In reading posts about learning to read music I thought back to how useful it was to me in learning the whistle to concentrate on the “moveable Do” Solfege system. Thinking in terms of ‘any’ key versus a certain key made the whistle much clearer for me. Also this comes in handy in playing different whistles in their many keys. Instead of always thinking D,E,F# etc think Do, Re. Mi which re-inforces the function of the note in a melody regardless of key. I think that there is no better instrument to learn and apply Solfege theory than the whistle. Offered for what value you can find here.
This is much simpler than it sounds. Just pick out the melody to songs and be aware of the solfege names.
Yes, thinking in terms of movable pitches is a very useful skill. But it really has little to do with the nomenclature, and is just as easily done with letter names and “movable C” as with solfège. More easily, of course, for those (like me) who do not use solfège as their preferred naming system.
When reading notation, the complementary skill of thinking in movable clefs is also very handy.
In my experience, approaching non-D whistles as transposing instruments (as you describe) is by far the more common approach than thinking in absolute pitch as on, say, an F or G recorder.
To be clear, my quibble is only with the necessity of solfège, not your observation on the usefulness of movable pitch! 
The value of Solfege is that the farther along you get in discovering patterns in music, you have a name for the the events. For example a V chord arpeggio is sol-ti-re. This allows you to apply what you know to any key. (The example I use with kids is the concept of father, mother and child without placing a known face into the picture of a traditional family.) Letter names tie into a specific key.
I think that the more your understanding of music is not tied to a key (or even an instrument), the better off you are in the long run.
Again, this is just what I have found useful. I ain’t starting any new religion here. I’m not in any way saying it is a necessity. It works for me, so I hope someone else finds it helpful.
BTW MTG, I always enjoy your posts and insights. Thanks- Mike
I think many of us play every whistle as if it were a D whistle, i.e. as a transposing instrument, and so the note names Do, Re, Mi just get replaced with D,E,F# regardless of the key. For example, the note D to many of us is not a note with a frequency of 293.665Hz (D4) but is the tonic of a scale just as Do is to you.
I think essentially in solfege, but instead of “do re mi,” I use the numbers of the scale degree. So, a V chord isn’t sol-ti-re, it’s 5-7-2. Same concept, different nomenclature. I think this is what MRGuru was saying about movable pitch.
Yes, Jared, that’s exactly what I meant, or at least part of it. And Adrian’s comment is part of it, too. In fact I agree with all of you.
Mike, I do think in just the way you describe - only without the syllables. I think in terms of scale degrees, and can arbitrarily attach those numbers to any set of letter-name scale tones, most basically to a C scale (C = 1, D = 2 etc.) for general calculation; or to a D scale (D = 1, E = 2) on the whistle, etc. The principle is exactly the same.
So I know a major V is 5-7-9(=2), which seems more transparent to me. For example, I know I can add a tonic 1 (your Do) below it, and instantly see it will give me a Major 9 chord. I know I can invert it as 2-5-7, and instantly see I can resolve 2->3 and 7->8 for a V6/4 to I6 cadence. And so on.
Or in letter-name terms, I can think of a major V triad in any key as G-B-D, and see instantly that I can stack a minor 3rd F on top and get a G dominant 7 (V7), or a minor 3rd E below and get an Em7 (IIIm7). And so on.
It’s just the syllables themselves that look like gobbledygook to me. 
Since I learned my music in a letter-name context, using the solfège symbols would mean replacing a (to me) familiar and intuitive set of letter symbols with an equally arbitrary but less intuitive set of latin mnemonics that I would have to mentally translate back to letter or numeric equivalents anyway. That’s all I meant.
I do have (mostly European) friends who grew up on Do-Re-Me who are at home with solfège, and that’s perfectly fine, too. We all agree that movable Sol = movable G = 5, and that what really matter are the underlying degrees and intervals.
Of course, for actually singing notes, solfège wins hands-down, as intended. It’s a lot easier to warble out “Ri-Ri-Ri” than “D-sharp-D-sharp-D-sharp”. Then again, there’s always Sacred Harp fasola shaped-note singing to really mess everyone up!
BTW, Mike, thanks for your kind words. Believe me, I learn as much from replying to interesting posts like yours as anyone might get from reading my blatherings.
I was keeping up with this post until I read MTguru’s last comments!!!
Ouch, my brain hurts!!! 
I can’t read music, I never have had any need to read music and after reading your explanation MTguru, I have no intention of ever trying to learn!! 
It is facinating how you have worked out your method for transposing, at least I think that is what you are explaining, am I right?
If I played a jig that had a first bar of six quarter notes being D E F# F# E D on my D whistle, I would still play it as being D E F# F# E D on any other key of whistle/flute.
The bottom hole on the D whistle is D, next hole up is E then F#, I then call the bottom hole on my Bb ‘D’, next hole up ‘E’, then F# etc.
The fingering I use for playing a tune on my D whistle is transfered so that I would play with the same fingering on my Bb.
I learned to play in the traditional way in Ireland, by ear of course. I would be played a tune until I had memorised it, then I would go off and play it very slowly until I had learned the tune by trial and error.
All I needed was the start off note to get me going.
BTW MTG, I always enjoy your posts and insights. Thanks- Mike
I agree plunkett5
Well, yes. I almost typed out something very similar to that, but now I’m glad I decided not to. Yours is much better. 
I think many of us play every whistle as if it were a D whistle, i.e. as a transposing instrument, and so the note names Do, Re, Mi just get replaced with D,E,F# regardless of the key. For example, the note D to many of us is not a note with a frequency of 293.665Hz (D4) but is the tonic of a scale just as Do is to you.[/quote]
Thats how I play, memorized one Key, and mentally figure out what’s the “new D” when reading sheet music, and work my way up (I can’t read the intervals between notes just the notes themselves so far)
Aha, it did feel like I was channeling someone else. So I’m relieved that it was you, and not the evil ghost of [u]Guido d’Arezzo[/u]!
Well, someone here once quipped that music theory is just a fancy way of explaining what you already know and like. 
Sure, transposing is definitely related. I think Plunkett is also suggesting that being able to think about scales and notes independently of a particular whistle, or even a particular instrument, is a good thing, too.
As Adrian said, to treat a non-D whistle as a transposing instrument, you just play and think your “normal” notes and let the instrument do the transposing for you. If you really need to figure out the what concert pitches you’re playing, you can calculate using scale degrees and matched scales, like this:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D Scale: D E F# G A B C# D
Bb Scale: Bb C D Eb F G A Bb
So, for example, playing a G on the D whistle gives the 4th note of the D scale. On a Bb whistle, the same fingering gives you instead the 4th note of the Bb scale, or Eb. And so on. You just match up the two scales. And whether you call the note G or fixed Sol or movable Fa or Foobar doesn’t really matter. There are many different tricks for transposing, but that’s one of the basic ideas.
I was lost from the beginning. I have a D, C, & G whistle. I can play all like a D (of course), but I also learned the different notes on each (sometimes half holing). Which is the right way to play different whistles? Play like a D in key of G or C, or play each whistle with different fingerings for the notes?
Actually, asking that specific question means you’re not lost at all. In fact, you’ve basically got it.
Your first way is much more common. Just play every whistle as if it were a D whistle, and don’t worry. The tune is automagically transposed lower or higher, depending on the key of whistle. If you’re playing by yourself, then the actual concert (piano) pitch of the transposed notes you’re playing is irrelevant.
The second way, playing each whistle with a different fingering for the notes, is useful for playing with other people, where you need to match the right key. But honestly, I know only few people (now including you!) who can do this. Personally, I can do it comfortably only on a G whistle, because I can use basically the same fingerings as an alto recorder, which I already know.
Otherwise, if I’m playing a tune on a non-D whistle in a session, I just figure out what key I need to play it in on that whistle, and transpose the tune in my head on the fly. And the ability to do that is something that comes with lots of experience and of practice.
Incidentally, almost always in commercial recordings when you hear a non-D whistle playing the tune lead along with accompaniment and/or other melody instruments, the whistle player is playing the normal D whistle fingerings (your approach #1). It’s the rest of the group that is, in effect, transposing to match the whistle, not vice-versa.
Thanks MTGuru. That was easy enough to understand. I’ll keep practicing the different fingering now that I know it might come in handy.
Chinese folk songs have used the 1-2-3 system of notation for a long time.
I have scores that show how flexible and powerful a system it can be, if you know how to use it to its fullest. You can still specify what note you want your “1” to be, if you want to insert chords on top of each bar. I don’t have webspace, so I can’t post a pic in this thread, but if anyone is interested in seeing examples of how it’s used, let me know.
All symbolic systems have advantages and disadvantages.
It is useful to remember that the symbol is not the thing is represents - it is merely an index.
It is also useful to know that symbol systems contain a perception granularity or scope. Each system has a different granularity and will not easily combine with another - something always gets lost in the translation.
Another useful property of symbol systems is the ability to create secondary symbol sets that describe relationships between the primary symbols (index to index). Then tertiary symbols that describe secondary relationships (and so on … 
)
It all resolves to patterns - our symbol sets tend to stand between our senses and our understanding and can become a barrier. The perception of patterns is the ultimate result. It is pattern that we explore that leads to knowledge.
For myself, I learned all the harmonic relationships via learning visual/aural patterns on the guitar, so now I have to translate these guitar patterns to calculate harmony on my whistle. Ascribing the corelating symbols from dot, solfage, letter or number systems gets anoying and I tend to use them only to get an index into my guitar pattern calculator.
I still think the standard musical notation system is the most powerful visual system for all this. At the end of the day, the music is percieved directly by our ears and brains - the symbols are really only important for communicating with other people and exploring the secondar/tertiary/etc sub-structures.
After all that, if the music you play is not acceptable to the audience, all the nomenclature was a waste of time.
This is a fun thread to read. Thanks.
I use solfedge, but I’m so up-to-my-neck in music theory I don’t think about it consciously. The different scale degrees, and chords built around them, each sort of have their own flavor, as it were, and I just sort of know them.
I guess it’s like moving to a new area and learning your way around. At first, you’re constantly stopping to get your bearings, reading signs, checking maps, checking your compass if you use one, maybe even getting lost and having to ask for help.
Over time, you can drive from work to home with minimal stress/mental effort, without reading the roadsigns or consulting a map.
Then one day you realize that you are cruising effortlessly all over the place without ever giving a conscious thought to the territory. You just know where you are. You have internalized the map; the country has become part of you and you’ve become part of it.
Whatever terminology you use (numbers, letters, solfedge, whatever), getting to that latter state is the goal. Once you’ve internalized the scale degrees, transposition becomes easy, maybe even effortless. You know the territory, and a new tune is simply a new route through familiar, friendly roads.
If that doesn’t make sense, try reading it again when you’re sleep deprived and let me know if that helps.
Tom