Of course - my guess is that 90% of the items I use (and bought in the last 10 years or so) are made in China. I’ve heard good things about chinese-made viols (for which there is a much smaller market than for classical string instruments, making them much more expensive)…
I have a Chinese made double bass, a Shen, which is all solid wood and carved. It was very expensive new—$5000, which was a lot for me at the time but a third or less what a domestically made carved wooden bass would have cost. It’s paid for itself many times over in the decade and a half I’ve played it. Aside from normal maintenance issues—a bass is very big and the sides are relatively thin and cracks are almost inevitable—it’s been really great. There are tens of thousands of shen instruments in use all over the US. They fill a niche that used to be filled but European makes
I’m not really in that loop but I have numerous friends in that industry (pro musicians, pro instrument repair people) and I’ve not heard much of a change in people’s attitudes towards the Chinese woodwind and brass instruments.
From personal experience, playing Boehm flutes at the NAMM show, I’ve yet to play a Chinese flute that I would put into the hands of a beginner. They look nice enough, but don’t work very well.
A friend who does violin repair hates the Chinese strings and won’t work on them. (I know nothing about strings myself.)
The Di Zhao flutes are pretty good, and built in a China factory. Mr. Di Zhao spent 13 years at Powell, also time at Haynes, and helped establish Chinese factories for product lines for both manufacturers.
As to strings, some pretty good guitars coming out of China - Eastman, and a line of Guilds.
YMMV. I’ve never tried one of those instruments myself, and even if I did, am no professional voice to the pro or con of them. I’m only going by what I read and hear from players who have either tried and ran away screaming or tried and found them adequate.
Saying a "Chinese"whistle is a “knockoff” is then also saying that a Colin Goldie is a knockoff of an Overton. just because they choose to compete doesn’t mean they’re making “knockoffs.”
My second violin is a Chinese instrument (My first is a Cremonese Italian instrument.) It cost less than 1/16th the price of the Italian, and is about 75% of the instrument in sound. I use it for things like weddings at the beach, where I don’t want blowing sand to damage the finish of the more expensive instrument. It also plays easier than the Italian fiddle.
As to knockoffs in general, China will make whatever the buyer asks for, at the level of quality the buyer is willing to pay. Look at Scott Cao violins- You’re talking probably 20 grand or more. Because they’re Strad or Guarnieri models, are they “Chinese knockoffs” as well?
People ought to know of what they speak before they open their mouth. Old internet adage: think twice, type once.
..Joe
then also saying that a Colin Goldie is a knockoff of an Overton
I am uneasy with calling the Chinese made whistle a ‘knockoff’ and not applying it to other obvious knockoffs. But that Goldie analogy is cripple as Colin Goldie was taught and licensed to make his style of whistles by Bernard Overton, and indeed made them as ‘Overtons’ until Bernard’s death.
A knockoff is a “a copy that sells for less than the original” or a “a copy or imitation of someone or something popular,” according to the dictionary. The people manufacturing these whistles have a variety of copies of various brands, including Feadog, Susato, and these, which are based on the Sindt design. I’d call them knockoffs. It’s not a bad word to me, I own plenty of things, instrument and otherwise, that would fall under this category. For example, I have a mandolin that’s a knockoff of an old Gibson design. Cost me a couple hundred rather than a few thousand, and it sounds great!
So yeah, an exact copy of a Strad that you can get for $20,000 would absolutely fall under that category. For the vast majority of us, that’s fine, since we’re never going to get our hands on the “real thing,” and I’m sure those violins are wonderful instruments. The maker seems to have studied for a long time and has decades of expertise on how to make violins. I’m not ruling out that being the case for this whistle manufacturer, but I’d be somewhat skeptical given the range of products they’re producing.
Again, I see nothing inherently wrong with a “knockoff,” but I do think it’s worth calling a spade a spade. People were perfectly willing (and justifiably so) to note that Killarney was copying the Sindt design when that make first came out, this is yet another copy of the same basic design. If these are well-made, and can compete on quality with the existing whistles, then I see no reason not to buy them or promote them, copy or no. But since they’re the same price as a Killarney, and the Killarneys are known to be good instruments already, I personally wouldn’t really want to be taking the chance on something that could be great or rubbish. I’m sure someone will, and I’d love to hear from them what these sound and play like.
There’s a pejorative that inherently goes along with the word “knockoff,” insinuating low quality, and usually supplied with the adjective “cheap.” I don’t hear anyone calling - for example - low D whistles made by anyone other than Overton “knockoffs;” I don’t read of people calling PC’s not made by IBM as “knockoffs.” Why apply it to only Chinese instruments?
Regardless of whether Colin Goldie was trained, licensed, or even anointed by Bernard Overton, He can only have the name- it’s still a “knockoff” by the definition applied above.
Can’t have it both ways, people- EVERYTHING that isn’t the original is a knockoff, or nothing is. Pointing out ONE item as a knockoff is not proper, and infers that it’s lower quality for that lower price.
I’ll go back to lurking mode now.
..Joe
Actually we do know. Goldie/Overton has already been discussed: that’s a matter of time honoured Master to Apprentice inheritance of craft. As I recall, one or more makers learned from Schultz. Those aren’t knockoffs.
An object that is mass produced, not just following general principles of design, but following a more specific “trademark” design developed by a craftsman and where there is no direct transmission of craft, is, rather by definition a knockoff. If a Chinese firm takes lengths of aluminium tubing, drills six holes in them, squares off the business end, sticks a block in there, brushes it up nicely and stamps “OVERTONE” on it, well, that’s a knockoff pure and simple!
Over the last 20 years or so, Ebay’s musical instrument department has seen its share of “sound-alike” brand names coming out of China. Those I think are pretty clearly intended to deceive. Others are possibly house brands based off of whatever “US” brand they were manufacturing for. Those are lower priced knockoffs.
As for knowing whereof we speak, any one of us who has one of those world-famous Pakistani made “Irish” flutes knows a lot about knockoff instruments! I never bought one, but I did have the chance to see an Indian or Pakistani made trumpet of some kind one time. Externally lovely: the maker clearly had no idea what the purpose of the valves were or that they need to be polished to operate smoothly.
No, not in that case. What you describe is a counterfeit object, and that’s a different field entirely.
As for “knockoff”, I feel I have to agree with the latest post by Joe above.
Fair enough. Six of one, half dozen of the other, as I see it.
Where do you see anyone doing that? Knockoffs are made all over the world, but China and Pakistan in particular have pretty large industries making instruments, some of which fall under the “knockoff” category.
It doesn’t “infer” it, that’s what it means! And that’s fine, if that’s what you’re looking for. As I’ve said multiple times, I own some knockoff instruments, and they’re great. But I’m under no pretenses that my mandolin sounds and plays like a Gibson, or my ukulele like a Martin. Nor did the “Woodi” whistle I tried play or sound like a Susato. But they’re cheaper, and in some cases more hardy or have other good attributes. My grandfather always said that the fake Rolex he bought in the 70s worked better than his actual Rolex!
The MO of companies like the one posted is to take existing designs and manufacture them in a way that brings cost of production down, so that they can either sell them for a lower price or (as seems to be the case with this example) get more profit from each one sold. That’s how the business works. More power to them, I think competition is a good thing in the instrument manufacturing world. There are many Chinese companies that actually build their own designs, and have some pretty amazing instruments for not a lot of money. But this company is not one of them, at least judging by what they currently sell (and not just the whistles). I don’t think it’s being unfair to them to say that they’re in the business of making knockoffs, however well-made those knockoffs are.
The head design is different on the Shearwater. It’s similar to the standard alloy Shearwater models. And that in turn is similar to a number of other whistle designs but not a direct knock-off of a Sindt/Killarney. But it is made in a way to look very similar even though the construction itself is different. If that is considered a “knock-off” then every whistle today is a “knock-off” from some 40,000+ years old whistles made from bone in the stone age.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleolithic_flutes
“oh my – it has finger holes – must be a knock-off”
One more thing – the Shearwater “knock-off” is more expensive than a Killarney (which in istself could be considered a knock-off). Knock-off to me implies: made cheaply with cheaper materials than the original and sold at a much lower price, like a Rolex knock-off for 100 bucks when the original costs around 5,000. To me the whole knock-off-discussion makes not much sense. Reminds me of my watch-collecting-days (and the debate was pretty useless back then too). As long as there is no copyright-infringement, etc, I simply don’t care anymore. Because it evolves into a debate about ethics–implying it is somehow morally wrong to base a whistle (or anything really) on some design somebody else used first, even though it is no longer protected by copyright or anything, or the inventor is even already dead. Nothing wrong with using a public domain design. Why invent the wheel anew? And what matters to me when buying a whistle is the sound and not the look. That is IMO very different from other knock-offs like a Rolex knock-off where it’s all about the look. Is it considered a knock-off when somebody manages to exactly duplicate the sound of a Sindt but using a completely different design? I think not. Or can you impress people at a session with an Overton-knock-off that sounds bad? So the whole “point” of a knock-off – buying something that looks really expensive to impress others – is out the window.