While I have been switching over to half holing the C natural (on a D whistle), it has been brought to my attention that the half hole technique is not always practical and some people prefer one, the other, or a mix, even using both techniques in a single tune. My question is in regards to the whistles I have been making. I shopped my best (sounding) whistle (so far) around to a few different players of varying degrees of skill and asked them for some constructive criticism. One critique was that the OXX XOX fingering did not create a stable C natural. After going back to the drawing board, I have come up with a design that allows for OXO OOO C natural. Would this be acceptable or am I missing something? For clarification this is in regards to the lower octave, or middle C, as high C still requires a half hole technique.
Thing is, there’s a certain amount of shared technique in the ITM woodwinds (“simple system” flute, whistle, and uilleann pipes) which might escape the notice of people who don’t play all three, or if noticed may seem unimportant.
One of those things is the oxx upper-hand fingering of C natural in the low octave.
Some uilleann chanters prefer oxx xoxx, some oxx ooxx, some work fine with either.
On flute and whistle oxx ooo and oxx oox sound pretty much the same, I use both without thinking.
The ‘standard’ flute and whistle 2nd octave C natural is oxo xxx which some people use in the low octave too, though it tends to be too sharp on Middle C on most whistles. (On many flutes the Middle C using oxx ooo and oxo xxx are more or less the same, and many fluteplayers use oxo xxx in both octaves.)
In any case I’m accustomed to the “old school” thing on whistles and flutes of oxx ooo Middle C, oxo xxx High C, and the ooo ooo Middle C# being a tad flat. As Boehm points out that top hole has to serve multiple functions and it’s position is a compromise.
BTW half-holing or ‘bending’ Middle C natural is not incompatible with crossfingering that note- doing both simultaneously is standard procedure on the uilleann pipes, and I and many other flute and whistle players do it too.
It’s a more colourful effect on the uilleann pipes for sure, but here it is on whistle:
I can get a passable c nat on some of mine with oxoxxx. I think this fingering actually fits the flow of the music better than oxxooo, but the previous point about standardization is quite valid.
Pancelticpiper gave a perfect response.
Also of note, the playability of OXXOOO C natural is not necessarily indicative of the overall quality of the whistle.
This reminded me of a conversation I read somewhere, possibly C & F, where someone was having trouble playing the OXXOOO C natural on a Sindt whistle and John responded by saying something like, “Well according to Mary Bergin you should be half holing anyway.” Can’t remember where I saw that but it made me chuckle.
As a maker myself, I can offer you some advice for getting the OXXOOO to work. If it doesn’t, you’re probably using a standard layout where all three top holes are the same size. This is not entirely a hole size issue because bore size and aspect ratio enter the discussion as well, but if you make your top hole a little smaller than the two under it, and correspondingly move the smaller top top hole up just a hair toward the sound edge, it will allow you to get OXXOOO to play. I know the percentages for this to work, but the old adage of unemployed magicians who revealed all of their secrets comes to mind. 
Good luck in your whistlemaking endeavors!
It’s going to produce a very flat OOOOOO C# when even OXXOOO for C tends to produce flat C#s. I like whistles with decent OXXOOO and OXOXXX C naturals (both useful in different contexts) so long as the C# can be kept acceptable, whereas others prefer OXXXOO etc. to keep the C# up. But I just can’t see OXOOOO for C giving you an acceptable C# at all…
One thing that people who object to crossfingering C natural (and advocate either a thumb-hole, or half-holing) often bring up is the claim that the crossfingered C natural sounds too quiet and/or too dull.
I have a couple Burkes with C natural thumb-holes (I got these secondhand, I’d never order them like that) and to me the C natural done with the thumb-hole and the one I crossfinger sound the same, or so close to being the same that the difference isn’t worth the trouble of drilling an extra hole.
I will say that some whistles I got by some of the more recent makers appear to be designed to use oxo xxx rather than oxx ooo, because if oxx ooo is used C natural has to be ‘blown out’. I’m used to slightly underblowing the crossfingered C natural and “blowing out” C#.
BTW the oxx ooo crossfingered Middle C natural isn’t merely a “folk thing” but is also the fingering used on Baroque Flute. I wouldn’t be surprised if it also occurred on other Baroque woodwinds.
Thank you for the thoughtful responses. The whistles in question are most similar in construction to a Clarke or Cooperman. I have never played or even held a Shaw, but I know that they have similar design features. The hole pattern is taken directly from a Cooperman, though I believe they differ from a Clarke in that the uppermost tone hole is smaller than the second and third. For clarity, holes 1 and 4 are the same size and the smallest, holes 2,3, and 6 are the same size and in the middle, and hole five stands alone and is the largest of the three sizes. My teacher recently acquired a set of 64 center punches broken down into, well, 64th’s, i.e. 1/64, 2/64, 3/64,…64/64 (1 inch), so that I could make micro adjustments to address tuning issues.
I heard Mary Bergin express a similar sentiment at a workshop once. As I recall it, someone asked her about half holing Cnat and she said “I can’t imagine doing it any other way”.
That sounds like a proper hole size layout. I would recommend playing with hole location before changing hole size. In my experience location is a much more reliable variable.
Also, you might try making the taper less drastic. Hard tapers do wacky things to soundwaves and make it a nightmare to tune in comparison to cylindrical or soft tapers.
I prefer OXXXOX, which works great for my Goldie whistles, Copeland flute, and soprano whistles. I recently acquired an MK low D. OXXOOO works okay, but OXOXXX gives the best sound. The advantage to half holing is not having to worry about variation between makers. I’ve been trying to decide if I can learn to switch cross fingerings depending on which whistle I’m playing. I’ve started working on my half-holed C-natural again, as an alternative to the madness.
Indeed, I use a very slight taper. Some of those old German and Japanese rolled tin whistles taper down very drastically. I have a couple of Calura’s that exhibit that. As far as layout goes, I am excited to try out the center punches. I was previously using flat punches which tend to travel a bit, making for sloppy vertical alignment. Though its really just cosmetic, I would still like them to look cleaner and consistent. With the center punches, I can use one of those clicking awls to mark my centers and the center punch has a nipple that rests in this centralized indent.
In regards to the C natural, half holing is the only way I know how to get the second octave/ high C. Is there a reliable or acceptable way to cross finger this?