I hear a lot of posts saying the Copeland sound is ‘flutey’ in it’s tone. I’ve never played one myself yet, but I do own a Shaw D whistle (my very first whistle as a matter of fact) and it seems to exhibit this same tonal quality. Very strong in tone, but with a lot of chiff…ergo ‘flutey’.
Does anyone own both and care to compare your findings?
B~
My comparison may not have much merit as it’s between differently keyed whistles but FWIW I own two Copelands: a high d in nickel and a low d. The high d IMO could hardly be called ‘flutey’, rather it’s pure and piercing with no noticeable raspiness or edge. The low d OTOH does remind one of a flute - it’s a bit breathy, with a warm, buttery tone that mesmerizes.
I owned a Shaw A (which I have since sold for practically nothing) and it was much more earthy, heavily breathy and a metallic edge in the upper octave which I found unpleasant.
BTW, I always found it confusing to hear people say the Shaw has a ‘wood fipple’. It doesn’t, or at least the one I owned didn’t…it has a wooden block UNDER the airway, but at no time does breath ever touch anything but aluminum.
I own 11 Copelands and no Shaws. They are in completely different leagues, not comparable in any way other than the fact that you could use the word “airy.” I wouldn’t call a Copeland “chiffy” but rather airy and big". I wouldn’t play a Shaw unless I was hoping to hyperventilate and pass out.
Jessie
If you want to hear a good example of what the Copeland low d sounds like, listen to the 3rd track on Joe McKenna’s “The Irish Low Whistle,” which I highly recommend as a fabulous cd. He plays other low whistles in various keys on other tracks. The difference is dramatic.
Tony
I was in complete agreement with Raymond and Jessie, until I just tried them side by side, using the same passages for “Eel in the Sink” and “Morrison’s Jig.”
Mind you, these are both made by handb, so there is a lot of variation one to the next (except copeland’s more recent work with new machinery, which has very little variation to start with). The Copeland, OBVIOUSLY gets a lot more (15 fold more) care in every phase of creation. For reference I have only 5 Copelands and one Shaw (D).
The tones are, to me, more similar in the second register than I could have imagined. The big difference is that the shaw sounds like playing a 33 1/2 record (hiss & pop) of the Copeland with a tank of compressed gas leaking slowly. More air than chiff. In the first register, the Copeland tone is very pure. Has a much stronger bell tone and low end. I have had some work done to my Copeland to fine tune its timbre to my liking (one of the benefits of living south of Philadelphia and owning a Copeland).
I rarely play my shaw. I prefer playing to inhaleing. I’d play my clarke orignal before the shaw. It sounds more primitive.
On 2001-09-01 10:21, Raymond wrote:
BTW, I always found it confusing to hear people say the Shaw has a ‘wood fipple’. It doesn’t, or at least the one I owned didn’t…it has a wooden block UNDER the airway, but at no time does breath ever touch anything but aluminum.
I’m having a hard time imagining what you’re saying…in any case, my Shaw had (I sold it on ebay about a montha go) a completely wooden fipple. It was some kind of hardwood, and the air channel was obviously hand carved. That said, I did buy it 4 years ago or so.
Greg
.
[ This Message was edited by: Raymond on 2002-04-04 21:03 ]
Brian,
Most folks responding to this thread seem to be focusing on descibing how the Copeland is better than the Shaw (which it certainly is - by a factor of at least 5), howerver I’ll take a different approach to answering your question…
I used to think of Copelands and Shaws as sounding “Flutey”, until I started playing flute. Now I think of them as sounding “Conical” as opposed to “Cylindrical”, since neither sounds at all like a flute to me now. Anyway, clearly the Copeland is a far superior instrument to the Shaw, howver they both have a distinct sound in common, the “Conical Bore” sound. This is a very distinct sound, and while Shaws and Copelands sound different from one another, they do so in a way that two different Irish flutes might sound different from one another, while still sounding very much more alike than either would sound when compared to a cylindrical bore Boehm flute. Does this make sense?
What I’m saying is that Copelands and Shaws, have a distinctive sound quality that distinguishes them from cylindrical bore whistles. On recordings it’s relatively easy to tell when you’re hearing a Cone bore whistle. Listen to Laurence Nugent’s CD’s, his whistles just sound…uh…different. IMO Shaws sound similar, just not as good.
Hey, does anyone out there have the new Lunasa CD, “Merry sisters of fate”? One track on that CD has whistle playing that screams “Cone Bore whistle”, even though no Copelands or Shaws are listed in the credits. Has anyone else noticed this? Care to name the tune?
Loren
On 2001-09-01 18:16, Raymond wrote:
My artistic abilities manifested themselves most strongly in my musical ability, NOT my ability to draw so forgive my primitive Photoshop skills. This is a side view of the mouthpiece of my erstwhile Shaw:
Weird..why would you have a wooden block there at all, I wonder?
My shaw (again, bought years ago from Lark in AM) was made much like a traditional clarke: metal wrapped around a wooden fipple block. The shaw I had was obviously hand-tooled in places (looks like they used some kind of punch to dent the metal to secure the fipple into the mouthpiece, and the fipple was obviously hand-carved), and the mouthpiece was flattened across the top where the clarkes is curved. Looking directly into the mouthpiece it looked like:
Unlike my picture, the fipple was approximately the same size as in a traditional clarkes. The air channel was made up of the obviously hand-carved wooden fipple and the top of the metal whistle. If they changed their design and I had something that’s no longer made, I’m kind of sorry I sold it 
Then again, it did suffer from the same kind hyperventilating air-requirements that the newer design evidently still has.
Greg
PS: You can still see a small picture of it and hear a recording of it on ebay, item 1453126788 (at least until they wax it from their database).
http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1453126788&r=0&t=0&showTutorial=0&ed=997020848&indexURL=0&rd=1
If you look really close, you can see the wood in the windway through the window. in the mouthpiece.
[ This Message was edited by: Wandering_Whistler on 2001-09-01 19:54 ]
Supporting Loren’s astute observation
about the conical sound, the Clarke
Sweetone (and indeed the Clarke classic)
which are conical have it, too.
I do think the lower pitched Copelands,
like the G and the low D, sound like
flutes–but I’d better wait till
I play more flute. Anyway, Copeland
whistles are, in my opinion, the best whistles I’ve ever played;
and they’re made to last for a couple
of hundred years. Even people who
disagree will probably understand
why I think so. They’re something else.
Good point about the Sweetone Jim: I forgot to mention that one (suffering the effects of too much time exerting myself in the hot Florida sun today), but the Sweetone does, of course, have that cone bore sound.
Also, I forgot to adress Brian’s “Chiff theory”: IMO, the amount of chiff doesn’t really make (or break) the Copeland, Shaw, or Sweetone sound, it’s simply the shape of the bore. I’ve got Copelands with varying amounts of chiff, yet they all have that same “Flutey” sound. BTW, I found the few shaws I’ve played to be, in general, much chiffier than your standard Copeland. To me, the Copeland has a much more focused sound.
It’s interesting to me that Jim and Tony (I think) mentioned that they think the Lower pitched Copelands sound more “Flutey” than the higher pitched models. Oddly, I find the Soprano Copelands much easier to pick out by from a crowd of similarly pitched whistles - especially when recorded. Guess I’m just strange that way…
Jim, once you get your hands on a good conical bore Irish Flute, and learn to get a good reedy sound from it, I think the Copelands will sound less “flute like” to you. OTH, I could be wrong, so I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts when the time comes.
Now you’ve got my curiosity up Jim, what sort of flute do you have at the moment?
Loren
None, I’m afraid, except for a couple
of unplayable things I brought back
from India in 1987. But I’m working on
it, having been persuaded by your
comments on the Flute Forum and
those of Jessie K to order a Copley.
Jim,
Glad to hear you’re considering a Copely, you won’t be dissapointed!
Loren
Regarding the Shaw windway issue:
I have a Shaw A and E, and while the E has a purely wood fipple forming 3 sides of the windway (as per the 2nd diagram in the thread), the A has the lined metal windway that completely isolates the woodfipple from the air coming through the mouthpiece. Maybe they do this with the lower whistles to strengthen the mouthpiece around the windway?
I currently play a number of Shaws, a low D, low G, low A, C,D, and E. Actually, I’ve set the sop. D aside for a Sindt. I used to play contrabass clarinet, and run twelve miles a day, so I have lungs like a bellows. But I like the sound of Shaws. I can’t make a fair comparison to Copelands as I have never owned or played one. I’ve gotten in the nasty habit of eating regularly, living in a house, etc. and can’t really afford to buy one, (who could stop at one?). But for an inexpensive whistle, it has a lot of volume, has an ethereal sound, breathy, and it makes a pretty good club if you have to defend yourself. The A is one of my favorites, and I use the G quite a lot. I do, however, alter them somewhat. I seal the wood block with a water base polyurethane to eliminate the wood taste, and I adjust the window slightly to alter the sound. From all I’ve heard and read, I wouldn’t mind have a set of Copelands, though.
[ This Message was edited by: ScottStewart on 2001-09-02 15:54 ]
[ This Message was edited by: ScottStewart on 2001-09-02 15:55 ]
Gee…
I think I need to reitterate that I KNOW Copelands are a better instrument. I was simply asking about the tonal differences of each since I hear so many similar comparisons between the two. I’ll grant that my Shaw D does in fact take a LOT of air, but when playinjg a duet with a flute, it is unmatched in my collection for tone.
Thanks for helping my curiosity along. And thanks for all the replys.
Bri~