On 2003-02-04 16:55, paulsdad wrote:
I certainly love my well-worn Sweetone.
What color is yours, and if you have the natural finish does it show finger hole wear like the origionals?
I have two…a D in “Emerald Gold” and a C in “Starry Night.” Nice paint jobs on both…even prettier than on the website (not surprising…there’s no way even the best web photography can capture the depth of color).
I often describe my Elf Song as well-trained, mature sopranos (I’m primarily a vocalist, and think in terms of choral music)…pure, rich, with a distinctive timbre that shines particularly well on slow airs. Not at all shrill. Less “airy” than my Dixon (which almost sounds like a wooden whistle), more “color” than my O Briain “improved” (which reminds me of a boy soprano). Much “purer” in tone than my Meg, and much sweeter than my Generations.
Redwolf
How would you describe your Generations in singing terms Redwolf? My High F and G are boy sopranos who failed the audition while my Eb is a boy soprano whose voice is breaking.
What color is yours, and if you have the natural finish does it show finger hole wear like the origionals?
I have two…a D in “Emerald Gold” and a C in “Starry Night.” Nice paint jobs on both…even prettier than on the website (not surprising…there’s no way even the best web photography can capture the depth of color).
I often describe my Elf Song as well-trained, mature sopranos (I’m primarily a vocalist, and think in terms of choral music)…pure, rich, with a distinctive timbre that shines particularly well on slow airs. Not at all shrill. Less “airy” than my Dixon (which almost sounds like a wooden whistle), more “color” than my O Briain “improved” (which reminds me of a boy soprano). Much “purer” in tone than my Meg, and much sweeter than my Generations.
Redwolf
How would you describe your Generations in singing terms Redwolf? My High F and G are boy sopranos who failed the audition while my Eb is a boy soprano whose voice is breaking.
Hmmm…both my Generations are pretty solid candidates for the Vienna Boys Choir, being of the older…er…generation of Generations. I have a Clare, however, that reminds me painfully of an operatic soprano with a serious case of nodes.
The Ó Briain Improved D is just a Feadóg with a tweaked mouthpiece, nothing much to look at. Good whistle, however.
Ridseard
Yes…they’re very nice indeed, for all they’re not fancy. If, like me, you don’t like to do much tweaking yourself, an “improved” is a nice addition to your collection at a very reasonable price. It’s another sweet-voiced whistle with low breath requirements…can be a bit of a challenge to play until you’re used to exercising the necessary breath control in the lower octave, but what the heck…that’s something we all have to learn anyway.
Until I got my Elf Song, my “improved” was my most frequently played whistle, and it still gets a lot of play time.
Redwolf
[ This Message was edited by: Redwolf on 2003-02-05 10:51 ]
I have a Sweetone in C. It is the only C whistle I have that is in tune. The Sweetone is not a bad whistle. I think its problem is its unspectacularness. Nothing to seriously offend people who prefer any particular trait, and nothing to wow them, either.
That of itself could be a good thing, but it doesn’t give it a great reputation.
Now we have the Meg on the market (which I still have not tried). The Meg is a cheaper Sweetone, which probably hurts what was one of the Sweetone’s big selling points, being the cheapest conical whistle on the market.
Getting back to prejudices, among my prejudices wrt whistles:
(1) I like whistles with breath requirements that are not extreme. So, Clarkes and Shaws are out for taking vast volumes, while Overtons are out for taking too much pressure.
(2) I like wood.
(3) I prefer a full sound, not a thin sound.
(4) I like a little chiff, not too pure, not too chiffy
And, on the Sweetone issue, I’m anti – it plays and sounds like a watered-down Clarke to me, and I’d just as soon have my Clarke full strength.
I spent quite a bit of time with my elfsong, but haven’t been playing it at all for a couple of months. It clogged so easily that I became frustrated and even when cleared, it sounded very thin and strangled. Sort of like the elderly ladies in the church of my childhood, (to continue the voice analogy) but not so warbley.
On 2003-02-05 18:51, Blackbird wrote:
I spent quite a bit of time with my elfsong, but haven’t been playing it at all for a couple of months. It clogged so easily that I became frustrated and even when cleared, it sounded very thin and strangled. Sort of like the elderly ladies in the church of my childhood, (to continue the voice analogy) but not so warbley.
I’m willing to bet you’ve got some little fragment of something caught in the windway. That’s the only thing I can think of that would make an Elf Song sound “thin and strangled.” Maybe there’s even a rough bit of wood in there that’s giving you grief. Have you considered talking with Sandy and asking her to take a look at it?
As far as the clogging goes, the trick is to get the whistle thoroughly warm. It will clog like crazy until it gets to the point where the mouthpiece no longer feels cool against your upper lip. I usually blow through mine for a couple of minutes, play it a bit, then clear it with a pipe cleaner (rather than just blowing it out). After that, it simply doesn’t clog at all, unless I let it get cold again, and the sound is as full, rich and complex as you could wish.
Just my half a cent…
All whistles, much like people, vary individually. You can say that Whosawhatsoans are really snobby, or that Shabooty whistles really suck, but neither can be completely true for all of them. There are always exceptions. My point is we should try not to generalize. It’s understandable to talk about a certain really bad Shabooty you have, but to condemn the entire brand and its maker is wrong.
(Especially on a board like this when whistle differences can get pretty heated!) flees bearing Swiss flag
If I had to pick my favorite whistle?
It’s gotta be the Burke Brass Pro Sessions. It gets twice the play of any of my other whistles, is always in tune, never clogs.
I vote a thumbs down on the sweetone. Bought one once, gave it away, hated the sound of the thing.
On 2003-02-05 22:28, Soineanta wrote:
My point is we should try not to generalize. It’s understandable to talk about a certain really bad Shabooty you have, but to condemn the entire brand and its maker is wrong.
\
If we don’t generalise, we might as well give up discussing kinds of whistle altogether. Of what interest to others would it be if ‘My Shabooty stinks’ was understood to have no implications whatsoever for how others might find other Shabootys?
I think you have a point here. There are exceptions. Standardization is less than perfect. But, as it stands, it’s overstated to the point where that message gets blurred to the point of being almost unintelligible.
Well, if you say “all Shaggoth whistles suck,” then that could open you to much more liability than if you say “I’ve personally tried fifteen Shaggoth whistles, and none of them played well,” I would think that at that point you (and Dale) are much safer from anyone ever taking you to court over your words.
Also, there’s an honesty issue here. If you buy one or two whistles, and they are horrible, I think you can say exactly that: “I have tried a couple of Shoggoth whistles, and they were bloody dangerous…” but I don’t think it’s a good idea to say “Shoggoths is they are so bad they cause nightmares” from having played a couple of whistles a few times each.
Just my $.02. If I had more time, I could probably word it better, but I have to get ready for my morning drive over the Plains of Leng to get to work.
Don’t let peeplj’s modesty fool you: he’s got this point exactly right. To say something of general interest we have to generalize. But we should generalize cautiously and our generalization should never be presented more emphatically than the evidence to hand warrants. That way people learn from our experiences but they carry away the most useful message possible that our experience justifies. Over time, that approach also garners greater respect than the over-the-top and overly hasty generalizations.
Actually, the particular may make more of an impression than the general. For example, I may pay more heed to a post which states “my Shaggoth sucks” than one which insists that “all Shaggoths suck”, because I suspect that the latter may have been inspired by a dislike of Shaghorn Mike’s personality.
On 2003-02-06 13:02, Ridseard wrote:
Actually, the particular may make more of an impression than the general. For example, I may pay more heed to a post which states “my Shaggoth sucks” than one which insists that “all Shaggoths suck”, because I suspect that the latter may have been inspired by a dislike of Shaghorn Mike’s personality.
True, but that doesn’t mean that the conclusion you are drawing isn’t a qualified generalisation. The heed you’d be paying wouldn’t be just restricted to caution about buying the Shaggoth that’s said to suck, right? You’d be a bit cautious about ordering another Shaggoth wouldn’t you?
None of us are disagreeing about substance here. Overgeneralization (and over hasty generalization) is what we’re really bagging. I mean, all overgeneralization sucks, right?
