Talk:Tin whistle/Archive 1

Vibrato

The section about breath vibrato not being pitch modulation ought to be removed. It's not really true that breath can't change the pitch. If this ere true, flutes wouldn't be able to do vibrato at all. Breath vibrato changes the pitch AND and the volume, not just the volume.

Sound Recordings

I possess each of the three types of whistles for which the article has sound samples, and I'm quite accomplished on the instrument. I'd gladly add some sound samples that actually give an idea of what the instrument sounds like. The current sound samples do not do the whistle justice.

-Bart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.27.22.181 (talk) 10:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

In the three audio samples: if the all plastic whistle (1st sample) is indeed in "D", then the two metal whistles are in Db, and not D. If the metal whistles are in "D", then the plastic whistle is in D#, and not D. In any event they are in different keys; there is nearly a full semitone difference between the plastic and metal whistle examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 21:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Defining Low Whistles by Pitch?

I'm under the vague impression that the cutoff point for Low Whistles is A (below the standard D). Is that correct, or is a Generation Bb count as low whistle? In either case, can we add the defining pitch to the definition of Low Whistle? MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't define the difference by pitch -- I define it by price tag!!!!Prof Wrong (talk) 13:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Price tag isn't always that bad, I make very nice low whistles for about 90¢ worth of PVC, red oak, glue, and about 1-2 hours of my time. Anyone can make them. SoAnIs (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

...

From LaurelBush 16:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC):

Would the following fit somewhere within the article?

”The names tin whistle and penny whistle date from when the instrument was first mass produced in tinned sheet metal. Early mass production of the metal itself occurred in Wales, in the UK, and the best known (most successful) early producers of tin whistles is Robert Clarke (? - 1882) who lived and worked in the UK territory of England. Norman Dannat boasted in “The Penny Whistle” (The Clarke Tinwhistle Co c1993) that Robert Clarke’s whistles ‘produced a unique sound which, though attempts have been made to copy it, no-one has ever improved’.

”In his tutor “Timber” (ISBN 185700322) Fintan Vallely calls the whistle’s fingering system the ‘simple’ system. It is also that to which the side-blown six-hole flute responds and was of course well known before Robert Clarke began producing his tin whistles in 1843."

Sorry. Ive just put it in myself.

Re flageolet

The tin whistle isnt a modern form of flageolet? Laurel Bush 12:53, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC).

Sorta, Laurel. There was a point in history, at least, (early 20th century) when the terms were used more or less interchangeably; L.E. McCullough discusses this in The Complete Irish Tinwhistle Tutor. I'll clarify this sentence. User: Craig Stuntz 2 May 2005

I believe there was a time (19th century) when Clarke whistles were bought in bulk by other companies and rebranded as more 'up-market' instruments, eg by calling them 'flagolets'. Laurel Bush 11:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC).

Yes, this is true. In the same McCullough book I mentioned earlier he reproduces two ads for 'flageolets' from the Sears catalogue in the early 20th century with pictures. One is clearly a tin whistle, the other, to me, looks more like a simple French flageolet like this picture and indeed the text of the catalogue notes that the instruments are imported from France. This page describes various types of flagolets and refers to the tin whistle as "a development of the English flageolet." User: Craig Stuntz 5 May 2005

I found McCullough's history discussion on the web (legally!). It's so helpful for this article that I added it to external links even though the main Chiff and Fipple site is already there. User: Craig Stuntz 1 June 2005

Sigh. Mel Etitis in history claims that (1) "there's no such word as 'anachrously'" — true enough, but there is such a word as "anachronously" — and that the flageolet is a different instrument than the whistle, in spite of the references above that the terms have been used as synonyms in the past. I believe he's wrong for the reasons indicated in the conversation I had above with Laurel Bush months ago, but since I've now reverted this twice I'm raising it here. Mel Etitis, if you think that L.E. McCullough's citation is incorrect, could you explain why, please? --Craig Stuntz 21:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

1. "Anachronously" exists, but is obscure, and not clearly appropriate here anyway.
2. At one time (partly as a marketing ploy) the penny whistle was called the English flageolet; that doesn't mean that it was a flageolet simpliciter, any more than a cor anglais is a horn.
3. You might take a look at the flageolet article; there it seems clearly to say that the English flageolet was wooden, and that a later metal version was called the tin whistle. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

While it's progress that Mel Etitis has looked up "anachronously" in the dictionary and now agrees that it does exist, he doesn't appear to have considered its meaning nor bothered to review the McCullough reference. I have therefore (at least temporarily) removed the term from the article altogether in order to stop his ongoing alterations until he can come up with a source more authoritative than those already cited. My philosophy on reverts is that after a couple of times the reference should be struck until verifiable sources can be cited. --Craig Stuntz 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Your use of this snide, sarcastic, and unpleasant tone doesn't help your case. I didn't deny that "anachronously" existed — as you know full well. I did deny that "anachrously" (the word you replaced) was, and do deny that "anachronously" is an accurate description here; could you explain why you think that it is? The Complete Irish Tinwhistle Tutor isn't an authoratitive source, incidentally, and its dubious claim that recorders and tin whistles are members of the "species" flageolet is peculiar to say the least. Aside from anything else, if we're speaking strictly, instruments don't come in species, only families, and the claim isn't supported by any other source that I've found.

You might look at The Flageolet site, particularly "The Flageolet Family". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Anachrously" is your word, Mel Etitis; it was never in the article. The only place it ever appears is in your revision comments. You replaced the correctly-spelled word, twice; please check the history before continuing to assert otherwise. If you wonder why I don't just accept your un-cited assertions, please consider how much of what you have said thus far is not only demonstrably wrong but unlikely to have ever been stated if you had bothered to click a link or two and check your facts before posting.

Prior to the discussion I had with Laurel Bush this past May, the sentence read, "The tin whistle, also called the pennywhistle, Irish whistle, simply whistle or, erroneously, the flageolet...." This is, essentially, what you kept changing it back to. Laurel Bush noted, above, that there was a time when the tin whistle was commonly called a flageolet. It may or may not have been "correct," (I don't have a late-19th century musical dictionary on hand to check) but the term was used. However, nobody, as far as I can see, ever uses the term to describe the tin whistle today. This use is at best archaic, in the etymological sense. It is wrong to say that the tin whistle is erroneously called the flageolet because nobody does that anymore. Unless, of course, you have citations for this usage?

The university student who writes the flageolets site has this to say about the precision of the word "flageolet:

"The term "flageolet" has never been used to describe one particular instrument (unlike, for instance, the recorder)..."

He then goes on to define the term more restrictively "...for the purposes of this website...." I think that attempting to argue a very restrictive and generally applicable definition of the word is not only a losing battle, but pointless. It's certainly a discussion which can be saved for the flageolets article, rather than here.--Craig Stuntz 13:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I somehow got muddled over the business of "anachronous", for which apologies. In fact "anachronous" doesn't appear in the Collins Dictionary, nor in any of the Oxford Reference On-line works, which include the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, the Oxford American Dictionary of Current English, and various other thesauri and dictionaries. The on-line reference you cite seems to be unique (and is in itdelf odd, as the term is illustrated by a quotation that doesn't use it). Assuming that it's in fact a mistake for "anachronistic", that term is clearly wrong in this context. "archaic" might be right, though "inaccurate" seems better (and better than "erroneous").
2. My mistake on this (and on nothing else, so far as I can see, despite your claim) hardly warrants your unpleasantness, either earlier or now.
3. Your selective quotation from the flageolet site is misleading — I can only assume deliberately so. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The above is not a personal attack? At any rate, this discussion is going nowhere; I suggest dropping the point and leaving the article as-is. You haven't cited an example of contemporary use of the word "flageolet" for the whistle and I am unaware of anyone who does this, so I see little point in mentioning it in the first sentence of the article. --Craig Stuntz 18:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Tin whistle is an Irish invention?

I note the use of The Irish feadóg (literally "flute") is first evidenced in literature and on High Crosses from the 11th century. Bone whistles are also known to have been played in 12th century Viking Dublin as the first sentence under History. I am sure that in the 11th and 12th centuries similar instruments were in use in many places other than Ireland. Laurel Bush 09:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC).

I doubt that it's possible or really relevant to identify the origins of the instrument with one specific region of the British Isles; its evolution was probably not resticted and versions of it must have been spread by trade and migration between what we now know as Ireland, Scotland, northern England and further afield (for example America and South Africa). Prof Wrong deleted "Irish Whistle" from 'The tin whistle, also called the tinwhistle, whistle, pennywhistle,dilli ney or Irish whistle,...' saying that "If this was an exclusively Irish instrument, the Irish name would be relevant. I don't want to add in the Scottish Gaelic, for example." I disagree (and reverted the deletion). There's no claim of it being exclusive Irish, rather that the instrument which the article describes is known by this name among others, reflecting one of the localities in which it evolved and is traditionally played. Personally, I'd welcome the Scottish Gaelicname as well, which seems a lot more relevant to the origins, contemporary use and styles of playing described by the article than the Turkish dilli ney. -- Timberframe (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

No I didn't! I left Irish whistle in (as an English language name), but took out the names in the Irish language. This is, after all, an English language article, and if people say dilli ney when talking in English, then it's a legitimate inclusion. I have never heard anyone using the Irish term when speaking in English but although I'm from an Irish family, I don't live there, so it may actually be used, I don't know.

Regardless, the text says "The Irish words for the instrument are" and while that may be relevant to the article, unless you can say that people use these terms in English, it's not first paragraph material. I'm not going to reinstate my change right now, but your post refers to something I didn't say, so I'd like your opinion on what I've just said.

Prof Wrong (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, my mistake. Yes, point taken. Not lead material, but could make an interesting sub-heading somewhere near the bottom - "also known as...". And that would be a better place for the interloping dilli ney as well. Apologies - must be the effects of oxygen starvation after an evening practicing on my feadog (by make rather than terminolgy). Please accept my apolgies and revert my reversion. I'll stick to Spootiskerry for now. -- Timberframe (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Notation section

Laurel added a notation section which presently reads as follows:

There is no universal system of notation for the tin whistle, because it is very much a transposing instrument and there is no real consensus on how tin whistle music should be written, or on how reading music onto the whistle should be taught. It can be said, however, that when music is scored for a soprano whistle it will be written an octave lower than played, avoiding use of ledger lines and making it much easier to read.

Reading directly onto the C whistle is popular for the obvious reason that its home key or name key is the all-natural major key (C major). Reading directly on to the D whistle has become popular because much traditional fiddle music is written and played in D or closely related keys. Some musicians are encouraged to learn to read directly onto one whistle, while others are taught to read directly onto another, and learning to read directly onto a second whistle will tend to disturb, seriously, facility gained on the first.

Basically, at present, the whistle player who wants music to read on to all whistles will need to learn the mechanics of written transposition, taking music with one key signature and rewriting it with another.

I find this a bit speculative and out of line with my own experience in collecting tin whistle scores (I'm the category editor for Tin Whistle in dmoz.org and have assembled a large index of online tune collections). For example, in my experience notation for C whistles is usually scored in D/G, simply because nearly all traditional music is in D/G; see, for example, the popular The Clarke Tin Whistle Book by Bill Ochs, where the "C whistle" edition of the book differs only by the included recording (CD), and the notation stays the same as the D edition, even though the C edition was published first. I also feel that it doesn't touch on some important points regarding whether and how scores should be used in traditional music, which constitutes the majority of published tin whistle notation. Finally there's the issue of tablature.

Since I'm proposing a fairly radical change to what was just added I thought I should run it by here to start with.

I would suggest the following text instead:

The use of musical scores is somewhat controversial in some traditional music circles. Many performers feel that the best way to learn a tune is "by ear" — listening to recordings of talented players, thus learning subtleties lost when a tune is scored. Scores are almost never used when musicians play live, either in concert or in a traditional music session. Nonetheless, it is a common practice to transcribe traditional tunes, both for the purpose of preserving melodies and as a learning tool.

Whatever the actual pitch that their instrument produces, traditional musicians usually use the same score, which is notated in the treble clef only in whatever key is appropriate for the tune. The soprano tin whistle is a transposing instrument in that it plays one octave higher than the scores generally used.

There is also a much less common form of notation designed exclusively for the tin whistle called tin whistle tablature. As with tablatures for other instruments, this form of notation uses graphic diagrams beneath standard musical notation to directly show the player where to put his or her fingers on the whistle.

Although fiddlers often like to play in A, they typically use a D score and transpose, when they use a score at all. Many of the tunes scored in A are simply incorrect; they're Highland pipe tunes and are therefore in A mixolydian rather than A major, and should be scored in D major, which uses the same notes as A mixolydian — although scores written for Highland pipers tend to omit key signatures altogether as there's really only one key possible on the GHBs and they don't play in concert pitch anyway.

As for non-traditional (i.e., not folk music) musical scores for the whistle, I'm not sure there is enough of it to make a generalization.

Now, the text I wrote above misses some subtleties like playing along with non-traditional instruments and using differently-keyed whistles to transpose. But I'm thinking that's more of a playing issue than a notation issue.

What do you think?

--Craig Stuntz 16:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Much of the above seems to be more about traditional music than it is about the tin whistle as such. I have seen Clarke publications with music scored in C for the C whistle (usually from within starter packs designed for young children). Also, for many years from World War II onwards there was only one CLarke whistle, the C whistle.

Not sure I understand the bit about fiddlers transposing to A from scores in D. I do know, however, that much traditional music written with the three-sharps key signature would be written more appropriately with the two-sharps signature.

Perhaps there is more consensus on notation for whistle than is indicated in the article, around the idea of music being written as for playing on the D whistle. Certainly, if you have learnt to read directly onto that whistle but then want, eg, music to play in D on an A whistle (perhaps because the range of the A is more suited to a particular piece) then you will tend to want the music written as for G on a D whistle. And if you want music to play in G on a G whistle you will want it written as for D on a D whistle. The idea of the whistle as a transposing instrument is not just about the octave in which music is written.

Laurel Bush 10:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC).

Yes, what I wrote is more about traditional music than about the tin whistle in particular since nearly all "tin whistle scores" are traditional. The only really tin-whistle-specific things you can say about how the music is notated are (1) regardless of the actual pitch of your whistle you're probably going to be playing from a score with a D or G major key signature and (2) there is a tablature.

But I think the point about whether or not score is even a good thing is useful as it's one of the first things you are likely to hear when learning the whistle, and questions about this are common on message boards like the Chiff and Fipple.

The point about the fiddlers is just reinforcing that nearly everything is written in D/G, even what little stuff which isn't actually performed in that key. When someone starts a tune in A it's usually a fiddler. :) Fiddlers like to perform in A since they can use more open strings and get a bright sound. But they still use the same scores as everyone else.

Here's a further refinement; what do you think?

The use of musical scores is somewhat controversial in some traditional music circles, and there is debate as to whether or not scores should be used when learning to play the whistle. Many performers feel that the best way to learn a tune is "by ear" — listening to recordings of talented players, thus learning subtleties lost when a tune is scored. Even whistle teachers who find scores helpful tend to agree that they should not be used exclusively, i.e. without also listening to recordings. Scores are almost never used when musicians play live, either in concert or in a traditional music session. Nonetheless, it is a common practice to transcribe traditional tunes, both for the purpose of preserving melodies and as a learning tool, and most if not all whistle tutorial books use standard musical notation heavily.

Whatever the actual pitch that their instrument produces, traditional musicians usually use the same score for all instruments, which is notated in the treble clef only in whatever key is appropriate for the tune. The vast majority of traditional music played on the whistle is notated using D or G major key signatures. The soprano D tin whistle is a transposing instrument in that it plays one octave higher than the scores generally used. When a whistle player wants to play in a less common key he or she will usually use a whistle of the appropriate key but still play from a score written with a key signature appropriate for a D whistle, again making the whistle a transposing instrument.

There is also a much less common form of notation designed exclusively for the tin whistle called tin whistle tablature. As with tablatures for other instruments, this form of notation uses graphic diagrams beneath standard musical notation to directly show the player where to put his or her fingers on the whistle.

--Craig Stuntz 15:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking the above and how the sense of it might be worked into the article, without turning it, the article, into one more about traditional music than about the tin whistle. By the way: I have figured the point about reading in D and playing in A on a fiddle; it means fingering first, second and third strings as if second, third and fourth. Laurel Bush 11:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC).

I just added a repertoire section in an effort to create a more suitable place for discussing stuff characteristic of particular genres of music commonly played on the whistle as well as give more information about kwela which hadn't been included before. That may help clear up questions about the notation section. --Craig Stuntz 15:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Norman Dannat Book

I just extracted the book reference in this sentence into a ref tag:

Norman Dannat boasted in The Penny Whistle (The Clarke Tinwhistle Co c1993) that Robert Clarke’s whistles "produced a unique sound which, though attempts have been made to copy it, no-one has ever improved."

However, I can't find any real information about this book to fill out the rest of the book-reference template. Amazon has a listing for a book called The History of the Tin Whistle which may or may not be the same. I've searched multiple book catalogs, including a couple of ISBN catalogs and the Library of Congress and found nothing. Clarke doesn't mention the book on their site. A Google query turns up one reference.

I can ask Dale if he has a copy, but I'm also wondering how relevant the quote is. Considering that it's a book published by Clarke which is bragging about the quality of Clarke products, it seems like advertising copy. But since I can't look up the original I may be missing something in the context.

Comments? --Craig Stuntz 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a copy. It was published by the Clarke company and does have an advertising purpose. Also, however, it has some interesting, detailed history in it, about Clarke himself and about the company now using his name. And I seem to remember having some correspondence with the author. I'll see if I can chase up a better reference tag. Laurel Bush 16:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

At 96 pages in length The History of the Tin Whistle looks like it might be a later, longer, version of the same work. Laurel Bush 16:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

Yes, looks like you're right about it being the second edition. Any whistle book praised by Dale Wisely is probably worthwhile. Thanks in advance for helping with the ref tag. --Craig Stuntz 18:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dale Wisely writes: Well, I praise it, but I wrote the forward and my picture and bio's in the thing so I'm biased. That said, the book provides a lot of useful stuff about the history of the instrument. On the other hand, the Clarke Company, which produced this book (Norman works for them) has always maintained a kind of historical ownership of the whistle which is probably overstated. It would be hard to ignore the importance of the Robert Clarke and the company to the instrument but I don't think it's quite fair to say he invented it. The book is, clearly, a blend of useful history and advertising for Clarke.--Dale Wisely

Nice to see you here, Dale! --Craig Stuntz 15:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

On the words "tin whistle" and "pennywhistle"

The article presently says:

The names tin whistle and pennywhistle date from when the instrument was first mass produced in tinned sheet metal.

I've done some digging and seems this isn't true.

• Both words predate Clarke.
• Clarke's company was calling the instruments "flageolets" in 1900.
• The words weren't common enough to be included in the dictionary, thesaurus, or EB until later in the 20^th century.

I haven't changed this line yet since it's hard to prove a negative, but I'm thinking about rephrasing it somewhat. --Craig Stuntz 21:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well-known performers

I'd like to start a discussion about what to do with this section. It's kind of weak as it stands, and lacks citation. I don't think it contributes much to the article at the moment, but I think some discusson of performers is necessary. There are performers like Micho Russell and Spokes Mashiyane who are not listed at present but probably should be. Actually, there isn't any non-Irish-music performer listed there now, which is by itself a problem.

Anonymous contributors occasionally stick in names of folks who, while they are indeed well-known, are not anywhere near as influential as the rest of the performers listed (e.g., Andrea Corr, Flogging Molly/Bridget Regan). Some of the people who are currently listed are really better known for playing other instruments.

Among the people who are listed now, Seán Ryan is much better known as a fiddler, but is unquestionably an accomplished tin whisle player. Davy Spillane is much more influential as an Uilleann piper; his article scarcely mentions the whistle. He builds both U pipes and tin whistles, but his pipes seem to have a better reputation than his whistles, and the whistles are pretty hard to come by. He's in some ways notable as a whistle player since a lot of people had never been aware of the instrument before Riverdance, but I can't recall anyone ever saying they wanted to play the whistle like Davy Spillane (although I have heard people say they wanted to get his Uilleann pipe sound). Joanie Madden is popular and a lot of whistle players I know say they like her style, which is quite characteristic, but I can't off the top of my head think of any performer of her stature who she influenced. (That said, I don't claim expertise, so maybe I'm just missing something). On the other hand, without Paddy Maloney and Seán Potts and Mary Bergin the tin whistle might still be regarded as a toy instrument. They not only made the instrument popular, they changed the perception of what it was capable of.

If we were to include people strictly on the basis of how well they're known it should probably include Spider Stacy and Jean-Luc Picard. But I guess I think it's kind of pointless to include people based on being well-known; I'd rather list performers based on how much they have influenced other players, either by their style or by influencing people to start playing the instrument in the first place.

I think some citations might help. But I'd also like to ask: Who should be included here? People who are popular and influential? Popular but not influential? Influential but popular? Are there people who are neither popular nor influential but should be included for other reasons?--Craig Stuntz 14:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Jean-Luc Picard, as a fictional character I would consider him to be an example of the use of a tin whistle in popular media rather than a well-known performer. I suggest this example be moved to a new section or deleted.--CheMechanical (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw that the song from Titanic was mentioned in this section without identifying the player and initially misunderstood the intent of the section as being about popular uses. I wondered where Paul Simon's "Call Me Al" was, and was about to add it until I saw the section title. (smiley face) Frank Lynch (talk) 23:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

External links

Can we talk a little bit about external links? I spoke a bit about this with Craig Stuntz offline, and he encouraged me to bring up the topic here for discussion. For a while, there were 10-12 external links, and it was pretty stable. Then in Nov 2006, a lot of the links were cleaned out as per the external link policy. The link to my website was among them. A friend of mine told me the link was gone, and re-added the link. Shortly thereafter, it was removed again.

Now I read the policy, and I can understand the point that Wikipedia is not a link aggregator. But clearly, some external links are appropriate. For instance, there's a link to the Chiff and Fipple website, and a link to DMOZ.

Nearly 3 weeks ago, a link was added to WhistleThis, and it has remained. So, I guess I'm asking for a discussion about the policy, and some clarification on what's going to be allowed as an External Link. Clearly, WhistleThis is a useful resource for a tinwhistlers using it to collectively learn tunes. Chiff and Fipple also is useful in that it's a good central location about things tinwhistle, and provides a sporadic newsletter, and the DMOZ entry on whistles clearly is useful. I'd also like to think that the link to my own website was also a useful resource. Please note my reviews at http://www.tinwhistler.com/reviews.asp

My site has reviews of nearly every whistle in manufacture today, and I believe it's the most complete set of tinwhistle reviews that you'll find on the entire Internet. Along with Chiff and Fipple, it's one of the oldest tinwhistle sites on the Internet as well (since 1995). It's not a matter of driving ad dollars my way, as I think the Wikipedia traffic was only responsible for about $10.00 a year worth of ad revenue as far as that goes. But I do believe that my site (specifically, the reviews section) falls well within the guidelines' definition of what's useful to link to, but is too subjective to have as an article itself.

When I'd asked Craig about possibly including it on the wiki, he asked me to have the discussion in the open here. So here I am. Greg Mahan 23:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the relevant bits of my private reply to Greg:

I like both your site and Whistle This quite a lot. I agree you have the most comprehensive collection of reviews anywhere and was disappointed to read that you're on hiatus from reviewing whistles.

But I don't think either of them are really appropriate for Wikipedia external links. I have certainly not favored Whistle This over your site as I removed Whistle This in the same edit when I removed yours, and I have not edited the Tin whistle article at all since Whistle This was re-added. On the other hand, I link to both your site and Whistle This from the Open Directory's tin whistle links, which I edit on a volunteer basis.

With all that said, I don't think external links contribute much to the article at all. They attract spam and don't really add significant information. They're close to impossible to do fairly (if a link to your site was OK, what about Kerry whistles, which has lots of free videos, or a "free" article with lots of advertising around it, etc. -- the list grows really quickly in practice, and starts looking really spammy, to the point where people start putting in their own sites simply because everyone else was listed), and don't really fit in with the Wikipedia mission of building an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Maintaining them takes a lot of time and energy which would be much better spent on maintaining the article. People who post external links very rarely contribute to the article itself. Etc., etc., etc. They're a PITA in general, frankly.

So my personal preference as a Wikipedia editor is to keep the external link lists as small as possible when they exist at all. But other editors may feel differently and I don't have the sole say on that page.

In addition to what I wrote then:

• It's not "clear" to me that the Chiff and Fipple and Dmoz links are appropriate for this article. I'm not convinced the article needs any external links. The Chiff and Fipple is a great site and very useful, yes, but it's about tin whistles, not directly connected to tin whistles (unlike, say, http://www.altan.ie, which is directly connected to Altan). One can make an argument that the Chiff and Fipple qualifies under point 4 of WP:EL, but it's last and lowest on the list of what should be linked to, and while it's a good site, I'm not convinced that reading it will make you really more informed about the tin whistle. It's my opinion that most tin whistle sites on the web (including my own!) only give you a very superficial bit of detail about the instrument. The web is just not a great medium to experience a folk music tradition.

• Most sites which would seemingly fall under "What to link" also fall under "Links to normally avoid" with perhaps the exception of Dmoz.

• Wikipedia editors are being urged to be cautious about promotional pages.

With all that said, this isn't my call, and I'm interested in what others have to say. I do think that there should be clear guidelines as to what is and is not relevant to this article before we change anything.

--Craig Stuntz 20:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that as Wikipedia is devoted to ecyclopediac content, I think you're right about any external linking. I think the wiki is very thorough and complete enough without any of the links at all. All of the links we've mentioned (and those we've not mentioned, like Brother Steve's page for instance), provide useful information about aspects of the whistle and each have a certain level of 'fame' assocaited with them..but they aren't directly connected to tinwhistles, as you say.

Including these links seems to be a matter of editors choosing sites that they feel are important, or noteworthy--and drawing moral lines on which sites have too much commercial content or aren't noteworthy enough, even if they otherwise provide useful information. I tend to agree with the opinion of that's what link aggregators, search engines, message boards and blogs are for. All in all, it seems fairly subjective...especially as seeing that the wiki article itself does a rather remarkable job of explaining the tinwhsitle without any outside aid. I think the article stands up just fine without any of the external links. And including them invites questions a lot like my own..if C&F is included, why not mine? If WhistleThis is included, why not Brother Steve's? Or Kerry Whistles, or any number of a score of tinwhistle sites devoted to the instrument? Leave that to the link aggregators, I say.

Greg Mahan 01:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Can Make your finger's quite Sore

I bought one and have loved playing it ever since. But You can sometimes get sore fingers and chapped lip's. Try eating something like crackers before you play. And if you finger's get sore, just keep going and soon you'll notice that it's doesn't hurt any more.

MetalHellsAngel 16:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I have never had sore fingers or chapped lips in all the six years of playing the Tin Whistle... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.226.192 (talk) 18:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Chapped lips? Are you sure you've got the right end in your mouth? :) -- Timberframe (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Turkey?

The Turkish connections were added by User:85.103.138.89 (talk) , seemingly based on the equivalence of the tin whistle to the dilli ney. While I recognise that the same or ostensibly identical instruments may have evolved in both the British Isles and the Balkan / Turkish / Arabian cultures, I'd suggest that each deserves its own article citing its own evolution, traditional and contemporary use, role in ethnic music, etc. As it stands the implication of the article is that (1) the dilli ney evolved in the British Isles according to the article's "history" section and (2) the British tin whistle is part of the Turkish musical tradition according to the sidepalnels and project links. I'll invite User:85.103.138.89 to contribute to this discussion via his/her talk page. -- Timberframe (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there's not been any discussion, I'll vote that the Turkish references, etc, are deleted. Give it a couple of days for anyone to reply to this. If nothing comes of it, delete the references.--ML5 (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, done that. User:85.103.138.89 (talk) didn't respond to my invitation, which is a shame. I'm sure there's another article waiting to be written. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Other Music

I have added a "citation needed" tag to the statement that the tin whistle is used in bluegrass music. I am familiar with this music genre and am an amatuer musician. I have never heard (or heard of) the tin whistle used in this music genre. I think an acceptable reference would be the name of artist, song, and album that contains a tin whistle part. 75.88.54.210 (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I can find quite a lot of artists who play tin whistle and bluegrass, but virtually nothing suggestive of the tin whistle being used in bluegrass. I think it needs more than a few guest appearances to support the general statement that "the tin whistle is used in bluegrass music". -- Timberframe (talk) 09:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Timberframe. The statement says, "It is not unusual to hear the tin whistle used in bluegrass ..." That statement may be true in an indirect way. Blugrass music is dynamic and it's not unusual to hear obscure instruments used in it. (Jew's Harp, Mouth Bow, Autoharp, etc.) As a matter of fact, my group has used a plactic recorder (which is a similar instrument) in one song. But, in only one song (which is more of a southern gospel song than bluegrass) which we have never recorded. The recorder is used in that song because my neice plays it. I'd say that it is unusual to hear any kind of fipple flute in bluegrass music. I think that this statement was probably written by someone unfamiliar with bluegrass music, confusing bluegrass with folk music. If someone does not add an acceptable reference, I suggest that the statement be reworded to exclude bluegrass. 71.29.254.83 (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Separate "low whistle" article?

I think the Low Whistle deserves a separate article (even if it's only small) and I am keen to write one. Would this be supported or has this idea been raised before and turned down? Jaybird88 (talk) 09:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This, it seems to me, could lead to separate articles for each whistle: low A, high A, low B flat, high B flat, etc, etc. Laurel Bush (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC).

Thanks Laurel - I see your point but t.b.h. I think it's highly unlikely, even if the main distinction was, in fact, the key (which it isn't). Low whistles, as a class of whistle have a distinction of history, sound, technique, repetoire; some therefore consider it a separate instrument. Jaybird88 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest just adding extra info to the low whistle section of the current article for now, and if it gets too long we'll split it.Prof Wrong (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion noted... but I went ahead and started one anyway (for reasons outlined above). It's only a start but I think there is enough info there to justify the article's existence. Enough, at least, to make the main tin whistle article a bit confusing and unwieldy were it all to be contained therein. Jaybird88 (talk) 02:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much agree that the low whistle needs a separate article - it is classed by definition, not by key, and really isn't really the same as the high whistle. The sound is different, the playing technique is different, the history is different - they're different instruments. Having them on the same page would be like having viola and violin, or the cor anglais and oboe, in the same article - these instruments are very similar, really only separated by pich. Obviously, they have separate articles. If you would care to look at the various pages for the flute, you'll see that the piccolo, treble flute, alto flute, bass flute, contra-alto flute, contrabass flute, subcontrabass flute, double contrabass flute, and hyperbass flute all have their own articles. These articles aren't necessarily long, and I think that the low whistle deserves it's own article, too. Fionnlaoch (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Picard Plays Tin-whistle?

In the section that talks about Patrick Steward (Jean-Luc Picard) playing the tin whistle, it should be noted that the actor didn't actually play the instrument during that episode, all-though he knew how. The tin whistle music in that episode was actually played by a professional musician. Bartholomewklick (talk) 21:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Locked

Can the editors here please explain why this edit is worth 6 reversions in under an hour? Or, better yet, agree on a compromise text? Reference to additional high quality scholarly sources might be in order. If consensus can be reached here before protection expires in a week, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Tuning

The most common whistles can easily play notes in the keys of D and G major. Since the D major key is lower these whistles are identified as D whistles.

Not as far as I know. The reason whistle is called a D whistle is that it is tuned to play the key of D in open tuning. Playing the key of G on a D whistle requires half-holing (cross-fingering holes 2 and 3 gives a poor approximation of the note) -- and even then, many whistles are tuned to just intonation rather than equal temperament, which means each instrument is specifically tuned to a single key: any other key will be slightly off.

I intend to change this when the article lock expires, unless anyone convinces me otherwise in the mean time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof Wrong (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the above correction which I agree seems necessary (that G major requires half-holing), this paragraph now says "(equivalent to a concert C instrument) and F major (equivalent to a concert B♭ instrument)" which doesn't seem right, my D Clark matches concert pitch, which makes me think tin whistles are not transposing instruments. Lower on this page it says "The tin whistle is not a transposing instrument - for example, music for the D tin whistle is written in concert pitch, not transposed down a tone as would be normal for transposing instruments." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasballinger (talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right to question the "equivalent to concert" references. They don't make sense here, so I've removed them. However, I would say whistles are expected to deliver a plausible flattened seventh (C natural on a D whistle), not a poor approximation, with cross fingering (usually OXXOOO), so half-holing isn't required. On a whistle, adjustments to breath pressure offer considerable control over the precise tuning. Tunborough (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Poem

There's an old play on words poem about whistles that goes: I bought a wooden whistle/ But it wooden whistle./ I bought a steel whistle/ And it steel wouldn't whistle./ I bought a tin whistle,/ And now I tin whistle. Could it be included here? Perhaps put in the article about whistles in general. 66.99.219.2 (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

British Isles naming dispute

Edit revert by user 86.44.17.238 due to the nature of the term British Isles as an on going dispute, if you want to change this term you must get a consensus here taking place here failure to do so will get the edit reverted again. Kind regards Kamcau (talk) 05:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

3-holed?

Nothing about the 3-holed whistle? Or did I miss it? Whogue (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 1 March 2012 (UTC).

Tin Whistle vs. Recorder

Tin Whistle vs. Recorder. It might be small, but I believe this might help. Komitsuki (talk) 06:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Changing octaves

Here is a simple question that does not seem to be answered in the article: how does the player change between octaves? Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 17:00, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Range

Currently the article states (at the bottom of Playing technique : Fingering and range):

"The standard range of the whistle is two octaves. For a D whistle, this includes notes from the second D (D5) above middle C to the fourth D (D7) above middle C (D7)."

I don't actually have a tin whistle to hand, but as I poke around, this appears to be an octave too high. Shouldn't it instead read:

"The standard range of the whistle is two octaves. For a D whistle, this includes notes from the first D (D4) above middle C to the third D (D6) above middle C."

If this is correct, then a C whistle would start right at middle C, which I believe is also true. Phil wink (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, as I poke around more, I now think the article's current stated range (D5-D7) is probably correct after all. I seem to be reading some bad information about other instruments' ranges, which is throwing me off. Phil wink (talk) 03:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Keys

"Whistles are available in a wide variety of different keys."

OK. Which keys would those be? All of them? The article gives no clue, mentioning only the "D' and "C" whistles. The Generation company has for many years produced a set of whistles containing (from low to high): Bb, C, D, Eb, F, and G whistles. These are the only six keys I've ever seen penny whistles in. Do other keys exist? B, C#, E, F#, Ab, and A, for example?

Some specificity and clarity is in order, here.

Yes, pretty much all of them, depending on maker. http://www.burkewhistles.com/Whistles-By-Key_c_16.html, for example, covers every semitone from C4 through G5.Tunborough (talk) 15:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Playing technique

"... some players, particularly when negotiating the larger holes and spacing in low whistles, may employ the "piper's grip"."

What, exactly, would the "piper's grip" be?

They hold the instrument like a plumber would?

They use a pipe wrench to grip the whistle?

A little explanation, or at least a link to an explanation, would be nice here.

Sizes

In most other articles about musical instruments, at least some indication is given of the approximate physical size of a standard example of the instrument. I can find no indication of such in this article. Assuming the "D" whistle to be the standard, how long is a typical example? 3 inches? 8 inches? 49 inches? What is the diameter of the tube? Is it the same for all whistles, regardless of key? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.253 (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference leads to text copied from here (or vice versa)

Ref 20 (as of writing), about the low whistle in the Galpin collection (FWIW, I have never heard of this, and neither had anyone involved with the 60s reinvention), points to page on tin whistle history. That page in turn has clearly been rewritten from here, or vice versa. In any case, the actual point is moot as the page says nothing about the reference in question. Calum (talk) 23:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Cylindrical vs. Conical

Are there acoustic or playing differences between conical-bore whistles (e.g. Clarke) and cylindrical-bore whistles (e.g. Generation). If there are, should they be mentioned in a new section? --ABehrens (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2020 (UTC)