a question for the more knowledgeable of you. i have several Bb military fifes. i have several Bb whistles. i have a really nice Sweet Bb flute. i have noticed that the whistles and the Sweet have the same basic finger hole configuration. That is the lower three holes are of very differing sizes and their placement is such that the distance from B1 to B2 is much smaller than the distance from B2 to B3… but, on the military Bb fifes, the holes are all fairly close to the same size and the distance from hole to hole seems fairly close and consistent.
I’m probably not explaining this very well, but if you pick up a Bb whistle and a Bb military fife, you should be able to see the difference i’m trying to describe.
my question (or questions) why the difference in configuration and layout? I know there is a little bit of difference in hole size on a military fife, but nothing like the variation in hole size on a whistle. the fifes seem to be in tune. the whistles seem to be in tune. what am i missing here? why is the B2 hole so much larger on whistles and on the Sweet Bb fife than on the military? why is the hole spacing so different? what is the impact of these differences on tone, tuning, intonation, timbre, playability and such?
thank you for the quick response, Mr. Gumby. I am not sure I understand your reply, though. A Gen Bb whistle is cylindrical and a military flute is cylindrical, but the differences are still there? A Gen Bb is cylindrical, my Sweet Bb flute is conical, the hole configuration of the two is very similar and both are very different from a military flute.
Military fifes often have different goals as far as range than whistles and the sweet folk fifes. military fifes sacrifice the lowest octave in order to have a solid third + register. Slightly different bore size (narrower) and different needs for tone holes for the cross fingering. Different compromises made for different goals. Military fifes would rarely need a strong low “D” and whistles and more flute like sticks rarely need to go above third register “G”. Some of the more modern styles like the Sweet’s Enfield Model and the Healy fifes have been able to stay from the one piece wooden tube and can play all three registers with fewer compromises, but the traditional style still appeals to others.
Some of peeler fifes, the Model F and the small bore Cooperman’s are the only ones that come to mind that have the fairly even hole size and placements, and they are going for a particular look and sound.
hmmm… thinking on this. sounds reasonable as far as it goes. i have a Peeler fife that fits well with what you have posited… but, on the other hand, I have a T.D. O’Connor from the 1950’s that has a bore much closer in size to the Gen Bb. It plays well in all three octaves… i must think on this…
Thank you, I.D. 10 T. for the response… much appreciated…
Jim,
I don’t have a simple answer to give you.
Am I correct that your B-notes are for the lower hand:
B1=#4, the hole that has the biggest influence on the note G
G2=#5, the hole that has the biggest influence on the note F#?
One answer is tradition. The visual expectation is very strong when people consider buying an instrument. If their history books or museum pieces show holes of all the same size, then an instrument maker needs to be very careful in departing from this pattern.
These instruments are often called, “diatonic:” steps are in two sizes. From E to F# is a whole step, while from F# to G is a half step. If holes are the same size, then G should naturally be closer to F#. If you have a small instrument, in the key of D, for example, the G hole ends up very close. Too close. The alternative is to make it small and move it up the bore at the same time. This scheme preserves the half-step. On many antiques, and many drumcorps fifes, the F# is flat, and the hole is about the same size as its neighbors. In modern time, makers are more likely to give a big F# hole with a true pitch, which brings me to the next consideration.
On the diatonic-tapered bore instruments, “assisted venting” is a big issue. With G only 1/2 step above F#, it gets considerable venting power from its neighbor down the bore. It seems OK at first, but it can throw the octave way off (with the octave being stretched on F# and G, but not on the nearby notes). This stretching may be interpreted as flat in the first octave, or sharp in the second, depending on what the designer has chosen as his reference point. To compensate, the holes for F# and G can be undercut above; one maker I talked to had his reamer reground with a special perturbation. In some cases, the small hole is best, and enlargemnent improves neither tune nor tone (just ask Albert Cooper).
it is, indeed, a metal fife. no lip plate. not a lot of them around. (i have two… and always looking for another.) haven’t seen a lot of pics of them out there. very few references to them on the web. for quite some time they were highly regarded in fife and drum corps cicles. some corps still use the O’Connor fifes. i’ll see if I can either find some, or take one and figure out how to post it here…
Thank you for the response, Mr. Sweet! Yes, the “B” notes i referred to are the bottom, or three most distal from the embouchure, holes. i refer to the holes T-1 through T-3 and B-1 through B-3. I’m probably wrong in that, but it is how i refer to them.
I have four of your flutes/fifes so far (F, G, A and Bb.)
In that case I’d guess the traditional look was probably less of a concern, and the embouchure’s shallow chimney height of tubing makes the third octave easier to blow. Bet they’re a blast to play.
in case i neglected to mention… the sizing of the holes on the O’Connor is fairly close on all six finger holes… and the spacing between holes is very consistent, as well. its cylindrical bore is about the only resemblance to the Gen Bb (oh, and the walls are a tad thicker.)
A fife is a flute. The term generally can be applied to any small or high pitched transverse flute. But depending on the frame of reference the term fife can be rather specific as to what characteristics apply.
The reasons for the differences you are observing is simple. There are many ways to relieve a feline of its fur. Different solutions for different purposes.
Walt Sweet has given a good answer in why some things are as you observe. I.D.10-t has given a good answer as to the naming conventions, purpose and usage of different types of fifes. Mr. Gumby has given an astute observation based on his frame of reference as well. But you do not seem satisfied yet. Am I right?
You say you have a Peeler fife and you say you have an O’Connor fife too. Peeler makes several different models of fife. He makes fifes that are mostly historical reproductions of American Revolutionary and Civil War military fifes. Those are patterned after the Cloos and Crosby fifes. He also makes a Firth and Pond historical reproduction. Ron Peeler also makes a reproduction of the O’Connor style fife. And he makes fifes with “modern” hole spacing on the models he calls his standard. If you read through his website you will pick-up on the differences in the designs. If you don’t see an answer to what you are curious about there you might reach out to him via email. Google can be a friend as well. There are several fife related sites that will give you the lowdown on fife designs of various historical eras.
Most folks just pick 'em up and play 'em. If you’ve gotten to the point where you are wondering “why are these things different?”, then it’s time for some personal research. What you’ve observed as differences from instrument to instrument qualifies as initial research, I think. I’d offer that what you need to do next to satisfy your curiosity is to get yourself some pipe or tubing and make a few instruments yourself.
So look up Peter Kosel’s Flutomat. Check out Daniel Bingamon’s TWCalc. Or try DrPhill’s TWJCalc hole placement calculator. The software can tell you a lot about what will work theoretically. You have to make some sawdust and swarf to really understand things though. So get some tubing and a drill. There’s no magic to it. Anyone can make a flute, a fife, a piccolo or a whistle. Betcha’ can’t make just one! You’ll have to make a few to figure out what works best for whatever your goals may be. But you might walk away understanding some things and find the answer your own curiosity. And it’s a lot of fun too.
sitting here looking at a Peeler fife based on the Ferrary fife with modern fingerholes… it is a cylindrical bore… the finger hole diameters (starting closest to the distal end) are .25" .28" .28" .25" .28" and .25". only 3/100" difference in the diameters… each of the holes is spaced 1" center to center from each other. inside diameter of the fife is 7/16"
now… looking at a Gen Bb tube. larger diameter. cylindrical. finger holes all different in diameter. distance from hole to hole varies…
both play in tune and have acceptable intonation…
hmmmmm… noticing something about the fife… externally, it is somewhat torpedo shaped. duh. the wall thickness is different on every fingerhole! it is thinnest at B3 and gets progressively thicker until hole T1, where it is the thickest… then for the emb, the wall thickness (chimney height) is close to the same thickness as B3…
is it possible that the varying wall thickness is what allows for the almost identical fingerhole diameters? and the almost completely uniform hole spacing?.. not a lot of undercutting on the holes on the upper side, either…
and why is it referred to as wall thickness at the fingerholes, but chimney height at the emb?.. grrrr…
then… there is the o’connor… it is a metal tube… uniform wall thickness throughout. fingerholes are still very close in diameter and uniform in spacing… what am i not getting here?
Emb is round and 9 mm. from the center of the emb to the bell looks to be about 341 mm. outside diameter at bell is approx 17.5 mm and outside diameter at widest point is approx 20 mm. i’m at work now and have no calipers. so that is about as close as i can get for the measurements. sorry for the mix and match of inches and metric. (i got the finger hole diameter info from Ron’s website.)
This is the thing about the fife.
It is the cheapest thing you could get.
It was the most used instrument in America when we were established for that reason.
The military liked it because it worked and could be heard to communicate to troops that it was time to go to bed.
You should not be able to play music on a fife, you force it to make music.
what we have here is a “gentleman’s disagreement.” it may well have been the least expensive instrument. but, without seeing some sort of supporting info, i don’t know that i can accept that it was the most played instrument. particularly given your phrasing of “… in America when we were established…” that phrasing covers a fairly good chunk of time, and music history as well. there were an awful lot of other instruments around, and there was more than a few cultures on the north american continent during that time frame, too.
the history of the fife predates the 1776 dating of the united states by quite some time. it predates the first European settlements in the 1500’s in the u.s. by quite some time, too.
that you phrase it “you should not be able to play music on a fife,” implies the obvious point that music can be and is made on the fife… and to some of us, it is quite enjoyable.
the accordian is an entirely different story… no socially redeeming qualities whatsoever
