Proposed New Forum: Whistle Reviews

One topic per whistle would be so easy to read – much easier than searching and reading through posts that way.

I agree with everything that’s been said about a numbering system. I like the idea, but it doesn’t allow for change. Doc J just did a great job explaining whistle sounds without using numbers. A possibility might be to have a few set categories – sound, amt of air, etc. – without limiting to just those.

I don’t think ratings and MP3s have to be either/or. An MP3 in addition to a rating would be nice, if someone is up for making one.

My .02
Tery

I think this is a great idea, but it seems almost like reinventing the wheel. The Sessioneer web site http://www.sessioneer.com/default.asp already has pretty much this same thing in place and functioning. It is a very good web site with a nice archive of tunes. The more people that use it, the more useful it will be.

Since rich, who has to do the set-up, seems amenable, let’s do it. I’ll create the threads when it is up and people can have at it. After I get the threads up, people can add the ones I forget. I’ll keep an eye to make sure the threads are set up sensibly, that is,

“Sweetone”
“Generation”
“Overtons”
“Generation”

etc.

Dale

Is it going to have one thread per maker, one thread per model, or one thread per whistle.

For example
Maker:

• Burke

Model/line:

• Burke composites
• Burke Brass
• Burke AlPro

Whistle:

• Burke Alpro Low-d
• Burke composite narrow-bore regular D.
• Burke Session Brass.

Per maker is going to mix Thin weasels and Water weasels. Its going to mix Kerry, Kerry Pro, Chieftain, and Chieftain Gold.

Just wondering… My preference is to have a format for the topic like - Maker, brand, model,key.

For example

• Schultz, Thin Weasel, Black Wood, Regular-C.
• Hardy, Chieftain, Gold, Mezzo-A.

Topic naming conventions could really aid in searches.

Just a suggestion …

Enjoy Your Music,

Lee Marsh

[ This Message was edited by: LeeMarsh on 2002-08-13 17:32 ]

On 2002-08-13 15:35, vaporlock wrote:

I think this is a great idea, but it seems almost like reinventing the wheel. The Sessioneer web site > http://www.sessioneer.com/default.asp > already has pretty much this same thing in place and functioning. It is a very good web site with a nice archive of tunes. The more people that use it, the more useful it will be.

VL,

I’ve checked your link to sessioneer and have not been able to find reviews for whistles. Where are they? Is there a specific link? Please point me to the Susato & Dixon information at sessioneer.

I’m in the market for a Dixon soprano brass tuneable D or Susato Kildare VSB D. That info can be found at C&F, but only after a lot of searching of the message board.

If I could read reviews by owners of these whistles, it will carry more weight than dealer hype or spin. When I’m ready to make a purchase I need the kind of information that a review would provide.

Wishing Mac Hoover was making whistles so I wouldn’t be fretting over Susatos & Dixons,

Gary

Gary,
In the left hand menu bar, you should see a button “Reviews”. Once you click it, the menu will expand and you will have an option for “Recordings”, “Instruments”, and “Retailers”. Click on the “Instruments” option and again the menu will expand. You can browse the reviews by several different methods.

There’s not a whole lot of reviews there right now, but that can be easily remedied!

I don’t like the Sessioneer format very much. Instead of having everything for a whistle under one thread, there’s a new thread for each entry. Even sorted, it’s bothersome to read that way. Also, the rating system just rates the whistle as a whole, not individual characteristics, which is what I thought folks were talking about here. Last, I have no idea who the people posting the reviews are. One nice thing about having it on C&F is that you can go search the archives to see what else the reviewer has said. That could tell you how much experience he or she has, etc.

However, I do think it would be good to have a link to that page from any ratings area we have.

Tery

Hi,

I’ve been following this thread with interest - I think this would be a very valuable resource if implemented properly.

Rather than rush into either trying to make this work within the existing forum software (phpBB), or using Sessioneer (which I too don’t really like), why don’t we take time out to determine what we really want? There are people here with adequate php/MySQL skills (myself included) to implement this from scratch. (And based on the memo that went round work yesterday, I may well find myself with some unwelcome time on my hands )

[edited typo]

[ This Message was edited by: keiths on 2002-08-14 03:53 ]

Okay, since the Sessioneer site seems to have received little favor, I’d like to add a comment. Using the message board’s existing software would be a pretty unsatisfactory solution as well. Custom programming seems to be the best solution.

I agree with Keith. Creating a functional database of whistle reviews searchable in a variety of ways would be far more satisfactory than using phpBB. I think that the resources for the custom code are available within the C&F membership and ready to be tapped.

If Keith is silly enough to step up to the plate, I guess I can be stupid enough to lend my support as a web developer to him (ASP, SQL, DHTML, PERL).

Edited because I really sat down and thought about it…and changed my mind. The message board would be better.


[ This Message was edited by: vaporlock on 2002-08-14 12:00 ]

Great! I would have done it, but I’m not computer savvy enough to do it. I like the comments about categories. I hope the categories dont get too complicated…I think it should be possible to come up with a good cat structure that isnt too unwieldy. Low whistles vs. high whistles is another obvious category that would be meaningful.

I personally would not find numerical ratings that satisfactory.

Lets give an example: Rate Chiff on a Clarke Sweetone.

Someone might rate it a 10 (it doesn’t have a lot of chiff, which I like just fine)
someone else might rate it a 2 (doesn’t have a lot of chiff, which I hate).
someone else might rate it 5 (It’s not real chiffy, but I don’t care really that much).
Someone else might rate it a 3 (It’s got about a '3’s worth of chiff on a scale of 1 to 10, and my emotions have nothing to do with what I’m trying to make as an objective measure of chiffiness)

To me, the discussion of a whistles characteristics would be more important than seeing a buncha numbers thrown up, when I have no way of knowing why someone set those numbers the way they did. I’d be very interested in Dale’s idea of a forum with one topic devoted to each instrument. That way, if I want to see what people thought of a Burke, I could open the thread, and hear from everyone who wishes to comment about theirs. They could say “it has a conical-bore sound, which I hate”, but since I like that characteristic, I would be better informed than if I saw “Tone: 1 star”

[ This Message was edited by: Wandering_Whistler on 2002-08-15 13:34 ]

It could be set up like a car review. Choose a category - MAKE:____ Then choose a sub catagory - MODEL:______ Read or enter - YOUR REVIEW:_______

Simple is good, especially for us guitarists!

On 2002-08-15 13:32, Wandering_Whistler wrote:
I personally would not find numerical ratings that satisfactory.

Lets give an example: Rate Chiff on a Clarke Sweetone.

I think it can be worthwhile if there are some guidelines. Such as 1=no chiff 10=lotsa chiff. Of course, we’d have to define chiff. Does it include breathiness such as in a Shaw or Clarke? I tend to think of breathy as separate from chiffy, but I know many don’t draw any distinction. How’bout the growl of an Overton? I tend to think of that as classic chiff, but others may think of it as a characteristic of its own. There are also great differences among any handmade line of whistles.

I think a rating system might serve pretty well as a guide, but individual reviews will have most of the valuable information. Moreover, hopefully some of the people with large collections will post many reviews (I plan on it, but it may take awhile), and readers can get a sense of whose tastes tend to be similar to their own.

Charlie

Imported from another thread:

On 2002-08-22 17:53, Loren wrote:

On 2002-08-22 15:55, LeeMarsh wrote:

I think everyone here tries to be accurate with our discussion of the various whistles. Often responses and follow-up posts clarify conditions regarding a whistle, pushing the original poster to be concise and more descriptive about the characteristics he or she finds in a particular whistle.
\

And this is exactly why I think the idea of a seperate Whistle Review Forum is a bad idea. (Sorry Lee, I know we’re OT here again…Feel free to move this somewhere more appropriate, I can’t do move the text here on the board, it’s a browser thing I’m afraid) Star or number ratings will make things even less accurate, as different experience levels come into play - someone who’s only played 5 whistles is likely to have a very different idea of how well a whistle is made or responds, when compared with someone who’s played 50 or 100 different whistles.

Only by having the sort of discussions that come about as the result of a review, can we really get the accurate picture. Now, if this can be done in the new forum (and why not) then I believe it will make for a much more valuable option than simply having a one stop whistle review depository where anyone can just do a Hit and Run or Drive By review >

Again, please forgive the OT nature of this post, I’d have moved it if I could have.

Loren

I think Loren makes good points here, but I dont know what the best practical solution is. I personally think that numbered ratings are a bit misleading, and I value the descriptions of whistles much more. The only reason I suggested the separate forum was because lots of good whistle reviews just get lost. Since we are all so Reasonable now, I would prefer having Good and Bad reviews Easy to Find, rather than Only Good Reviews that Cannot Be Found, but that’s just me. As for me, I harbor no illusions that any review I post will be viewed by the Chiff Collective with the same weight as a review by Dale or Brendan or Peeplj or Loren or any of the other experienced whistlers.

Kevin,

Thanks for the boost - moving my post over here - my browser is sooo lame

I, like you Kevin, am all for efficiency here on the message board, but not at the expense of quality. Fortunately C&F isn’t a business, so we don’t have to do any cost benefit analysis to determine whether an increase in efficiency is worth a decrease in quality

Seriously, while a new forum would make reviews easier to find and catalog, I have serious doubts that instruments would receive as even handed and well balanced reviews at the end of the day - for the reasons I’ve stated above. Add to that the fact that as a separate entity, the review forum will get less traffic, and therefor, I believe, less input, especially from more experienced players. Here’s what I mean:

Right now, with the reviews showing up as they do right in the thick of things on the main board, one can hardly avoid them. Now many folks who have been playing awhile, myself included, are out of the whistle buying phase, and into focusing on other things. However, if I see a post about whistle X, Y, or Z that I’m familiar with, I’m likely to take a quick look at the thread, and perhaps answer a question - “How does this whistle compare to a (fill in the blank), does anyone have both?” - or maybe I’ll add something that hasn’t been covered - “Be aware that the Finkelstein Super Telescoping 26 in 1 James Bond approved Spy Whistle, will self destruct and blow off your pinky if you push the red button” - you know, something useful like that…

Anyway, point is, I’d only be popping in because I tripped over the thread on my way to see what sort of trouble I could get into elsewhere on the main board.

Now, if there were a separate forum for reviews…well quite honestly, I wouldn’t have much interest in heading over there too often, and I suspect that others who have already passed through their major “WhOA” phase would do the same.

Okay, to be clear: I don’t think anyone here needs to hear what I have to say about whistles, the message board can get on without me just fine, however I do think it would be a huge mistake to create a separate forum for reviews, because I believe you will leave behind the greater experience and input of a good many folks who are vital to helping get an accurate view of how these whistles play, and how well they are made.

Honestly, I’m as tired as anyone of seeing the same old “Which Low D should I buy” posts, and I well remember the frustration of of not being able to find exactly the information I wanted regarding specific whistles when I was shopping, but I don’t think a new forum is the best way to solve the problem…

Perhaps simply coming up with a better way to title review threads so that they can easily be found using the search function would be a better alternative? Maybe make it mandatory to start with something like “Whistle Review: Abell Soprano D” and then people could search the archives like this - ““Whistle Review: A”” which would bring up all Abell whistle reviews so titled. Each whistle review would start with the same “Whistle Review:” (The colon being important) then followed by the brand name and key. People could still personalize after the formatted part. Newbie posts would be re-titled by a moderator the first time and, they’d be kindly asked to get with the program - clearly I won’t get nominated for this job

If there’s some reason this wouldn’t work, I’m sure it’ll only take about 3 seconds for someone to point it out, and I certainly won’t be put out about it.

Anyway, that’s my input on this subject, fwiw.

Loren

Edited because…well I simply don’t proof read before hitting the submit button.

[ This Message was edited by: Loren on 2002-08-23 10:21 ]

Instrument Reviews on one, Only music, not instruments on the other, and the chat room for people to talk. Then this one will be mostly… well it will separate the wheat from the chaff I guess.

I’d just like to second much that Loren has brought up. After consideration, I would like to see reviews stay a part of the main board and not a separate forum. I believe that the process of discussing whistles is a primary foundation of this forum.

I think that the periodic repetition of reviews of whistles is a good thing, because it keeps the reviews current. It is more likely that the reviews will reflect the current conditions. Makers current wait period, current production quality, any advances he’s made in refining his line of whistles, will be more evident if the reviews are part of the main board and not a side issue.

I do agree that finding a better way to make seaching for last months review easier would be great. Perhaps someone, like the matrix can put togeather of cross reference of posts listing were reviews and comments about the various whistles can be found.

Another idea might be simply to authorize the administrators, or other folks to add a (WR) and (OR) to the end of any topic where a whistle review (WR) or other review (OR) has been posted. So someone could seach for:

• Abel WR - for whistle reviews of Abel whistles.
• Chieftain+Overton WR - for topics that have reviews comparing these two brands.
• tutor OR - for reviews of tutorial books, cds, videos, and sites.

This is kind of like how we use the OT convention for Off Topic posts. Establishing a convention to ease searching and clarify topics would help everone build a better community. It may avoid fracturing the data or content into another database or forum.

I also think that a template to help folks write more complete reviews would be helpfull. Perhaps simply a list of questions that a “full” review would seek to answer would be enough. Let the clarification of how much is alot of chiff, or air, or whatever can occur through the discussion. A list of questions asking about chiff, air requirements, price, delivery, experience of the reviewer, etc would enable us to more fully examine the dimensions that make up a well developed review.

While some may tire of newbies asking the same questions; newbies also rejuvenate us with their passion and excitement for discovering whistles and the music. It’s a small price to pay to help them along their way with re-posts of information or tips on how to search the message database for related topics.

Again my dominant arguement is that whistles are what C&F is about, its the life blood of the board, if we draw it out into other forums or databases we take the chance of leaving this forum anemic.

The stuff about whistles, the instrument, how to play them, who makes them, how the crystal people use them, how we make fools of ourselve with and over them; all of it belongs here in the main forum for newbies to discover and old timers to re-discover.

Such is my point of view,
because for me,
in the end,
it’s about
how you …

Enjoy Your Music,

Lee Marsh

[ This Message was edited by: LeeMarsh on 2002-08-23 11:41 ]

To Clarify my thoughts on why a numerical rating system is, I think, a VERY bad idea - in a nutshell:

If you haven’t driven Porsche, BMW, or the like, you’re likely going to think that a Mitsubishi Eclipse is fast and handles well…which, relative to the above, it does not. However, if you’re driving experience only includes ever having driven around in Pintos, Vegas, and Gremlins…Well, you’re probably going to rate that brand new Eclipse with the highest marks all the way across.


Likewise, when reviewing cars, if you’re experience does not include time behind the wheel of a Formula One or Indy Car, your ratings on a scale of 1-10 for acceleration and handling will vary significantly from that of Mario Andretti.

Ratings systems only work well when the experience level of the reviewers stays constant, which will never happen here. If we were to use a rating system on this board, I think it would lead to the painting of wildly inaccurate pictures of many, if not most of the instruments reviewed.

Loren

Lee, you speak wisely. (no pun intended, Dale)

Unfortunately, the html editor provided by geoATRocities is way too cumbersome, and Im even having trouble keeping the Matrix current because of it, so Im not able to index whistle reviews in the Matrix very well at all on a current basis. In fact, since its easier to copy the links to threads and paste them and edit in Word than to work in geocities’ html, im working on a new version of the Matrix as a Word file that will soon be downloadable from the Matrix/Annex site. The New Matrix will be updated periodically, and I’ll announce when I’ve posted a major update…this finally addresses the age old problem of giving y’all notice when something new is on the Matrix. I hope y’all have joined the Microsoft Collective and can access Word documents…

Anyway, I will list whistle reviews on the Matrix, but I dont think thats the best way as a primary. I like Loren and Lee’s ideas about a naming convention. Perhaps we choose a weird character to add to the string so its easier on the search engine:

Whistle Reviews = $
Tutor Reviews = %
Other Reviews = @

So the convention could be something like

($WR$) for a whistle review.
(%TR%) for a Tutor Review, etc.

Search engines could turn up way too many hits with something simple like WR…

Maybe this solves it???

I believe Lee has spelled out quite well a number of the additional reasons why the whistle reviews ought to stay put where they are. Thanks Lee.

Loren