Seeking opinions on an ethical conundrum

[ecohawk]

Hi folks,

I believe that I own at least one whistle from all the makers on C&F and a few from others I've never seen posting here.

I'd like your advice on a project I'm considering. I am not a maker of whistles but have the tools and skill to craft one. There are so many really good instruments available that I have no interest in competing or in making money from it, yet my very favorite high D whistle, a Hudson Winds made by Peter Bonsteel, is no longer being made and I'd like to try recreating a reasonable facsimile thereof so others can enjoy it too.

I tried contacting Peter without success for more than two years. He may begin making whistles again so I don't want to steal business from him. I have no profit motive, only that of allowing others to have access to this incredible design.

People copy or at least borrow heavily from other instrument makers all the time but for me, it seems unethical to copy without the makers permission. I'd cite Bernard Overton's design as an example. He trained Colin Goldie and Phil Hardy to make his instruments and they have both gone on to refine this design. There are certainly others who seem to have followed the same path. Our own beloved Paul Busman was trained by Glenn Schultz and I believe Carey Parks got his start in a similar fashion. But they did so with the permission of the original maker and their whistles have also been reformulated as time has gone by.

I don't know that I could improve on Peter's original design and I can't get training or permission from him. I certainly wouldn't attempt this if he ever intends to make them again.

Does anyone know if Peter is around or contact-able these days? What is your opinion on the ethical dilemma of attempting to reproduce or copy a design in this instance?

Thanks in advance,
ecohawk

[JTC111]

I don't really see the ethical dilemma that you do. I'm assuming that the Hudson Winds instrument to which you're referring has six holes? Is of a similar length to other D whistles? Uses a fipple block? Employs either a flat or curved windway through which you blow causing air to split on a ramp? Were all those Peter Bonsteel's ideas or did he borrow them from others before him? Besides, unless you're using some very high tech equipment, your whistles are likely to be exact copies. I say go for it.

[Nanohedron]

You could stamp it with "nach Hudson" ("nach" meaning "after the manner of"). German flutemakers did this when imitating Meyer flutes. This way you can give full attribution to the source of your intended design and avoid being accused of entirely ripping him off.

I'm actually kind of serious, here. You may not want to go the "nach" route - it sounds a bit cholesterol-laden - but there could be other ways to do a similar job.

[mutepointe]

It's not like you have propriety information that was given to you first hand or second hand or any hand. All you got is one of the whistles that was sold to you. All above board. And it's not like you'll be able to create an exact replica. And what's to say that after making a few, you won't go off in your own direction.

[Katharine]

I don't really see the ethical dilemma that you do. I'm assuming that the Hudson Winds instrument to which you're referring has six holes? Is of a similar length to other D whistles? Uses a fipple block? Employs either a flat or curved windway through which you blow causing air to split on a ramp? Were all those Peter Bonsteel's ideas or did he borrow them from others before him? Besides, unless you're using some very high tech equipment, your whistles are likely to be exact copies. I say go for it.

Considering we've had posts here putting down "cheap" whistles that seem to copy Susatos & etc., I can see why he's concerned. He's trying to avoid doing the same thing.

You could stamp it with "nach Hudson" ("nach" meaning "after the manner of"). German flutemakers did this when imitating Meyer flutes. This way you can give full attribution to the source of your intended design and avoid being accused of entirely ripping him off.

I'm actually kind of serious, here. You may not want to go the "nach" route - it sounds a bit cholesterol-laden - but there could be other ways to do a similar job.

Sure, why not. If I had a dollar for every violin that is a "copy" or "reproduction of [insert famous maker here].... (My own is a Strad copy, and I used to have a Tourte repro bow until I discovered-- the hard way-- previously-badly-repaired damage on that one, about which I'm still heartbroken. Somewhere my mom has a Stainer copy. Etc.) Of course, Stradivarius and Guarnerius and Amati aren't still around for their permission to be asked, but you get the idea.

[Feadoggie]

I believe that I own at least one whistle from all the makers on C&F

Really?

Does anyone know if Peter is around or contact-able these days?

I do not know personally.

What is your opinion on the ethical dilemma of attempting to reproduce or copy a design in this instance?

I have thought about this for some time myself. Here's my thinking for what it is worth.

I live close to the Martin guitar factory. I've been fascinated with Martin guitars for more than four decades now. It started after my first pilgrimage to Nazareth around 1971(?). I currently play several of the instruments produced there and have owned quite a few more besides. I have met Chris Martin and know quite a few of his employees. I like making instruments myself. There are a lot luthiers in the nearby area. Some are former Martin employees. Those luthiers and almost all other luthiers that make flat-top steel-string acoustic guitars owe their start to C. F. Martin & Co and used the Martin designs, bracing patterns and body shapes to get started. Martin even provides materials and tools to hobbyists and small shops to make their own instruments. Few builders have the resources or skills to build a guitar like a top level Martin and none that can do that, provide the type of ongoing customer support that Martin does. Few have ever had an impact on Martin's sales. Those that have had an impact have usually become part of the family, as employees or consultants, giving back to Martin what they have learned. So those relationships are in many ways symbiotic. We all drink from the same well that spring from West North Street in Nazareth.

When I started making whistles, I made whistles from my own designs and used my own methods. Lots of trial and error, the lessons were quick but not the most effective use of time or materials. I read as much instrument design theory and history as I could. I owned most every whistle that was out there too. Soon enough I realized that my designs could be improved and they morphed towards designs similar to what others were using. Aha, that's why they do things that way. There are only so many ways to do things and get a good result. So it is a rational thought to begin by climbing up onto the shoulders of the giants that came before us. The Bonsteel whistle has a bit of other whistles showing in it too. He likely went through similar steps himself. I would also submit that you will not be able, in most cases, to match the results of the original maker right away. And you will see ways to make the designs and methods your own as you progress. So I'd think that making a whistle in the spirit of another maker is a good first step but you should strive (and will likely do so anyway) to make it your own in the end.

Flute (simple system) makers rarely succeed by exclaiming that they make a flute according to their own proprietary design. Although I would submit that most make their own proprietary design. The market demands that the memory of Rudall, Rose, Pratten, Nicholson, et al be conjured up to validate a design. How curious is that? So the modern makers oblige. As long as those revered makers remain dead (and their companies defunct) that situation is ok. So what do you do about a current maker's work? Licensing a design would seem a good approach - like Overton, as an example.

I ramble on.

Feadoggie

[benhall.1]

If it's a whistle for you personally, and you're not going to sell it on, I can't see why you shouldn't make one yourself, copying whatever you want to. You wouldn't want to, or be able to (probably) pass it off as one of Peter's in any case.

[Nanohedron]

If it's a whistle for you personally, and you're not going to sell it on, I can't see why you shouldn't make one yourself, copying whatever you want to.

Right.

OTOH, have we ever known whistlers to not be horsetraders by nature?

[benhall.1]

If it's a whistle for you personally, and you're not going to sell it on, I can't see why you shouldn't make one yourself, copying whatever you want to.

Right.

OTOH, have we ever known whistlers to not be horsetraders by nature?

Ooh no-o-o-ooh, not me.





... but if you come round the back, I think I might have something to interest you ...

[ytliek]

People copy or at least borrow heavily from other instrument makers all the time but for me, it seems unethical to copy without the makers permission.

FWIW, here's my newbie penny's worth. I understand your considerations, respectful, sincere, however, the dilemma could be applied to just about everything and its progress. I came to whistling for the love of ITM, but, first and foremost I have always had a serious interest in "craftsmanship" of any kind. Folk traditions. Humans as tool makers and craftsman. Anything that is hand-made, individually crafted, and well made has a special quality about it, more so if a "one-of-a-kind", and that craftsmanship can rarely be duplicated exactly. That's why the "apprenticeship" and "journeyman" training process came to be. Preservation of the tradition.

Adding a penny to make two cents worth, I say go for it, and craft your version of the Hudson Winds whistle as I need a history lesson on those craftsman that came before in the tradition. And, while you're at it... consider crafting the O'Riordan whistle, or let me know who is.

[MadmanWithaWhistle]

My teacher has a Copleand, and the physics department has a laser mapping device.... I'm curious to see exactly why a Copeland sounds like a Copeland. I have a feeling the answer is in the mouthpiece. Will ever get around to it? Doubtful.

[maki]

My teacher has a Copleand, and the physics department has a laser mapping device.... I'm curious to see exactly why a Copeland sounds like a Copeland. I have a feeling the answer is in the mouthpiece. Will ever get around to it? Doubtful.

IIRC there was a discussion about a Copeland former employee who went on to make his own whsitles. One member said that the offspring played better than the original, but that the young fella couldn't make a go of it and stopped making whistles.

EcoHawk I hope you make a great copy of your favorite.
No personal interest on my part, of course.

[MTGuru]

I'm actually kind of serious, here. You may not want to go the "nach" route - it sounds a bit cholesterol-laden - but there could be other ways to do a similar job.

"Hudsonian"

[maki]

I'm actually kind of serious, here. You may not want to go the "nach" route - it sounds a bit cholesterol-laden - but there could be other ways to do a similar job.

"Hudsonian"

"Genuine Faux Hudson"?

[AvienMael]

Honestly Michael, and as I'm sure you have already noted yourself in your own collection of whistles, basic design is something that is imitated again and again from one maker to another. While I have yet to encounter anyone making whistles that are exact copies of another maker's whistle, I really don't see any ethical dilema in doing so, providing you are crediting Peter with the design and inspiration behind your efforts - and you have already done this ahead of time. I think perhaps if you were to include a little card with each whistle explaining what it is and why you have undertaken to recreate it, then you have done Peter a good service by keeping his whistles alive in the minds and hands of those who would admire them, and you can ease your conscience as well.

Now the only real ethical question in my mind is: Can you recreate Peter's whistle and have it be as good as the original it is patterned after? If not, then you will have done him a disservice. This then, should be your main concern .

I for one, encourage you to make the effort.