Double hole whistles?

[Cyberknight]

I think this discussion went off track a bit when the claim that "adding additional holes to a whistle does not make it harder to play" went unchallenged. In my experience, adding more holes certainly does make it harder to play, and often so much harder that it diminishes the value of the instrument. Why so? Well, each additional hole constrains the movement of an additional finger. Adding a hole for D# vent that must be covered by the pinky finger means that moving between notes E and D requires the tight coordination of two fingers rather than one. It may make D# easier to play, but in Irish Traditional Music, Eb occurs very rarely, whereas transitions to and from D occur all the time. So it is a bad design trade-off for an instrument intended for ITM.

See, this is the problem. People think they understand what I mean when I talk about adding extra holes, so they form prejudicial attitudes about it, but they don't actually get how it works. No, it does not make the instrument harder to play. Nor does it constrain the movement of any additional fingers.

"Adding a hole for D# vent that must be covered by the pinky finger means that moving between notes E and D requires the tight coordination of two fingers rather than one.": No, it doesn't. That isn't how it works. The bottom hole, when lifted, changes what would otherwise be D into D#. But when it isn't lifted, the instrument plays the same as normal. The ONLY time you ever have to lift your bottom pinky is when you're playing D#. For ALL other notes, you keep it down (which is where most players would have their pinky anyway). The same goes for the F natural hole. You ONLY lift it when playing F natural. For all other notes, you keep it covering the hole.

This is precisely why it's such an advantageous and innovative design. You literally don't have to change anything about how you would play a 6-hole whistle, but you can play any accidental you want with relative ease and without needing to half-cover anything. That's why I was wishing it was a more common design.

I don't think anyone has tried to argue that a 6 hole whistle is inherently better than any other instrument. There are strong reasons why each musical genre tends to utilize their own preferred set of instruments. Being fully chromatic often isn't important or relevant. In a particular context, one instrument may well be better suited than a similar instrument of a slightly different design, but it isn't necessarily generically better (in all contexts).

Being fully chromatic is perfectly relevant if you want to play in any key on a single whistle. I often go to sessions, for example, where people play things in F major, a very difficult key to play in if you don't have a chromatic whistle. E major can be even more difficult (and it's common for Scottish tunes). If you're ok sitting out of a lot of tunes, then sure, playing chromatically isn't relevant. But it's not irrelevant if you actually want to play a full ITM repertoire, including more difficult fiddle tunes and the like. Again, wanting a chromatic whistle is NO different from wanting a fully-keyed flute. The rationale is the same.

So when someone asks "why play a whistle?" (which is clearly very well suited to ITM in its 6 hole form) in response to a claim that it is not well suited to the poster's purpose without modification, that isn't necessarily intended as a slight or insult at all. It is just the obvious question. And there were suggestions of other whistle-like instruments that would work better for playing more chromatically, such as recorders etc.

Exactly, it’s simply asking why one wouldn’t use a tool better suited to the task, and then suggesting such a tool. It’s an obvious question.

A carpenters framing hammer is designed for pounding nails all day long and it works very well for that. Lamenting that a framing hammer should be modified so that you can forge hot metal in a blacksmith’s shop, simply because you like framing hammers, is going to have blacksmiths and carpenters alike asking “Why??” and both will be suggesting a purpose built forging hammer. It’s a perfectly natural response, not an insult.

Well, in all fairness, it wasn't at all clear from your comment asking "why I want to play the whistle" that you were referencing possible better alternatives. But even if you were, your question is still a bit silly. Imagine asking the first player of a valved trumpet, "why not just play the slide trombone? It can play chromatically!" Well, maybe because I want to play the TRUMPET chromatically - not a different instrument. Similarly, in the present case, I don't want to play a completely different instrument. I want to play whistle - but chromatically.

And as for other instruments being "better suited": No, I would argue they aren't. I play recorder. It's a great instrument, but it has many shortcomings that the whistle fixes. It's extremely thick-walled and tapered, giving it super inconsistent volume and a tone that (in my opinion) doesn't fit Irish music particularly well. It's also got an extremely non-intuitive fingering system that is much more difficult overall than the whistle's. And worst of all, I've already learned hundreds of tunes on my tin whistle, and I'd have to relearn all of them on recorder if I wanted to switch to that instrument. My chromatic whistle fixes literally all of these problems: it's not as tapered or thick-walled, so it has a more whistle-like sound and more consistent volume, and it uses standard 6-hole fingers for the diatonic notes, so I don't have to relearn all my fingerings. So in terms of meeting my needs, it is simply superior to a recorder.

Sopilkas are similar enough to whistles that they actually would be a good substitute, if people made them in the right keys. Sadly, people insist on making Sopilkas in the key of C instead of D, so they aren't a good option for a good chromatic whistle.

Thus, I'm back where I started. I really wish chromatic whistles were more common. I'm allowed to think this, and it's perfectly rational. I'm not sure why people are so offended by this desire of mine. I understand that people were triggered when I said it should be "standard," but I admitted that I probably went to far in that comment, and I actually simply wish it was more common, not necessarily "standard."

That's my personal opinion, and I know that a lot of others don't feel the same way. That's great, there's room for everyone! But I think it's a mistake to think that those of us content with six holes are not "ambitious." Not only is chromaticism not in any way more or less complex or ambitious than diatonicism, that is just one small aspect of music. And I don't think I'd be the only one to argue that to a large extent, focusing on that aspect is actually missing "the point" of this music, and of the whistle as an instrument.

I want to reiterate once again that I never said (nor did I mean to imply) that anyone who avoided playing in odd keys was "unambitious." That was NOT the point of that post. My only point was that what "most players want" isn't necessarily a good standard for how whistles should be designed, since most players are relatively unambitious.

PS: About whistle being "easy," I used to teach skiing, and we had a saying about it: "easy to learn and hard to master." Give me an hour and I'll get you making basic turns down a bunny slope. It's honestly not that hard! But if you want to be the next Bode Miller? Well, that's a different story. And just like music, a lot of people look to their gear to make the difference. I see a lot of Atomics on the mountain, but let me tell you, none of them fly like Mikaela Shiffrin! In most cases, time/effort/thought put into gear can be better spent elsewhere.

100% agree with you about difficulty. It's a bit nonsensical to talk about how "easy" an instrument is. If an instrument is "easier," that just means it'll have a higher skill ceiling, because people will get even more virtuosic with it than they otherwise would...meaning it won't actually be any "easier" to master.

But when it comes to equipment, I think once you've been playing for 10+ years, it's pretty reasonable to spend effort looking for better equipment, especially if you know exactly what you're looking for. I can definitely tell you that finding my Morneaux chromatic whistle and learning to play it was a lot easier than learning to half-cover exactly perfectly.

[paddler]

I think this discussion went off track a bit when the claim that "adding additional holes to a whistle does not make it harder to play" went unchallenged. In my experience, adding more holes certainly does make it harder to play, and often so much harder that it diminishes the value of the instrument. Why so? Well, each additional hole constrains the movement of an additional finger. Adding a hole for D# vent that must be covered by the pinky finger means that moving between notes E and D requires the tight coordination of two fingers rather than one. It may make D# easier to play, but in Irish Traditional Music, Eb occurs very rarely, whereas transitions to and from D occur all the time. So it is a bad design trade-off for an instrument intended for ITM.

See, this is the problem. People think they understand what I mean when I talk about adding extra holes, so they form prejudicial attitudes about it, but they don't actually get how it works. No, it does not make the instrument harder to play. Nor does it constrain the movement of any additional fingers.

"Adding a hole for D# vent that must be covered by the pinky finger means that moving between notes E and D requires the tight coordination of two fingers rather than one.": No, it doesn't. That isn't how it works. The bottom hole, when lifted, changes what would otherwise be D into D#. But when it isn't lifted, the instrument plays the same as normal. The ONLY time you ever have to lift your bottom pinky is when you're playing D#. For ALL other notes, you keep it down (which is where most players would have their pinky anyway). The same goes for the F natural hole. You ONLY lift it when playing F natural. For all other notes, you keep it covering the hole.

This is precisely why it's such an advantageous and innovative design. You literally don't have to change anything about how you would play a 6-hole whistle, but you can play any accidental you want with relative ease and without needing to half-cover anything. That's why I was wishing it was a more common design.

The design you propose in which you leave the right hand pinky down makes it MUCH harder to play ITM. The reason is because of the ergonomics of how ornamentation on that bell note works. It is much harder to quickly raise and lower the ring finger with the pinky fixed than it is with the pinky free. Try it. When people are first trying to learn ornaments such as rolls, one of the first things that a good instructor on whistle or flute will teach is to relax that side of the hand and allow both the ring finger and pinky to raise and lower together in a movement that lets the pinky fall where it may. And where the pinky falls is very much a function of the player's hand size and shape. The moment you try to constrain this motion so that the pinky remains planted in a fixed location, it makes it MUCH harder to coordinate rapid movements of the ring finger with the speed and accuracy needed for crisp ornamentation.

The idea of having such a hole, covered by the pinky, is not innovative or new. It is pretty obvious and as old as the hills. It has been tried and it turns out to just be a bad idea for an Irish whistle. There is nothing prejudicial about these statements. They simply come from a deep base of experience in a genre. To claim otherwise introduces needless hostility into the thread.

Of course, you don't need anyone's permission to make such a whistle. You could even try to market it and make all our 6-hole whistles obsolete, but I doubt you'll have much success for the reasons I've stated. But go for it, and good luck!

[Cyberknight]

I think this discussion went off track a bit when the claim that "adding additional holes to a whistle does not make it harder to play" went unchallenged. In my experience, adding more holes certainly does make it harder to play, and often so much harder that it diminishes the value of the instrument. Why so? Well, each additional hole constrains the movement of an additional finger. Adding a hole for D# vent that must be covered by the pinky finger means that moving between notes E and D requires the tight coordination of two fingers rather than one. It may make D# easier to play, but in Irish Traditional Music, Eb occurs very rarely, whereas transitions to and from D occur all the time. So it is a bad design trade-off for an instrument intended for ITM.

See, this is the problem. People think they understand what I mean when I talk about adding extra holes, so they form prejudicial attitudes about it, but they don't actually get how it works. No, it does not make the instrument harder to play. Nor does it constrain the movement of any additional fingers.

"Adding a hole for D# vent that must be covered by the pinky finger means that moving between notes E and D requires the tight coordination of two fingers rather than one.": No, it doesn't. That isn't how it works. The bottom hole, when lifted, changes what would otherwise be D into D#. But when it isn't lifted, the instrument plays the same as normal. The ONLY time you ever have to lift your bottom pinky is when you're playing D#. For ALL other notes, you keep it down (which is where most players would have their pinky anyway). The same goes for the F natural hole. You ONLY lift it when playing F natural. For all other notes, you keep it covering the hole.

This is precisely why it's such an advantageous and innovative design. You literally don't have to change anything about how you would play a 6-hole whistle, but you can play any accidental you want with relative ease and without needing to half-cover anything. That's why I was wishing it was a more common design.

The design you propose in which you leave the right hand pinky down makes it MUCH harder to play ITM. The reason is because of the ergonomics of how ornamentation on that bell note works. It is much harder to quickly raise and lower the ring finger with the pinky fixed than it is with the pinky free. Try it. When people are first trying to learn ornaments such as rolls, one of the first things that a good instructor on whistle or flute will teach is to relax that side of the hand and allow both the ring finger and pinky to raise and lower together in a movement that lets the pinky fall where it may. And where the pinky falls is very much a function of the player's hand size and shape. The moment you try to constrain this motion so that the pinky remains planted in a fixed location, it makes it MUCH harder to coordinate rapid movements of the ring finger with the speed and accuracy needed for crisp ornamentation.

The idea of having such a hole, covered by the pinky, is not innovative or new. It is pretty obvious and as old as the hills. It has been tried and it turns out to just be a bad idea for an Irish whistle. There is nothing prejudicial about these statements. They simply come from a deep base of experience in a genre. To claim otherwise introduces needless hostility into the thread.

Of course, you don't need anyone's permission to make such a whistle. You could even try to market it and make all our 6-hole whistles obsolete, but I doubt you'll have much success for the reasons I've stated. But go for it, and good luck!

First of all, this isn't a "proposed design." Whistles like this currently exist, and I own one. iVolga and Morneaux both make them, and I have a Morneaux that does this.

Second, no, it doesn't make it "MUCH" harder to play anything. You're correct that many people lift their pinkies to do rolls or strikes on E. This probably isn't actually necessary, but it is something most people (including me) do. But having a D# hole doesn't make this significantly more difficult, which I can tell you from personal experience. All it means is that you lift your pinky briefly when doing ornamentation on E, and then you place it down when the ornament is over. Since lifting your pinky off the D# hole doesn't really affect the tuning of E significantly (it only sharpens it by about 10 cents), this technique works just fine. It's not significantly different from what you ought to do when playing normally, since most whistle instructors will tell you to make sure to keep your pinky on the whistle at all times, unless you're doing ornaments on E. Sure, there was a bit of adjustment, because I had to get used to placing my pinky back over the hole firmly whenever I was finished with my ornament on E. But this literally only took me about 2 weeks to get used to. Now I play the whistle all the time and barely even notice that there's an extra hole (when I'm not using it).

Third, your criticism only applies to the D# hole. At the very least, F natural holes (which are super useful and have none of the supposed problems you're pointing out) should be more common.

[paddler]

Whenever you introduce an extra hole that mostly must remain covered by using an additional finger, you constrain the position at which that finger must contact the whistle body. This is especially problematic when that finger (or thumb) is used to stabilize the whistle during normal playing, because even though the finger or thumb in question is normally in contact with the whistle, requiring it to be in contact at the precise location of that hole (which is basically fixed by the acoustic design) means that it will be an ergonomic problem for many people. The fact that we all have different sized and shaped hands with differing degrees of flexibility means that we all find a unique set of support locations for optimal ergonomics. Fixing the precise location of support positions does not work for all and ends up being an ergonomic problem for many. This kind of ergonomic issue comes up in the design of all musical instruments, and contributes greatly to shaping their development.

You may have found a way to comfortably cover these additional holes while supporting your particular whistle, but most people do not have the same experience. As you say, these whistles exist. There are many different designs that make different trade-offs regarding which holes are open or closed for specific notes. I've tried (and made) a few of them too, as have others. On balance they aren't comfortable for most people. This is why it is often harder to resell a whistle with additional holes (such as a Cnat thumb hole, say) than a standard whistle. It may have advantages in theory, but in practice the trade-offs do not end up being worth the problems. This is why most people prefer the standard configuration. It became standard for a reason. It may seem like a revelation, but believe me, you aren't the first person to realize that most of us have more than 6 fingers!

[Cyberknight]

Whenever you introduce an extra hole that mostly must remain covered by using an additional finger, you constrain the position at which that finger must contact the whistle body. This is especially problematic when that finger (or thumb) is used to stabilize the whistle during normal playing, because even though the finger or thumb in question is normally in contact with the whistle, requiring it to be in contact at the precise location of that hole (which is basically fixed by the acoustic design) means that it will be an ergonomic problem for many people. The fact that we all have different sized and shaped hands with differing degrees of flexibility means that we all find a unique set of support locations for optimal ergonomics. Fixing the precise location of support positions does not work for all and ends up being an ergonomic problem for many. This kind of ergonomic issue comes up in the design of all musical instruments, and contributes greatly to shaping their development.

You may have found a way to comfortably cover these additional holes while supporting your particular whistle, but most people do not have the same experience. As you say, these whistles exist. There are many different designs that make different trade-offs regarding which holes are open or closed for specific notes. I've tried (and made) a few of them too, as have others. On balance they aren't comfortable for most people. This is why it is often harder to resell a whistle with additional holes (such as a Cnat thumb hole, say) than a standard whistle. It may have advantages in theory, but in practice the trade-offs do not end up being worth the problems. This is why most people prefer the standard configuration. It became standard for a reason. It may seem like a revelation, but believe me, you aren't the first person to realize that most of us have more than 6 fingers!

“This is why most people prefer the standard configuration”: No, most people prefer the standard configuration because they’ve never tried anything else. I’m telling you that if you try this system, you’ll find that it’s superior.

The criticisms you have with it are valid, but I don’t think you understand how minor they are and how easy it is to adapt. Yes, it does very slightly constrain you by making you put your pinky in a certain position. Yes, this can take a week or two to get used to. No, it isn’t a significantly debilitating problem. Again, I can tell you this from personal experience.

For your thumb, this is even less of a concern. It’s frankly rather silly to care that much about the exact position of your right thumb. You can put it in a variety of different places without affecting the difficulty or responsiveness of the instrument.

[paddler]

Like I said, I have tried. It was a problem for me. But if you are convinced that these problems are unique to me and others who don't want to anchor our fingers in that precise location, and that everyone else in the history of whistle playing has been simply ignorant, then go ahead, get these chromatic whistles manufactured and make your fortune. If you are right, then in a year or two everyone will be playing your new version.

[Cyberknight]

Like I said, I have tried. It was a problem for me. But if you are convinced that these problems are unique to me and others who don't want to anchor our fingers in that precise location, and that everyone else in the history of whistle playing has been simply ignorant, then go ahead, get these chromatic whistles manufactured and make your fortune. If you are right, then in a year or two everyone will be playing your new version.

Oh, I hadn't realized you'd tried actually it. If you actually gave it a few weeks and still found it to be a problem, then that's fair enough.

But no, it's not a foregone conclusion that everyone would play "my new version" if it were actually superior. A lot of whistle-makers (and players) are quite stubborn, and they won't necessarily switch just because something comes around that's a better design.

Do keep in mind, also, that uillean pipe players have a similar fingering system, and somehow they never have any trouble doing proper ornamentation on the E note. They have a much more difficult instrument, and they're able to figure it out. So it's definitely clear to me that a D# hole isn't detrimental to virtuosic whistle playing.

[David Cooper]

There is another factor. When you compare the sound of the bell note with no holes cut and then the same note with all the holes cut and covered by fingers, the quality of the tone is noticeably degraded. Every additional hole damages it a little more. I'm not going to cut extra holes in any of my instruments without good cause, and half-holing the bottom hole with high accuracy is dead easy, so the only reason I'd consider an extra hole down there on a D whistle would be if it's normally open all the time and is only closed to get C or half-holed to get C#. I'm all in favour of those who want it getting it, but it'll inevitably cost them more and/or restrict their options due to it being a less popular item. The offset problems where someone who uses the left hand on the lower notes can't reach it loses more customers, and many of those who use the right hand still won't like the place it's been put in either, so it becomes a whistle for a much smaller subset of players, and a lot of those will require customisation.

Doubled holes (as on the recorder) also have an inferior tone for both the standard note and the added note, so there's no good fix. It's all about the best compromise for the individual player and the kind of music being played, which can vary from piece to piece. When most problems can be solved by carrying a bag of whistles which make it easier to play in specific keys with only occasional half-holing, the idea of using a chromatic whistle instead isn't greatly appealing, although there may be a specific piece here and there where it could become the preferred weapon of choice.

[bigsciota]

But no, it's not a foregone conclusion that everyone would play "my new version" if it were actually superior. A lot of whistle-makers (and players) are quite stubborn, and they won't necessarily switch just because something comes around that's a better design.

There's a great video around of Nicola Benedetti talking to Aly Bain about their instruments. She has a Stradivarius, and he has a German-made one, the sort you'd find in a lot of fiddle players' hands. Which one is better? Many people would say the Strad, and in a sense they'd be right. There's a reason they're so highly prized! But as the two of them discuss things, you realize that really they're talking about very different applications. Playing Tchaikovsky or Bruch in a concert hall is very different from playing reels in a more intimate setting, and both fiddles have their benefits and drawbacks. Would Bain take up Benedetti's Strad if he had the money? My guess is, probably not.

I think what has raised some hackles in this discussion is some of the superlative language that you've used, like in the example above. "Better," "superior," and other such words are only useful if we define "for what" and "for whom?" I also think that even those arguing with you here are willing to believe that for your uses, and for what you want out of a whistle, this design may in fact be superior. But statements like the above don't make it seem like you allow for the same subjectivity in your own assessment of what a whistle "should" do. In other words, it may not be stubbornness, conservativeness, hidebound attitudes, etc. that would cause someone not to take up a chromatic design. For some people, "better" might well mean a diatonic, six-holed instrument.

[stringbed]

“Better,” “superior,” and other such words are only useful if we define “for what” and “for whom?”

Hear, hear!

I wonder how much discussion of this type surrounded the emergence of the 10-holed fife (eleven-holed if the hole for the lower middle finger is doubled). There are pics of one together with a fingering chart here.

[paddler]

The same discussion does occur in the flute and fife domain too, and it is not just restricted to additional holes, but also when evaluating the relative merits of different key systems that have keyed tone holes that may either be open or closed by default. All such instruments are a complex design trade-off and a huge selection of alternative designs have been explored. I find the history of such developments quite interesting, which is perhaps not surprising given that I'm heavily involved in the restoration of antique instruments.

If you want to spend an hour learning a bit more about the evolution of flutes from the baroque to the present day, this video presentation by flute maker and historian Robert Bigio is a good place to start. Perhaps this is straying a bit from the original post, but it is an example of the same principles that we have been discussing at work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGnuq_BrFDs

[Cyberknight]

But no, it's not a foregone conclusion that everyone would play "my new version" if it were actually superior. A lot of whistle-makers (and players) are quite stubborn, and they won't necessarily switch just because something comes around that's a better design.

There's a great video around of Nicola Benedetti talking to Aly Bain about their instruments. She has a Stradivarius, and he has a German-made one, the sort you'd find in a lot of fiddle players' hands. Which one is better? Many people would say the Strad, and in a sense they'd be right. There's a reason they're so highly prized! But as the two of them discuss things, you realize that really they're talking about very different applications. Playing Tchaikovsky or Bruch in a concert hall is very different from playing reels in a more intimate setting, and both fiddles have their benefits and drawbacks. Would Bain take up Benedetti's Strad if he had the money? My guess is, probably not.

I think what has raised some hackles in this discussion is some of the superlative language that you've used, like in the example above. "Better," "superior," and other such words are only useful if we define "for what" and "for whom?" I also think that even those arguing with you here are willing to believe that for your uses, and for what you want out of a whistle, this design may in fact be superior. But statements like the above don't make it seem like you allow for the same subjectivity in your own assessment of what a whistle "should" do. In other words, it may not be stubbornness, conservativeness, hidebound attitudes, etc. that would cause someone not to take up a chromatic design. For some people, "better" might well mean a diatonic, six-holed instrument.

I hear what you're saying about "better" being subjective, and you're certainly correct that it is. I'm more annoyed that people don't even want to give this system a chance, and would rather shoot it down before they've even tried it. That's the kind of stubbornness that bothers me. I think maybe many people WOULD find it superior if they gave it a shot. I certainly did.

I also think it's kind of funny that you mention Strads, because those are a perfect illustration of how stubborn musicians can be. There are amazing, virtuosic players who insist that Strads play better than other instruments, even though every single study done on this question shows that neither experts nor audience members can tell the difference between Strads and other well-made modern violins when given a blind test, and there's also no discernable difference in projection. Yet these studies have not quelled the constant, stubborn claims that Strads are the best. Musicians can be a stubborn lot, and a lot of the time they just like old for old's sake, and they don't want to try anything new. It's frustrating.

There is another factor. When you compare the sound of the bell note with no holes cut and then the same note with all the holes cut and covered by fingers, the quality of the tone is noticeably degraded. Every additional hole damages it a little more. I'm not going to cut extra holes in any of my instruments without good cause, and half-holing the bottom hole with high accuracy is dead easy, so the only reason I'd consider an extra hole down there on a D whistle would be if it's normally open all the time and is only closed to get C or half-holed to get C#. I'm all in favour of those who want it getting it, but it'll inevitably cost them more and/or restrict their options due to it being a less popular item. The offset problems where someone who uses the left hand on the lower notes can't reach it loses more customers, and many of those who use the right hand still won't like the place it's been put in either, so it becomes a whistle for a much smaller subset of players, and a lot of those will require customisation.

Doubled holes (as on the recorder) also have an inferior tone for both the standard note and the added note, so there's no good fix. It's all about the best compromise for the individual player and the kind of music being played, which can vary from piece to piece. When most problems can be solved by carrying a bag of whistles which make it easier to play in specific keys with only occasional half-holing, the idea of using a chromatic whistle instead isn't greatly appealing, although there may be a specific piece here and there where it could become the preferred weapon of choice.

That's a very interesting point, but I don't know that it's valid in actual fact. Granted, my Morneaux chromatic has a rather weak bell note. But I'm pretty sure that's because it has a tapered bore, and not because it has a few extra holes that are normally closed. I've played Morneaux whistles that are NOT the chromatic kind, and they don't seem to have bell notes that are any louder or clearer than the one I have that IS chromatic. Still, this criticism makes logical sense, so it's something to think about.

I've been thinking about modifying one of my Susatos to make it chromatic by adding extra holes, just for fun. If I ever do this, I'll test to see if adding the extra holes affects the volume or clarity of the bell note.

[Mr.Gumby]

I'm more annoyed that people don't even want to give this system a chance, and would rather shoot it down before they've even tried it.

It is your own assumption nobody has tried chromatic whistles or whistles with additional holes.

These things are not as new or innovative as you stubbornly seem to want to believe. They have been tried but never caught on widely. Why not? Well, perhaps the overwhelming majority of whistlers didn't feel the need for them.

Again, it's fine if you feel that need, just don't assume the rest of us should take the same route.

[Cyberknight]

I'm more annoyed that people don't even want to give this system a chance, and would rather shoot it down before they've even tried it.

It is your own assumption nobody has tried chromatic whistles or whistles with additional holes.

These things are not as new or innovative as you stubbornly seem to want to believe. They have been tried but never caught on widely. Why not? Well, perhaps the overwhelming majority of whistlers didn't feel the need for them.

Again, it's fine if you feel that need, just don't assume the rest of us should take the same route.

Given that only one person on this thread has even claimed to have tried a chromatic whistle, and given that no one on here has claimed to have tried one with the specific layout I'm talking about - i.e., one that allows you to play with the normal, 6-hole fingerings you'd normally use when you're playing diatonically - I'm pretty sure my "assumption" is valid.

Naturally, I could be wrong. If anyone has actually played a whistle with the 10-hole-fife-esque fingering system that Morneaux uses for any extended period of time and found it to be lacking, they can feel free to speak up and voice their positions. If it turns out most people on here speaking so adamantly against this design have actually given it a fair try, then I suppose my "assumption" is invalid.

[RoberTunes]

I've never heard of, seen or read, of a recorder player saying, "There's too many holes, I can't handle this thing."

Whistle players seem to have been conditioned primarily to the marketplace supply of inexpensive 6-hole whistles over the decades, rather than
preferring 6 holes on the instrument out of selecting the 6 hole option out of wide range of options, from fully chromatic down to 6. Clearly, with many whistle makers offering
a single extra thumb hole (Burke and others) or the low C hole on a D whistle as the 7th hole, people are interested enough to keep those options in demand. Expanding that
to include enough holes to make the D whistle much more chromatic, if not fully chromatic, makes sense, and the fully chromatic whistle capable
of producing all 12 notes in the scale with accuracy and ease with no or minimal cross fingering, is no stretch of the imagination to see appealing instead
of having to have a selection of 4 or 5 whistles to carry your way through a variety of songs, with clear note, effects and playing restrictions in each case.

I can easily see a high demand for a D whistle with 8 or 9 holes (one or two thumb holes and one more top side hole) as much more musical and can't imagine
lack of appreciation for it being difficult to handle or control.