Same for a Cnat thumb hole, Jack.

I like the Cnat thumb hole, because it gives me more options, apart from the one less option, that I can't move the thumb around but have to keep it on the hole, but I get quickly used to that. More options for playing a C natural outweighs that. And I even got another option for playing C#. Having the thumb hole does not force me to use it, and in fact I use it as well as the forked C nat oxxooo, depending what I play. So it is by no means an either/or.

When I show one of my whistles with thumb hole for initial trial to a player, she/he quickly gets used to position the thumb over the hole, then proceeds trying out the whistle in the usual way, with playing oxxooo for Cnat. Then later she/he may want to investigate the possibilities using the thumb hole.

Retro-fitting a thumb hole is in my experience also not a problem, and the extra hole does not upset intonation of the notes when it is covered.

Actually more do than one might think. That is, they are glad to put one in if you ask, even though they
don't advertise. I have abell, copeland and freeman whistles with em, for instance, the thumbhole supplied
by the maker.

Yes, that's basically it.

The C thumbhole is mostly a solution in search of a problem. The only players I've personally seen using them are very beginners, who ended up taping the holes as their playing improved.

Tradition, schmadition. Players always have a choice. Hole technology has been sufficiently advanced and widely available for the past 150 years that any whistle player who wanted a thumbhole could have it. Today there'd be a lively aftermarket, especially among top players, for retrofitting thumbholes to older whistles to correct the design flaw. In some other universe, maybe.

To experienced players, the thumbhole simply adds one more alternate fingering to the already ample inventory of C-nat fingerings: half-hole, oxxooo, oxxxox, oxxxxo (high), xooxxo (high), etc. Talk about overkill. Especially for one note, whose intonation in trad playing is variable anyway.

I've tried the thumbhole a few times, so I know what it feels like and how it works. If I happened to have a whistle with a C-nat hole I might use it occasionally if the fingering ergonomics of a particular phrase suggested it. But as it is, after a number of years playing many different whistles, the thought "Gee, I sure wish I had a C-nat thumbhole" has crossed my mind ... well, never.

This question comes up with some frequency. Look through this thread and you can read what Michael Burke has to say about the extra hole. http://forums.chiffandfipple.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=57920

I have a couple dozen Burke whistles. A couple of those have the C natural hole. They are taped over and will likely remain so covered for the rest of their days.

Feadoggie

Turkish whistle diagram - for a G whistle with an F# on closing the right pinkie hole, but Turkish notation writes everything a fourth up, so this is really a D whistle going down to C#.

http://www.keyfimuzik.net/uflemeli-calg ... etodu.html

I have a wooden one like that in G from Bosnia and a metal one in C from Istanbul. They're found all over the former Ottoman Empire.

And, in case you might be tempted to think the Turks are any more consistent about this than anybody else:

http://i22.servimg.com/u/f22/11/49/54/14/kavalt10.jpg
http://i22.servimg.com/u/f22/11/49/54/14/fchart10.gif

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.

I'm done ranting. Play music. Have fun.

ecohawk

then ya can already pick up yer thumb without droppin' the sucker...

Dave Copley...delrin..."C" hole-no extra charge.
Keys if ya want 'em...

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.