The bad news is that I recently missed a house concert and session with Grey Larsen because I had to work late. The good news is that my wife came home with his massive “Irish Flute and Tin Whistle” book.
But I ran into something unexpected. I was taught to cut the bottom notes with the bottom finger of my top hand, and higher notes with the top finger of my top hand. But in his book, he states that different notes should be cut with different fingers. A low D would be cut by opening with the middle finger of the bottom hand, low E cut with the top finger of the bottom hand, and so on, different finger for each note.
How do you cut your notes and why? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different methods?
(I posted this already on thesession.org, but am interested in seeing what different thoughts and opinions come from this forum.)
I use whatever works for my old hands within the framework of what I am playing. I don’t spend any time “anal”-yzing the whys and wherefores anymore. Life’s too short. That said, I mostly do just as you described TH3 for the bottom notes and TH1 for the others. There are a few good and reputable players out there doing the same.
I’ll also mention that different whistles may respond better with some holes being used for the cut than others. So…
Feadoggie
It’s a pretty well-worn topic here, Al. The consensus is that your description above is the norm (i.e., default fingering) for most, while Grey’s cutting instructions are an outlier.
Of course: skilled players are never locked into only one way of doing things. Sometimes I cut G with T2 (instead of T3, normally), or a lower note with B1 or B2. Sometimes. We’re not bloody machines. But it’s really a non-issue. No one knows or cares or can (mostly) tell by listening what cuts you’re fingering if they’re executed well.
I like Grey Larsen, and I like his book. But I have the feeling that he hit upon his idiosyncratic “improved” system of doing cuts in a intellectualized sort of way, and he presents it with a sort of evangelizing tone. It’s one of the aspects of the volume most open to criticism, IMO.
Well, I actually mostly cut the Larsen way.
During the time I was experimenting with the different fingerings, I was playing one night with a muted whistle (probably the paper clip method). The further away the cutting finger was from the cut note and the stronger the whistle was muted, the less responsive the cuts became on my whistle (don’t remember whether that was a Feadog or a Burke, that might make a difference). This looks like there is a rather convincing physical logic behind it. In some constellations, the cut note didn’t sound at all with the T1/T3 approach. With Larsen’s approach, the cut was very crisp each and every time. At normal playing speed, it probably won’t make much difference, but the “ploppiness” of the Larsen cuts convinced me. 
And now you’re trying to tell me I’m abnormal??? 
You cut with the note that suits the situation best, according to the effect you intend to achieve.
Some players cut in a different way from the first playing when the phrase is repeated, to shift the weight in the second playing.
Approaching cutting in a rigid way is reducing it to a mere mechanical device and essentially unmusical.
Well, my reaction was going to be “I don’t know”. Mr Gumby’s post makes me feel better.
OK, I was overly grumpy above, and I’ve toned it down. So let’s drill down a bit for more granularity. Here are my default cuts:
C/C#: Not applicable (cross-fingered cuts).
B: No choice, cut T1. Same as Larsen.
A: No real choice, cut T1. Same as Larsen.
G: Usually T3, but sometimes T2 or T1, at will. T2 is same as Larsen.
F#: T3. Same as Larsen.
That leaves D and E. In effect, the whole “controversy” really comes down to only 2 notes.
E: T3 (vs. Larsen’s B1). I use B1 sometimes. But especially for E rolls, rocking the bottom hand is far less agile than executing the cut and tap on separate hands. (This is the same problem as the tricky A roll on the top hand). So T3 wins as my default fingering on consistent ergonomic grounds.
D: T3, or B1 (vs. Larsen’s B2). T3 is a bit unstable because it wants to vent to the next harmonic. As an alternative, B1 feels more agile than B2. But if you’ve mastered the D cran, either single cut should follow.
To summarize: I certainly don’t object to including Larsen’s cuts - or any possible cuts, for that matter - in your technical toolbox. I do think his “system” is less ergonomic and less friendly for beginners, and the book should put more of a caveat on them as idiosyncratic and, as Mr. Gumby implies, not necessarily the one true way. (Honestly, I don’t have the book at hand, so I can’t double-check my recollection how they’re presented.)
As a weird aside … One of the little things Brian Finnegan threw at us during our last gathering was the idea of using T1 for any cuts when possible. I played with this a bit and it didn’t really grab me. But I always pay attention when good players do things differently. 
Yeah, I figured the topic had been done quite a lot on chiffandfipple, but tried to search for past discussions, and ended up just frustrated at my poor skills at the search engine.
As stated above, I had pledged to myself that I would become more methodical about my ornamentation, and then discovered that there were different methods, and wanted some ideas about what the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
I have decided to stick with the method of cutting that I learned. Other than that, I have not found anything in Mr. Larsen’s very comprehensive book that contradicts things I have learned over the years, he merely goes into more depth in analyzing and explaining them. Which, since I am working on being more methodical, should be of great use to me!
Unfortunately some equate rigidity and absolutism with tradition as if though a know it all robotic compliance obtains authenticity.
To me, your first sentence implies responsiveness - to emotional, social, kinesthetic contexts relating to the music. It is a fact of nature that organisms that cannot respond to context die.