Me too, because most of what you went on to say struck me as full of unnecessary crusading zeal (so what have the poor thumb holes done to you to provoke that response?)…
No point arguing at length here, but it’s a useful extra for some (certainly far more than a ‘gimmick’ unless the C key on a flute’s also a gimmick) and no-one’s compelling you to have one! It’s not something I’ve got on any of my whistles or intend to get added, but I’ve just got a flute with one and (despite still preferring other C fingerings in many contexts) am excited enough by the possibilities there (for venting as well as fingering) to be wanting it on future flutes.
I have thumbholes on all of my whistles. I added them myself to my Susatos. And on my Bracker, W.D. Sweet, and Burke whistles I had them put in by the makers. I much prefer the thumbhole C to the cross-fingered C. On every whistle I own it is a much stronger, clearer, and better in tune note. And for me it is much faster and easier than cross fingering. For example: moving from B to C. With the thumbhole you simply lift the thumb. Can’t get any easier than that. With the cross-fingered C you have raise the first finger while dropping the next two (or three) fingers at the same time. Not real difficult. But harder than simply raising the thumb. A tune like Rakish Paddy I could practice using cross-fingered C till the cows come home and I’d never get it as fast and smooth as I can using the thumbhole.
I give weight to the opinions of seasoned players. If I’m told a thumbhole is a gimmick, I pay attention, since I may come to the same conclusion with time, and then I’m stuck with a gimmicky instrument.
But I also need to remind myself that in music, I principally aim to please myself. Yes I enjoy playing with others, and I like to listen and match their groove, but I’m going to carry on with a musical “relationship” only if I sense that we are on our way to making good music as I see it. “Good music” is a very individual thing for me, and is mostly independent of traditional forms. I need to remind myself of this because I’ll easily find myself pleasing others in finding a “proper” or “authentic” sound, and then after a while I’ll realize I’m not enjoying it as much as I thought.
Some may think it’s charming and endearing to have a c-natural that’s a little out of tune, or with a different timbre than the other notes, but I don’t. I often play with fiddlers who are very good with intonation, and sometimes I want to blend in rather than stand out (a real challenge with some of my whistles!) Since I play Boehm flute, it would also please me to play a whistle as I do a flute, even though I seem to do OK with cross fingering my c-naturals. Actually what I think I want is a nice, responsive wood keyless flute that I haven’t found yet, and I think a thumbhole is more clearly of benefit there, and probably less maligned since it is a more elegant and usable solution than the chromatic keys many choose for their flutes.
Any other thoughts on thumbholes out there? You may convince me yet that I don’t want one.
Of course you’re right Peter but there’s no right or wrong here. it’s just my opinion.
When I first started playing, I spent so much time seeking instruments and variations in design while looking for that perfect intonation/tuning and not nearly enough time just practicing and playing. I just hate to see new players wasting time like that too. Most of my whistles are spot on using one of the variations for a cross fingered Cnat and as MT states it’s just not worth that much effort for one note.
This is one man’s opinion of course. Do what you want to. I’ve never run into a tune I couldn’t play well without the hole so the point of it is lost on me. I’ve also never had a fiddle player, or any other player, complain that my Cnat was off.
One other point which has not been raised as yet:
A C= thumb hole is even more beneficial on low whistles than high ones, because on lower whistles the cross-fingered C= has increasingly less power, is more shaded. The C= thumb hole will provide better venting and a C= comparable in power than its neighbouring notes (if it is designed to be big enough of course). This is more evident on lower whistles than high ones.
The thumbhole gives some additional options and I like it very much.
But I don’t use it all the time, normally I use crossfingering or half-holing for the Cnat.
But I use it nearly always on the 2nd octave Cnat.
Maybe thumbholes are un-traditional, but you can’t call most of the modern whistles traditional as well.
Even a Feadog or a Generation is not produced from ‘taditional’ materials with ‘traditional’ methods.
And you see a whole lot of high end whistles in sessions.
I can’t se no sin in using innovation, it’s the music that counts.
For me, Michael Burkes thumbholes are in the right position. If a thumbhole is custom-made it is possible to move it’s position.
Skip Healy, too. Not sure whether there is a charge there. Along with elegance and considerable agility, it’s nice to save LOTS of money.
Any keyless flute can have the benefit of a C natural key without the key. I’m using both the key and other flutes with the thumbhole
and the latter, for me, are much more useful.
I have a Burke narrow-bore D with the C thumbhole and I taped over it almost immediately. It may be useful, but I don’t like having the additional restriction of motion that requiring your thumb to be in a specific location causes. I’m fine with using cross-fingered and half-holed C-naturals on whistle.
I find myself playing 10-hole ocarinas more and more these days, and they have two thumbholes. Maybe somebody makes a whistle with a G# thumbhole as well as a Cnat one?
Back in 1981 I saw a ten-hole plastic descant recorder in a shop in Istanbul (or actually 12-hole, the lowest two holes were split). I didn’t buy it and have been regretting not doing so for years. I’ve no idea what the fingering system was; there was no instruction book for it. I assume it was designed for the Turkish tonal system. I’ve never seen one since and never seen any record of such a thing having existed.
I’ve seen a DIY G# hole added to a Generation, so that was what came to mind. My right thumb falls naturally closer to the G# position than the Fnat one.
The answer is probably to get a spare toe grafted on the side of your right thumb so you have a bifurcated appendage that can cover two right thumbholes. Nobody really needs ten toes.
Or more likely F natural for right hand and Bb for left hand thumb.
If it’s possible to make whistle with D(Eb) and G(G#) split holes like in recorder we would have fully chromatic (but keyless!) whistle
I must talk over this idea whith amicable maker of mine.
I’ve often wondered about the feasibility of split holes myself. I try to get the full chromatic scale on my whistles using cross-fingerings and half-holing. It works fairly well. Split holes might work better. Lulu–let us know what your maker friend says.
R Small - one my maker friend said. “It might be impossible because of (small) diameter and distance between split holes and volume/tone of “split hole notes” might be too week” I don’t want trust him in this issue
Let’s see what will say second maker…
I have one of Colin’s “modal” D whistles, one of the first few he made. It doesn’t have a thumbhole for the C-nat, but it has 7 holes on top of the instrument, so you can get C natural (in both octaves) by stopping the last holed with your bottom-hand little finger. And it has an F-natural thumbhole on the back.
I experimented seriously with it for a while. The possibilities were very intriguing - C natural had a nice strong tone, I could do rolls on F natural, crans on C natural if I remember correctly, and certain difficult passages or tunes became feasible or easier. But I didn’t stick with it. The thumbhole wasn’t in a natural position (hehe) and I ended up taping over it.
Regarding the weak sound of C natural on a standard whistle, the need to cross-finger in various ways depending on the whistle, and the fact that what rolls you can do on that note are a trifle unconvincing… well, yes, that’s a limitation of the instrument. Or a feature of it, the nature of the beast, depending on your point of view. Working with an instrument’s limitations is OK with me.
If you don’t, what do you ultimately end up with? A Boehm-system flute, that’s what. (Which is fine, of course, if you have to play in an orchestra, jazz combo, or wind band - before all the Boehm-system players start beating me to a pulp.)
Well, the instrument’s limitations from its humble origin as a tin whistle have been changed massively as technological progress allowed. Adding a thumb hole may be against the purist’s taste of what a “traditional whistle” should be, but it is hardly a fatal step on the slippery slope of becoming a Böhm-system instrument. So it may as well just end there: a seven hole instrument rather than a six hole one.
In the end what matters is personal taste and choice, but hardly dictates of tradition. That’s what I hope .
I remember Chris Norman trying to persuade a class of wooden flute players, that it would be useful and good to start practicing using the Cnat key, for those who had them on their fine instruments, and many had but didn’t use them. He only taught tunes in C on that weekend workshop, to make the point!
(Which is fine, of course, if you have to play in an orchestra, jazz combo, or wind band - before all the Boehm-system players start beating me to a pulp.)