When does a whistle become a recorder?

[Poohze]

So. This is a kinda complex set of ponderings, and please forgive me if it takes a while to explore. There are a few whistle makers who offer thumbholes for C-nat (I've got a Hoover bakelite D with one), and Paul Busman at least offers his D+ whistles with a seventh tone-hole for a bottom C. If a whistle had both of those features, would it play like a recorder - i.e. chromatically, with fingerings like those used on a descant? Or are there subtleties of tone-hole size and placement that still make a difference?

Further, let's stick to wooden (and plastic, I guess!) whistles here, so we're not confusing the issue with different tonal qualities of materials, what are the design features that make a whistle sound like a whistle, and a recorder sound like a recorder? Are there essential differences in the way the two instruments are voiced? Let's take as given the understanding that both can have either conical or cylindrical bores (some early recorders anyway had cylindrical bores).

Partly I'm just curious about all this, given that I love all things fipple. I'm particularly interested in early recorders, and how the differentiation between them and whistles came about. But I'm also saving up to buy a Bleazey low D at the moment, and I've also been looking at his recorders, and the thought suddenly occurred to me that if I got a tenor recorder, and just kept the thumbhole covered and didn't use the bottom tonehole, it might play like a low D whistle, and I'd have the potential of two instruments for the price of one. Of course Phil Bleazey is the one to ask about how he voices his particular instruments, and I'll ask him about that when I'm closer to making an order, so I'm wondering about more general principles of design.

I'm fully expecting to be told that it don't work like that but I'd like to know why...

Thanks All!

Cheers

Marc E

[brad maloney]

They are two different, but closely related, instruments. Outside of hole configurations, the two have a different tone, play differently and have different fingerings, it's due to the instruments design, recorders have thicker walls and narrower bores than a whistle.

A tenor recorder won't cut the mustard, it's a recorder - which might also get stuck someplace you'd rather not have it put if you pull it out at a session.

Jus' sayin

[whistlecollector]

So. This is a kinda complex set of ponderings, and please forgive me if it takes a while to explore. There are a few whistle makers who offer thumbholes for C-nat (I've got a Hoover bakelite D with one), and Paul Busman at least offers his D+ whistles with a seventh tone-hole for a bottom C. If a whistle had both of those features, would it play like a recorder - i.e. chromatically, with fingerings like those used on a descant? Or are there subtleties of tone-hole size and placement that still make a difference?

Those extra holes on a whistle, if I understand correctly, exist solely to ease the sounding of a couple of notoriously difficult notes on the whistle: the left thumb hole ought to give a well in tune c-nat (allowing you to avoid a difficult half-holed note) while the right pinky hole is for use as a leading tone and allows you to avoid having to hook your pinky over the end of the whistle to get that low C-sharp! They won't make the whistle finger like a recorder: the thumb hole on a recorder plays double duty as a note producer and also an octave key. That function is played, on the whistle, by the uppermost finger hole, the one you vent slightly when you want to play in the upper octaves. Recorders do have holes for both low C-nat and C-sharp, but they're not intended for use as leading tones. In a D+ whistle, the basic scale of the whistle is still D major, while on a recorder, the basic scale is C major.

This, I think, points to one of the major differences between the two instruments: the whistle is an instrument that uses a "six finger hole" pattern while the recorder uses an "eight finger hole" pattern. This means they finger quite differently, even though there are some commonalities.

As for playing chromatically, whistles already play chromatically! Just like any keyless or simple system woodwind instrument, be it recorder, flute, oboe or clarinet, you just have to learn how to half-hole and cross-finger to get all the in-between notes!

Further, let's stick to wooden (and plastic, I guess!) whistles here, so we're not confusing the issue with different tonal qualities of materials, what are the design features that make a whistle sound like a whistle, and a recorder sound like a recorder? Are there essential differences in the way the two instruments are voiced? Let's take as given the understanding that both can have either conical or cylindrical bores (some early recorders anyway had cylindrical bores).

One thing I notice is that all recorders have very wide windows and very long ramps. As compared to those on whistles. Dunno how much of an effect that has, though. Also, I don't think I've ever come across a recorder with a curved windway or a curved blade -- they're always flat!

Partly I'm just curious about all this, given that I love all things fipple. I'm particularly interested in early recorders, and how the differentiation between them and whistles came about.

Probably vèry early on there was little nor no differentiation between the two. Once we move into the Rennaisance and thereafter, differentiation takes place at the hands of recorder makers who sought to improve / alter the basic whistle-like instrument. The recorder thereafter became a highly refined musical instrument, suitable for whatever it is the Baroque taste was looking for in musical sound. Apparently, the whistle just didn't have it!

Interestingly, it's really not until the later years of the 20th century that the recorder was finally brought into the 20th century, with further overhauls to basic design, addition of keys, etc.

But I'm also saving up to buy a Bleazey low D at the moment, and I've also been looking at his recorders, and the thought suddenly occurred to me that if I got a tenor recorder, and just kept the thumbhole covered and didn't use the bottom tonehole, it might play like a low D whistle, and I'd have the potential of two instruments for the price of one. Of course Phil Bleazey is the one to ask about how he voices his particular instruments, and I'll ask him about that when I'm closer to making an order, so I'm wondering about more general principles of design.

I'm fully expecting to be told that it don't work like that but I'd like to know why...

Right -- if you bung up those holes, you'll end up playing some kind of funko scale: D-E-F-G-A-B-C-C! You need to be able to vent that thumb hole in order to play the high d! You'd still have to use the recorder half-hole / cross-fingerings to get the F-sharp and C-sharp. If you were also planning on removing the foot joint entirely -- cos the whistle doesn't even have one! -- then you'll also mess up the tuning of your remaining low notes.

Cheers

[s1m0n]

I'm no recorder expert, but my vague understanding is that a recorder is a fipple flute optimised for chromaticism at the expense of range and a whistle is the reverse. Ie, 1.5 chromatic octaves vs 3 diatonic octaves. Somewhere in the middle are instruments* that do neither all that well. Although that might where the term "flageolet" belongs, come to think of it.

I suppose overblowing octaves is the dividing line. On a whistle you can, easily, and on a recorder you can't. Or don't. I'm not all that clear on advanced recorder technique.

*Actually, I initially typed "unstruments", which is way too good a word to waste.

[Peter Duggan]

it's a recorder - which might also get stuck someplace you'd rather not have it put if you pull it out at a session.

A silly way to say it's not a normal 'session' instrument!

Recorders do have holes for both low C-nat and C-sharp, but they're not intended for use as leading tones.

They're intended for whatever use they're needed, which may well include that function.

One thing I notice is that all recorders have very wide windows and very long ramps. As compared to those on whistles.

Debatable (depends on your recorder and/or whistle).

Also, I don't think I've ever come across a recorder with a curved windway or a curved blade -- they're always flat!

No, they're not! They're often curved, particularly in higher-end instruments and historical models.

if you bung up those holes, you'll end up playing some kind of funko scale: D-E-F-G-A-B-C-C!

Not exactly. Assuming you've left R4 open, covered the thumb hole and take your fingers off one by one, you'll get D, E, a very sharp 'F', G, A, B, C#.

I'm no recorder expert, but my vague understanding is that a recorder is a fipple flute optimised for chromaticism at the expense of range and a whistle is the reverse. Ie, 1.5 chromatic octaves vs 3 diatonic octaves.

Typically two octaves fully chromatic, with incomplete coverage of the next fifth.

[Kypfer]

if I got a tenor recorder, and just kept the thumbhole covered and didn't use the bottom tonehole, it might play like a low D whistle,

... almost, but not quite! The thumb-hole on a recorder, apart from being very necessary to help play the second octave in tune, is actually a D# hole (all fingers off plays D#), also the recorder doesn't play a "six-finger-down" second octave overblown D accurately, it needs to be played with just L2 closed, ie : a flattened D#. There are other variations.

Just FYI, it is possible to put a D# thumbhole into a normal six-hole whistle and have it play like a recorder "over the break", a feature I find useful, but the rest of the whistle still plays like a normal whistle.

Of course, a recorder sounds only a very little like a whistle, especially in the lower octave

[whistlecollector]

Recorders do have holes for both low C-nat and C-sharp, but they're not intended for use as leading tones.

They're intended for whatever use they're needed, which may well include that function.

Of course, you càn use them however you like -- my point was that the low C (or F depending) hole on the recorder is integral to the instrument's basic scale, which is typically C (or F), just like how you càn use the sixth hole of the whistle (or any other hole) as a leading tone (perhaps e.g. for a tune in E), but really it's integral to the basic scale of the instrument.

You càn also use the whole thing as a drumstick, but...

Also, I don't think I've ever come across a recorder with a curved windway or a curved blade -- they're always flat!

No, they're not! They're often curved, particularly in higher-end instruments and historical models.

I sit corrected! I wasn't aware of there being early (especially) curved windways or even curved windways and blades in general!

Cheers

[pancelticpiper]

To me the diagnostic thing is the way the octaves are voiced.

Recorders are voiced to favour a rich low octave, and as we know this makes the 2nd octave more difficult to produce, thus it needs a 'speaker' to assist in the production of the harmonic.

Whistles, lacking a 'speaker', have to have the octaves voiced so that the 2nd octave speaks easily without assistance.

Someone above said that recorders have a narrower bore than whistles, but the way the octaves work suggests to me that recorders have a greater internal volume. If it was as narrow/small volume as a whistle it would probably speak in the 2nd octave as easily as a whistle, unless it's something in the design of the head.

To compare apples to apples, note how much narrower a Shaw is than a recorder that has the same six-finger note.

BTW I've long thought, since the 70s, that Yamaha or somebody ought to come out with an injection-moulded plastic high D whistle which has a C foot and double holes for the chromatic notes. I'd be first in line! It would be very useful for 'legit' gigs.

[megapop]

BTW I've long thought, since the 70s, that Yamaha or somebody ought to come out with an injection-moulded plastic high D whistle which has a C foot and double holes for the chromatic notes.

Whoa, that'd actually be super cool! Their "fifes" maybe come close, if only they had an F# instead of the F by default. Well, and a fipple.

if I got a tenor recorder, and just kept the thumbhole covered and didn't use the bottom tonehole, it might play like a low D whistle

As others have already said, the F note is somewhere between F and F# (or Fnat with German fingering, which you don't want anyway). You could modify that hole to produce an F#, but there are still some differences in the 2nd octave... not speaking of the tonal differences. In short, if you want a whistle there's no way around getting yourself a whistle I suppose.

Recorders do have holes for both low C-nat and C-sharp, but they're not intended for use as leading tones.

They're intended for whatever use they're needed, which may well include that function.

Of course, you càn use them however you like -- my point was that the low C (or F depending) hole on the recorder is integral to the instrument's basic scale, which is typically C (or F), just like how you càn use the sixth hole of the whistle (or any other hole) as a leading tone (perhaps e.g. for a tune in E), but really it's integral to the basic scale of the instrument.

A recorder is chromatic and just happens to be named after the note sounding with R4 down, not R3.

[whistlecollector]

BTW I've long thought, since the 70s, that Yamaha or somebody ought to come out with an injection-moulded plastic high D whistle which has a C foot and double holes for the chromatic notes.

Whoa, that'd actually be super cool!

It would be indeed! Maybe time for an experiment...

Of course, you càn use them however you like -- my point was that the low C (or F depending) hole on the recorder is integral to the instrument's basic scale, which is typically C (or F), just like how you càn use the sixth hole of the whistle (or any other hole) as a leading tone (perhaps e.g. for a tune in E), but really it's integral to the basic scale of the instrument.

A recorder is chromatic and just happens to be named after the note sounding with R4 down, not R3.

Whatever it might be named, the native scale of the recorder requires the pinky hole as the fundamental of that scale. On the other hand, a whistle with a pinky hole doesn't require the pinky hole for its native scale. In other words, on a recorder, you get a C major scale; on a whistle with extra pinky hole, you do not get a C-sharp scale!

Both instruments are fully chromatic already, though I do think the recorder is arguably easier to play in the harder keys.

Cheers

[Peter Duggan]

Someone above said that recorders have a narrower bore than whistles, but the way the octaves work suggests to me that recorders have a greater internal volume. If it was as narrow/small volume as a whistle it would probably speak in the 2nd octave as easily as a whistle, unless it's something in the design of the head.

Not sure there's a lot between a recorder and a comparable conical whistle, though recorder head bores are typically more cylindrical (so, yes, wider) before the taper really starts at the body. And recorders are of course normally voiced quite differently, which is also 'something in the design of the head'.

http://www.flute-a-bec.com/evolutionpercegb.html

To compare apples to apples, note how much narrower a Shaw is than a recorder that has the same six-finger note.

And, yes, I've just been comparing Clarkes and Shaws to soprano recorders and only spotted this comment after writing the above!

A recorder is chromatic and just happens to be named after the note sounding with R4 down, not R3.

Bingo! So there's really no more reason to regard C as 'the basic scale of the [soprano] instrument' than D or G when they all use forked fingerings and feel equally natural.

Whatever it might be named, the native scale of the recorder requires the pinky hole as the fundamental of that scale.

See above!

Both instruments are fully chromatic already, though I do think the recorder is arguably easier to play in the harder keys.

IMHO not arguably, but unquestionably! But what we're all ultimately telling the OP is that a whistle's a whistle, a recorder's a recorder and there's no 'do it all' hybrid.

[Nanohedron]

*Actually, I initially typed "unstruments", which is way too good a word to waste.

Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that? I hereby declare the word "unstrument" to be an official part of the C&F cultural vocabulary. But, of course, let us use it with due care.

[s1m0n]

*Actually, I initially typed "unstruments", which is way too good a word to waste.

Brilliant. Why didn't I think of that? I hereby declare the word "unstrument" to be an official part of the C&F cultural vocabulary. But, of course, let us use it with due care.

I suppose it must be the class to which "flute-like objects" belong.

[Nanohedron]

That was my interpretation.

[Poohze]

But what we're all ultimately telling the OP is that a whistle's a whistle, a recorder's a recorder and there's no 'do it all' hybrid.

Yes, that's the answer I was expecting, otherwise the hybrids would be all over the place and everyone would be playing them! I probably should have called this whole thing a thought experiment. Whatever, I've learned a lot from all your replies, so thank you all very, very much! This is why C&F is so great!

Someone mentioned that recorders (generally) have much thicker walls than equivalent whistles. How would that affect the sound of the respective instruments, if much at all?

BTW - s1m0n, I love "unstrument" (now added to the spellchecker's dictionary)! I have a sneaking fondness for the kazoo... Does that count as an unstrument? Or should the term only apply to things that look like a musical instrument, but are really only suitable for hanging on the wall?

Cheers

Marc E