“Responsive” is a word that crops up a lot on the forums when discussing the playing dynamics of whistles. I’m curious to know what parameters in a whistle’s design make for a responsive or less responsive whistle.
In Pipers Grip’s review of the Chieftain OS Low D, he writes:
“Unfortunately, this whistle can be just the slightest bit on the sluggish side . . . and is probably not the best choice for super session speed reels. Ornaments can be easily executed and sound fine . . ., they just don’t sound as clear and crisp as on more responsive whistles. However, a side benefit of this is that the transitions between notes sound nice and smooth, where more responsive whistles can sometimes have an abrupt, staccato attack, have to much chiff, or even squawk between notes. This again makes this Low D an ideal whistle for airs or even slow reels.”
One would think that responsiveness can only be a positive trait but he makes the suggestion here that a reduced level of responsiveness makes for a much smoother whistle, ideal for slow reels and airs. Since those are the only things I play on my Low D, I’m intrigued.
On his excellent web-site, Guido Gonzato suggests that:
“a short mouthpiece makes for a highly responsive whistle, but consumes slightly more air; a long mouthpiece provides some backpressure and needs less air, but makes the whistle less responsive.”
I’ve no doubt Guido knows what he’s talking about. However, the Chieftain OS reviewed has a shorter mouthpiece, and yet it is less responsive that the NR with a longer beak. So my question is what makes for a responsive or less responsive whistle? Is responsiveness linked to backpressure/blowing pressure? Bottom line, if I were to go to a maker and ask for a smoother less responsive Low D for airs and slow reels what aspects of the whistle can he tweak to get that result?
But as far as playing goes, you bring up something I’d not thought about, that ‘responsiveness’ might be defined in different ways.
I prize what I call a good ‘action’ which is nimbleness negotiating the octaves. Seems that whistles with a good ‘action’ are better in other ways too, in other words the ‘action’ is just one of multiple benefits of good voicing.
But then there’s clarity of ornamentation, by which I suppose is usually meant clarity of cuts. True that cuts pop out more clearly on some whistles. This could be due to one, or both, of two different things 1) speed of response 2) the volume and timbre of the gracenote itself. In other words some gracenotes have a muted, fuzzy, or indistinct tone and no matter how quickly they can be played they won’t sound crisp.
Whether the two things are related, nimbleness of the octaves and gracenote clarity, I don’t know. I don’t pay much attention to the crispness of ornaments. Maybe I should. But that aspect would always be fairly low on my list of priorities, below volume, tone, intonation, action, and ergonomics.
A whistle with good voicing (and all that flows from it) is better for reels and airs and any music whatever. I don’t see how a whistle with sluggish voicing would be good for airs; for one thing, airs have at least as much ornamentation as dance tunes. For me the MK I play is the best whistle I’ve tried both for reels and for airs. Both sorts of tunes equally require nimble response of the octaves.
The Pipers Grip review makes the suggestion that with a slightly less responsive whistle, transitions between notes sound smoother, having less edge or attack. The overall sound is more mellow. It’s also not that the ornaments are sluggish. They are just less crisp and tight if one is playing fast reels and jigs.
When Guido mentions responsiveness, I think he’s providing a choice of voicing, and that there’s not inherently anything substandard about a voicing that chooses less responsiveness in favour of other attributes, like a more rounded or smooth tone. With an MK, you have a good all-rounder and can play airs well, but choose e.g. large holes like on Bernard’s early Overtons and you get a much richer tone for playing airs but at the cost of an easy “action.” Davy can do it but, in general, fast reels and jigs on such a whistle are not so easy. I’m suggesting that in choosing a slightly less responsive whistle you might be making a similar choice.
In my experience, ‘responsiveness’ is more a facet of a player’s preferences with regards to different whistles, and players define it in very different ways - in short, I agree with Richard.
For example, I love my brass Copeland low D. It’s my baby. And I use it to play slow airs and session-speed reels and everything in between. For me, it leaps between registers with an ease that I’ve never found in another whistle, and that’s what makes it ‘responsive’ to me. But just the other day, I was talking to another whistler friend of mine, Dale. Dale has also owned a Copeland low D, and he described it as one of the least responsive whistles he’s played! He said that he felt it was only good for playing slow, expressive tunes, but that it simply wasn’t fit for the faster stuff. Dale is a fantastic player, and he can rip on a low whistle, so it’s not a question of his ability, I think he and I just have different preferences in tone, etc. Whistlers always seem to have wildly different opinions on the broad question of what makes a whistle “good,” so that’s really just my two cents.
Could be a difference in taste, or it could rather be a quality control issue, and variance between two different whistles from the same maker. Likely a bit of both, I’d think.
Twelve or so years ago the forum was rife with people posting they got a Copeland and they didn’t like it at all because of the way it was set up. Usually the whistle would be sent back and come revoiced to their taste and they’d be happy as the proverbial Larry. From this it would seem the voicing of Copelands varied wildly, often due to customising according to a customer’s taste, but not necessarily to the taste of someone buying the whistle later, second hand. Not sure it’s actually a ‘quality control’ issue, more one of being tailored very wide ranging different tastes. Although you would expect a maker to turn out a consistent standard voicing when a customer hasn’t specified a preference.
As I understood it, the part after the “but” denotes the downsides of the particular designs. Probably a matter of interpretation, but he doesn’t say that less responsiveness would be somehow better per se.
Personally, I think a slightly less responsive whistle might be desirable in certain circumstances as you could say it is more forgiving or provides more action, but I don’t see why it would sound smoother or rounder, or generally better in any way. Maybe a design that favours smoothness is harder to make highly responsive as well (and vice versa), but I can hardly imagine that it sounds smoother because it is less responsive.
I’m simply basing my thoughts on the review of the OS Chieftain by Pipers Grip quoted in my initial posting. He uses the word “responsive,” which has perhaps led the thread off at a slight tangent. What I’m after is what design factors make some whistles crisp and clear in tone with lots of chiff and attack on the notes, and what makes another whistle smoother in tone . . . and perhaps more forgiving. Interestingly in talking with Colin Goldie the other day he suggested that the tonal difference between his soft and medium blowing Low D was the former produced crisp, clear notes and the latter a smoother more mellow tone. Returning to my initial request, if I were to go to a maker and ask for a smoother Low D for airs and slow reels what aspects of his whistle can he tweak to get that result . . . and is increasing backpressure by narrowing the windway one of them?
An interesting and rather difficult to define topic! To narrow “responsiveness” in a whistle down to physical design aspects, I would differentiate between these two:
How fast a whistle responds to change in air flow (in pressure), from zero to high, especially how fast a whistle responds giving a tone from starting to blow (you blow, a tone comes out). Here I can see that a more responsive whistle would possibly have less distance from end of wind way to sounding edge (labium), as well as less pressure requirement to produce a tone (soft blowing generates a tone nearly instantly). So this is in agreement with Colin’s more specific remarks. A whistle with more distance between wind way exit and labium usually also requires more air flow (pressure), and the sheet of air flowing across the window is larger, thus reacts a bit slower to pressure changes. Same goes for larger whistles of course. But if you make the window too narrow, reducing windway-exit to labium distance, the tone may get too recorder-like, and strong low notes may suffer. If it gets too large you may inadvertently introduce too much wind noise (or you want this by design), making the tone less clean.
How fast a whistle responds to change in fingering, covering and uncovering tone holes to change notes or modify a note (two different aspects). This is influenced by a) hole size, b) wall thickness, c) hole edges. Changes using a bigger hole is slower. A thick wall would also contribute to slower response, since there is more “dead air” which needs to get excited to vibrate. Hole edges may contribute, as the sealing of holes may be easier or not, and, crucially, smooth edges will help the flow of air in and out the tone hole, and make for easy octave transitions, so again help the whistle to be more responsive.
More could be said to each point, but workshop is waiting!
Thanks for your interesting input, Hans! But to go back the my previous post what matters to me is not so much “responsiveness” how ever that is defined but what makes for a whistle with a smoother tone as opposed to one with more bite, clarity and attack in the notes. Referring to your two points.
In summary, a shorter beak with a taller windway (i.e. softer blowing) would create a more responsive whistle that, according to Colin, would equate with a crisper, clearer tone, with more attack to notes. Conversely, the longer beak with a shorter windway would result in a slightly less responsive whistle but a smoother more rounded tone. This agrees with Guido too. Presumably the longer window would also contribute to a smoother tone, whereas the shorter window would tend towards the edgier, clearer tone. Am I correct in this?
So how does hole size etc produce the smoother or edgier tone. Do I take it that a whistle with large, thick, unfinished edges will be less responsive and therefore produce a more mellow smoother tone than a whistle with small, thinned-walled, smooth-edged holes?
Peter, I’m not interested in an unresponsive whistle either. But there are subtle degrees of responsiveness that produce a difference in tone and that’s what I’m curious about.
Mike, just a quick answer: I think I am not in agreement with your assumption that a softer blowing whistle produces an edgier tone, and a harder blowing whistle produces a mellower tone. I also do not agree that a clearer tone is edgier or crisper. This has probably to do with the words we use to describe tone, which are a very subjective and often confusing matter. In other words: I do not agree with your summary. The tone of a whistle has so many contributing factors, and I tried in my post above to stay with physical factors contributing to a whistle’s response, not commenting on tone so much (apart of the possible introduction of wind noise with increased distance of wind way exit to labium).
Also: a crisp action, meaning a responsive whistle, does not mean a crisp tone IMO. A “crisp” tone suggests to me a tonal quality with more presence of overtones, perhaps a lot of overtones (“harsh” would be the extreme), in contrast to a more rounded tone, which perhaps some describe as more mellow, or flute-like, or even dark, where the fundamental frequency is more pronounced. But there are many factors influencing the tone, not just how easy or hard the whistle is blown to produce a tone.
Voicing is obviously a factor, but so is the bore of the instrument. The pipe-like tone of cylindrical renaissance instruments is quite different from that of complex taper-bored baroque instruments which are rich in overtones. Whistles are mostly cylindrical. My own playing around with the voicing of a couple of damaged recorders makes me think that a short distance between the labium edge and the windway exit gives an edgier, more complex sound which speaks more readily in the higher registers, as does bringing the windway floor up almost to the level of the labium itself, but I’m no expert.
As for responsiveness, I wouldn’t want an unresponsive instrument. I think you’re confusing two separate things here, frankly, but I may be wrong. These are notoriously complex issues.
As mentioned earlier my interest is in tone rather than responsiveness. Unfortunately the two were connected for the purposes of the review of the Chieftain OS Low D. That’s where I get the term responsiveness from and it was not intended to be the main thrust of the thread.
Hans, as you say the words we used to describe tone are subjective and often confusing. Nevertheless, tone is what this thread is about. Would you mind using your own words to describe the tonal differences between a short-beaked soft blowing low whistle and a longer-beaked harder blowing whistle all else being equal. Or to put it another way, what parameters would make the whistle lean towards a smoother tone where ornaments blend in more. I’m recognising this is a difficult to describe area, so no pressure. But I look back again at the OS review and see what I would like to know: the physical factors that contributed to the OS’s smoother tone. I think the words bear repeating:
Unfortunately, this whistle can be just the slightest bit on the sluggish side . . . and is probably not the best choice for super session speed reels. Ornaments can be easily executed and sound fine . . ., they just don’t sound as clear and crisp as on more responsive whistles. However, a side benefit of this is that the transitions between notes sound nice and smooth, where more responsive whistles can sometimes have an abrupt, staccato attack, have to much chiff, or even squawk between notes. This again makes this Low D an ideal whistle for airs or even slow reels.
Well, sorry for misunderstanding this topic! But then it is a very misleading topic title, perhaps the title could be changed?
Sorry I can’t. I am not very good at describing tonal differences, and I am lacking the base to make the comparison you desire.
In my own whistle-making I am not offering different models like soft- or medium or hard blowers as Colin does. I think he varies the windway height to achieve these differences, and the window dimensions stay the same. In my whistles I usually do not vary windway height, but on occasion windway width, which directly effects the window dimensions as well: wider wind way, wider window, wider labium. Such head gives more power and requires more air flow, but I would not considerate it a softer blower. The tonal difference I observe in such changes is a change in potential volume, and an increase in wind noise due to more air streaming through. But I try to aim for as little wind noise as possible.
My main objective for increasing the window width slightly would be to adjust the head to drive a longer body, i.e. for a lower key, for a narrow bore version. That brings along its own particular tonal differences,not huge ones, but noticeable.
So, you see, like for like comparisons are pretty difficult, if not impossible to make, as different makers follow their own design ideas, and we are advised better not to extract too general conclusions about such matters as what precisely makes the tonal differences between whistles. Best to try and hear.
P.S.: I have not tried an Chieftain OS Low D, so cannot possibly comment on its character.
No problem, Hans. Apologies too for the misleading title. I guess I connected responsiveness all too readily with quality of tone from reading the review.
No problem, Mike! I wish I could be of more help. But I find one of the hardest things is to interpret someone else’s whistle review with regards to design characteristics if I have no experience with the whistle in question. And I would not like to draw generalisations from it even if I got some ideas as to what factors in a design made a reviewer write the words he/she did.
I like Peter Duggan’s answer best of all:
To me, ‘responsive’ means it reacts quickly to what I do and does what it’s told. I’m not interested in unresponsive whistles.
and I see no conflict between a responsive whistle and smooth transitions. I don’t agree with Pipers Grip’s general remarks about responsive whistles, as you quoted them in the OP.
