I have heard so much from (potential) players of low whistles about the stretch involved in covering the holes that I feel whistle makers need to address this problem seriously, in that a number of people who may derive/provide enormous enjoyment from playing low whistles are prevented from doing so by the geography of the instrument.
Instrument makers have risen to this challenge, successfully, over the centuries e.g. alto/bass flute, bass clarinet, cor anglais, bassoon, saxophone, bass recorder and other medieval wind instruments and, of course, the miles of tubing involved in modern brass instruments.
Whilst it may be difficult to put a bend between the mouthpiece and first hole in a wooden whistle, in a metal one it is not difficult at all.
The "low whistle" may be a comparatively recent "invention", but I think it's time makers took some inspiration from 19th century wind-instrument technology and made their whistles more user-friendly. It could simply involve, on tuneable whistles, an optional angled headjoint.
I can't believe that no-one is doing it!
Like your Idea on angled Head joint / Mouthpiece,,
I have tried them and bringing yor head over to blow into
them at first can be ''A Pain In The Neck'' - although maybe
solid stopping air to get out ??
There hard enough to get sound out of,,
jim,,,
The laws of acoustics govern the placement of fingerholes on flutes and whistles. On a conical tube, like the flute, the holes can be closer together and more uniform, but on a cylindrical instrument, like whistles and PVC flutes, the holes must be farther apart to address intonation issues. My Howard low whistle is a plain, cylindrical metal tube and the hole spacing takes a great deal of getting used to. I'm comparing it to my new Jon Cornia delrin flute, with its conical bore, and the holes are uniform and very manageable.
I'm pretty sure I've seen the kind of angled headjoint you're talking about on some low whistles... lower ones than D... Low C or Bb maybe. But I don't know who the maker was.
Poppycock. I've said this before loads of times, though it obviously needs said again. I've seen wee twelve your old girls with tiny hands play low whistles beautifully. Just get a grip you lot, the right grip, and stop your whinging
And while we are on the subject of modifying instruments to get over problems with impossible stretches, could someone please redesign the fiddle to make it easier to get the 4th finger down on the G string. I've an idea that with modern technology it might be possible to have a curve on the strings...
And my guitar is just not loud enough. Do you think someone might be able to come up with a way of converting the vibrations of the strings into an electric curent that could then be amplified? If you used the magnetic properties of the string rarther than it's acoustic properties you wouldn't then need a hollow body?
Chief:
You bring up very valid points, which should be considered, not dismissed without consideration.
First, about the angled headjoints, I have two low whistles with such, both Susatos, one in low D, one in low C.
It's a great feature and it makes these more comfortable to play. I wonder that more makers don't offer the angled headjoints.
Now about finger hole placement, whistle makers have indeed "addressed the problem seriously", spending a large amount of time experimenting with it.
But, all makers have ended up with pretty much the same placement, for very good reason.
The placement will always be a compromise between these irreconcilable needs:
1) the tonehole placement which produces equally full, strong notes in the key of low D
2) the normal human anatomy
The biggest problem is always the lowest hole, from which E emits on a low D whistle.
Ideally, the E hole should be a hole just as large as the F# hole, and placed halfway between the F# hole and the open end of the whistle.
A whistle made like this would have a low E just as strong as the bottom D and F#.
But few could reach the E hole if placed that low.
Now, let's take the opposite tack, placing the E hole so that it has the same spacing as the holes on the upper hand. Here, it's relatively easy to reach, and the whistle is comfortable to play.
But, now the E hole is far above its acoustically ideal location, so that E is very sharp. To bring the pitch down the hole must be made very small. A small tonehole placed too high along the tube produces a weak note that breaks into the upper register too easily. In other words, the resulting instrument would have unacceptable playability.
So, as they must, ALL low D whistle makers must compromise.
They make a low E hole that's a bit of a reach, that makes a note that's a bit weaker that its neighbors.
As has been pointed out above, the reach is not difficult at all if you learn the "piper's grip".
You mention saxophones etc, but these have all the toneholes covered with Boehm-system-like keywork.
Susato does make a whistle with keys for the difficult-to-reach notes. Of course these notes can't be bent in the traditional Irish manner.
Thanks Richard and others for your sensible replies. Some of the numpties who inhabit this board obviously need to get out more.
Many of my professional colleagues who play Boehm-system instruments, and are also big strong blokes, opt to have angled joints in their instruments, even soprano sax or alto flute, to decrease tension. This is because, when doing a three-session day, they could be playing for 10 hours or more and they can't, when tiredness/tension creeps in, put the thing down and turn the telly on.
I realise, of course, that the holes on any wind instrument have to be where they have to be. The "pipers grip" is fine, considering that a bagpipe chanter is attached to a flexible bag and can be held at any convenient angle.
The low whistle is rigid and, given that the holes are fixed, any angling of the the tube to bring, particularly, the bottom hand closer has to be a good thing. The bassoon has no Boehm system and the main holes are covered by the fingers, not keypads, but the instrument would be impossible to play without the bends inherent in its structure.
I thought that you would bring up the bassoon! I almost mentioned it myself.
It's a different beast, in that it has a great wall thickness, so that fingerholes can be bored at angles.
I've played a Baroque alto flute that used the angled fingerholes and the resulting tone is far too feeble for the requirements of Irish music.
Another issue than bedevils low D whistle makers is volume. Low D's are rarely loud enough.
The loudest low D I've tried, which is the one I use regularly in my group and at sessions, is a Burke.
He gets the greater volume in part by using a wider bore than other low D's. Bigger bore, bigger volume, means more air that has to be pushed through the thing. That means that you have to take breaths more often. You can't play long phrases on one breath.
So, the ideal low D cannot be made. The ideal low D would have:
1) very comfortable finger spacing, probably similar to a B flat or C whistle
2) narrow tube
3) the same air requirements as a high D whistle
4) put out the volume of an accordion
5) of course, play in the range of a D flute.
6) have all open holes for note bending etc.
Many have tried, none have come close. The laws of acoustics and human anatomy prevent it.
Put out the volume of an accordion!?
That would be some kind of whistle!! I still think that if recorder makers can do it, so can whistle makers. I've heard so many tales of people who have given up before they have really got going because of the pain and tension involved in playing a low D. If children starting to learn the cello had to start on a full-size, no-one would ever get anywhere. Cellos, on the other hand, are in the same key and pitch no matter what size they are. Low D whistles all have to be the same size and, let's face it, if you're playing along with tunes in D (which you probably would be) it's not much use trying to play an F, if that's the most you can, currently, stretch(!!).
You say "if recorder makers can do it, so can whistle makers". Actually, recorder makers can not do "it" , the "it" being the making of the ideal low D whistle. No, recorder makers make recorders, a quite different beast.
The cello, likewise, is a different thing altogether.
I've outlined the reasons why the ideal low D cannot be made.
Many talented makers have spent decades working on the issue, but they cannot overcome the laws of acoustics and normal human anatomy, as they apply to making a fipple flute that plays in the key of low D.
Put the finger holes close together, get a feeble-sounding instrument. It's just a fact.
If you were to spend more time playing various low whistles, or even better make a few, these things would become clearer.
I've played more low whistles than I've had hot dinners.
Unfortunately, making musical instruments is not something I could consider. Practising them and earning a crust playing them seems to take up all the time available.
Thinking about it, another entire dimension of the limitations of Low D Whistles is the issue of bore size.
There's a bore size which results in a full, resounding low register.
There's a bore size which results in a sweet, easy upper register.
Sad to say, they're two different sizes.
So our "ideal low D whistle" would magically change bore size when you switched octaves.
Since this is impossible, all low D whistles reflect a compromise (it's all about compromise with low whistles).
My Burke low D, the best low D I've played, has a powerful bottom D but the rest of the low range is not quite as powerful as one might like. And that's with a bigger bore than any other low D I've seen.
But you pay for that big bore, that fullness in the low range with a high A and high B that are a bit too loud, and a tad rough.
Sweeten the high A and high B, and lose more fullness in the low range.
Add more fullness in the low range, and high B becomes unworkable.
It's just the physics of the thing.
Now, one could say, but what about the flute? One can play loudly in the low range, sweetly in the high range on the flute! The answer of course is that the flute uses a flexible human embouchure, not the fixed tone production mechanism of the whistle.
But, you say, what about the recorder? It uses the thumbhole to faciliate the upper register, and a rather different bore. Change the Irish whistle to recorder fingering and recorder timbre, and its no longer an Irish whistle, its a recorder.
But what about the sax and clarinet and oboe? They all have register keys.
My original point in this discussion was not about width or shape of the bore or position of the holes. It was simply a plea for whistle makers to offer a version of their instruments with a bend in the headjoint. This would not affect the tone or tuning of the whistle one iota. The Victoria and Allbert Museum in London has an "Octobass" - a double bass built to the correct specifications for its pitch. It takes 3-4 players and two stepladders to play it. Bass makers have therefore had to find a way to make basses which can be played by one average-size human being.
Whistle makers don't have to mess with the dimensions of their products - just put a slight kink in the top.
Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
I have heard so much from (potential) players of low whistles about the stretch involved in covering the holes that I feel whistle makers need to address this problem seriously, in that a number of people who may derive/provide enormous enjoyment from playing low whistles are prevented from doing so by the geography of the instrument.
Instrument makers have risen to this challenge, successfully, over the centuries e.g. alto/bass flute, bass clarinet, cor anglais, bassoon, saxophone, bass recorder and other medieval wind instruments and, of course, the miles of tubing involved in modern brass instruments.
Whilst it may be difficult to put a bend between the mouthpiece and first hole in a wooden whistle, in a metal one it is not difficult at all.
The "low whistle" may be a comparatively recent "invention", but I think it's time makers took some inspiration from 19th century wind-instrument technology and made their whistles more user-friendly. It could simply involve, on tuneable whistles, an optional angled headjoint.
I can't believe that no-one is doing it!
# Posted on March 10th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
Like your Idea on angled Head joint / Mouthpiece,,
I have tried them and bringing yor head over to blow into
them at first can be ''A Pain In The Neck'' - although maybe
solid stopping air to get out ??
There hard enough to get sound out of,,
jim,,,
# Posted on March 10th 2008 by FIDDLE4
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
The laws of acoustics govern the placement of fingerholes on flutes and whistles. On a conical tube, like the flute, the holes can be closer together and more uniform, but on a cylindrical instrument, like whistles and PVC flutes, the holes must be farther apart to address intonation issues. My Howard low whistle is a plain, cylindrical metal tube and the hole spacing takes a great deal of getting used to. I'm comparing it to my new Jon Cornia delrin flute, with its conical bore, and the holes are uniform and very manageable.
# Posted on March 10th 2008 by Greg the Piano Tuner
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
I'm pretty sure I've seen the kind of angled headjoint you're talking about on some low whistles... lower ones than D... Low C or Bb maybe. But I don't know who the maker was.
# Posted on March 10th 2008 by seisflutes
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
Poppycock. I've said this before loads of times, though it obviously needs said again. I've seen wee twelve your old girls with tiny hands play low whistles beautifully. Just get a grip you lot, the right grip, and stop your whinging
# Posted on March 10th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
yep - couldn't agree more with Mr. Gill
# Posted on March 10th 2008 by Yohan
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
just as point of interest - the stretch on my Seery flute is more than on an Overton low D, an MK, a Shaw and a Susato
# Posted on March 10th 2008 by Yohan
And for makers of fiddles
And while we are on the subject of modifying instruments to get over problems with impossible stretches, could someone please redesign the fiddle to make it easier to get the 4th finger down on the G string. I've an idea that with modern technology it might be possible to have a curve on the strings...
# Posted on March 11th 2008 by Theo Gibb
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
And my guitar is just not loud enough. Do you think someone might be able to come up with a way of converting the vibrations of the strings into an electric curent that could then be amplified? If you used the magnetic properties of the string rarther than it's acoustic properties you wouldn't then need a hollow body?
# Posted on March 11th 2008 by llig leahcim
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
Chief:
You bring up very valid points, which should be considered, not dismissed without consideration.
First, about the angled headjoints, I have two low whistles with such, both Susatos, one in low D, one in low C.
It's a great feature and it makes these more comfortable to play. I wonder that more makers don't offer the angled headjoints.
Now about finger hole placement, whistle makers have indeed "addressed the problem seriously", spending a large amount of time experimenting with it.
But, all makers have ended up with pretty much the same placement, for very good reason.
The placement will always be a compromise between these irreconcilable needs:
1) the tonehole placement which produces equally full, strong notes in the key of low D
2) the normal human anatomy
The biggest problem is always the lowest hole, from which E emits on a low D whistle.
Ideally, the E hole should be a hole just as large as the F# hole, and placed halfway between the F# hole and the open end of the whistle.
A whistle made like this would have a low E just as strong as the bottom D and F#.
But few could reach the E hole if placed that low.
Now, let's take the opposite tack, placing the E hole so that it has the same spacing as the holes on the upper hand. Here, it's relatively easy to reach, and the whistle is comfortable to play.
But, now the E hole is far above its acoustically ideal location, so that E is very sharp. To bring the pitch down the hole must be made very small. A small tonehole placed too high along the tube produces a weak note that breaks into the upper register too easily. In other words, the resulting instrument would have unacceptable playability.
So, as they must, ALL low D whistle makers must compromise.
They make a low E hole that's a bit of a reach, that makes a note that's a bit weaker that its neighbors.
As has been pointed out above, the reach is not difficult at all if you learn the "piper's grip".
You mention saxophones etc, but these have all the toneholes covered with Boehm-system-like keywork.
Susato does make a whistle with keys for the difficult-to-reach notes. Of course these notes can't be bent in the traditional Irish manner.
# Posted on March 12th 2008 by Richard D Cook
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
Thanks Richard and others for your sensible replies. Some of the numpties who inhabit this board obviously need to get out more.
Many of my professional colleagues who play Boehm-system instruments, and are also big strong blokes, opt to have angled joints in their instruments, even soprano sax or alto flute, to decrease tension. This is because, when doing a three-session day, they could be playing for 10 hours or more and they can't, when tiredness/tension creeps in, put the thing down and turn the telly on.
I realise, of course, that the holes on any wind instrument have to be where they have to be. The "pipers grip" is fine, considering that a bagpipe chanter is attached to a flexible bag and can be held at any convenient angle.
The low whistle is rigid and, given that the holes are fixed, any angling of the the tube to bring, particularly, the bottom hand closer has to be a good thing. The bassoon has no Boehm system and the main holes are covered by the fingers, not keypads, but the instrument would be impossible to play without the bends inherent in its structure.
# Posted on March 13th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
I thought that you would bring up the bassoon! I almost mentioned it myself.
It's a different beast, in that it has a great wall thickness, so that fingerholes can be bored at angles.
I've played a Baroque alto flute that used the angled fingerholes and the resulting tone is far too feeble for the requirements of Irish music.
Another issue than bedevils low D whistle makers is volume. Low D's are rarely loud enough.
The loudest low D I've tried, which is the one I use regularly in my group and at sessions, is a Burke.
He gets the greater volume in part by using a wider bore than other low D's. Bigger bore, bigger volume, means more air that has to be pushed through the thing. That means that you have to take breaths more often. You can't play long phrases on one breath.
So, the ideal low D cannot be made. The ideal low D would have:
1) very comfortable finger spacing, probably similar to a B flat or C whistle
2) narrow tube
3) the same air requirements as a high D whistle
4) put out the volume of an accordion
5) of course, play in the range of a D flute.
6) have all open holes for note bending etc.
Many have tried, none have come close. The laws of acoustics and human anatomy prevent it.
# Posted on March 13th 2008 by Richard D Cook
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
Put out the volume of an accordion!?
That would be some kind of whistle!! I still think that if recorder makers can do it, so can whistle makers. I've heard so many tales of people who have given up before they have really got going because of the pain and tension involved in playing a low D. If children starting to learn the cello had to start on a full-size, no-one would ever get anywhere. Cellos, on the other hand, are in the same key and pitch no matter what size they are. Low D whistles all have to be the same size and, let's face it, if you're playing along with tunes in D (which you probably would be) it's not much use trying to play an F, if that's the most you can, currently, stretch(!!).
# Posted on March 13th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
You say "if recorder makers can do it, so can whistle makers". Actually, recorder makers can not do "it" , the "it" being the making of the ideal low D whistle. No, recorder makers make recorders, a quite different beast.
The cello, likewise, is a different thing altogether.
I've outlined the reasons why the ideal low D cannot be made.
Many talented makers have spent decades working on the issue, but they cannot overcome the laws of acoustics and normal human anatomy, as they apply to making a fipple flute that plays in the key of low D.
Put the finger holes close together, get a feeble-sounding instrument. It's just a fact.
If you were to spend more time playing various low whistles, or even better make a few, these things would become clearer.
# Posted on March 14th 2008 by Richard D Cook
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
I've played more low whistles than I've had hot dinners.
Unfortunately, making musical instruments is not something I could consider. Practising them and earning a crust playing them seems to take up all the time available.
# Posted on March 14th 2008 by Chief Wanganui
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
Thinking about it, another entire dimension of the limitations of Low D Whistles is the issue of bore size.
There's a bore size which results in a full, resounding low register.
There's a bore size which results in a sweet, easy upper register.
Sad to say, they're two different sizes.
So our "ideal low D whistle" would magically change bore size when you switched octaves.
Since this is impossible, all low D whistles reflect a compromise (it's all about compromise with low whistles).
My Burke low D, the best low D I've played, has a powerful bottom D but the rest of the low range is not quite as powerful as one might like. And that's with a bigger bore than any other low D I've seen.
But you pay for that big bore, that fullness in the low range with a high A and high B that are a bit too loud, and a tad rough.
Sweeten the high A and high B, and lose more fullness in the low range.
Add more fullness in the low range, and high B becomes unworkable.
It's just the physics of the thing.
Now, one could say, but what about the flute? One can play loudly in the low range, sweetly in the high range on the flute! The answer of course is that the flute uses a flexible human embouchure, not the fixed tone production mechanism of the whistle.
But, you say, what about the recorder? It uses the thumbhole to faciliate the upper register, and a rather different bore. Change the Irish whistle to recorder fingering and recorder timbre, and its no longer an Irish whistle, its a recorder.
But what about the sax and clarinet and oboe? They all have register keys.
# Posted on March 16th 2008 by Richard D Cook
Re: Suggestion for makers of low whistles.
My original point in this discussion was not about width or shape of the bore or position of the holes. It was simply a plea for whistle makers to offer a version of their instruments with a bend in the headjoint. This would not affect the tone or tuning of the whistle one iota. The Victoria and Allbert Museum in London has an "Octobass" - a double bass built to the correct specifications for its pitch. It takes 3-4 players and two stepladders to play it. Bass makers have therefore had to find a way to make basses which can be played by one average-size human being.
Whistle makers don't have to mess with the dimensions of their products - just put a slight kink in the top.
# Posted on March 17th 2008 by Chief Wanganui