For sure it’s well nigh impossible to put timbre things into words.
What’s particularly odd is how people will use the term “flutelike” to describe whistles, the odd thing is that whistles with entirely different timbres both from each other and from flutes will be thus described.
I think it’s a tad more specific when I say a whistle’s tone has a Native American flute aspect, or a Bulgarian kaval aspect, because those timbres are quite specific and can be heard on numerous Youtube videos.
The silliest thing describing timbre is when Highland pipers say that they prefer a particular pipe because it sounds “deeper”. Any instrument can be made to sound deeper by tuning it lower. But they’re not talking about pitch, because a higher-pitched pipe will be described as having a “deeper” tone. From what I can tell what they really are talking about is pipes that are louder.
There’s really three elements, when you break it down:
presence of higher harmonics, a continuum being dark/dull on one end and bright/ringing/buzzy on the other end.
volume.
a continuum having a pure tone on one end and a lot of noise on the other end, or focused v unfocused.
True that! But also consider: what does “flutelike” even mean?, especially when we consider that, around here in Chiffland especially, “flute” often means something other than the modern Boehm flute. (Baroque & Boehm) (“Irish” Flute)
Rhetorically speaking, which one of those is “flutelike”, and which whistles match!?
I think it’s a tad more specific when I say a whistle’s tone has a Native American flute aspect, or a Bulgarian kaval aspect, because those timbres are quite specific and can be heard on numerous Youtube videos.
Indeed. (Though I might cantankerously ask: which Native American flute do you mean? North or South?
The silliest thing describing timbre is when Highland pipers say that they prefer a particular pipe because it sounds “deeper”. Any instrument can be made to sound deeper by tuning it lower. But they’re not talking about pitch, because a higher-pitched pipe will be described as having a “deeper” tone. From what I can tell what they really are talking about is pipes that are louder.
I didn’t think there was any volume control on those things!
There’s really three elements, when you break it down:
presence of higher harmonics, a continuum being dark/dull on one end and bright/ringing/buzzy on the other end.
volume.
a continuum having a pure tone on one end and a lot of noise on the other end, or focused v unfocused.
I think when it comes to “flutiness” and those kinds of descriptors, I think it’s more No 1, presence of which harmonics.
Yes it’s hard to know what people mean. As I came to Low Whistle from 35 years of playing Irish flute, it’s the Irish flute sound that I had in mind. But when I heard people describe whistles that have a sound almost diametrically opposed to the reedy Irish flute sound as “flutelike” I began realising that they weren’t talking about Irish flutes, or perhaps even Boehm flutes or Baroque flutes. Given the whistles they were calling “flutelike” they probably had Native American flutes and possibly Baroque recorders in mind.
Around here, anyhow, Native American Flute (NAF) almost always refers to the modern USA flute with the external fipple device.
Tarkas, Kenas, Mosenos, Sikus, etc are generally called Andean flutes.
I say “modern USA flutes” because as far as I know the actual traditional North American native flutes were endblown flutes very similar to the Bulgarian kaval, which sound nothing like the modern commercialised NAF.
It’s funny when you show up at a gig and they want you to play softer, or want you to crescendo or decrescendo.
I piped for a production of Brigadoon (the piper’s staple gig) where the director was insistent that I start at full volume and gradually decrescendo as the piece progressed. When I convinced him that the only way this could happen was for me to walk further away, or be in a room where somebody slowly closed the door, he hunted around the building and discovered a long narrow hallway in the basement underneath the auditorium. I started my piece directly under the audience and slowly walked down the hallway as I played which evidently created the desired effect. An ancillary benefit was that I didn’t have to be in costume!
Anyhow various sets of Highland pipes have inherently different volume levels, and the same set of Highland pipes can be set up to play at dramatically different volume levels depending on the reeds you use. But then you’re stuck at that level of course.
Having spent a lifetime in the pipe organ business, mostly as a voicer, pancelticpiper’s video of is an good example. Chiff, or articulation, is ‘noise’ in the attack as the pipe settles into its steady state. If you have a very well built mechanical action organ, pipe speech can be varied with key pressure and speed, but not all tracker organs (or organists) are capable of that effect.
You aren’t going to hear ‘chiff’ (in this sense) in a whistle without tonguing the note, and I’m pretty sure that’s why the ornaments, or articulations, are what they are in that they define the musical line without tonguing. Scratch, sizzly steady-state noise isn’t chiff - it’s noise by any other name, that’s referred to by countless terms, ‘sizzle’ being one I’ve always used. The voicer, whether organ pipes or whistles, can control ‘chiff’ or articulation and sizzle with various techniques, as too much of either can be very unmusical. There are organbuilders who prefer to remove all the articulation and steady state noise and the result falls on the ear like a dull ‘thud’ as musical lines require definition.
I’ve owned many different types of whistles over the years I’ve been playing, and some are indeed chiffier than others, and some are much more ‘sizzly’ than others, too. I think the chiffiest whistle I owned was a Grinter. It was the mostly beautifully made whistle with, to my ears, just the perfect amount of articulation IF you wanted it to chiff, and steady-state noise.
I too think the chiff sound is at the attack in tonguing.
Sizzle works for me or hissing.
Too much of any is undesirable but a little adds the character and uniqueness to the specific whistlemaker. Perhaps a desired style of build.
I do think the C&F Whistle Forum here ought to hammer out (once and for all) an agreeable definition/vocabulary for distinguishing what “chiff” specifically refers to, while “articulation”, “sizzle”, “hissing”, “airy”, “etc.”, are all terms that need their own reference points.
Seems to me that chiff, at least, is a done deal. In looking through the responses to this thread, and in reading this forum generally, I think the vast majority of folks are on the same page. Or at least browsing the same book, when it comes to what chiff is.
We’ve had organ players, whistle players, pipe & whistle players, organ builders all hone in on the same phenomenon.
It’s the wooden plug in the mouthpiece of a recorder or a rolled tin whistle. The bit that directs the wind onto the blade where it can be divided and thus make musical sound.
In a plastic mouthpiece whistle it’s simply the floor of the windway formed by the plastic mouthpiece itself.
The fipple was originally the block forming the floor of the windway and part of the beak (essentially the plug in the top end of the tube), but the meaning has stretched in some usage to include the whole mouthpiece and sound-producing parts.
oh, yes, it definitely has evolved then, even wikipedia describes that piece as a fipple plug, and indicates the entire mouthpiece assembly as the the fipple, though some dictionaries do at least mention that it used to be the term only for the block.
There’s a neat diagram here (https://www.thecarvingpath.net/topic/2436-carving-the-fipple-in-a-woodwind/) that describes different parts of a fipple, considering the entire mouthpiece as a fipple. No explanation of how the “externally ducted fipple” of native American inspired flutes though, I expect they still contain a fipple block somewhere.
I suppose there’s probably some gatekeeping about terms with pedants though?
So where does pedantry begin when clarity matters, and should we just stop caring about clear, correct usage?
The fipple is the block, yes. It can be the beak or mouthpiece, yes. But it’s not the edge/blade/labium, and describing this part as such (which some do) helps no-one when it already has at least three perfectly good, clear names of its own.
The other day I commented to a whistler that I had never seen a clear fipple before, and he knew exactly what I was talking about, didn’t feel the need to correct me. I’m sure that others would also understand if someone were to ask if there is a difference between the green or black fipples on a given whistle, or if another person were to ask how to remove a glued on fipple so they can tune a whistle.
I suppose pedantry would begin when someone would pretend not to understand what any of those or similar situations meant.
Here’s the wiki if you feel you need to edit it for clear, correct usage, you can simply delete most of the page and talk about the block instead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fipple
I’m not interested in editing that and don’t need you to tell me I can if I want to. You can call the whole mouthpiece whatever you like, but that neither makes you right nor me a pedant if I don’t.
A simple “yes” would have answered the question adequately
I’m not sure Wikipedia would appreciate a change in any case, they probably consider their use of the term as correct as you consider it incorrect.
As far as I’m concerned, words evolve, as does music. I’m happy to have an understanding of origins of terms, and am a fan of etymology, but, not a stickler for using the original wording for something. Nor even the correct grammar, so long as I can still understand the person speaking, and if I can’t, I’m capable of asking them to be more clear.
Shame if we lost the word fipple entirely though, and instead used block and mouthpiece to avoid any confusion. I’ve seen conversations with flutists where they correct anyone for daring to call a whistle a flute, when fipple flute isn’t really an incorrect description for one.
Makes one wonder what chiffandblock would attract though, woodworkers?
Actually, that’s the whole point of Wikipedia: someone who actually knows what they’re talking about can review an article and correct errors.
As far as I’m concerned, words evolve, as does music. I’m happy to have an understanding of origins of terms, and am a fan of etymology, but, not a stickler for using the original wording for something. Nor even the correct grammar, so long as I can still understand the person speaking, and if I can’t, I’m capable of asking them to be more clear.
Yes, language does evolve, and that’s kind of beside the point. The question was one of a technical matter, and precision in usage and convention in meaning are all required. This way confusion and bemusement can be avoided — the exact problems we’re seeing in this thread! I would have thought that this would be seen more as a learning moment, rather than a “oh well, language evolves, what can we do about it!” moment.
Though I am kind of surprised that after C&F has been in operation for so many years now, there’s so much confusion about the two title words in the forum’s name!
okay, I apologise, I thought it was simply evolution of the word, not that it was such a serious crime. My bad. Please forgive me, I’ll never do it again.
Without a doubt, Dale chose the name for its enigmatic quality as much as for its catchiness; that’s pure Dale. But who would have foreseen that chiffs and fipples remain actual enigmas in and of themselves? It’s almost as if the name is a kōan.
From the recently deceased Jeremy Montagu, highly-regarded writer, researcher, and collector of musical instruments, and former president of the Galpin Society …
Another term, ‘fipple flute’, is a pure nonsense because the word ‘fipple’ has never been clearly defined. Many authors have used it: some for the whole head, some for the block, some for the duct, some for the mouth. If everybody uses the word ‘fipple’ for a different part of the instrument, then indeed we have a nonsensical term, one which conveys no sense.
Back to the original thread: first, as an organist, I agree with those who define “chiff” as transient harmonics that sound when the tone is initiated. (It’s what makes a tracker-action organ special). I liked it on the organ. I like it less on the whistle.
I find that the Tony Dixon alloy mezzo and low whistles have an almost clarion tone. But they also produce those transient “chiffs,” either by mistake or on purpose. If I don’t cover the hole completely, or a passage involves changing registers quickly, or I’m not maintaining consistent breath, I may get that occasional blip. The notes B, C, d, e, and f are especially prone to “chiffing.” Seems like some players use that quality for effect–kind of like the honking a flute player uses to for rhythmic or melodic accent.
I hear it also on Chieftains, and Kerrys, and less so on MKs. I don’t find that to be the case on the TD or other ABS whistles. Could it be something about the acoustics of an alloy or aluminum lower pitched whistle?
