I've been using my pinkie on the bottom hole since like 1998. You don't know how many times people have told me that I'll never learn how to play good that way.pancelticpiper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 4:35 am You know that finger-stretch of putting the lower-hand ring finger on Hole 6 way down there?
And how much more comfortable it is to use the lower-hand little finger to cover Hole 6 instead?
Most good players of woodwind instruments can play multiple types with rival fingering and they manage to keep each in its own compartment with its own neural nets dedicated to it as a device driver.Cyberknight wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2024 5:35 pm - Everyone who already plays the whistle would have to relearn to play from scratch.
That's really the same point.- Everyone who already plays the flute (including the classical flute) would have to relearn to play from scratch.
And the same point again. If you're searching for the optimal fingering system for a chromatic instrument, what ever that turns out to be should become a standard and shouldn't be prevented by older standards.- Everyone who already plays ANY other woodwind that uses a 6-hole system (clarinet, oboe, saxophone, etc.) would find it less intuitive.
Pianists are able to cope with a lot of extra movement with multiple notes being played at the same time, so I think we have it easy by comparison.- You would have more fingers moving more constantly, which would make it more difficult to play.
Or each one would be equally easy. The big problem I have with my prototype chromatic instrument in C is that some notes are more difficult than others, and if you need to play in a key where those more difficult notes are the standard ones, it negates the whole point of using a chromatic instrument rather than switching to an easier instrument designed to play in that key. It's real advantage is in being able to play precise occasional accidentals within its easier-to-play keys rather than for playing in other keys.Now, instead of moving 6 fingers constantly and 4 fingers only occasionally, you're moving all 10 fingers constantly. Rather than having some easy keys and some difficult keys, every key would now be equally difficult.
Well, I'm going to test that to see if it's really an issue. Running up and down through notes that involve lifting a thumb for one and then closing that hole again for the next is so counterintuitive that I still can't do it reliably after many weeks of practice, but it also makes holding the instrument hard.When playing in the keys of D and G, you'd have 66% more fingers moving, so you'd need 66% more coordination, dexterity, precision, etc. This is needless complication and just makes the thing harder to play overall.
Which is exactly the same problem I have with any system where you have to lift the lower thumb off the tube, and the fix for that would be a loop over the finger(s) above so that upward pressure against the loop can serve the same purpose as the thumb normally serves when it's in contact with the tube, thereby freeing up the thumb to move without introducing instability. When you analyse the problem fully, you find that the problem with lifting the thumb is worst when one of the fingers of that hand still has to press down to close a hole - that increases the instability. If there are no fingers pressing down when the thumb's off the tube, it's easier, so what I'm proposing would reduce the problem rather than increase it. Either way, you'd still benefit from having a loop for a finger to push up against. It would also help prevent the instrument rolling off tables.- You'd have to come up with all sorts of complicated ways to make sure you didn't drop the instrument.
The pinkie of the lower hand can press down most of the time, only needing to be up for one note. The next finger can be up most of the time, pressing against a loop to free up the thumb to lift off when ever it needs to. That's pretty simple. That anchoring system also allows the upper hand to do anything at all without making the hold on the instrument unstable.The great thing about the design you already made is that you ALWAYS have at least three anchor points, no matter what note you're playing, and you ALMOST ALWAYS have 4 anchor points (two pinkies and two thumbs). If all 10 fingers had to move constantly, you'd have to shift around which fingers were doing the anchoring way more often, making it harder to hold the instrument without dropping it.
But your preferred design has two thumb holes too, and a bigger instability issue when the lower one is lifted.This is already a huge pain on the recorder, and it would be even worse with the design you're proposing, because you'd have two thumb holes instead of one, and you'd constantly be lifting one or the other off the instrument.
That's a nine hole instrument which avoids the lower thumb hole, most likely for stability reasons, and the result is that it makes the fingerings for the upper hand further away from standard too. With my system, jumping up a fifth from the bell note takes you to the same fingering as on a standard whistle. Jumping up a fourth from the bell note takes you to the same fingering as on a standard whistle but with a hole under the pinkie instead of solid tube. That's much more compatibility retained, and it puts all the fingers and thumbs in comfortable positions while lessening stretch issues on lower-pitch instruments. This is less in need of a loop than your preferred design (which has a serious instability problem), but it would likely still benefit from one, and that could be the key to making this the optimal solution. It's also simpler than having to manufacture narrow tubes to use clever tricks to produce accidentals which don't provide the same capacity to ripple up and down scales at speed without repeated lifting and unlifting of thumbs. So, I'm going to have to make one to find out how it works for real.At any rate, a system almost exactly like you're proposing already exists (or rather, it used to exist). It's called the chromophone. I remember about 10 years ago there was a website for them and you could buy them. They didn't take off (perhaps for the reasons I described above). There are still pages and videos about it. https://steemit.com/music/@olivercuico/ ... ic-whistle https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW9grMAEFfw
Except it already exists as a problem and is far worse on the design you favour.I suppose, but this would just be a band-aid to a problem that doesn't need to exist in the first place.To aid stability, a loop could be added over the first finger to push upwards against when lifted so as to make it easier to retain a firm hold on the instrument when lifting the thumb of the same hand off its hole.
That's a decent solution for the lower hand by avoiding the need of a thumb hole while the lowest hole is easily half holed when that note's needed. It's certainly one of the most optimal solutions.pancelticpiper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 4:35 amAnd voila, an Irish whistle with built-in F natural, with a lower hand that fingers exactly the same as the Kaval:
xxx|xxxx D
xxx|xxxo E
xxx|xxoo F natural
xxx|xooo (or) xxx|xoxo F sharp (second fingering having the lower-hand ring finger down as an anchor finger)
xxx|ooxo G
xxo|ooxo A
etc.
I wouldn't use the term "equally easy," because it doesn't seem like any key would be "easy" at all. As far as I can make out, no key on your new proposed design would be easier to play than on your old design, and about half the keys would be more difficult. Look at your new design, and look at your old design. Think about playing the hardest key on your old design (probably C sharp major). How would that be any easier on your new design? It wouldn't. It would require just as many gymnastics with all 10 fingers. There'd be just as much finger movement as on your old design But now, lots of OTHER keys will also require 10-finger gymnastics and increased finger movement. I just don't see how it makes any sense.David Cooper wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:11 pmOr each one would be equally easy. The big problem I have with my prototype chromatic instrument in C is that some notes are more difficult than others, and if you need to play in a key where those more difficult notes are the standard ones, it negates the whole point of using a chromatic instrument rather than switching to an easier instrument designed to play in that key. It's real advantage is in being able to play precise occasional accidentals within its easier-to-play keys rather than for playing in other keys.Now, instead of moving 6 fingers constantly and 4 fingers only occasionally, you're moving all 10 fingers constantly. Rather than having some easy keys and some difficult keys, every key would now be equally difficult.
I'm not seeing how it has a bigger instability issue. Unless you're comparing my proposed design (which I take to mean the design you've already made) with your new design with the thumb ring included. In which case I would say, fine, go ahead and add a thumb ring to the design you've already made, and now there's certainly no bigger instability issue than there would be with your new design.But your preferred design has two thumb holes too, and a bigger instability issue when the lower one is lifted.
Fair enough, but I never had much difficulty with this myself on my Morneaux. If you think about it, it's not really any different from pressing a key to access a note, only to immediately release it; except it's easier, because all you're doing is uncovering a hole, not pivoting your finger to press a key. I can't think of any reason why this approach is any more difficult or less ergonomic than having a key system to access accidentals like on a Boehm flute. Nor can I think of any reason why it would be easier than the new system you're proposing. But I suppose it's worth testing!Well, I'm going to test that to see if it's really an issue. Running up and down through notes that involve lifting a thumb for one and then closing that hole again for the next is so counterintuitive that I still can't do it reliably after many weeks of practice, but it also makes holding the instrument hard.
No I don't. I think it's easy to adapt to different systems, while the significant difficulties are those of the systems themselves. To judge new ones properly, you have to make them and test them.Cyberknight wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:38 pm Regarding the first few points I made, you acknowledge that your new proposed design would be hard for woodwind players to transition to, which is my point.
Well, that's something that needs to be tested. It seems very simple to me the idea that you lift one finger to go up a semitone and two to go up a tone, and playing in C# major or minor on a chromatic whistle using this system should be easy, whereas the prototype chromatic whistle I've been working with for the last few months makes that hellish. It's that work that makes me want to try something better because I naturally find myself wanting to lift one finger to go up a semitone and two to go up a tone and find that I can't on that instrument because it does things in a weird order.Any advantages would be marginal at best and heavily outweighed by disadvantages.
I don't see the difficulty in making those as well for people who want them, but I don't think it's the best solution. Incidentally, I just saw a chromatic quena today in a new video from Domingo Uribe which uses the same fingering as the Kaval for the lower hand, and that seems to be quite a well established standard over there. It departs from the normal fingering too, but people adapt to it with ease. The recorder too doesn't fit the normal standard six hole approach. I think trying to maintain the standard six hole fingerings is shackling functionality.The only thing I'll add on this point is that if you focus on this design rather than your original one, you're going to lose out on the potential market for people who already play whistle - particularly Irish-style whistle, which takes hundreds or even thousands of hours of practice to play at the speed required for professional playing.
I think it's more about what can be done with it. If the fingering is different but it makes it easier to play in multiple keys, it's worth learning the new fingerings rather than limiting yourself to slower playing. Here's the thing: I've been trying to play the Turkish Dances piece (that people associate most with James Galway), and there's one high-speed part of it that I just can't do fast enough with forked fingerings, while half-holing is fast enough but insufficiently accurate when there are too many notes of that kind in a row. I hoped the prototype chromatic whistle I'm playing now might fix that, and it is certainly better than the previous two approaches, but it's still not good enough, whereas when I try the fingering for the newer idea on that whistle (which then produces the wrong notes, of course, but this is just about testing the fingering difficulty), it's much easier and therefore faster. This is a piece that I want to play at a specific high speed, and at the moment I don't have any instrument that I can do that on, but I think I could with the new design.As intriguing as your new design seems, I definitely would not have the patience to try it myself, because I have no interest in relearning a finger system from scratch. I have a feeling most whistle players would feel the same way - even those who, like me, are interested in greater chromaticism.
Well, I've already seen the high resistance from whistle players to the design you want to use, so I wouldn't attempt to market it at all beyond making it an option for people to buy if they want one.So while you could certainly market this thing to people who don't currently play whistle at all, and to a small minority of whistle players much more ambitious than I am, you'd lose out on (I think) a huge market if you change the design to the new one.
When I look at that one I don't feel any desire to own one because the upper notes are a mess which could have been avoided by using fingering like the kaval for the lower hand (which is a much better way of avoiding using the lower thumb for a note in the interest of stability and which I might end up using for that reason).If you ask me, this is the issue that makes experiments like the chromophone a flop each time they come out.
I've been playing quenas of my own design where pinkies are used instead of fourth fingers, but I also play other quenas, quenillas and whistles which use the fourth fingers. I initially treated both fingers as a single unit in order to make the transition, and it doesn't feel like any kind of gymnastics to do such a trivially easy thing. On the prototype chromatic whistle it's just the same except both fingers are covering or uncovering holes at the same time, but that's no different from playing arpeggios, so it doesn't present any kind of challenge. I'm limited in how much I can push my fingers without running into repetitive strain injury issues (which led me to have to give up playing the guitar), but this "extra work" isn't pushing me into any difficulty.I wouldn't use the term "equally easy," because it doesn't seem like any key would be "easy" at all. As far as I can make out, no key on your new proposed design would be easier to play than on your old design, and about half the keys would be more difficult. Look at your new design, and look at your old design. Think about playing the hardest key on your old design (probably C sharp major). How would that be any easier on your new design? It wouldn't. It would require just as many gymnastics with all 10 fingers. There'd be just as much finger movement as on your old design But now, lots of OTHER keys will also require 10-finger gymnastics and increased finger movement. I just don't see how it makes any sense.
Again you're assuming that it's difficult, but it isn't. I'm actually considering a newer idea now though which uses half holing for C# (assuming for this illustration that the bell note is C) and then runs up the rest of the notes from there one hole per semitone, so the lower hand then has the same fingering as a kaval, but with the thumb being lifted for F#. I'll make an instrument of each kind and test them extensively.I mean, sure, C sharp major might be slightly more "intuitive" to an absolute beginner on your new design than on your old design. But the amount of finger movement would be the same for both, and any initial advantage you got from greater intuitiveness would vanish extremely quickly.
If the piano had a black key between every pair of white keys, there would only be two scales to learn and you'd then know the lot. Reach would be easier too. By having an extension of each black key stick out nearer the player and lower than the white keys, you'd also have more choice about which fingers to use for which notes so as to make things easier than they are now. That's another instrument that's trapped by convention, but it's much more expensive to innovate and make prototypes.Piano is a bit of an outlier due to its extreme chromatic capabilities, but even on piano, there are some keys that pianists much prefer to play in.
The whole point is to make them easier, and this does just that, while the way I judge difficulty is by playing real tunes on them. The most difficult part of Turkish Dances is this (upper hand only and with the thumb hole under standard hole #2 represented by a smaller letter) - this is a sequence of notes:-But what does not make sense is making MOST keys more difficult and NO keys easier, just to equalize the difficulty for all keys. It's better to have some easy keys and some hard keys than to have all the keys be hard.
The issue is with Eb (on a C whistle) where the thumb is lifted off and two fingers are pressing down - that's the hardest note to play because of the instability issue. A loop for the fourth finger to press up against would help to resolve it. With my alternative designs there's a lesser issue of this kind because while the thumb still has to lift off for a note (and can be optionally kept off for several more), when it's off, no fingers from that hand are pressing down, but a loop would still improve things. There is another option though of not having a thumb hole for the lower hand and having kaval fingering for the lower hand (so C# has to be half holed) combined with the fingering from the first of the two designs above where where Bb needs to be half holed or forked, so that would work fine without needing a loop, but with two notes being harder to form instead of just one.I'm not seeing how it has a bigger instability issue.But your preferred design has two thumb holes too, and a bigger instability issue when the lower one is lifted.
It isn't a thumb ring - it would be for the fourth finger to push up against.In which case I would say, fine, go ahead and add a thumb ring to the design you've already made, and now there's certainly no bigger instability issue than there would be with your new design.
No; it's entirely to do with forces changing when you lift the thumb off. The instrument moves more for this particular move than for any other finger. It's even worse in quenilla mode (without the whistle adaptor) where that wobble affects the blowing.I'm having difficulty understanding why you're having trouble holding the whistle. Perhaps it's the material you're using, which is more slippery?
It's both. I'm looking for the system that will enable me to play the difficult stuff fastest, and whichever design ends up providing that, that's the one I'll go with for my own use.I guess your focus is less on how ergonomic it is and more on how the new approach you're talking about is "intuitive."
That isn't a priority for me at all. The problem I'm having is in running up and down through the awkward notes while playing normal tunes.Plus, it sounds like you're focusing way too much on the ease of playing a chromatic scale, which should be a relatively low priority for a chromatic instrument.
I don't really get how you could think it's "easy" to adapt to new systems. There's nothing remotely "easy" about relearning all 1,000+ tunes you know on a new system. Sure, it's easier than starting from scratch and learning a new instrument as a beginner, but that doesn't mean it isn't a pain in the neck.David Cooper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:45 amNo I don't. I think it's easy to adapt to different systems, while the significant difficulties are those of the systems themselves. To judge new ones properly, you have to make them and test them.Cyberknight wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:38 pm Regarding the first few points I made, you acknowledge that your new proposed design would be hard for woodwind players to transition to, which is my point.
You're seeing resistance from a very, very specific community (people who still use an internet forum) that is not remotely representative of your average whistle player. Most people on here are long-established whistle-makers or players who are 50+ and are obsessed with tradition. Nearly every young whistle player I've talked to at sessions thinks my Morneaux's system is the best thing ever. And the main thing they love about it is that it doesn't require you to relearn any fingering you already know. Literally the ONLY people I've met who have had anything negative to say about it are old-timers.Well, I've already seen the high resistance from whistle players to the design you want to use, so I wouldn't attempt to market it at all beyond making it an option for people to buy if they want one.
That's actually an excellent analogy, but I think it works against you. Talking to piano players, I think there's a giant reason the piano isn't designed this way, and it's that it's way less ergonomic. The way the hand is shaped makes it easier to play scales by switching between higher black notes and lower white notes periodically while going up and down a scale. The design you're proposing sacrifices ease of playing in basically any key for the marginal benefit of being more "intuitive" and perhaps being easier to do chromatic runs up and down (something you almost never have to do any way). Which is, incidentally, exactly what I think your new whistle design would do.If the piano had a black key between every pair of white keys, there would only be two scales to learn and you'd then know the lot. Reach would be easier too. By having an extension of each black key stick out nearer the player and lower than the white keys, you'd also have more choice about which fingers to use for which notes so as to make things easier than they are now. That's another instrument that's trapped by convention, but it's much more expensive to innovate and make prototypes.
I can't imagine this would be any easier on your new design. Show me what tune it is, and I bet I can work it out on my Morneaux without too much difficulty. I can even send you a video. (And remember, I don't even practice my Morneaux regularly, and I've only had it in its current state for about a year).Here's the thing: I've been trying to play the Turkish Dances piece (that people associate most with James Galway), and there's one high-speed part of it that I just can't do fast enough with forked fingerings, while half-holing is fast enough but insufficiently accurate when there are too many notes of that kind in a row.
Well, I do see your point. But I have to say I've never had the slightest difficulty with this myself. I still get plenty of stability, because my left hand thumb is still on the instrument. So it just doesn't matter that my right hand thumb is briefly lifted. I find lifting my LEFT thumb while my left fingers are pressing down MORE counterintuitive, actually. But neither one is a problem now that I'm used to them.The issue is with Eb (on a C whistle) where the thumb is lifted off and two fingers are pressing down - that's the hardest note to play because of the instability issue. A loop for the fourth finger to press up against would help to resolve it. With my alternative designs there's a lesser issue of this kind because while the thumb still has to lift off for a note (and can be optionally kept off for several more), when it's off, no fingers from that hand are pressing down, but a loop would still improve things.
When I play a tune on an instrument I just play the notes needed for it in whatever way the instrument allows it without going through any learning process. There are often particular parts that may need a bit of attention to get them right for next time, but it's mostly instinctive.Cyberknight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 4:36 am I don't really get how you could think it's "easy" to adapt to new systems. There's nothing remotely "easy" about relearning all 1,000+ tunes you know on a new system. Sure, it's easier than starting from scratch and learning a new instrument as a beginner, but that doesn't mean it isn't a pain in the neck.
What proportion of them have gone on to buy one?Nearly every young whistle player I've talked to at sessions thinks my Morneaux's system is the best thing ever.
On the contrary, what I described is more ergonomic, and I've realised I can improve it further by having each key appear on two rows such that there are four rows of keys where you would normally play on the upper three or lower three rows. That makes playing in all keys identical, and there's more choice of how to play half the notes to stop your fingers getting in the way of each other and to provide more flexibility as to where you use the same finger again when running up or down a scale. Perhaps I should have patented the idea, but I have bigger fish to fry.That's actually an excellent analogy, but I think it works against you. Talking to piano players, I think there's a giant reason the piano isn't designed this way, and it's that it's way less ergonomic.
My proposed keyboard design makes it even easier to play scales by making them identical for all keys and allowing easy switching between higher or lower black notes when not playing white ones (or to switch between higher or lower white notes when not playing black ones) [while higher and lower refer not to pitch, but to the row height]. My design would provide easier fingering, reduced stretch, easier learning, dead easy transposing, and it would be more intuitive: a gain on every point.The way the hand is shaped makes it easier to play scales by switching between higher black notes and lower white notes periodically while going up and down a scale. The design you're proposing sacrifices ease of playing in basically any key for the marginal benefit of being more "intuitive" and perhaps being easier to do chromatic runs up and down (something you almost never have to do any way). Which is, incidentally, exactly what I think your new whistle design would do.
Ah ha! So it's exactly the same thing as I've just invented over a century late, and yet somehow mine is riddled with imaginary problems while the exact same design from someone else is amazing.If you want a design that truly is better than the current piano, have a look at the janko keyboard. That instrument is absolutely amazing, because it solves the ergonomics problem while making all keys equally easy to play in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHND2SR ... 7%99%D7%9DI can't imagine this would be any easier on your new design. Show me what tune it is, and I bet I can work it out on my Morneaux without too much difficulty. I can even send you a video. (And remember, I don't even practice my Morneaux regularly, and I've only had it in its current state for about a year).
I've practiced that section on it a little almost every day since I made the instrument, and while I can occasionally get through it perfectly at speed, I just can't do it reliably enough to play the piece with any kind of audience as there's a high probability that I'd trip over that bit and look silly. You may have more skill than I do for that kind of thing, but I'm hitting my limit on it and would benefit from an instrument that makes it easier, as no doubt would a host of other players. With the right design of instrument, I have no doubt that I could play it perfectly every time, and one that has counterintuitive fingering which drives errors is not it.The first fingering sequence doesn't look particularly difficult to me, nor does it look significantly more difficult than the other sequences you're suggesting. If you find it difficult, how can you be certain that isn't just because you haven't spent enough time getting used to the system?
I didn't bother to show which holes can optionally be closed rather than open so I'm not insisting on them being lifted at all when they don't need to be.- You're also overcomplicating your system and (I'd argue) making it more difficult to play by insisting on lifting your thumb and pinky for notes that don't require them to be lifted. Playing a B, for example, doesn't require you to lift your left thumb or your left pinky, so you might as well keep them on the instrument for that note. The same goes for A. And you can play a G without lifting your pinky off the instrument. If you're having stability problems, I'd suggest it might be because you're lifting your fingers off the "extra holes" when you don't need to.
If you're happy with the note quality that you get from that forked fingering, that's fine. You probably are though, because I find that I can get it to work well on mine too, but on all my Generation whistles it's sharp and has a horrid crackling tone to it, which is the reason I never took to using forked fingering in the first place and focused instead on half-holing. But here's a key test for you: how well can you trill between A and Bb on your Morneaux? I can do it easily on my chromatic whistle between the equivalent two notes (G and Ab). Of course, you'll find it easier to trill between B and Bb than I do, unless I use the forked fingering too. But the two newer designs would make it easy to trill between more pairs of notes, in one case without any forked notes, and that's a significant gain.If you dislike using the left thumb, you could always play A flat with cross fingering, even on the current design. This works on my Morneaux whistle (in fact, it's the ONLY way to play B flat on my Morneaux D whistle), and it means you never have to use the left thumb at all. And on your design, which has a pinky hole for F sharp, having a left hand thumb hole is actually totally unnecessary anyway.
That does indeed seem easier, but remember that this is piece-specific and I chose an example that's hard on the instruments I have access to. Because I haven't got an instrument like yours, I haven't run into the places where it might get into difficulty with a tough sequence of notes and where other designs might outperform it.The first sequence is even easier on my Morneaux than it is on your design (remember I have no left-hand pinky hole, and my left-hand thumb hole is used for what would be an F sharp on a C whistle, and what would be A flat is cross-fingered). For me, this would be:
X xO O , O xO O , X xO O , X xO X (X X) , X oX X , X xO X (X X) , X xO O , X oX X ,
X xO X (X X), X xO O , O xO O , X xO X (X X) , X xX X , X oX X , X xO X (X X) , X xX X ,
X oX X
But it is the established way of playing that note on a great many instruments already, and seeing as we don't have 11 fingers, a compromise has to be made somewhere. I consider any forked fingering near the top of the octave to be a worse compromise if you're trying to get the best out of a chromatic whistle.You mention a design possibility that requires half-holing for C sharp. Whatever you think about any of the other systems, let me assure you that this design is NOT going to be any easier.
When I play the sequence C D Eb F G, lifting the thumb for the Eb changes the balance of forces so much that the upper fingers of that hand which still need to be covering two holes can fail to seal them for a moment. I have to add extra force with the other hand to compensate and it's causing unpleasant stress to by left thumb. Same extra stress problem for the left thumb when going down those notes the opposite way when fingers of the right hand hit the tube from above with the right thumb not pushing back up the opposite way. You may not have damaged hands like mine, so these problems may not affect you, but I can bet that if I make an instrument that causes less trouble for my fingers, it will do the same for a lot of other players too.Well, I do see your point. But I have to say I've never had the slightest difficulty with this myself. I still get plenty of stability, because my left hand thumb is still on the instrument. So it just doesn't matter that my right hand thumb is briefly lifted. I find lifting my LEFT thumb while my left fingers are pressing down MORE counterintuitive, actually. But neither one is a problem now that I'm used to them.The issue is with Eb (on a C whistle) where the thumb is lifted off and two fingers are pressing down - that's the hardest note to play because of the instability issue. A loop for the fourth finger to press up against would help to resolve it. With my alternative designs there's a lesser issue of this kind because while the thumb still has to lift off for a note (and can be optionally kept off for several more), when it's off, no fingers from that hand are pressing down, but a loop would still improve things.
Well, for one thing, the thumb would only lift off when none of the fingers of that hand are pressing down, and with the loop over the fourth finger of the right hand, there would still be upward pressure applied to the tube when the right thumb lifts off. I think the lack of such a loop is likely the main thing that's held back the adoption of chromatic instruments of this kind because they have serious instability issues for many players.I guess I'm just not seeing the slightest logical reason why it would be that much easier on your new design than on the old one.
If you want to play a wide range of pieces that need a chromatic instrument, the gains will outweigh any such issue, but I doubt there is any such issue in the first place as lifting or closing two fingers at a time rather than one doesn't add significant effort. The way to make certain of that though is to build prototypes and test them extensively.It's the same level of finger movement for both designs, if you're playing in a hard key like C sharp. It seems like the ONLY "advantage" of the new one is that you wouldn't have this problem with E flat. I don't think playing E flat with the right thumb is a problem to begin with. But even if it is, and even if your new design did make playing E flat marginally easier, is it really worth the tons of extra finger movement you get for half the keys on the instrument, including D, G, A, etc.? Is it really worth making every single super-fast Irish reel more difficult?
Yes indeed - that's exactly what I intend to try next.At any rate, why don't you try adding a fourth finger ring to your current design and seeing if that makes the problem go away?
It's pretty well in tune, but although the note sounds well, it introduces a flavour of a different kind of instrument that I dislike. There's no substitute for having dedicated tone holes for each note, where you can.And while you're at it, I'd modify your design so that cross-fingered A flat is in tune (assuming it isn't on your current version). That way, you won't ever have to lift your left thumb at all. To be honest, if I had the option to cross-finger A flat on the design you've already made, I'd never use the A flat hole anyway. I prefer cross-fingered A flat on a C whistle.
This seems like an excellent approach if you want to learn a ton of different instruments, and a rather poor one if your goal is to master a single instrument.David Cooper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 6:18 pmWhen I play a tune on an instrument I just play the notes needed for it in whatever way the instrument allows it without going through any learning process. There are often particular parts that may need a bit of attention to get them right for next time, but it's mostly instinctive.Cyberknight wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 4:36 am I don't really get how you could think it's "easy" to adapt to new systems. There's nothing remotely "easy" about relearning all 1,000+ tunes you know on a new system. Sure, it's easier than starting from scratch and learning a new instrument as a beginner, but that doesn't mean it isn't a pain in the neck.
The thing cost over $400. Very few people are interested in buying a high whistle that expensive.What proportion of them have gone on to buy one?
I must have misunderstood what you were saying, because I was not imagining the keyboard you're describing as looking anything like a janko keyboard. If all you did is reinvent the janko keyboard in your mind, congrats. You're a lot more innovative than I'll ever be lol.Ah ha! So it's exactly the same thing as I've just invented over a century late, and yet somehow mine is riddled with imaginary problems while the exact same design from someone else is amazing.
Cool, I'll see what I can do. I guess I'll try playing it a whole step up, since I have a D whistle.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OHND2SR ... 7%99%D7%9D
The tricky section starts at 1:01, and the part I gave lists of fingerings for is 1:06 to 1:09. The speed you can play that at dictates how fast you play the rest of the piece, and you don't want the rest of it to be too slow. You can't use any of my sets of fingerings as you don't have any instrument that works the right way for that. You'll have to use a forked fingering for one of the notes, and on every instrument I've ever encountered, that produces an uglier tone than you get from having a tone hole dedicated to it, but it's also harder to play and hinders speed. For another of the notes you'll need to lift your thumb, but it's not so badly placed in the sequence of notes, so it may cause less trouble in this piece and more in some other. Crucially, in the newer two designs which I haven't made a prototype yet for, that section of tune will be dead easy to play fast and will produce beautiful tone on all the notes. I don't want to compromise on that.
But any instrument you make is going to have difficult passages for that specific instrument. There's hardly any instrument in existence (the janko piano perhaps being a rare case) where no specific chromatic passages are any harder than any others. And I don't think the new design would avoid instances of this any more than mine. But we can agree to disagree on this point, since we clearly have differing subjective opinions regarding the ease of things like left-hand thumb use.That does indeed seem easier, but remember that this is piece-specific and I chose an example that's hard on the instruments I have access to. Because I haven't got an instrument like yours, I haven't run into the places where it might get into difficulty with a tough sequence of notes and where other designs might outperform it.
Yeah, some whistles handle the forked B flat better than others, that's for sure. My Morneaux is specifically designed to play it that way, and the tone is excellent; B flat is maybe marginally quieter than B, but it's so slight I don't think I'd ever notice unless someone pointed it out. Trilling is not something I've ever practiced, but I just tried it, and it seems doable. Can't think of any reason it would be harder than, say, trilling between C sharp and D, something I can easily do now that I've practiced it. I think It's easier if you use an alternate fingering for A, like xxo oxo.If you're happy with the note quality that you get from that forked fingering, that's fine. You probably are though, because I find that I can get it to work well on mine too, but on all my Generation whistles it's sharp and has a horrid crackling tone to it, which is the reason I never took to using forked fingering in the first place and focused instead on half-holing. But here's a key test for you: how well can you trill between A and Bb on your Morneaux? I can do it easily on my chromatic whistle between the equivalent two notes (G and Ab). Of course, you'll find it easier to trill between B and Bb than I do, unless I use the forked fingering too. But the two newer designs would make it easy to trill between more pairs of notes, in one case without any forked notes, and that's a significant gain.
Yeah, but you know what else is an established way of playing on many instruments? Using 6 fingers to play a basic diatonic scale on the instrument.But it is the established way of playing that note on a great many instruments already, and seeing as we don't have 11 fingers, a compromise has to be made somewhere. I consider any forked fingering near the top of the octave to be a worse compromise if you're trying to get the best out of a chromatic whistle.
I thought we were abandoning convention to adopt the optimal design, not going with convention. My point is that requiring you to half hole anything is not even close to optimal, and there are ways to play C and C sharp on a woodwind without needing to half hole and without needing 11 fingers. So the most optimal design wouldn't involve half-holing.Very fair.You may not have damaged hands like mine, so these problems may not affect you, but I can bet that if I make an instrument that causes less trouble for my fingers, it will do the same for a lot of other players too.
My assumption is that more coordinated finger movement = more difficult. In my experience, that's the case. That said, I totally agree that it can't hurt to build prototypes and test them out.If you want to play a wide range of pieces that need a chromatic instrument, the gains will outweigh any such issue, but I doubt there is any such issue in the first place as lifting or closing two fingers at a time rather than one doesn't add significant effort. The way to make certain of that though is to build prototypes and test them extensively.
I hope you do achieve it, because it'll be a good tune to use to demonstrate what the Morneaux whistle can do. I have heard it played perfectly at full speed on a standard quena, but that takes a higher level of skill. I might be able to get up to the same speed if I switch to using forked fingerings and learn to nail those (though I'm sure my playing of it would still be inferior in other ways), but before I invest time in that I'd rather explore chromatic options which should make it easier and allow me to focus more on trying to make it sound beautiful rather than industrial. Our objective is to identify and create instruments that enable less capable players to play pieces another level up from their normal range because that provides greater enjoyment.Cyberknight wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:39 am After practicing Rondo Alla Turca a bit, it is indeed very difficult. But I'm confident I'll be able to play that portion up to speed with some practice. I'm playing that portion in G# minor instead of F# minor, since I have a D whistle.
I'll also add that I think this is probably peak difficulty for my Morneaux whistle. G# minor is probably the absolute worst key for the instrument. So if I'm able to get this down after a week or two of practice, hopefully that'll demonstrate my point.