New Double-Whistle Idea

Whistle
1

I was wondering if people could chime in regarding the possibility of making something like this. I’ve had this idea in my head for a week or two, and seems like it would work. Perhaps there’s some reason it’s impossible, which could be why it’s never been tried.

My idea is a 6-hole whistle combined with a magnetized slide whistle. Specifically:

  • The body would be made up of an ordinary 6-hole whistle with a slide whistle attached to it on the left. The whistles could either have entirely separate windways, so you’d play with both windway ends in your mouth, or they’d share a single windway that would split into two whistles. Either of these options would work for the whistle I’m proposing.

  • You would play the 6-hole whistle normally (your left hand would just have to stretch over the slide whistle to reach the bottom three holes).

  • A single key, normally depressed by the left thumb, would cover the fipple of the slide whistle, stopping it from making any sound (and also stopping any air from flowing through it). Lifting your thumb off the key would uncover the fipple and allow the slide whistle to sound.

  • A slider would be located underneath the 6-hole whistle and operated by the right thumb. It would be attached to the slide whistle’s slide, allowing you to change notes on it by sliding your right thumb up and down.

  • Magnets attached to the slide whistle would lock the slide to certain notes. The magnets would force the slide whistle to lock into the notes of the D major scale. Additionally, perhaps some of the magnets could be moved slightly to change the notes that the slide whistle would lock into (e.g., you could change the position of a magnet and make it lock into C natural instead of C sharp).


    Maybe I’m totally off-base, but it seems like this might work. It would allow you to play fast/intricate stuff on the 6-hole whistle exactly as you normally would, while using the slide whistle for occasional harmonization. You wouldn’t be able to play very fast stuff on the slide whistle, but you wouldn’t need to; it would function more like a drone that could change notes (or like a regulator on the pipes). You could use it to hold notes that are part of the chord being played, while the 6-hole whistle is playing melody. You could also imitate double-stops on a violin, harmonizing certain notes to add to the character of a tune. If you were playing more slowly, you could play fully harmonized tunes like those written for English double flageolet.

Of course, there are plenty of double-flageolets and double-whistles out there. But it seems to me that all of them suffer from one or more flaws: they force you to relearn the fingering you’re used to using on normal whistles in order to play simple melodies; they require awkward mouth techniques to stop one whistle from playing while the other is playing; they typically do not provide for a simple way of switching back and forth between harmonized melody and a single melody line (you typically have to reposition one of your hands); their harmonization capability is relatively inflexible, because one or both of the whistles are typically lacking several notes; the more flexible ones have a lot of complicated keywork; and finally, they have trouble allowing one whistle to switch octaves while the other one holds a drone note.

It seems like attaching a slide whistle to your 6-hole whistle would solve most of these problems and offer additional advantages. You wouldn’t have to relearn how to play it; anyone who plays 6-hole whistle could play melodies on it with ease. The slide whistle has only one hole (the hole the sound is coming out of), which can be covered by a key to completely stop the sound without wasting any air. This would allow you to switch between harmonized melody to a single melody line without interrupting your playing or repositioning your mouth/fingers. No keywork would be required, other than the one simple key covering the slide whistle’s fipple. Since the slide whistle has a closed end and no tone holes, you can fit a very large range into one (I’m pretty sure a slide whistle only half the length of a standard high D whistle could manage a full octave from D to C#). This would potentially allow you to access quite a few notes just by moving the slider a relatively short distance with your right thumb. And finally, I’m pretty sure slide whistles don’t switch octaves very easily (due to their closed end), which could potentially allow you to hold a drone note on the slide whistle while the 6-hole whistle is breaking the octave.

[EDIT: I’m no math person, so I asked ChatGPT to do the math on this, and it concluded that a slide whistle would only need to move its slide 5.35 inches to get a 7-note range from D5 to C#6. If anyone wants to verify the math on this, feel free. 5.35 inches does seem like a long distance for your right thumb to travel while your right-hand fingers are playing. But I imagine you’d rarely ever need to use the full range of the slide whistle to harmonize effectively; D5 to A5 only needs 3.78 inches of travel, which seems doable. And perhaps a lever mechanism could be added to the design to increase the range you could practically access with your thumb.]


Some additional optional features:

  • Maybe there could be some kind of spring-loaded mechanism that allowed you to make the windway on the 6-hole whistle a tiny bit smaller by pressing your lips together. This (I think) could allow you to play into the second octave on the 6-hole whistle while not expending much more air, allowing the slide whistle to stay in the first octave.

  • If holding the whistle is a concern, you could always add a ring for the left hand that would allow you to support the instrument using the base of your left thumb, but still allowing you to left that thumb off the key to activate the slide whistle whenever you saw fit. This would also allow you to slide your right thumb more freely without dropping the instrument.

  • Since both your pinkies would be free, you could also potentially add extra keys to the 6-hole whistle to make it fully chromatic.

2

That might well work, but even if it doesn’t, the idea of a slide whistle using magnets to lock into precise notes is brilliant. Using twice as many magnets would also let the in-between positions repel the magnet in the sliding part to make it lock into correct notes all the more rapidly, while rotating the tubes relative to each other could change the key it’s tuned to by using different lines of magnets.

3

I would have to see a diagramme, I’m having a hard time visualising it.

What does exist in the bagpipe world, scattered across several Eastern European countries, is a double-chanter setup with “counterdrone”.

Bored in the same piece of wood is the normal chanter fingered in the normal way, having the same six fingerholes as an Irish whistle plus a thumbhole for the upper thumb.

The other bore only has one hole, operated by the lower-hand little finger. This bore only is capable of two notes, generally tuned to the root and the 5th of the chanter’s key.

While the simple Oom-Pah accompaniment sounds overly limited, in expert hands the counterdrone gives a really cool effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ku0nqEZJVS4

For whistles you could have two matching whistle heads side-by-side, one on its usual body, the other with a long brass tube.

You’d drill one hole, reachable by the little finger of the lower hand, giving the “bell note” of the normal whistle beside it.

But the “bell note” of the long tube would give a note a 4th below, the ordinary whistle’s 5th.

So if the whistle was an ordinary D whistle the hole on the long tube would give D and the bellnote would give the A below.

Or you could switch between various long tubes, one giving, say, D and C, or E and D, or G and D, or what have you.

4

I’m struggling to see how a slide whistle drone would compete against the design of that instrument used by the Hungarian group where it alternates between its two drone notes instantly. The sliding would either produce ugly sliding notes every time you switch between notes or you’d have to stop blowing or cut the path to the drone while changing it.

If it was to be used, it would be best to use just three or four notes and to flick the slide position from one to another fast while relying on the magnet or a mechanical device to stop it at the desired note - rotations of the sliding tube could switch between two pairs of notes where you just flick the slide from one to the other of the currently selected pair.

For a three-note drone you could use three rotation positions to allow flicks between any two of the three notes. For a four-note drone you’d need six rotation positions to allow flicks between any two of the four notes.

Maybe two sets of three notes with three rotation positions for each set would be best though, having one set for D major and another set of three for E minor. I’m sure it would be easier though and provide better performance just to use a keyed system on a normal tube with holes in it. Where the magnet-slide-whistle idea works is for a whistle that’s just the slide whistle - it could be a good toy.

5

Thanks for the input! Here are my thoughts:

First, if you’re playing stuff in more of a duet style (e.g., music written for double-flageolet or double recorder), you could harmonize while tonguing, and that would reduce/eliminate the “ugly slide” sound you’re referring to.

Second, if you’re playing drone notes as an accompaniment, there’s an even easier way to avoid this problem: use the mute key well. Remember, the mute key completely stops any sound from coming from the slide whistle. You’d have to get good at the skill of using lifting the key right when you want the note to sound, and muting while you’re changing notes. Difficult? Sure. But no more difficult than, say, getting used to pedaling properly while playing the piano.

Third, I do think your idea of having it for just a few notes would be interesting, but I think you’re underestimating how fast a slide could be used to slide past an undesired note to land on a desired note. If you oil the slide well, it could move extremely quickly. Think like a trombone. Trombones can move past several undesirable notes to a desirable one very quickly (even while slurring a passage), and they don’t even have magnets, nor do they have a mute key (both of which will help to eliminate the unwanted slide sound).

Fourth, I do not like the Hungarian design as much for a few reasons. First, if you want to harmonize at all, you have to harmonize incessantly. If you switch your hand position to allow for harmonization, the drone will be constantly going, and there’s no way to just play melody with an occasional harmonization here and there (unless you want to use aforementioned lip gymnastics, which would be quite annoying). Second, the system isn’t as flexible, because it doesn’t allow for harmonization in any key. Hungarian whistles are fully chromatic, which is very cool, but they don’t really allow you to harmonize in any key, because you’ll drop the instrument if you try to do certain harmony combinations. Contrast that to my design, which would allow you to move the magnets (or perhaps rotate the slide, as you suggest) and harmonize in any key you want without doing anything crazy with your fingers or risking dropping the whistle. Third, double sopilkas require you to relearn your fingering to play harmonized melodies on both whistles at once. This is because your right hand is expected to be one hole up from your left, with your right index finger covering the G hole on the right whistle (it normally covers the A hole). This would be hugely counterintuitive and basically mean that if you wanted to learn to play a tune you already know with harmonization, you’d have to totally relearn your fingerings from scratch. If I ever played a double sopilka, I’d probably cover the top hole on the right whistle to correct this problem. Unfortunately, that would limit the number of possible harmonies you could play, since you’d no longer be able to play up to an A in your right hand.

6

That said, I would love to try the Hungarian design. There’s a really nice looking double sopilka for sale on Ebay, and it’s in D. If it was fully chromatic, I’d probably buy it to try it out. Sadly, it’s missing the F natural and D sharp holes. I’m saving my money until someone sells a fully chromatic double sopilka.

7

The Hungarian chanter has what on the Bulgarian bagpipes is called the mormorka (I don’t know the Hungarian name for it) which is operated by the upper-hand index finger.

On Bulgarian gaidi opening this hole raises the pitch of any note below it by a semitone; in other words it transforms a diatonic instrument into a chromatic one.

I don’t know precisely what it does on the Hungarian pipes. Well I know it must raise notes below it a semitone like the Bulgarian mormorka does, but I don’t know how many of the notes it works on.

Older Bulgarian chanters were made so that the mormorka only worked on the upper half of the notes, but more recently Bulgarian chanters have had tweaks to their design so as to be chromatic all the way up.

8

Ah yes - I’d forgotten about that when I wrote that post. It should be practical then on a serious instrument.

Third, I do think your idea of having it for just a few notes would be interesting, but I think you’re underestimating how fast a slide could be used to slide past an undesired note to land on a desired note. If you oil the slide well, it could move extremely quickly. Think like a trombone. Trombones can move past several undesirable notes to a desirable one very quickly (even while slurring a passage), and they don’t even have magnets, nor do they have a mute key (both of which will help to eliminate the unwanted slide sound).

The difficulty I see with that though is that it needs a lot of thumb movement rather than just a flick to a guaranteed destination, but it might work fine - someone would need to make one to test that. It may also be that the friction would be too high for a flick, so my way might not help at all.

Other control systems worth considering would be a telescopic control rod connecting your elbows, or a foot pedal (sideways rotation). Those would both be compatible with a slide whistle.

9

That sounds really interesting. How does that work? I see in another thread you talk about the mormorka or flea hole having a tube connected to it, but where does the other end go to?

10

Some Eastern European bagpipe genius came up with this hundreds, perhaps a thousand, years ago.

The upper-hand index finger’s hole isn’t a normal note-hole like the others, but has a long extremely narrow bore.

Somehow (I don’t know if anybody understands the physic at work) opening that tiny deep hole raises some, or all, of the notes below it a semitone.

On the Hungarian chanter they create the required extra depth by having a raised block of wood in the region of that hole, sort of like how on wooden flutes and Uilleann chanters they’ll leave a block of wood sticking up to attach a key to.

On Bulgarian chanters they create the required extra depth by sticking a narrow tube (brass or even a hollow feather) in that hole.

Where does it go? Straight back into the bore. Since the mormorka is directly across from the thumb-hole you have extra space for it to go, if you look into the thumb-hole you can see the end of the mormorka coming fairly close to your thumb, when the thumb is closing the thumb-hole.

Anyhow on a Bulgarian chanter you’ll get this, for the upper part of the chanter’s scale:

x|xxx|xooo G natural
x|oxx|xooo G sharp
x|xxx|oooo A natural
x|oxx|oooo B flat
x|xxo|oooo B natural
x|oxo|ooo C natural
x|xoo|oooo C sharp
x|ooo|ooxo D natural
o|xxx|oooo E natural

In other words, mormorka shut > open gives

G > G#
A > Bb
B > C natural
C# > D natural

On the older Bulgarian chanters I owned and played this was the extent of the mormorka’s effectiveness.

I have been told about, and heard, neo-Bulgarian chanters tweaked so that the mormorka worked on the lowest three notes also.

(I haven’t notated lower-hand anchor finger(s) which would vary.)

This is for the bigger orchestra chanter Bulgarians call “D” but which has the tonic note and drone note of A. (Bulgarian chanters are reckoned just like Boehm flutes, by the “seven finger note”.)

The reason the Bulgarian pipes and Kaval (flute) needed this chromatic ability is because, unlike Western European folk dance music, Bulgarian folk dance music has always been partially chromatic.

Tunes will often stay in the same key (same Tonic note) but shift between scales like:

A B C# D E (Major)
A Bb C# D E (Hijaz)
A B Cnat D E (minor)

11

It was likely a lucky accident with a tiny hole through the middle of a knot in the wood. Or… see second last paragraph below.

Somehow (I don’t know if anybody understands the physic at work) opening that tiny deep hole raises some, or all, of the notes below it a semitone.

It likely just makes the main holes behave as if they’re a bit bigger by acting as a distant extension of them. Does it also work in the second octave?

On Bulgarian chanters they create the required extra depth by sticking a narrow tube (brass or even a hollow feather) in that hole.

Where does it go? Straight back into the bore. Since the > mormorka > is directly across from the thumb-hole you have extra space for it to go, if you look into the thumb-hole you can see the end of the > mormorka > coming fairly close to your thumb, when the thumb is closing the thumb-hole.

Well described - thanks. I’ve been able to replicate that on a quena just by sticking a narrow tube (1.5mm bore and 10mm length plus extension of 2.75mm bore by 3mm length) into the thumb hole which sharpened the next three notes by about a semitone. I tried a longer narrower tube first (0.5mm bore and 40mm length) and it made no difference to the normal notes. You could probably do the same thing for the lower tone holes by having another such tube operated by the other thumb.

The chromatic quenilla/whistle in C that I made recently uses two thumb holes under the main holes #2 and #5 to provide the notes Eb and G#. I put them as far down the tube as I thought would remain comfortable in order to make them a reasonable size. However, if I moved them up the tube and reduced their size instead, that would initially spoil the quality of the notes they produce as the holes would be too small. Keep moving them further up though and they would become too small to sound the note at all, leaving the next open hole to do that job instead, while the very small thumb hole would sharpen it, and the key to making that work would appear to be to make the thumb hole very narrow. So, a designer could potentially have evolved their instruments in that direction as a logical progression, but without giving up when the quality of the notes initially declined.

I’ve had a problem with my chromatic quenilla/whistle with moisture in the tube closing the small thumb holes such that trying to open them initially fails to produce the intended notes - you have to wait for the film to burst before they work properly. That could likely be fixed by building diversion ridges on the inside to send the water round them, but moving them up the tube and turning them into narrow tubes that stick through into the bore would be easier (while the water would flow round them with no route down into them), and with the right geometry they may be able to provide all twelve notes of the scale with just eight holes. For cleaning the bore you’d want to be able to remove and replace them easily.

12

Just chiming in to say this is what Carbony does with their low D whistles. And it’s also exactly the approach I think could be used to make a G sharp left-hand thumb hole for a high D whistle that was convenient to cover. This (combined with an F natural and D sharp hole, as previously discussed) would allow a fully chromatic D whistle without the need for a left-hand pinky hole. Like my Morneaux whistle, but more ergonomic.

13

Are you sure you’re talking about the same thing? I thought they used tunnel extenders (parallel to the bore) to make the two pair of three holes closer together for reduced stretch. I don’t see anything about them having extra holes for the thumbs with very-narrow tubes sticking into the bore perpendicular to it for creating in-between notes.

If this works though, it’s a neater solution anyway because you wouldn’t need to lift your thumb off the instrument but could simply roll or rock it slightly to open the tiny hole, so you’d retain a more stable hold of it.

That said though, having played a prototype chromatic whistle in C for a while now, I like a lot about it, but I can’t help thinking it would be more intuitive just to have each hole produce a note one semitone up from the previous one all the way up with the thumb holes being the highest for each hand, though with the top one jumping a whole tone up when opened. I don’t know what the actual fingering would need to be for Bb, so this is just a guess:-

C - o X X X X x X X X X
B - o O O O O o O O O O
Bb - o X X X O o O O O O
A - x O O O O o O O O O
G# - x X O O O o O O O O
G - x X X O O o O O O O
F# - x X X X O o O O O O
F - x X X X X o O O O O
E - x X X X X x O O O O
D# -x X X X X x X O O O
D - x X X X X x X X O O
C# - x X X X X x X X X O
C - x X X X X x X X X X

To aid stability, a loop could be added over the first finger to push upwards against when lifted so as to make it easier to retain a firm hold on the instrument when lifting the thumb of the same hand off its hole.

14

This is a good example of where I should read posts more carefully :laughing:. Yeah, I totally was misunderstanding pancelticpiper. What he described isn’t really like what Carbony does. It is similar in that it involves a tube extending from a hole, but that’s about the only similarity.

That said though, having played a prototype chromatic whistle in C for a while now, I like a lot about it, but I can’t help thinking it would be more intuitive just to have each hole produce a note one semitone up from the previous one all the way up with the thumb holes being the highest for each hand, though with the top one jumping a whole tone up when opened. I don’t know what the actual fingering would need to be for Bb, so this is just a guess:-

I honestly don’t understand the rationale for doing that. It seems like there are a number of disadvantages to that and not many advantages. The only real advantage would be that it would be a slightly more “logical” system from a theoretical standpoint, which might make it easier to learn to play chromatically for an absolute beginner. And you might get very marginally better volume out of certain notes. Other than that, I don’t see any benefit. And the disadvantages would be:

  • Everyone who already plays the whistle would have to relearn to play from scratch.

  • Everyone who already plays the flute (including the classical flute) would have to relearn to play from scratch.

  • Everyone who already plays ANY other woodwind that uses a 6-hole system (clarinet, oboe, saxophone, etc.) would find it less intuitive.

  • You would have more fingers moving more constantly, which would make it more difficult to play. Now, instead of moving 6 fingers constantly and 4 fingers only occasionally, you’re moving all 10 fingers constantly. Rather than having some easy keys and some difficult keys, every key would now be equally difficult. When playing in the keys of D and G, you’d have 66% more fingers moving, so you’d need 66% more coordination, dexterity, precision, etc. This is needless complication and just makes the thing harder to play overall.

  • You’d have to come up with all sorts of complicated ways to make sure you didn’t drop the instrument. The great thing about the design you already made is that you ALWAYS have at least three anchor points, no matter what note you’re playing, and you ALMOST ALWAYS have 4 anchor points (two pinkies and two thumbs). If all 10 fingers had to move constantly, you’d have to shift around which fingers were doing the anchoring way more often, making it harder to hold the instrument without dropping it. This is already a huge pain on the recorder, and it would be even worse with the design you’re proposing, because you’d have two thumb holes instead of one, and you’d constantly be lifting one or the other off the instrument.

At any rate, a system almost exactly like you’re proposing already exists (or rather, it used to exist). It’s called the chromophone. I remember about 10 years ago there was a website for them and you could buy them. They didn’t take off (perhaps for the reasons I described above). There are still pages and videos about it. Introducing "Chromophone": The World's First (affordable) Chromatic Whistle — Steemit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW9grMAEFfw

To aid stability, a loop could be added over the first finger to push upwards against when lifted so as to make it easier to retain a firm hold on the instrument when lifting the thumb of the same hand off its hole.

I suppose, but this would just be a band-aid to a problem that doesn’t need to exist in the first place.

15

The Bulgarian flute (Kaval) uses an entirely different way to be chromatic.

The Bulgarian bagpipes, like the various Mediaeval and Renaissance woodwinds, have a basic diatonic scale.

The Bulgarian pipe makers came up with the mormorka, Baroque woodwind makers narrowed the bore and holes and came up with complex forked fingerings, and Classical woodwind makers came up with keys, all to transform basically diatonic woodwinds into chromatic ones.

The Bulgarian Kaval isn’t like that. Its basic scale, as you open the fingerholes one at a time, is mostly chromatic, and probably always has been.

I’ve often thought (but never made a prototype) that a bit of the Kaval fingering could easily be applied to the Irish Low D whistle.

You know that finger-stretch of putting the lower-hand ring finger on Hole 6 way down there?

And how much more comfortable it is to use the lower-hand little finger to cover Hole 6 instead?

If you do that your lower-hand ring finger is sitting just where a hole for F natural could be drilled.

And voila, an Irish whistle with built-in F natural, with a lower hand that fingers exactly the same as the Kaval:

xxx|xxxx D

xxx|xxxo E

xxx|xxoo F natural

xxx|xooo (or) xxx|xoxo F sharp (second fingering having the lower-hand ring finger down as an anchor finger)

xxx|ooxo G

xxo|ooxo A

etc.

16

I’ve been using my pinkie on the bottom hole since like 1998. You don’t know how many times people have told me that I’ll never learn how to play good that way. :stuck_out_tongue:

17

Most good players of woodwind instruments can play multiple types with rival fingering and they manage to keep each in its own compartment with its own neural nets dedicated to it as a device driver.

  • Everyone who already plays the flute (including the classical flute) would have to relearn to play from scratch.

That’s really the same point.

  • Everyone who already plays ANY other woodwind that uses a 6-hole system (clarinet, oboe, saxophone, etc.) would find it less intuitive.

And the same point again. If you’re searching for the optimal fingering system for a chromatic instrument, what ever that turns out to be should become a standard and shouldn’t be prevented by older standards.

  • You would have more fingers moving more constantly, which would make it more difficult to play.

Pianists are able to cope with a lot of extra movement with multiple notes being played at the same time, so I think we have it easy by comparison.

Now, instead of moving 6 fingers constantly and 4 fingers only occasionally, you’re moving all 10 fingers constantly. Rather than having some easy keys and some difficult keys, every key would now be equally difficult.

Or each one would be equally easy. The big problem I have with my prototype chromatic instrument in C is that some notes are more difficult than others, and if you need to play in a key where those more difficult notes are the standard ones, it negates the whole point of using a chromatic instrument rather than switching to an easier instrument designed to play in that key. It’s real advantage is in being able to play precise occasional accidentals within its easier-to-play keys rather than for playing in other keys.

When playing in the keys of D and G, you’d have 66% more fingers moving, so you’d need 66% more coordination, dexterity, precision, etc. This is needless complication and just makes the thing harder to play overall.

Well, I’m going to test that to see if it’s really an issue. Running up and down through notes that involve lifting a thumb for one and then closing that hole again for the next is so counterintuitive that I still can’t do it reliably after many weeks of practice, but it also makes holding the instrument hard.

  • You’d have to come up with all sorts of complicated ways to make sure you didn’t drop the instrument.

Which is exactly the same problem I have with any system where you have to lift the lower thumb off the tube, and the fix for that would be a loop over the finger(s) above so that upward pressure against the loop can serve the same purpose as the thumb normally serves when it’s in contact with the tube, thereby freeing up the thumb to move without introducing instability. When you analyse the problem fully, you find that the problem with lifting the thumb is worst when one of the fingers of that hand still has to press down to close a hole - that increases the instability. If there are no fingers pressing down when the thumb’s off the tube, it’s easier, so what I’m proposing would reduce the problem rather than increase it. Either way, you’d still benefit from having a loop for a finger to push up against. It would also help prevent the instrument rolling off tables.

The great thing about the design you already made is that you ALWAYS have at least three anchor points, no matter what note you’re playing, and you ALMOST ALWAYS have 4 anchor points (two pinkies and two thumbs). If all 10 fingers had to move constantly, you’d have to shift around which fingers were doing the anchoring way more often, making it harder to hold the instrument without dropping it.

The pinkie of the lower hand can press down most of the time, only needing to be up for one note. The next finger can be up most of the time, pressing against a loop to free up the thumb to lift off when ever it needs to. That’s pretty simple. That anchoring system also allows the upper hand to do anything at all without making the hold on the instrument unstable.

This is already a huge pain on the recorder, and it would be even worse with the design you’re proposing, because you’d have two thumb holes instead of one, and you’d constantly be lifting one or the other off the instrument.

But your preferred design has two thumb holes too, and a bigger instability issue when the lower one is lifted.

At any rate, a system almost exactly like you’re proposing already exists (or rather, it used to exist). It’s called the chromophone. I remember about 10 years ago there was a website for them and you could buy them. They didn’t take off (perhaps for the reasons I described above). There are still pages and videos about it. > Introducing "Chromophone": The World's First (affordable) Chromatic Whistle — Steemit > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW9grMAEFfw

That’s a nine hole instrument which avoids the lower thumb hole, most likely for stability reasons, and the result is that it makes the fingerings for the upper hand further away from standard too. With my system, jumping up a fifth from the bell note takes you to the same fingering as on a standard whistle. Jumping up a fourth from the bell note takes you to the same fingering as on a standard whistle but with a hole under the pinkie instead of solid tube. That’s much more compatibility retained, and it puts all the fingers and thumbs in comfortable positions while lessening stretch issues on lower-pitch instruments. This is less in need of a loop than your preferred design (which has a serious instability problem), but it would likely still benefit from one, and that could be the key to making this the optimal solution. It’s also simpler than having to manufacture narrow tubes to use clever tricks to produce accidentals which don’t provide the same capacity to ripple up and down scales at speed without repeated lifting and unlifting of thumbs. So, I’m going to have to make one to find out how it works for real.

To aid stability, a loop could be added over the first finger to push upwards against when lifted so as to make it easier to retain a firm hold on the instrument when lifting the thumb of the same hand off its hole.

I suppose, but this would just be a band-aid to a problem that doesn’t need to exist in the first place.

Except it already exists as a problem and is far worse on the design you favour.

18

That’s a decent solution for the lower hand by avoiding the need of a thumb hole while the lowest hole is easily half holed when that note’s needed. It’s certainly one of the most optimal solutions.

19

Regarding the first few points I made, you acknowledge that your new proposed design would be hard for woodwind players to transition to, which is my point. I think the element you’re missing is that this system will be MORE counterintuitive than, say, switching from flute to sax or sax to oboe or oboe to whistle, because nearly ALL woodwinds follow slight variations on the “mainly use 6 fingers sequentially/use the other fingers occasionally” rule, and you’d be making an instrument that broke that rule. Of course, breaking that rule is perfectly fine if it confers advantages. I just don’t think it would, in this case. Any advantages would be marginal at best and heavily outweighed by disadvantages.

The only thing I’ll add on this point is that if you focus on this design rather than your original one, you’re going to lose out on the potential market for people who already play whistle - particularly Irish-style whistle, which takes hundreds or even thousands of hours of practice to play at the speed required for professional playing. As intriguing as your new design seems, I definitely would not have the patience to try it myself, because I have no interest in relearning a finger system from scratch. I have a feeling most whistle players would feel the same way - even those who, like me, are interested in greater chromaticism. So while you could certainly market this thing to people who don’t currently play whistle at all, and to a small minority of whistle players much more ambitious than I am, you’d lose out on (I think) a huge market if you change the design to the new one. If you ask me, this is the issue that makes experiments like the chromophone a flop each time they come out.

I wouldn’t use the term “equally easy,” because it doesn’t seem like any key would be “easy” at all. As far as I can make out, no key on your new proposed design would be easier to play than on your old design, and about half the keys would be more difficult. Look at your new design, and look at your old design. Think about playing the hardest key on your old design (probably C sharp major). How would that be any easier on your new design? It wouldn’t. It would require just as many gymnastics with all 10 fingers. There’d be just as much finger movement as on your old design But now, lots of OTHER keys will also require 10-finger gymnastics and increased finger movement. I just don’t see how it makes any sense.

I mean, sure, C sharp major might be slightly more “intuitive” to an absolute beginner on your new design than on your old design. But the amount of finger movement would be the same for both, and any initial advantage you got from greater intuitiveness would vanish extremely quickly.

I also think you’re mistaken when you say it “negates the point” of a chromatic instrument to have some keys easier than others. Actually, nearly every chromatic instrument has some keys easier than others. Piano is a bit of an outlier due to its extreme chromatic capabilities, but even on piano, there are some keys that pianists much prefer to play in. Flute and clarinet and oboe certainly have some keys easier than others (even classical flute players love G and D). The only instruments I can think of where every key is exactly the same difficulty are the chromatic accordion and the janko keyboard - not exactly the most widely-played instruments.

Of course, if your goal is maximal chromaticism, it can make sense to make SOME keys harder to play in order to make ALL keys slightly easier to play. That rationale makes perfect sense. But what does not make sense is making MOST keys more difficult and NO keys easier, just to equalize the difficulty for all keys. It’s better to have some easy keys and some hard keys than to have all the keys be hard.

But your preferred design has two thumb holes too, and a bigger instability issue when the lower one is lifted.

I’m not seeing how it has a bigger instability issue. Unless you’re comparing my proposed design (which I take to mean the design you’ve already made) with your new design with the thumb ring included. In which case I would say, fine, go ahead and add a thumb ring to the design you’ve already made, and now there’s certainly no bigger instability issue than there would be with your new design.

I’ll also add that on my Morneaux chromatic whistle in D, I can play tunes in weird keys like B major or E flat major, and although I obviously find them fairly difficult, I’ve never once felt that I lacked stability or was unable to hold the instrument. There are always at least 3 anchors holding the whistle at any time (4 if you count the mouth), so there really isn’t any instability. I’m having difficulty understanding why you’re having trouble holding the whistle. Perhaps it’s the material you’re using, which is more slippery? At any rate, adding a thumb ring is just as easy on either design, and yeah, it probably would solve any stability problems you have.

Well, I’m going to test that to see if it’s really an issue. Running up and down through notes that involve lifting a thumb for one and then closing that hole again for the next is so counterintuitive that I still can’t do it reliably after many weeks of practice, but it also makes holding the instrument hard.

Fair enough, but I never had much difficulty with this myself on my Morneaux. If you think about it, it’s not really any different from pressing a key to access a note, only to immediately release it; except it’s easier, because all you’re doing is uncovering a hole, not pivoting your finger to press a key. I can’t think of any reason why this approach is any more difficult or less ergonomic than having a key system to access accidentals like on a Boehm flute. Nor can I think of any reason why it would be easier than the new system you’re proposing. But I suppose it’s worth testing!

I guess your focus is less on how ergonomic it is and more on how the new approach you’re talking about is “intuitive.” But I’d argue that “intuitiveness” should be a relatively low priority for finger systems. That stuff just stops mattering after you’ve played for a few months. We’re naturally used to rolling our fingers up and down sequentially, so I get the desire to have a system like that. But once you get used to moving your fingers in some other order, it isn’t really any more difficult. The trumpet’s chromatic system is extremely non-intuitive, but people have no problem with it after practicing. Plus, it sounds like you’re focusing way too much on the ease of playing a chromatic scale, which should be a relatively low priority for a chromatic instrument. How often do you have chromatic runs, even in Classical music? It’s far more important to be able to easily play in any key, and to change keys at will, while playing occasional accidentals. (Chromatic runs should of course be possible, and indeed any advanced player should be able to do them; but I find them quite easy to do on my Morneaux after some months of practice.)

All this to say: intuitiveness is nice, but it shouldn’t be prioritized above overall ease of playing.

20

No I don’t. I think it’s easy to adapt to different systems, while the significant difficulties are those of the systems themselves. To judge new ones properly, you have to make them and test them.

Any advantages would be marginal at best and heavily outweighed by disadvantages.

Well, that’s something that needs to be tested. It seems very simple to me the idea that you lift one finger to go up a semitone and two to go up a tone, and playing in C# major or minor on a chromatic whistle using this system should be easy, whereas the prototype chromatic whistle I’ve been working with for the last few months makes that hellish. It’s that work that makes me want to try something better because I naturally find myself wanting to lift one finger to go up a semitone and two to go up a tone and find that I can’t on that instrument because it does things in a weird order.

The only thing I’ll add on this point is that if you focus on this design rather than your original one, you’re going to lose out on the potential market for people who already play whistle - particularly Irish-style whistle, which takes hundreds or even thousands of hours of practice to play at the speed required for professional playing.

I don’t see the difficulty in making those as well for people who want them, but I don’t think it’s the best solution. Incidentally, I just saw a chromatic quena today in a new video from Domingo Uribe which uses the same fingering as the Kaval for the lower hand, and that seems to be quite a well established standard over there. It departs from the normal fingering too, but people adapt to it with ease. The recorder too doesn’t fit the normal standard six hole approach. I think trying to maintain the standard six hole fingerings is shackling functionality.

As intriguing as your new design seems, I definitely would not have the patience to try it myself, because I have no interest in relearning a finger system from scratch. I have a feeling most whistle players would feel the same way - even those who, like me, are interested in greater chromaticism.

I think it’s more about what can be done with it. If the fingering is different but it makes it easier to play in multiple keys, it’s worth learning the new fingerings rather than limiting yourself to slower playing. Here’s the thing: I’ve been trying to play the Turkish Dances piece (that people associate most with James Galway), and there’s one high-speed part of it that I just can’t do fast enough with forked fingerings, while half-holing is fast enough but insufficiently accurate when there are too many notes of that kind in a row. I hoped the prototype chromatic whistle I’m playing now might fix that, and it is certainly better than the previous two approaches, but it’s still not good enough, whereas when I try the fingering for the newer idea on that whistle (which then produces the wrong notes, of course, but this is just about testing the fingering difficulty), it’s much easier and therefore faster. This is a piece that I want to play at a specific high speed, and at the moment I don’t have any instrument that I can do that on, but I think I could with the new design.

So while you could certainly market this thing to people who don’t currently play whistle at all, and to a small minority of whistle players much more ambitious than I am, you’d lose out on (I think) a huge market if you change the design to the new one.

Well, I’ve already seen the high resistance from whistle players to the design you want to use, so I wouldn’t attempt to market it at all beyond making it an option for people to buy if they want one.

If you ask me, this is the issue that makes experiments like the chromophone a flop each time they come out.

When I look at that one I don’t feel any desire to own one because the upper notes are a mess which could have been avoided by using fingering like the kaval for the lower hand (which is a much better way of avoiding using the lower thumb for a note in the interest of stability and which I might end up using for that reason).

I wouldn’t use the term “equally easy,” because it doesn’t seem like any key would be “easy” at all. As far as I can make out, > no > key on your new proposed design would be easier to play than on your old design, and about half the keys would be more difficult. Look at your new design, and look at your old design. Think about playing the hardest key on your old design (probably C sharp major). How would that be any easier on your new design? It wouldn’t. It would require just as many gymnastics with all 10 fingers. There’d be just as much finger movement as on your old design But now, lots of OTHER keys will also require 10-finger gymnastics and increased finger movement. I just don’t see how it makes any sense.

I’ve been playing quenas of my own design where pinkies are used instead of fourth fingers, but I also play other quenas, quenillas and whistles which use the fourth fingers. I initially treated both fingers as a single unit in order to make the transition, and it doesn’t feel like any kind of gymnastics to do such a trivially easy thing. On the prototype chromatic whistle it’s just the same except both fingers are covering or uncovering holes at the same time, but that’s no different from playing arpeggios, so it doesn’t present any kind of challenge. I’m limited in how much I can push my fingers without running into repetitive strain injury issues (which led me to have to give up playing the guitar), but this “extra work” isn’t pushing me into any difficulty.

I mean, sure, C sharp major might be slightly more “intuitive” to an absolute beginner on your new design than on your old design. But the amount of finger movement would be the same for both, and any initial advantage you got from greater intuitiveness would vanish extremely quickly.

Again you’re assuming that it’s difficult, but it isn’t. I’m actually considering a newer idea now though which uses half holing for C# (assuming for this illustration that the bell note is C) and then runs up the rest of the notes from there one hole per semitone, so the lower hand then has the same fingering as a kaval, but with the thumb being lifted for F#. I’ll make an instrument of each kind and test them extensively.

Piano is a bit of an outlier due to its extreme chromatic capabilities, but even on piano, there are some keys that pianists much prefer to play in.

If the piano had a black key between every pair of white keys, there would only be two scales to learn and you’d then know the lot. Reach would be easier too. By having an extension of each black key stick out nearer the player and lower than the white keys, you’d also have more choice about which fingers to use for which notes so as to make things easier than they are now. That’s another instrument that’s trapped by convention, but it’s much more expensive to innovate and make prototypes.

But what does not make sense is making MOST keys more difficult and NO keys easier, just to equalize the difficulty for all keys. It’s better to have some easy keys and some hard keys than to have all the keys be hard.

The whole point is to make them easier, and this does just that, while the way I judge difficulty is by playing real tunes on them. The most difficult part of Turkish Dances is this (upper hand only and with the thumb hole under standard hole #2 represented by a smaller letter) - this is a sequence of notes:-

X xO O O , O xO O O , X xO O O , X oX O O , X xX X O , X oX O O , X xO O O , X xX X O ,
X oX O O , X xO O O , O oO O O , X oX O O , X xX X X , X xX X O , X oX O O , X xX X X ,
X xX X O

That’s on my current chromatic prototype and it’s easier to play it on that than any other instrument that I have, but there’s still room for improvement. It’s the small "o"s where the thumb has to lift that cause the trouble, and not through stability issues, but just be being counterintuitive in that you have to lift when going up the scale and then close the hole again when going further up. It would be easier to do one or other of the following to produce all the same notes:-

x O O O O , o O O O O , x O O O O , x X O O O , x X X X O , x X O O O , x O O O O , x X X X O ,
x X O O O , x O O O O , o O O O O , x X O O O , x X X X X , x X X X O , x X O O O , x X X X X ,
x X X X O

That one’s for the design where Bb needs to be half holed or forked, while the next one is for the design where the C# is half holed.

x X O O O o , o O O O O o , x X O O O o , x X X O O o , x X X X X o , x X X O O o , x X O O O o , x X X X X o ,
x X X O O o , x X O O O o , o O O O O o , x X X O O o , x X X X X x , x X X X X o , x X X O O o , x X X X X x ,
x X X X X o

But your preferred design has two thumb holes too, and a bigger instability issue when the lower one is lifted.

I’m not seeing how it has a bigger instability issue.

The issue is with Eb (on a C whistle) where the thumb is lifted off and two fingers are pressing down - that’s the hardest note to play because of the instability issue. A loop for the fourth finger to press up against would help to resolve it. With my alternative designs there’s a lesser issue of this kind because while the thumb still has to lift off for a note (and can be optionally kept off for several more), when it’s off, no fingers from that hand are pressing down, but a loop would still improve things. There is another option though of not having a thumb hole for the lower hand and having kaval fingering for the lower hand (so C# has to be half holed) combined with the fingering from the first of the two designs above where where Bb needs to be half holed or forked, so that would work fine without needing a loop, but with two notes being harder to form instead of just one.

In which case I would say, fine, go ahead and add a thumb ring to the design you’ve already made, and now there’s certainly no bigger instability issue than there would be with your new design.

It isn’t a thumb ring - it would be for the fourth finger to push up against.

I’m having difficulty understanding why you’re having trouble holding the whistle. Perhaps it’s the material you’re using, which is more slippery?

No; it’s entirely to do with forces changing when you lift the thumb off. The instrument moves more for this particular move than for any other finger. It’s even worse in quenilla mode (without the whistle adaptor) where that wobble affects the blowing.

I guess your focus is less on how ergonomic it is and more on how the new approach you’re talking about is “intuitive.”

It’s both. I’m looking for the system that will enable me to play the difficult stuff fastest, and whichever design ends up providing that, that’s the one I’ll go with for my own use.

Plus, it sounds like you’re focusing way too much on the ease of playing a chromatic scale, which should be a relatively low priority for a chromatic instrument.

That isn’t a priority for me at all. The problem I’m having is in running up and down through the awkward notes while playing normal tunes.