I looked and didn’t really find much on this, so… here it goes…
I’m looking for opinions on “typical” sound qualities for various whistles.
For example, I’ve seen Susatos described as “recorder-like”, “clean”, “smooth”, ect.
(also loud, but I’m looking more for sound description rather than dynamics)
Something like a Generation could be condsidered “traditional”, “airy”, “rough”…
Are these pretty common adjectives?
<Yes, I’m aware that listening to or actually trying a whislte is better than attempting to describe it tonal quality with words, but just humor me if you can, please…>
For general classification, I’m wondering if whistles could be categorized as either smooth, rough, or balanced.
I think experience shows that simple descriptions like this are not very useful at all. You need to break things down into a matrix of component tone and response characteristics, such as:
o Harmonic content of tone (pure, reedy)
o Stability of bell note
o Amount of air in tone
o Amount of chirp in note transitions
o Octave balance / volume countour (especially on top)
o Breath pressure requirements
o Degree of backpressure
o Pressure plateaus for each note
o Intonation (Just, ET)
Only then can you produce a verbal picture that approximates the experience of playing a particular whistle.
See, I strongly disagree that it’s not useful… I’d like to think that seeing print descriptions of sound quality can help affirm what a listener hears on a recording or video, especially if trying to compare two whistles for possible purchase.
I understand you wanting to include backpressure, intonation, ect. but really all I’m looking for is sound quality descriptions.
Maybe you’re right, maybe this is pointless.
I guess I’ll just create a short list, put it up for review, and see if it’s a worthwhile reference or not.
To describe tone is one of the hardest things to do.
And we can separate tone from other characteristics only to a limit.
For instance the tone of a single note can change when volume gets increased, a pure tone can change into a tone with a lot of airyness/ white noise/ turbulance noise (“amount of air” in tone in MTGurus list I think).
Therefore dynamic characteristics are important for tone description.
A whistle which can be pushed hard has a greater dynamic range for each single note, and usually exhibits more variance in tone for each note. It may well play fairly purely when played more softly, and play quite reedy when pushed hard.
So I think for consideration of tone alone we need to look at the harmonic content of the notes (more pure or more reedy?), and at the amount of turbulence noise (more airy [some say chiffy, but chiff should really mean chirpyness in note transitions], more clean?), and at the dynamic potential (small/big for each note).
It would be already great if we can distinguish between harmonic content, turbulance noise and chiff/chirpyness, and not confuse each other by using these inappropriately, like one person’s reedyness is for another person airyness or windyness, and another person calls the same thing chiffyness. That is plain confusing.
But you see, this is exactly part of my point. In order for descriptive terms to be meaningful, they need to have objective, denotative meanings that are universally reproducible and universally perceived. And that’s mostly not the case with the kinds of subjective descriptions you have in mind.
I could point to umpteen whistle descriptions here on the Chiffboard that are just downright wrong. Take the Susato description as “recorder-like”. It’s nothing like a recorder, unless it’s played incorrectly. And then all bets are off. It’s like descibing a Buffet-Crampon clarinet as “squeaky” in the hands of an 8 year old.
I’ve had people hand me a Generation whistle they’ve described as “rough” and “squeaky”, and they’re shocked when it sounds perfectly OK in my hands. Conversely, I’ve tried whistles that the owners have described as “rich” and “warm”, that were horribly bland and unsuitable for trad playing. An “airy” whistle may not sound airy from two feet away. A whistle may be “easy blowing” because the owner is underblowing it. A “pure” whistle may become “complex” when the embouchure is properly tightened.
I’d go so far as to say that vague descriptive terms can be downright pernicious, and lead people on the Chiffboard and elsewhere on wild goose chases after non-existent ideals. And once certain memes of inaccurate conventional wisdom take hold, they’re very hard to eradicate. Add in the human tendency to synaesthesia - wood whistles sounds woody, nickel looks brighter than brass so it must sound brighter - and you have a recipe for confusion.
Of course, at times I’m as guilty as the next guy of resorting to “shorthand” descriptions. For example, when I describe a Feadóg as more “aggressive” than a Generation, I have a particular cluster of characteristics in mind, but in a descriptive context (such as Chiffboard posts) where elaborating the details is just impractical.
As an alternative to either simple terms or complex matrices, it may be more useful and interesting to pick certain well-known, consistent whistles as reference points in a multidimensional “whistle space”, then relate other whistles to these by direction and distance. That way, you let the instruments define their own characteristics without imposing a semantically messy grab-bag of word mappings on them.
OK… first let it be said that you do have some very valid points that, believe it or not, I understand.
But what I’m curious about is EXACTLY the scenario you described above…
X being more _____ than Y.
This thread brought this on and made me wonder IF it could be possible to list whistles with brief descriptions of tonal characteristics, along with a link to a sound sample recording or YouTube video.
If someone says, “I want a nice, mellow sounding traditional whistle” then I’d think a few whistles might fall under that specific description. For example, I immediately thought of a Freeman Mellow Dog, and others in that thread seem to agree. I did NOT think of a whistle like, say, a Susato.
A quick look at a little handy-dandy reference chart would allow people to further explore whistles in the “ballpark” of what they may be interested in.
Another real-world example… I might be interested in getting a wooden whistle. Right now, I have to do a search, and hope that I find information specific to particular wooden whistles. Otherwise, I might have to start a thread, asking if anyone has experience with say, and Abell… or an Oz… do people find one “smoother” than the other? Does one have more Chiff?
If there was a list, maybe I could look it up myself. Better yet, how about a list where people who have owned and/or played different whistles could write short reviews? Reviews could be limited to 200 characters or less, so… a sentence or two. This could be used in conjunction with the excellent whistle lists found on the main C&F home page.
and check out “Hinnigan on High Ds” Parts 1 and 2 (when you have about 45 minutes to listen)
I think that will give you some understanding of the problems of simple description and also a handle on how a whole bunch of D whistles sound in the hands of one expert player.
Though possibly a flawed idea due to subjective terms, i like this idea.
this way, buyers would have more of an idea what their next purchase might sound like before they buy.
however, we might see less sales on the used instrument exchange board… XD
I have been made curious about whistles after reading descriptions of them on the forum. In all cases the whistles did not even remotely conform to what posters made them out to be.
The only way for it is to sit down with a whistle and play it. And after that decide whether or not you want it.
