Double hole whistles?

[David Cooper]

I'll stop responding when people stop bringing up new points.

I appreciate you sharing your enthusiasm for the 10 hole whistle here as it indicates that there could be a market for something of that kind of high quality at a more affordable price, and the cost of adding a few extra holes is indeed trivial, once you know where best to make them to suit the largest number of people. As I said before, I'd like to explore the possibility of putting a product into that space, but I need to know more, and I'm not going to buy an expensive or low quality instrument just to try to find out how you use the ten holes to produce 12 notes. You've successfully brought this to my attention, so don't allow yourself to be deflected by people objecting to you overstating your case; you still have a worthwhile case, and you've got it across. If you want things to happen, you might help push things in that direction if you answer my questions so that I can generate more desire to risk a good flute/whistle tube by drilling extra holes in it. What are the fingerings for the 12 notes? Where are the holes underneath relative to the ones on the top?

[Cyberknight]

I had wondered what exactly you had in mind when you brought up that argument. When this was the example you came up with I couldn't help giving you a little Take that how you will but I hope you can see the irony that made me smile.

No, it really doesn't. Because there are many examples of modern ITM that have chromaticism.

Or, on second thought, perhaps you don't.

I'll stop responding when people stop bringing up new points.

Have there been new points? I think there has been a lot of restating of points made earlier, with you digging in further in response.

Yes, there have been. For example, your point about how the example I provided of chromaticism isn't actually ITM, and how that supposedly indicates that my entire argument is wrong, is a brand new argument. You didn't spell it out until 2 posts ago. If all you were doing was simply repeating yourself, I'd simply stop responding. You see, what I'm doing is not "digging," but attempting to engage intelligently with people's points (something you seem to avoid doing yourself).

There are 20th century tunes that embrace some minor forms of chromaticism, such as the Beare Island Reel or the White Petticoat. Some 21st-century artists have taken this further. I mentioned Larry Nugent as an example of someone who pretty clearly uses keys/chromatics in some of his performances (this can easily be found on YouTube). If you want more examples, this page has some good ones (some are modern interpretations of ITM, while others are not): https://thesession.org/discussions/47265 . You can also look for bands on Spotify that do ITM/jazz fusion.

[paddler]

So you don't like chromatic whistles OR whistles that play in other keys? Someone really must like the keys of D and G lol.

Still failing to recognize the power of the standard 6 hole whistle design, I see. Why do you think it restricts you to D and G?

Surely, you must have come across tunes in E minor (dorian mode), A minor (dorian mode), B minor (aeolean mode), etc? All of these are very common and work wonderfully on a D whistle with no half holing at all.

Once you recognize this and take time to understand the implications of it, you'll see that you can cover virtually all the keys and modes you need for ITM with a small number of inexpensive, standard whistles. Taking this approach has the huge advantage of completely avoiding all of the ergonomic problems and mental complexity of playing a whistle with a load of extra holes. In the few, relatively rare, cases when you come across accidentals, they can be easily addressed by half holing or cross fingering. And all of the fingering patterns and playing techniques you learn will be directly applicable to virtually every other whistle you play, so no time wasted trying to develop skills for an obscure, one-of-a-kind, instrument.

[Mr.Gumby]

. You see, what I'm doing is not "digging," but attempting to engage intelligently with people's points

You really can't leave well enough alone, can you? I am not going to bite.

[Cyberknight]

On a broader note, you definitely were trying to criticize the idea of a chromatic whistle. Indeed, saying you have "no use" for one and then arguing that the community won't like them IS a criticism of them, by definition.

I disagree. I don't have any use for golf shoes instead of sneakers, either. But my saying so in no way is a criticism of the idea of golf shoes. Someone can extol the benefits of golf shoes to me all day, but it's not likely they're going to convince me that I need a pair, no matter how good those shoes may be--or how useful they may be to someone who does need a pair. And my guess that most of the people I know don't need golf shoes either is also not a criticism of the shoes. Especially when I concede that there's a (albeit smaller) use case for golf shoes for those who might feel they need them. That's what I mean about you seeming defensive. I'm not attacking you or your idea. I'm just making the conjecture that even if the design pans out, it will be a smaller market. That seems to me a realistic theory.

I'll take your advice that I need to improve my technique (re: my thumbs) under advisement.

That's fair, and you're welcome to disagree. But I want to note that I never meant to imply you have bad technique. My statement was merely that it is indicative of bad technique if you're moving your thumbs around while playing, which you'd probably agree with (wouldn't you?).

I'll stop responding when people stop bringing up new points.

I appreciate you sharing your enthusiasm for the 10 hole whistle here as it indicates that there could be a market for something of that kind of high quality at a more affordable price, and the cost of adding a few extra holes is indeed trivial, once you know where best to make them to suit the largest number of people. As I said before, I'd like to explore the possibility of putting a product into that space, but I need to know more, and I'm not going to buy an expensive or low quality instrument just to try to find out how you use the ten holes to produce 12 notes. You've successfully brought this to my attention, so don't allow yourself to be deflected by people objecting to you overstating your case; you still have a worthwhile case, and you've got it across. If you want things to happen, you might help push things in that direction if you answer my questions so that I can generate more desire to risk a good flute/whistle tube by drilling extra holes in it. What are the fingerings for the 12 notes? Where are the holes underneath relative to the ones on the top?

That's very fair. I'd love to elaborate.

It's more complicated than I've explained so far, because I actually have had two versions of the Morneaux chromatic whistle. I initially bought a Mark 1, and then I sent it back to him years later to modify it because I had a new design idea in mind (the guy is brilliant and willing to try custom design ideas). I want to emphasize that the SECOND version - the one I currently have - probably isn't for everyone. The original one, however, is something I think almost anyone would like if they got used to it.

My initial model was the Mark 1 version that you can find here: https://musiquemorneaux.com/whistlesflageolets/ . The D sharp hole is slightly below the D hole, right where you'd ordinary place your pinky if you play with pinky on (as I always have). The F natural hole is on the underside of the whistle, exactly beneath the F sharp hole - so, slightly further up from where you'd most naturally place your thumb, but not too off. The G hole is turned into a recorder-style double hole (so G sharp can be played). There's also a left hand C natural hole, which is right where you'd expect it to be. B flat has to be cross-fingered (and C natural can also be cross-fingered).

After a few years of playing this whistle, I had this crazy idea for an improvement. I realized that I never used the C natural hole, since I preferred to cross finger. I also decided I was tired of using the double holes for G sharp. Even though they're easier than half-holing, they're still a pain. So I asked Morneaux to plug up my C natural hole and open a new left-hand hole for G sharp. He agreed.

So my current version has a left-hand G sharp hole [EDIT: by this I mean a thumb hole]; to my knowledge, it's the only whistle in existence that has one. It is situated pretty much exactly below the A hole. I will admit that learning to use it was initially a bit uncomfortable, because it requires you to put your left thumb way, way lower than you're used to. But after practicing for a week or two, I got used to it and barely noticed my thumb was in an unusual position. And playing G sharp, even in fast passages, is an absolute breeze. That said, this setup might not be for everyone due to the odd placement of the left thumb, which might cause cramps for people with larger hands. Potential ways to fix this might be to put the hole further up (which might not be possible if you want good tuning) or adding a closed-hole key for the left thumb. But for me, it isn't a problem; my hands are tiny.

Both versions of the whistle have the same fingerings, except that the newer one has an extra option for G sharp, and the original one has a non-cross fingered option for C natural that I never used. They both allow you to play the 7 notes of the normal whistle, plus cross-fingered C natural and cross-fingered B flat, exactly as you would on any other whistle (you just have to make sure your left [EDIT: I meant right] pinky is down at all times). For D sharp, you finger for a D but lift your pinky. For F natural, you finger for an E but lift you right thumb. On the second version, for G sharp, you can finger for G but lift your left thumb. All these fingerings work for both octaves. The only other thing to note is that you CAN lift your right pinky and still play most notes above D relatively in tune; E will be about 10 cents sharp and F sharp will be about 5 cents sharp; other notes are unaffected. This allows you to lift your pinky off the instrument while doing ornaments on E without totally screwing up the tuning of E.

Also of note is the fact that there's a DIFFERENT whistle Morneaux makes called the Mark 2, and it has a LEFT hand pinky hole for G sharp (like a 10-hole fife or a Ukrainian sopilka). I didn't buy that one because I don't want to learn to play with my left pinky on the instrument; that sounds like a pain, because it would actually require me to relearn muscle memory - something I didn't really have to do with my Morneaux Mark 1 and its modified version.

[Cyberknight]

So you don't like chromatic whistles OR whistles that play in other keys? Someone really must like the keys of D and G lol.

Still failing to recognize the power of the standard 6 hole whistle design, I see. Why do you think it restricts you to D and G?

Surely, you must have come across tunes in E minor (dorian mode), A minor (dorian mode), B minor (aeolean mode), etc? All of these are very common and work wonderfully on a D whistle with no half holing at all.

Once you recognize this and take time to understand the implications of it, you'll see that you can cover virtually all the keys and modes you need for ITM with a small number of inexpensive, standard whistles. Taking this approach has the huge advantage of completely avoiding all of the ergonomic problems and mental complexity of playing a whistle with a load of extra holes. In the few, relatively rare, cases when you come across accidentals, they can be easily addressed by half holing or cross fingering. And all of the fingering patterns and playing techniques you learn will be directly applicable to virtually every other whistle you play, so no time wasted trying to develop skills for an obscure, one-of-a-kind, instrument.

Fine, D and G and their various modes. Happy?

I would dispute the idea that you can play "virtually all" without half-covering or pulling out another whistle. The vast majority? Sure. Virtually all? Not really. There's A major, D dorian, and C major that are all fairly common. Depending on the tune, they might require some pretty cumbersome half-covering if you don't have a chromatic whistle or a whistle in a different key. F major and G minor are also decently common, and E major is very common in Scottish music. Some people also play E flat sessions, which necessitate the use of an E flat whistle (if you value your sanity).

[paddler]

So you don't like chromatic whistles OR whistles that play in other keys? Someone really must like the keys of D and G lol.

Still failing to recognize the power of the standard 6 hole whistle design, I see. Why do you think it restricts you to D and G?

Surely, you must have come across tunes in E minor (dorian mode), A minor (dorian mode), B minor (aeolean mode), etc? All of these are very common and work wonderfully on a D whistle with no half holing at all.

Once you recognize this and take time to understand the implications of it, you'll see that you can cover virtually all the keys and modes you need for ITM with a small number of inexpensive, standard whistles. Taking this approach has the huge advantage of completely avoiding all of the ergonomic problems and mental complexity of playing a whistle with a load of extra holes. In the few, relatively rare, cases when you come across accidentals, they can be easily addressed by half holing or cross fingering. And all of the fingering patterns and playing techniques you learn will be directly applicable to virtually every other whistle you play, so no time wasted trying to develop skills for an obscure, one-of-a-kind, instrument.

Fine, D and G and their various modes. Happy?

I would dispute the idea that you can play "virtually all" without half-covering or pulling out another whistle. The vast majority? Sure. Virtually all? Not really. There's A major, D dorian, and C major that are all fairly common. Depending on the tune, they might require some pretty cumbersome half-covering if you don't have a chromatic whistle or a whistle in a different key. F major and G minor are also decently common, and E major is very common in Scottish music. Some people also play E flat sessions, which necessitate the use of an E flat whistle (if you value your sanity).

Add a C whistle and you have C major and F major and D minor(dorian) and G minor (dorian) and A minor (aeolean) ... and C mix and F mix .... And you get a low C note which extends the range below that of your chromatic D whistle.

The range advantages of going to standard configuration whistles in different keys are significant. For tunes that go down to C, you'd be forced to play an octave higher on your chromatic D whistle, and then you'd be stuck with just a 1 octave range. Or you'd have to substitute notes, which is a technique that can often be used to get around chromaticity limits on diatonic instruments too. If instead you wanted to get a low C hole for your pinky on your chromatic whistle, then you'd have to change your whole fingering system in order to still have some way to play D#. Alternatively, you'd have to sacrifice the D# and relearn how to play without it.

This highlights another serious problems with trying to get a fully chromatic whistle by using extra finger-covered tone holes alone. You can't simply scale up the whistle to get a fully chromatic whistle in a different key, because those out of position thumb and pinky finger holes quickly become unreachable. Similarly, if you try to take the same design approach that is used on your fully chromatic whistle and apply it to a keyless flute in D, you find that the ergonomic problems become so severe that they are completely unworkable. So you can't have the same fingering system across your instruments. You may say that since your D whistle is fully chromatic you don't need to, but I would counter that you then have quite severe range restrictions that limit the tunes you can play without employing tricky workarounds.

In contrast, when you use keys to make a fully chromatic instrument, the key touches can be placed wherever it is ergonomically reasonable, and in locations that are potentially far from the actual tone hole covered by the key. This not only allows you to preserve ergonomic efficiency as you go to larger instruments, and to avoid having to maintain contact in a specific location with any fingers, but it also allows a standardized approach for the pattern of keys that can be replicated across a wide range of instrument sizes. This way you don't have to learn more than one fingering system, and that fingering system actually incorporates the fingering system of the simple 6 hole flute or whistle without imposing any constraints on the position of the fingers used to stabilize the instrument.

All these reasons have lead to an abundance of keyless 6 hole flutes and whistles, and an abundance of fully chromatic keyed flutes, but very very few fully chromatic whistles with more than 6 holes. All these ideas have been explored exhaustively over centuries.

[Cyberknight]

Add a C whistle and you have C major and F major and D minor(dorian) and G minor (dorian) and A minor (aeolean) ... and C mix and F mix .... And you get a low C note which extends the range below that of your chromatic D whistle.

But what I was responding to was your sarcastic comment implying that even having whistles in other keys was unnecessary and belittling people who had non-D whistles. Now you're claiming you like C whistles, which isn't even in keeping with the comment I was responding to.

The range advantages of going to standard configuration whistles in different keys are significant. For tunes that go down to C, you'd be forced to play an octave higher on your chromatic D whistle, and then you'd be stuck with just a 1 octave range. Or you'd have to substitute notes, which is a technique that can often be used to get around chromaticity limits on diatonic instruments too.

Yeah, that's a fair point. But substituting notes to get around chromaticity requires you to rewrite the tune in ways that might clash with other players or sound less interesting/complex. Substituting first-octave C natural with second-octave C natural sounds quite natural in the vast majority of instances and won't clash with other players (since you're just changing the octave, not the actual note you're playing).

This highlights another serious problems with trying to get a fully chromatic whistle by using extra finger-covered tone holes alone. You can't simply scale up the whistle to get a fully chromatic whistle in a different key, because those out of position thumb and pinky finger holes quickly become unreachable. Similarly, if you try to take the same design approach that is used on your fully chromatic whistle and apply it to a keyless flute in D, you find that the ergonomic problems become so severe that they are completely unworkable. So you can't have the same fingering system across your instruments. You may say that since your D whistle is fully chromatic you don't need to, but I would counter that you then have quite severe range restrictions that limit the tunes you can play without employing tricky workarounds.

Another fair point, but you can get around this with keys. A scaled-up version of a Morneaux Mark 1 would essentially look very similar to what we already see MK doing with the Chameleon. Like I said before, keys aren't ideal; but adding keys to the instrument is the only practical way people have come up with making low D whistles fully chromatic, so I can get behind that. But since keys just aren't necessary on the high D whistle, I prefer the 10-hole design.

All these reasons have lead to an abundance of keyless 6 hole flutes and whistles, and an abundance of fully chromatic keyed flutes, but very very few fully chromatic whistles with more than 6 holes. All these ideas have been explored exhaustively over centuries.

"Very, very few" with more than 6 holes? What about the recorder? What about the Sopilka? What about the Svirel? What about the Shvi? I could go on. The fact is that many cultures (including the West in general, through the recorder) have developed fipple flutes with more than 6 holes. Some of them (such as the Russia and Ukraine) have sophisticated traditions around playing 10-hole, fully chromatic whistles with very similar fingering systems as Morneaux's. So if there's one comment I disagree with in your post, it's this one.

[David Cooper]

It's more complicated than I've explained so far, because I actually have had two versions of the Morneaux chromatic whistle. I initially bought a Mark 1, and then I sent it back to him years later to modify it because I had a new design idea in mind (the guy is brilliant and willing to try custom design ideas). I want to emphasize that the SECOND version - the one I currently have - probably isn't for everyone. The original one, however, is something I think almost anyone would like if they got used to it.

I see, so your using a customised variant that isn't a Mk1 or Mk2, which shows again one of the reasons why this isn't going to be an easy standard to provide, but splits into several different versions for different people, but that doesn't mean they can't still be used much more widely. I'm already thinking that I'd rather have a fourth version. The D# is fine, and so's the E natural, so I'll have those, but I would want to use the left pinky for the G# and the left thumb for the A# and then half-hole the C or use a cross fingering for it. But all of these versions could be provided on demand without multiplying the cost at the manufacturing end - it just makes it harder for shops to stock them, so customers would need to order direct from the manufacturer and themselves risk having to send them back and replace them with another version, with mounting postage costs. That'll be why sales haven't taken off to match the scale of the potential demand, and that problem then further keeps the prices higher. Maybe it would be possible to have a decent cheap whistle with more than ten holes, but with a set of plugs for all the extra holes beyond the standard six so that you can customise it yourself and use it as a standard six-hole whistle too if you don't find any of the additional holes useful. It might look ugly, unless you put a pattern on it that hides the patches, but once you know which configuration you prefer, you can then order better whistles from any manufacturer with only the holes you know you will actually use. (It wouldn't be able to cater for the double hole, but I don't think that's any great loss.) The best way to make such an instrument might be to 3D print both the tube and the plugs.

My initial model was the Mark 1 version that you can find here: https://musiquemorneaux.com/whistlesflageolets/

I actually looked at that page before and failed to recognise the tiny fingering chart on it as a fingering chart even though I was looking for one. It's now explained most of what I needed to know (once I'd clicked through twice from there to a clear version).

The F natural hole is on the underside of the whistle, exactly beneath the F sharp hole - so, slightly further up from where you'd most naturally place your thumb, but not too off.

That seems odd; can you think of any reason why it shouldn't be put further down the tube so that it can be a bit bigger? My thumb naturally sits half way between holes 4 and 5, and that would seem to be a better place for the extra hole, while ideally it would be further down still, under hole 5 or ever further "south" (at the risk of adding more confusing terms). But I may have got the wrong end of the stick here - are you using your hole-naming convention consistently? You call the lowest hole the D hole, but it could also be called the E hole as it produces that note when open, so when you refer to the F sharp hole, is that F# with it closed or are you trying to refer to the hole which is E when closed and F# when open? If we restrict the hole numbers as names for the standard six and not apply any numbers to additional holes, is the new thumb hole actually directly under hole 5, as the fingering chart suggests?

So my current version has a left-hand G sharp hole; to my knowledge, it's the only whistle in existence that has one. It is situated pretty much exactly below the A hole.

I assume you meant to say it's the only way with a left-hand G sharp thumb hole. If not, I may be misunderstanding something important again. It's presumably a very small hole if it's that far up the tube while producing a lower note than the hole further down the tube from it, so is it not a bit quiet? Again, I may be misunderstanding which hole it's under; by "A hole" do you mean with it closed or open, or to put it a clearer way, do you mean it's under hole 2 or 3 of a six-hole whistle? (I hope you don't think I'm an A hole too for asking these questions, but I need to make certain that I've understood it all properly.)

Both versions of the whistle have the same fingerings, except that the newer one has an extra option for G sharp, and the original one has a non-cross fingered option for C natural that I never used. They both allow you to play the 7 notes of the normal whistle, plus cross-fingered C natural and cross-fingered B flat, exactly as you would on any other whistle (you just have to make sure your left pinky is down at all times).

Again I'm puzzled - I can see that the left pinky has to be down all the time on the MK2, but not on any other version.

Also of note is the fact that there's a DIFFERENT whistle Morneaux makes called the Mark 2, and it has a LEFT hand pinky hole for G sharp (like a 10-hole fife or a Ukrainian sopilka). I didn't buy that one because I don't want to learn to play with my left pinky on the instrument; that sounds like a pain, because it would actually require me to relearn muscle memory - something I didn't really have to do with my Morneaux Mark 1 and its modified version.

I think I could adapt to that quickly - I can already run up and down all the normal notes at full speed without lifting the left pinky, so I don't see that as a problem, but it does indicate that there's no single instrument that can satisfy enough people to have any clear standard as opposed to a set of variants of a sort-of standard.

[Cyberknight]

Let me first say that I'm thankful to have this discussion with you. I love the F natural and D sharp holes on my Morneaux chromatic, but I admit that I'm undecided on the best ways to tackle G sharp and B flat, and I've always wanted to discuss the various options for handling these notes with someone who understands whistle-making (unlike me).

It's more complicated than I've explained so far, because I actually have had two versions of the Morneaux chromatic whistle. I initially bought a Mark 1, and then I sent it back to him years later to modify it because I had a new design idea in mind (the guy is brilliant and willing to try custom design ideas). I want to emphasize that the SECOND version - the one I currently have - probably isn't for everyone. The original one, however, is something I think almost anyone would like if they got used to it.

I see, so your using a customised variant that isn't a Mk1 or Mk2, which shows again one of the reasons why this isn't going to be an easy standard to provide, but splits into several different versions for different people, but that doesn't mean they can't still be used much more widely. I'm already thinking that I'd rather have a fourth version. The D# is fine, and so's the E natural, so I'll have those, but I would want to use the left pinky for the G# and the left thumb for the A# and then half-hole the C or use a cross fingering for it.

Ah yes, what you're describing there is exactly like Skip Healy's 10-hole fifes and 10-hole flutes. And yes, I agree that this layout would make more sense than Morneaux's Mark 2, because it uses the left thumb for B flat rather than wasting it on C natural, a note that every ITM player already knows how to play just fine.

That seems odd; can you think of any reason why it shouldn't be put further down the tube so that it can be a bit bigger? My thumb naturally sits half way between holes 4 and 5, and that would seem to be a better place for the extra hole, while ideally it would be further down still, under hole 5 or ever further "south" (at the risk of adding more confusing terms). But I may have got the wrong end of the stick here - are you using your hole-naming convention consistently? You call the lowest hole the D hole, but it could also be called the E hole as it produces that note when open, so when you refer to the F sharp hole, is that F# with it closed or are you trying to refer to the hole which is E when closed and F# when open? If we restrict the hole numbers as names for the standard six and not apply any numbers to additional holes, is the new thumb hole actually directly under hole 5, as the fingering chart suggests?

It seems we have the classic whistle terminological problem here. When I say "F sharp hole," I'm referring to the hole you uncover to play F sharp, i.e. hole #5. The F natural hole is directly beneath hole #5 and is rather small. Pushing it further down would place it all the way below hole #6, which would probably increase the volume but could also create ergonomic problems and tuning issues (perhaps this could be remedied with undercutting?).

I assume you meant to say it's the only way with a left-hand G sharp thumb hole. If not, I may be misunderstanding something important again. It's presumably a very small hole if it's that far up the tube while producing a lower note than the hole further down the tube from it, so is it not a bit quiet? Again, I may be misunderstanding which hole it's under; by "A hole" do you mean with it closed or open, or to put it a clearer way, do you mean it's under hole 2 or 3 of a six-hole whistle? (I hope you don't think I'm an A hole too for asking these questions, but I need to make certain that I've understood it all properly.)

Yes, I should have specified it's a thumb hole, sorry. It's situated directly under hole #3, or perhaps a bit further down than that. And yes, it's quite small, as small as the F natural hole. For whatever reason, however, the G sharp is not any quieter than the G in either octave. At least, not as far as I can tell.

Again I'm puzzled - I can see that the left pinky has to be down all the time on the MK2, but not on any other version.

My goodness, what a mistake. I meant that the RIGHT pinky has to be down all the time. That's true on every version of the Morneaux (but again, the pitch issues created by lifting it while playing E and higher notes are minor). Dunno what I was thinking.

I think I could adapt to that quickly - I can already run up and down all the normal notes at full speed without lifting the left pinky, so I don't see that as a problem, but it does indicate that there's no single instrument that can satisfy enough people to have any clear standard as opposed to a set of variants of a sort-of standard.

Well, the Mark 1 might satisfy most people; I must admit that I was rather lazy when I got it modified (it actually wasn't that hard to finger G sharp using the double hole). And it's also possible I'd like the Mark 2 and adjust to it quickly if I actually gave it a try. I just haven't, because it's very expensive and I'm not sure I'd like it. But I'm currently looking into purchasing a cheap sopilka, precisely because I want to see how easy it is to adapt to this.

Also, bear in mind that the Mark 2's strategy of using a G sharp left-hand pinky hole doesn't really work too well on smaller-bodied whistles. You kind of need something bigger to make it ergonomic. The same is true, to a much lesser extent, of the left hand G sharp thumb hole on my current whistle.

[paddler]

Add a C whistle and you have C major and F major and D minor(dorian) and G minor (dorian) and A minor (aeolean) ... and C mix and F mix .... And you get a low C note which extends the range below that of your chromatic D whistle.

But what I was responding to was your sarcastic comment implying that even having whistles in other keys was unnecessary and belittling people who had non-D whistles. Now you're claiming you like C whistles, which isn't even in keeping with the comment I was responding to.

I think you have misunderstood my comments, perhaps all along. I have always advocated for the idea of getting a select few whistles in other keys. With one in D, one in C, one in A or E, say, you will have covered a very wide selection of the keys and modes used in ITM. I even gave examples, on several occasions of the actual modes supported by the standard 6-hole design. And I gave a generalizable formula for determining which modes a standard design 6-hole whistle, in any key, will support. Perhaps you missed this, and perhaps this misunderstanding is contributing to your confusion?

The range advantages of going to standard configuration whistles in different keys are significant. For tunes that go down to C, you'd be forced to play an octave higher on your chromatic D whistle, and then you'd be stuck with just a 1 octave range. Or you'd have to substitute notes, which is a technique that can often be used to get around chromaticity limits on diatonic instruments too.

Yeah, that's a fair point. But substituting notes to get around chromaticity requires you to rewrite the tune in ways that might clash with other players or sound less interesting/complex. Substituting first-octave C natural with second-octave C natural sounds quite natural in the vast majority of instances and won't clash with other players (since you're just changing the octave, not the actual note you're playing).

This highlights another serious problems with trying to get a fully chromatic whistle by using extra finger-covered tone holes alone. You can't simply scale up the whistle to get a fully chromatic whistle in a different key, because those out of position thumb and pinky finger holes quickly become unreachable. Similarly, if you try to take the same design approach that is used on your fully chromatic whistle and apply it to a keyless flute in D, you find that the ergonomic problems become so severe that they are completely unworkable. So you can't have the same fingering system across your instruments. You may say that since your D whistle is fully chromatic you don't need to, but I would counter that you then have quite severe range restrictions that limit the tunes you can play without employing tricky workarounds.

Another fair point, but you can get around this with keys. A scaled-up version of a Morneaux Mark 1 would essentially look very similar to what we already see MK doing with the Chameleon. Like I said before, keys aren't ideal; but adding keys to the instrument is the only practical way people have come up with making low D whistles fully chromatic, so I can get behind that. But since keys just aren't necessary on the high D whistle, I prefer the 10-hole design.

But the point is that a fully chromatic key system for flutes and whistles, of the type used in ITM, already exists, and has done so for centuries! Why learn multiple different and obscure fingering systems when you could use basically the same one on all your instruments? The suggestion of reinventing the keyless whistle and then reinventing a key system to loosely match the new keyless whistle fingering seems full of disadvantages to me without bringing any benefits. You just end up with a fully chromatic instrument with poor ergonomics, when there is already one available with better ergonomics. Specifically, you'd have to decide whether your keys were open or closed standing. If you had to hold them closed, as you do when covering the tone holes on your 10 hole whistle, then you have introduced a lot of ergonomic problems compared with the existing key systems. On the other hand, if the keyed holes are closed by default, then it really is a very different fingering system to your 10 hole system.

All these reasons have lead to an abundance of keyless 6 hole flutes and whistles, and an abundance of fully chromatic keyed flutes, but very very few fully chromatic whistles with more than 6 holes. All these ideas have been explored exhaustively over centuries.

"Very, very few" with more than 6 holes? What about the recorder? What about the Sopilka? What about the Svirel? What about the Shvi? I could go on. The fact is that many cultures (including the West in general, through the recorder) have developed fipple flutes with more than 6 holes. Some of them (such as the Russia and Ukraine) have sophisticated traditions around playing 10-hole, fully chromatic whistles with very similar fingering systems as Morneaux's. So if there's one comment I disagree with in your post, it's this one.

Again, I draw your attention to the fact that the primary focus of discussion in these forums tends to be ITM. I'm well aware of the existence of these other instruments, and some have come up in this discussion even. The recorder is a good example. It is fully chromatic, and it has been around for centuries, but who uses a recorder to play ITM? Its not that none of us ever tried playing a recorder, or that we've never heard of one! Loren, who you argued with earlier in this thread spent much of his professional career in the production of top quality recorders.

The point is that in the context of the community here, yes, the vast majority of people play standard 6 hole whistles, keyless flutes, or keyed flutes that utilized a fairly standardized fingering pattern across flutes in all different keys. There are very, very few exceptions to this. The existence of the recorder, sopilka, shvi, etc has had no impact on this, and it is not because people here are ignorant about the benefits of these other instruments. It is because the instruments we have work better for the genre we play. The players know that and the makers know that. For a maker to offer some other system as a standard option, there would have to be a good market for it. The fact that so few do that speaks for itself. And a lot of the posts in this last 9 pages have been speaking to that fact.

[Cyberknight]

I think you have misunderstood my comments, perhaps all along. I have always advocated for the idea of getting a select few whistles in other keys. With one in D, one in C, one in A or E, say, you will have covered a very wide selection of the keys and modes used in ITM. I even gave examples, on several occasions of the actual modes supported by the standard 6-hole design. And I gave a generalizable formula for determining which modes a standard design 6-hole whistle, in any key, will support. Perhaps you missed this, and perhaps this misunderstanding is contributing to your confusion?

I have trouble keeping track of what everyone has said on this forum, so I apologize for my mistake. I was responding specifically to Moof's comment, where he said "[p]eople with chromatic whistles would still end up with half a drawerful of them, just like people with whistles in different keys, because none of them is exactly right for everything." That's what my "you must really like D or G" comment was responding to. When you took issue with that statement, I confused you and Moof, thinking you'd made the original comment I was responding to. My mistake!

But the point is that a fully chromatic key system for flutes and whistles, of the type used in ITM, already exists, and has done so for centuries! Why learn multiple different and obscure fingering systems when you could use basically the same one on all your instruments?

Because I think the 10-hole design is superior. But incidentally, I also think that the way Irish flutes are designed is an overengineered mess and that a total redesign of the 6-key flute (one that was more similar to the MK Chameleon's design) would do us well. But that's a topic for a different thread (and I also fully recognize that it's 100% a losing battle that isn't even worth fighting, because ITM flute players will never buy into a design that requires them to relearn the chromatic fingerings they're already familiar with). The point is that if the design for a 10-hole whistle I'm advocating is objectively better, we should widely adopt it for the whistle in lieu of an inferior design with keys, even if that makes the whistle less like a 6-key flute. And I think it IS objectively better, for reasons I've already laid out.

The suggestion of reinventing the keyless whistle and then reinventing a key system to loosely match the new keyless whistle fingering seems full of disadvantages to me without bringing any benefits. You just end up with a fully chromatic instrument with poor ergonomics.

Well, first of all, we wouldn't be "reinventing" a key system for low whistles, because low whistles (with the exception of MK Chameleons) never have any keys to begin with. What we'd be doing is making a key system for low whistles that is superior to that of the key system on Irish flutes, because it would use open holes instead of closed holes. (EDIT: to clarify, by "open holes" I mean holes that spring open unless a key is pressed; this is the opposed of "closed holes," which are closed unless a key is pressed).

And as for having "poor ergonomics," Id argue that the exact opposite is true. Open holes and open-hole keys are MORE ergonomic than closed-hole keys. Even Boehm, the inventor of modern flute, recognized that closed-hole keys are superior to open-hole keys (his original flute design had an open-hole key for G sharp, but it didn't catch on because people were too accustomed to the traditional closed-hole design). With open-hole keys, you can keep the key pressed at all times and simply lift it when you want to play a particular note. There's no awkward pivoting of the fingers, and no fingers ever need to be repositioned laterally. So its just better. Imagine how much better Irish flutes would be if they had open-hole keys for B flat instead of the closed-hole keys people insist on using. To play B flat, you'd simply briefly lift your thumb off the instrument while fingering A, and then place it back when you're done. That's so much more ergonomic, and so much simpler, than having closed-hole key that forces you to pivot your finger, press a key, lift the finger, and pivot back just to play a single note.

Nor is the 10-hole keyless chromatic whistle for high D whistles "non-ergonomic." It's perfectly ergonomic. Rather than having a cumbersome key for F natural that requires you to pivot your right-hand middle finger to a different position to push a button, you simply briefly lower your right thumb for F natural and place it back when you're done, which takes a microsecond. D sharp is just as easy. There's nothing "non-ergonomic" about it.

Thus, my ideal design for a high D whistle would be very similar to Morneaux's Mark 1 (but with a left hand thumbhole for B flat or perhaps G sharp instead of C natural). And my ideal design for its low D counterpart would be essentially exactly the same, but with open-hole keys instead of open holes. So there'd be an open-hole key on the bottom for F natural, and another one for B flat (exactly like an MK Chameleon), or perhaps G sharp. Then there'd be an open-hole D sharp key for the right hand that is normally depressed, but is lifted when fingering D to play D sharp. That way, the high and low D whistles would play with identical fingerings, but only the low D would need any keys.

Again, I draw your attention to the fact that the primary focus of discussion in these forums tends to be ITM. I'm well aware of the existence of these other instruments, and some have come up in this discussion even. The recorder is a good example. It is fully chromatic, and it has been around for centuries, but who uses a recorder to play ITM? Its not that none of us ever tried playing a recorder, or that we've never heard of one! Loren, who you argued with earlier in this thread spent much of his professional career in the production of top quality recorders.

Yes, but I was specifically responding to your comment where you referred to ideas that had been explored "through the centuries"; I assumed you were talking about all cultures across time, not just ITM. But I'm glad you clarified.

And actually, there are some very good recorder players who play ITM on them, and it can sound pretty great. But of course I agree that whistles are generally better suited for ITM.

[Kedster]

On the topic of chromatic designs, turkish flute is fully chromatic* with an asterix.

XX (1.5 semitone) - thumbhole, rest below is standard piper's grip
x (semitone)
x (semitone)
x (semitone)
x (semitone)
x (semitone)
X (2 semitone)

Lowest hole requires half holing, as does the highest hole, at least in the first register. A proper ney goes up to 4.5 registers, 2.5 octaves to 3 octaves depending on the player's skill. First and Second register being octaves, third register being their fifth, then the octave of the second register again. You can get fully chromatic in three octaves, with only the 12th semitone being absent in the first register (which can still be achieved with note bending with breath). 12th semitone of the second octave is found in the third register hole so you can finger it properly.

This is one of the greatest benefits of an end-blown flute. To my knowledge, Ney is the singular chromatic widespread folk flute. Fingering it is relatively easy - however, "embouchure" is harder than even the side-blown flutes. Always these trade-offs.

And tone wise, Ney does not suit most western music, especially not the fast and jovial passages of ITM, with its screechy, howling sound. Most common shortest Ney is the same length as a Low D, most common ney being bass G equivalent (one octave lower than typical Low G). But it's a fine study to see how traditionally people got around the issue of chromaticism in ancient times - with mostly semitone intervals for the 6 fingers, accepting the bottom ring finger's inevitable half hole, and then the 1.5 semitone hole which is again half holed, but is conviniently fit for the three-semitone long intervals common in eastern music.

[paddler]

Nor is the 10-hole keyless chromatic whistle for high D whistles "non-ergonomic." It's perfectly ergonomic. Rather than having a cumbersome key for F natural that requires you to pivot your right-hand middle finger to a different position to push a button, you simply briefly lower your right thumb for F natural and place it back when you're done, which takes a microsecond. D sharp is just as easy. There's nothing "non-ergonomic" about it.

The fact that it fixes the position of both thumbs and requires you to have both pinky fingers in contact with the whistle at the same fixed locations, for everyone, regardless of hand size and shape, and for most of the time, is the very epitome of being non-ergonomic. The conventional whistle design and keyed or keyless flute designs allow each individual player to place their thumbs and pinky fingers wherever it suits them to match their personal needs. Everyone is different, so the actual locations vary a lot from one player to another. When you have 4 additional open tone holes that have to be kept covered most of the time it constrains the movement of 40% of your fingers! That is just awful from an ergonomic standpoint. This is why closed keys are pretty much universal on keyed Irish flutes, the only exception being the foot keys, which remain open for obvious reasons.

The fact that you find it comfortable is neither here nor there. Just because you are comfortable wearing size 10 shoes, say, doesn't mean that it is ergonomic for everyone to wear that same size.

As for keys, a maker can change the location of the key touch to match the needs of the player, without being constrained by the acoustics. This is not possible with open holes. Also, if the keys are closed by default, you only need to activate them on the occasion when they are needed. The fact that most of the music can be played on the 6 open tone holes means that even if there is an ergonomic cost to pressing a key touch, it is only incurred very rarely.

Your discussion of keyed flutes just betrays the same level of arrogance and ignorance that has triggered most of the responses in this thread about whistles. Here again you disregard the actual choices that have won out in practice, or you trivialize the reasons for them. Many people here will find that insulting.

Sure, people have advocated for open G Boehm flutes, and still do to this day, but they are very few and far between, and pretty much irrelevant for ITM. Players make choices that suit their musical and ergonomic needs, and players in different genres make different choices when faced with the same instruments. For all the supposed advantages of the Boehm flute, there are only a tiny handful of players that use them for ITM. We prefer our chosen flutes for a reason (several reasons, in fact). When you come along as a relative newcomer to an area and announce that the instrument designs are "an overengineered mess" and that "a total redesign of the 6-key flute would do us well", you show a complete lack of appreciation for the design choices and musical trade-offs that got us to where we are. You may feel that you have better insight than the centuries of flute makers and musicians that came before you, but I for one don't find your arguments convincing, well informed or well stated.

[Cyberknight]

Nor is the 10-hole keyless chromatic whistle for high D whistles "non-ergonomic." It's perfectly ergonomic. Rather than having a cumbersome key for F natural that requires you to pivot your right-hand middle finger to a different position to push a button, you simply briefly lower your right thumb for F natural and place it back when you're done, which takes a microsecond. D sharp is just as easy. There's nothing "non-ergonomic" about it.

The fact that it fixes the position of both thumbs and requires you to have both pinky fingers in contact with the whistle at the same fixed locations, for everyone, regardless of hand size and shape, and for most of the time, is the very epitome of being non-ergonomic. The conventional whistle design and keyed or keyless flute designs allow each individual player to place their thumbs and pinky fingers wherever it suits them to match their personal needs. Everyone is different, so the actual locations vary a lot from one player to another. When you have 4 additional open tone holes that have to be kept covered most of the time it constrains the movement of 40% of your fingers! That is just awful from an ergonomic standpoint. This is why closed keys are pretty much universal on keyed Irish flutes, the only exception being the foot keys, which remain open for obvious reasons.

It actually only fixes the position of one pinky, not both - at least, the version I have. Mark 2s do fix the position of both pinkies, but mine doesn't.

At any rate, I don't want to get too bogged down in this "ergonomics" issue because we obviously are going to have to agree to disagree on this particular point. So this will be my last post on that point unless you desire a more detailed conversation about it. But I think your problem is that you're making mountains out of molehills. While there are indeed variations in where exactly people place their non-playing fingers, we're talking about variations that are usually a fraction of a centimeter. And even if people have a certain thumb position that they find comfortable, it doesn't necessarily follow that any other thumb position they might try will be uncomfortable; it's like you're assuming that there's only ONE possible "ergonomic" thumb position for each person, and that just isn't the case.

It simply isn't a big deal to expect people to very slightly reposition their fingers from what they're used to in order to play the instrument. I remember I had to readjust somewhat, but it wasn't a big deal, and I got used to it in about a week. If you tried this design, as I have, I think you'd agree.

As for keys, a maker can change the location of the key touch to match the needs of the player, without being constrained by the acoustics. This is not possible with open holes.

Oh come now, this is really stretching. The vast majority of people who own flutes don't get the keys put in custom positions; most makers wouldn't even do this, and even if they would, most players wouldn't even bother asking for it. The vast majority of flutes that people buy have the keys in fixed positions, with no input from the player. So to portray this as some kind of great advantage of the keyed system is a bit absurd.

Also, for what it's worth, it's theoretically possible to micro-adjust open holes. You can move them forward and backward slightly, changing their size, or you can move them horizontally. But none of this is necessary anyway, because a standardized design isn't non-ergonomic, and anyone can easily adjust to it.

Also, if the keys are closed by default, you only need to activate them on the occasion when they are needed. The fact that most of the music can be played on the 6 open tone holes means that even if there is an ergonomic cost to pressing a key touch, it is only incurred very rarely.

Yeah, ok, fair enough. But it's not an "if"; there IS an ergonomic cost, and it's significantly more than the cost of having open holes. And, at least in the sessions I play at, it's not as "rare" as you seem to think it is. D dorian tunes are quite common, and they require F natural keys.

Your discussion of keyed flutes just betrays the same level of arrogance and ignorance that has triggered most of the responses in this thread about whistles. Here again you disregard the actual choices that have won out in practice, or you trivialize the reasons for them. Many people here will find that insulting.

There's rarely any good reason to get annoyed at someone for his opinion, my friend. It's my opinion that the flute is overengineered and could be improved. There's nothing "arrogant" about having this opinion. Opinions can't hurt you. If you disagree, that's fine.

As for "ignorant," you didn't offer any reason as to why you think I'm being ignorant. There is absolutely nothing ignorant about saying that an open-hole B flat key is objectively superior to a closed-hole B flat key. I've never in my life heard the slightest justification for why a closed-hole key would be better. If you disagree with me on this point and have some valid defense of the closed-hole B flat design, I'm all ears. But don't go around talking about "centuries of flute-makers" and pretending that the current design we have simply MUST be the best possible design, simply because it's old. That just isn't the case. Some things exist just because they are convention, and I strongly believe this is one of those things.

Anyway, none of this is that relevant to my main point about whistles, which is that having a single F natural hole is far superior to having two keys for F natural, both of which require you to awkwardly reposition your hand in order to use them. I really can't understand why someone would advocate having two closed-hole keys instead of a single hole. Like, do you WANT the key of F to be a nightmare to play?