Recorders....what ARE all those holes for?

Seandalf · Post by **Seandalf** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:59 pm

Could someone please explain all the different holes on a recorder? I am in the understanding that recorders are generally in the key of D, but if this is wrong, please correct me. My main concern is, why are there two extra holes on a recorder compared to that of a tinwhistle? There is one in the back, and one generally on the side near the bottom hole. Do they indicate sharps...? Thanks for any info!

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 8:26 am

At its simplest, think of a recorder as a whistle with two extra holes.

The thumb hole in the back has a dual purpose--it lets you get a clean C-natural without having the C-sharp be noticably flat (as if often is on simple-system flutes and whistles). It also serves as an octave vent: by "pinching" this hole with the thumb (uncovering it only slightly), you can attain the second octave without overblowing, so that the second octave is the same volume or actually softer than the first, as opposed to whistle where the second octave is attained by overblowing the first and thus is almost always louder.

The lowest hole takes the bottom note down to either C or F, depending on the recorder. Yes, in trad terms soprano and tenor recorders are in the key of D, the suprano being equivalent to a high D whistle, and the tenor corresponding to the low D. Thus the sopranino, alto, and bass would be (by this convention) in the key of G.

Of course, there is always more to it than that.

Many modern recorders have the lowest two holes doubled to access chromatic notes all the way down to the bell note.

Also the tuning is such that the fingering is different for some noes. On a soprano, for instance, you finger G very close to a whistle, with the thumb hole closed and the first three fingers of the left hand down. For F-sharp, though, leaving the left hand down as for G, leave the first finger right hand up and add the next two fingers. For F-natural, put all right hand fingers down except the middle finger.

The usable range of whistle and recorder is roughly equal; recorder has a chromatic range of two octaves and a major second; whistle has a diatonic range of two ocaves and a fourth, varying by whistle.

The tone is not equivalent--recorders are voiced differently, have much more resistance than most whistles, are louder, and have a more penetrative tone with a taste of the oboe's cutting edge.

I hope this makes sense and answers your question.

Best,

--James
http://www.flutesite.com

Whistlepeg · Post by **Whistlepeg** » Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:02 pm

Nicely explained, James!

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 5:47 am

I didn't want to start another thread on the subject of recorders, so I thought I'd post here. Has anyone tried voice flute for Irish trad music? It's a form of tenor recorder, but voiced differently than the typical recorder, and pitched in D, rather than the typical C.

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:05 am

I think that if you wanted to cross-over easily, Wald, you'd want to play on a C recorder (tenor or soprano), since then XXX XXXO would be the same as XXX XXX on the whistle/simple-system flute. As you know, a voice flute would play D with XXX XXXX, which might make the switch confusing.

Unless you're really familiar with the recorder fingerings, in which case you'd be happy with the voxflute. I've been leery of trying it simply because you can spend O SO MUCH MORE $ on a good recorder than you can on a good whistle. . . and cheap recorders sound worse than cheap whistles.

Stuart

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Sun Mar 16, 2003 5:25 pm

First, I don't find recorder all that much harder to play Irish on that whistle.

Sure, the fingering system is a little more complicated. But by the time you are able to kick out reels and jigs at the hyperspeeds they are played today, learning another fingering system should not be that much of a challenge.

That said, I don't find the tone or response fits Irish dance music all that well. That is a matter of my own personal tastes though--someone else will surely have a different view.

Where recorders can shine is on airs. Because they are chromatic, and the second octave is softer than the first, they are ideally suited for playing slower pieces. Also on O'Carolan's music they fit quite well, I think.

The flip side is also true: while I am aware that a few whistlers have played classical and Baroque pieces on whistle (and I've played around with this myself), I don't really think the whistle is all that well suited to classical music.

Best,

--James

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Mon Mar 17, 2003 7:38 am

I guess what I was trying to ask was not whether D recorder would be an appropriate substitute for D whistle or flute, but whether the voice flute had been tried for Irish music, and if its voicing, which is supposed to be more suited to the flute repertoire, would be better than the typical tenor Baroque recorder.

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:31 pm

Voice flute isn't really more suited to the flute repertoire, since the tenor flute is more in the same key as the eight-key flute. Voice flute wasn't originally intended to play the traverso literature, I don't think, but has been used by some recorder players to access some of the baroque stuff written for traverso.

What do you mean by the 'voicing,' Walden? Voicing an instrument isn't going to make drastic changes to the intonation; it's more to adjust for a particular block and windway arrangement. Or, in the case of instruments with wooden blocks/fipples, to adjust for the swelling/changes that moisture have caused.

Stuart

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 12:55 am

sturob wrote:Voice flute isn't really more suited to the flute repertoire, since the tenor flute is more in the same key as the eight-key flute. Voice flute wasn't originally intended to play the traverso literature, I don't think, but has been used by some recorder players to access some of the baroque stuff written for traverso.

What do you mean by the 'voicing,' Walden? Voicing an instrument isn't going to make drastic changes to the intonation; it's more to adjust for a particular block and windway arrangement. Or, in the case of instruments with wooden blocks/fipples, to adjust for the swelling/changes that moisture have caused.

Stuart

So you don't know whether it's been tried?

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:20 am

Well, no. I've tried (as have others) recorders in C (and actually one in Eb) for Irish traditional music and found it unsuitable. I don't think the key was the problem; it was the sound of the recorder. I personally think it might work for Ó Carolan airs, or airs in general, but not anything quick . . . just the wrong timbre. Sounds WAY too pure and plain, almost like having a square-wave on a synthesizer.

A really REALLY square wave.

Don't get me wrong: I really like recorders and I'm not ashamed to admit it. They're just not for IrTrad. Nor are whistles suitable for baroque-or-earlier classical music.

Stuart

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:46 am

sturob wrote:Don't get me wrong: I really like recorders and I'm not ashamed to admit it. They're just not for IrTrad. Nor are whistles suitable for baroque-or-earlier classical music.

Yes, no question that the Baroque recorder is great for Baroque music.

http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/199/drora_bruck.html