As card carrying members of this cult (headed by the dreaded but Wisely Dr. Dale), we like to personalize our whistles and often describe them in intangible terms and give them human qualities (are they not an extension of the human voice?). Often, we have noted that we either like or dislike whistles because they do or respectively do not have “character.” I do this. I have sold or traded or given away or relegated to backup status whistles that do not have “character.”
This has loosened some thoughts in my foggy brain including some unfortunate analogies to baseball.
One definition of character is “distinctive quality (in both senses - trait and high caliber)”. In a whistle, to me this means more than anything else, how it sounds, its tonal qualities, voice, feeling of oness with me.
There is constant chatter on the Board regarding the best or most special whistle one’s ever played, the consistency or inconsistency of certain brands, tweaking whistles to change them hopefully for the better. Bear with me, here come the baseball analogies.
1- The best whistle I ever played. There are things to be said for consistency and things to be said for uniqueness. Bill James wrote a wonderful baseball book (The Bill James Historical Abstract and its revision) in which he, among other things, presents his lists of the ten best players at each position; however, he presents TWO lists at each position - one for best performance over an entire career (consistency) and one for best performance during the players’ most outstanding years (uniqueness perhaps). For example, Mickey Mantle is rated behind Willie Mays for career, but ahead of him for his incredible performance at the crest of his career.
This brings to mind the Burke - Copeland type discussions. IMHO, although Copeland has been chided for inconsistency (agreed), he has also produced at his best the best of the best. Burke has been both lauded and attacked for his consistency (boring v. dependable) and is perhaps the best over the long haul. I’ve played and owned many Copelands and Burkes. Copeland has at times disappointed me; otoh, he has also produced for me and others whistles that resonate with an unparalleled artistry. Burke has never reached that height but has never disappointed. In addition, Burke keeps improving and varying and has made one whistle for me that is the one whistle I could never do without and may order a second for backup (I’ve never before considered that). I also don’t find Burke’s whistles to be “boring” although the black tips have more character than prior Burke models. There are other whistles from makers I like that I’ve sold because in certain keys I found them lacking in “character.” I guess then that my TWO all time great lists are headed by Copeland and Burke.
2- Statistics versus intangibles. I’ll spare you the full text of the ongoing debate I have with my nephew about this. He’s hooked on statistics and doesn’t think Derek Jeter will be in the Hall of Fame. I watch Jeter everyday and see all the things he does that aren’t captured statistically - I call it “field sense”" (think John Havlicek in basketball, court sense) - knowing and doing the hundreds of little things in the best possible way to help your team win. (BTW - even just statistically, Derek is a shoe-in)There are those who attempt to compare whistles by graphing pitch, etc. (at least as laudible and credible as this extended discourse), measuring bore, computing bore to tube length ratio, etc. The most (not only) meaningful test of a whistle’s performance is how it sounds, how easily it blends with the player and how well it lasts. The first two criteria are certainly, if not intangible, highly subjective.
3- Tweaking. Batters have natural stances that are most often better left alone. Attempts at standardization may result in loss of power and or versatility. Mechanics that are simply wrong (pulling away, letting the hands fly out too soon, eye not on the ball, etc.) need to be fixed - a whistle, and we’re generally talking cheapies here, that has a factory problem should be returned. If one is tweaking to achieve a better sound or playability, I’m unsure as to whether one is really losing one for the other (usually sound for playability). I for one really enjoy the unique and wonderful tone of original Clarkes and Shaws. While we’re at it, someone should tweak the highly playable totally characterless Sweetones - I hate them (an even more random thought than the above).
Ok, I had some extra time this morning for once.
Best,
Philo
I’m not even sure I was awake…scary