or judges.

In fact, smaller groups of 16–20 pipers often achieve a cleaner, more balanced sound, easier to tune and manage, especially under unpredictable weather. With fewer players, pipe majors can focus more effectively on refinement rather than maintenance.

The ideal balance between pipers and drummers should maintain musical proportion, typically 5–7 side drummers for 16–20 pipers. Overly large drum sections can dominate the ensemble, shifting emphasis away from the pipes.

Similarly, the trend toward fielding as many as six tenor drummers adds little to overall performance quality. Three well co-ordinated tenors are generally sufficient to enrich tone and rhythm without overcrowding the musical texture.

Beyond musical considerations, cost plays a decisive role. Larger bands require far more uniforms, instruments, and transport logistics. Greater turnover among players only compounds these expenses as equipment and attire are replaced.

Once-standard uniforms, such as doublets and feather bonnets, became unsustainable even when bands averaged a dozen pipers; the situation now is considerably more demanding. Rehearsal space, travel costs, and performance fees all escalate with increasing size, leaving little flexibility for community engagement or non-competitive performances.

A realistic and sustainable model might therefore cap competing numbers at around 18 to 20 pipers, with proportional drumming, plus a few reserves registered to cover absences. Over time, even smaller bands— perhaps 14 to 16 pipers and five or six drummers — could return to prominence.

This would distribute skilled players more evenly across the country, foster the creation of new bands, and restore the strong local traditions characteristic of earlier decades. Smaller bands are also more affordable, cohesive, and socially connected, often taking greater pleasure in both rehearsals and performances.

Establishing upper limits for band membership could therefore reduce costs, increase participation, and improve the overall quality and sustainability of competitive pipe bands. In essence, fewer but better‑balanced players may well yield more music, more bands, and a stronger piping community.

---