The Serpent's Tale-- a review

A couple of weeks ago, I inadvertantly started a tempest in a teapot on the Chiff and Fipple whistle board by innocently asking if anyone had ever heard of, or played Serpent whistles which I had seen mentioned on a Celtic music newsgroup. Nobody was familiar with these whistles, but speculation about them, and their maker ran rampant, to say the least. Several people doubted that Serpent Music even existed and posed the possibility that this was some sort of a scam. That is certainly not the case. The maker of Serpent whistles, Bill Whedon, has become a welcomed member of the Chiff and Fipple community, and at my request he sent me 2 of his whistles for evaluation and review.

The two whistles I have been playing are a D in copper, and a C in molybdenum steel ( say it aloud: molybdenum. What a lovely word. But I digress).
I gotta say, these whistles are unlike anything I have ever seen. Bill, by his own admission, makes no attempt to make the prettiest whistles in the world. They display marks of the maker’s hand in the form of hammer marks, less than perfectly smooth filed surfaces, etc. This gives the Serpent whistles their own, unique rustic charm. They LOOK sort of antique- the sort of thing the local blacksmith might have made to amuse the neighborhood children.

These are pretty weighty whistles-- the copper tubing is a thicker walled variety than that of a Parkhurst. They are not tuneable, but they play pretty darned well in tune with themselves, and against my electronic tuner. Bill tells me that he is indeed working on a tuneable design for those whistlers who prefer that option. Fipple plugs are Gaboon ebony, which Bill uses for it’s resistance to swelling when wet, very nicely fitted and fixed in place with a beefy brass pin. The beak of the mouthpiece is fairly steep, rather than being very tapered. At first, I found this a bit odd feeling, but as I played the whistles a bit I forgot all about it. The fingerholes are not prefectly in line, but not enough to pose a playing problem.

Both whistles have their namesake Serpent engraved on the back side near the mouthpiece, and the copper one I received is decorated with what look like sunflowers on the front, with 2 of the fingerholes forming the center of the flowers. Above the flowers and foliage is a rather intricate Celtic knot. All of this decoration will not be everyone’s cup of tea, but the engraving is nicely done, so if you fancy a fancy looking whistle, let Bill engrave one for you.

The Molybdenum steel is a bluish gray and looks pretty industrial. If Metallica showed up at a session, this is the whistle they’d bring along. Both whistles feel like they’re lacquered to prevent tarnishing-- I’ve played these over a week now with nary a finger mark. The whistles are very solidly made, and don’t need to be babied. You could throw one in your backpack and not worry about it getting damaged. Heck, you could probably run over the steel one with your car, dust it off, and play it!
Nicest surprise of all is how well these whistles play. They are of a pretty straight forward design, the sort that an aspiring whistlemaker can easily find online eg the Bloody Hand. Several years ago, I tinkered with copper whistle making, and had fair, but not terrific results: whacking a piece of plumbing pipe into a playable instrument is not as easy as it may sound. The Serpent whistles play very nicely indeed. Good solid, but not overly loud sound in both octaves. Easy, predictable octave jumps. Good cross fingered C natural ( or C whistle equivalent). The D has a bit less blowing resistance, and the sound of the C is a bit more focused. I suspect that this has to do with the individual hand voicing of the instruments, rather than a pitch difference. I find myself picking up the C whistle frequently, trying out evey tune I can think of-- I like this particular whistle a LOT.
These whistles are definitely not for eveyone. Those people who want a museum quality looking instrument, machined to exacting tolerances will not be interested. WHOA afflicted individuals, who love the entire range of looks, feels, and sounds that are available in the whistle world should definitely give the Serpent whistles a good look. I get the feeling that Bill is willing to work with the buyer, enabling them to specify the materials and type of decoration for a one of a kind whistle. These would also make a good choice for a relatively new whistler who has been playing inexpensive, mass produced whistles, and would like to dip his/her toes into the world of handmade instruments. Bill tells me that he sells a lot of these whistles to the Renaissance faire market, and I can believe it. I think that they deserve the attention of the whistle world too.
It was suggested that I, as a whistlemaker, might be less than objective about a fellow whistlemaker’s efforts, so after I play these whistles just a bit more, I am sending them on to another member of the Chiff community for his evaluation . Keep your eye out for his review.

Thanks Paul!

Regards,

Philo

Gee, everyone is so quiet all of a sudden, why is that I wonder…

I dont know what to say.Molybdenum..hmmm…well..I..ahh(cough).Peace,Mike :slight_smile:

On 2002-09-09 23:42, Loren wrote:
Gee, everyone is so quiet all of a sudden, why is that I wonder…

I can speak for myself that it’s 'cause I couldn’t possibly buy another whistle right now, and it would be foolish to consider it since my last whistle order has sufficiently humbled me (realizing how much of a beginner I am as I can’t even decide how I like them. So Serpents will have to wait.

But that’s just me. That witch hunt did look like a lot of fun, but everyone knows it’s really duck season, so…

BLAM!

This review is doubly funny for me, as I do some minor blacksmithing for my friends in Renaissance Festival. Using, of course, many of the same tools that I use to make the whistles.

I am a bit - well - surprised at the pictures of the mouthpiece. On this monitor, the top edge appears very rough, which may be just a gamma problem. Be assured that I do smooth the area that your lips touch, quite well, as well as the periphery of the fingerholes. I don’t leave burrs or sharp bits.

Since the subject whistles were made, I’ve also built a new die for setting the blade, so there will be less of a bumpy-looking surface at that point. It not only looks better, but it makes the instrument easier for me to voice.

All in all, I’m pleased with the review. Paul has been fair, complimentary where it’s warranted (they really do sound quite good, and play easily, IMNAAHO), and has given me the words “antique”, and “rustic” to use in my advertising! :slight_smile:

I do enjoy doing the decorating, and trying to realize the ideas of those who want “something special”. My most recent effort included a couple of Celtic crosses with integrated knots, on a copper B-flat, for one of my Renaissance clients. She loves it, which pleases me greatly.

Finally, thanks, again, to Paul for a fair and even-handed review. I am especially glad that he likes the way they play and sound, as in the final result, that’s what counts the most!

Cheers,
Bill “Serpent” Whedon
Serpent Music
http://www.serpentmusic.com

You’re welcome Bill. BTW, everyone, the parts of the whistle where you put your lips are indeed quite smooth and comfortable. The pictures are a bit misleading.

It was recommended that BrewerPaul get a second opinion on Serpent whistles. Like any good doctor, he was not opposed to this idea. I wrote this review without looking at Paul’s. In order to avoid excessive redundancy I read his review before submitting this one (e. g., to avoid an excessive description of their appearance, since he’s posted pictures). I also contacted Bill Whedon, the maker, to clarify some of the design features, e. g., whether there was a coating on the whistles. So this review hasn’t been affected by Paul’s opinions, nor by any exchanges between Bill and Me.

Appearance: The D whistle is lovely. Both whistles have a serpent logo on the underside up near the mouthpiece. It looks like it was done with one of those vibrating pens or something. The D has some floral stuff winding around the finger holes as well as a Celtic knot and a butterfly. It’s interesting that I can see some marks on the mouthpiece that look like the marks of a fine rasp, and occasional marks elsewhere possibly from polishing. I find this kind of neat.

The C whistle is in chromoly steel, and has a flat finish. The D, though, is in copper and has a very shiny finish. The copper has also probably been dipped in some sort of brightener, so it has that really intense orange color of a freshly etched copper surface. Both whistles have been sealed with the kind of lacquer that’s used on brass band instruments.

The mouthpieces look pretty rough. The fipple plugs fit VERY well into the mouthpieces, kind of surprising for mouthpieces that look like they were pounded with a hammer or bent square in a vise. (Actually Bill tells me that they’re shaped with a railroad spike.) The plugs are also held in by something like pins or tacks. (These look like the bolts in the neck of the Frankenstein monster. Once you get that image in your head, it’s kind of funny, but lends sort of an attractiveness to the whistles nevertheless.) The windows look like they were cut out with a Dremel tool, and the blade pounded down with a hammer pounding on a stud or something. The lower part of the beak has a very little bit of curve to it.

All ‘n’ all, to me these are very attractive whistles. If a Copeland or Abell has the look of a fashion model, these have the kind of imperfect but real attractiveness of the girl next door.

Feel: These are very heavy whistles. I like this, but it’s not for everybody. The beaks have very little curve to them, or even slope. One reason for the small slope is that the fipple plug is only about 5/8" (14 mm) long, plus the pins that hold the plugs in place limit the amount of undercutting that can be done. However, the finger holes are very comfortable, they’re smooth without being overly rounded.

Now onto playing and sound

Breath requirements: The C whistle takes moderate breath and pressure. It’s extremely comfortable for me, easy octave transitions. The D needs a whole bunch more breath and offers very little resistance. I initially had a lot of trouble getting a decent sound out of this whistle. It didn’t respond the way I expected it to – the sound that came out didn’t seem to correspond to the breath I was putting in. In looking it over, I found that the blade didn’t line up properly with the windway – there was quite a bit of daylight, especially on one side, so it seems that all of the breath isn’t going into making sound. Anyway, after a few half-hour sessions with it, I’m now pretty satisfied with the way it plays. (For a point of reference, I do have a couple of Clarkes and Shaws, but I’m not crazy about the way that any of them play except the Shaw low-D.)

Tuning: The C whistle is very well in tune with itself in the lower octave. It gives a good Cnat (Bb) cross-fingered with two fingers. The tuning of the D is so-so. The best Cnat seems to be with forked fingering. It has two or three notes that give pretty severe beats played next to a Burke, Weasel, or function generator. (Burkes are equal tempered, Weasels have a somewhat flattened F#; I tried this both playing two whistles at once and with my wife playing one and me the other. I don’t own an electronic tuner and don’t take much stock in them.) It might be possible to adjust breath to bring it into tune, though neither whistle is very pressure-sensitive. The upper octaves of both are not perfectly in tune with the lower octaves.

Sound: I really love the C whistle and the D is growing on me. The D is easier to describe. It’s the mellowest high-D whistle I’ve ever played. The sound is not that chiffy or breathy, but is still really devoid of any piercing quality. (Its lower octave is vaguely reminiscent of the higher octave of a Copeland low-D. ) The volume is moderate in both octaves. The C is harder to describe. There’s a touch of chiff in the lower octave, the upper is pretty pure. It has what I can only call an open sound – a sound that’s sort of inviting or captivating. The volume is again moderate, but I would say it’s more even across the octaves.

I’ve discovered one interesting thing about these whistles. I usually cut most notes on the A finger. On both of these whistles, in the upper octave you can lift the A finger and have very little effect on either the D or E (C or D ). So while you can’t cut on A for the lowest notes of the upper octave, you can do a pretty decent finger vibrato vibrating the A finger.

On the whole, I like these whistles. The C especially is wonderful; it plays well across 2+ octaves with no surprises. I think there’s room for improvement in the whistles and especially in consistency, but Bill Whedon is still pretty new to the whole whistlemaking thing. I’ve asked him about a few things, and I know he’s gotten some new tools to make some of the construction more repeatable.

Given the very different characters of these two whistles, I would recommend to any customers who are particular about the playing characteristics of their whistles to talk to Bill about their preferences. Maybe Bill can also the phone audition of whistles for his customers like some other makers.

This new review makes me wish I had a more standardized way of testing pitch. What I presently use, is a 2-foot-long plastic tube slipped tightly over the mouthpiece end, into which I blow while tuning. This keeps my mouth off the instrument, but doesn’t let me do much by way of modifying embouchure. I use a combination of electronic tuning for the basics, coupled with Clarke C and D for the high whistles, blown in tandem with the Serpent. The B-flat and low whistles are tuned by purely electronic means, except for a comparison with a Yamaha synthesizer. If any whistlemakers out there have advice, I’d be most grateful!

One thought I’ve had, is using a considerably longer fipple, and back-drilling it to adjust the match between the high and low octaves - sort of like the adjusting plug in a modern flute. Opinions?

All in all, the reviews have been most helpful, and I thank both Paul and Chas for their comments, both the good, and the not-so-good. My purpose in making whistles is not only to play them, but to get others to do the same, so I want to provide a very good, playable instrument, with good sound and easy use. You help me do that in a very positive way, not beating me unmercifully for every little flaw, but telling me of them, and making sure, too, that I know the good points so I don’t lose them.
Cheers, all,
Bill “Serpent” Whedon
Serpent Music

I just read this thread for the first time and I want to mention that tuning whistles and flutes has to do with hole diameter and placement with regard to bore diameter and key of the instrument more than it does with “placement of the fipple block.” In other words, if you want the whistle to play in tune in both octaves, you need to put the holes in the right places. There is a program online…you type in the key of the instrument (figure this out before drilling holes and modify length if necessary), the inner diameter, wall thickness (if you are using thick tubing, like PVC, you want the instrument to play slightly - almost imperceptibly - flat before drilling the holes, but with thin metal tubing, this doesn’t apply), and the size of each hole you plan to drill, and it will tell you exactly where to put them. Here’s a link…

http://www.cwo.com/~ph_kosel/flutomat.html

:slight_smile: Jessie

Hmmm… Jessie, one of the things I note is that the hole placement for, say a low-D whistle, and that of a low-D flute, differs. A notable item on the flute, is that 3/4" or so recess to the closed-end side of the blow-hole. It’s about where the fipple would be on an end-blown whistle.

I have the set of calculations for flute tuning that takes diameters and metal/wood thickness into account. They seem to work fine for flutes, but are somewhat “off” for whistles, that suggests to me that there are some not-insignificant differences.

The other item that comes to mind, is that the flutes I’ve made seem to hold pitch better between octaves. I’ll try to do a drawing of what I propose for the fipple when I get home. I think it’ll make more sense in context.

Oh, and thanks for the links to info!
Cheers,
Bill Whedon

On 2002-09-19 15:59, serpent wrote:
one of the things I note is that the hole placement for, say a low-D whistle, and that of a low-D flute, differs

According to what or whom?

Jessie

Are the flutes you’re talking about Cylinder or Cone bore Bill? The calculator Jessie showed you is for Cylinder bore instruments, hole placements will be different for conical bore instruments…

Loren

Whoops, sorry Jessie, didn’t mean to break in on your dialog here - I’ll leave this to you.

Loren

Thanks for mentioning that, Loren. I should have pointed that out. It is, indeed, for cylindrical instruments. I have not seen any evidence that supports the claim that, all other measurements of a tube being equal, flutes should have different hole placement than whistles.

Jessie

Since a flute is blown against the side of the embrochure and the fipple blade is on the bottom of the opening, I imagine there could be a half an embrochure diameter difference in the offsets from the tone holes to the embrouchure/fipple window.
jb

On 2002-09-19 16:06, JessieK wrote:

On 2002-09-19 15:59, serpent wrote:
one of the things I note is that the hole placement for, say a low-D whistle, and that of a low-D flute, differs

According to what or whom?

Jessie

According to empirical data, to wit, physical measurements of an in-tune low D whistle, and a (glass) Hall Renaissance flute. I must use bagpipe fingering to use the D whistle, but can use my first-joint pads on the flute. I duplicated the measurements of the Hall to a Chromoly flute, and it works and is perfectly in tune. The fingerhole placement is so different from the whistle that I’m absolutely certain it wouldn’t be right on a whistle. My Hall G flute’s hole placement is quite different from that on my Serpent G whistle, too, yet they play perfectly in tune with each other.

I hasten to note that there are differences in tube diameters, but negligible difference in thickness. Also, the mathematical ratios of hole placement WRT the tone-hole (blowhole on the flute) differ, as well.

Studying the instruments, the only difference appears to be this: First, hold the flute so the fingerholes are on the right. Now, note that there is a hollow airspace about 3/4 inch in length, to the left of the blowhole. The whistle’s hollow length ends at the fipple plug. That’s why I surmised that boring out the fipple plug might change the tuning methodology. I’m not enough of a mathematician to provide you with actual formulae, but I can, once I’ve tried it out, give you my empirical data.

I’m not trying to argue with anyone, just get some further information on how it might be possible to get better tuning between the upper and lower octaves, as that of the flute seems, to my ear, to be more accurate, or better-tempered.

Anyhow, if you, Loren, or anyone else, has any other info on the subject, I’d be most grateful! I had no idea of the level of complexities I was letting myself in for at this (what seemed to be) simple task! :slight_smile:

As I consider such an experiment both interesting and low in cost, I will be doing it, and will let everyone know how it works out! Who knows - I may become World Famous for my Great Discovery! (Yeah, right… :slight_smile:
Cheers,
Bill Whedon

On 2002-09-19 16:13, Loren wrote:
Are the flutes you’re talking about Cylinder or Cone bore Bill? The calculator Jessie showed you is for Cylinder bore instruments, hole placements will be different for conical bore instruments…

Loren

Hi, Loren,
my whistles and flutes, including the Hall flutes I own, are all cylinder bore. And, responding to Jessie’s other observation about things being equal, please see my first comment on Page 2, which details the differences I note.
Cheers,
Bill

Bill said:

I hasten to note that there are differences in tube diameters, but negligible difference in thickness…

Ok, Bill. You just proved yourself wrong. If the tube diameters are different, then the measurements are NOT equal. Hello?!? This DOES have an effect on the other measurements.

I’m not trying to argue with anyone, just get some further information on how it might be possible to get better tuning between the upper and lower octaves

You say you are not trying to argue with anyone but to get good information, but in reality, you are rejecting good information and arguing with people.

I’m done trying to help you.

Jessie

That’s it Bill,

THAT’S for calling me a Troll!!!

:wink: