I invite all (makers, players, and anyone else so inclined!) to discuss the potential pro’s and con’s of this idea, if you think it is a terrible idea please let me know, your feedback is valued!
So this morning I was laying in bed thinking of various flute related things (last night I saw one of those square holed Lopatin flutes ) and an idea popped in my head… let me explain:
The long F key is basically a duplicate of the short F but for the other hand and for a finger that isn’t normally used until G#. You still have to finger an E (XXX XXO) to play F even when using the long F. The long F’s entire range of use is essentially only that it makes it easier to transition from D and lower to F quickly (or from F to D, though that isn’t terrible at all with a short F, imo) because R3 doesn’t have to fumble to be in two places. The Short F is exceptionally useful for other things like E-F trills, turns, and such so let’s not modify it, it is fine how it is. As pointed out the long F is marginally helpful in a single transition and in all other cases redundant, so lets focus there. So, why not make it so you no longer need to finger E when using the long F?!
The long F opens a duplicate F hole, if we have it also open a duplicate E hole (the hole that is open when playing an E, the hole you cover to play a D) it would allow you to finger a D and simply depress the long F key touch to play an F with no other finger movement necessary. I’m not a maker so I don’t know if the same key can operate two holes but I don’t see why the touch can’t operate two key mechanisms like on the Böhm C/C# foot.
My only worry/question is what if you were to finger the E and use the long F (XXX’ XXO,) instead of short F -basically what if you were to use my new long F like the current long F? Would it simply be a better vented F, would it go sharp? If it would go sharp what would be a way of correcting it (other than the obvious “keep yer R3 down, this is a new long F ya dolt!”)?
This idea has really grown on me and perhaps if I do have my antique Huller restored I might invest in trying this idea out should the flute prove to be a good player.
If I understand your proposal correctly, I think that your objective could be achieved without having to add an extra hole and more keywork. On a typical simple system flute, if you play a D and then hit the long F key, you will get a slightly flat F natural. You could make that F natural more in tune by enlarging or undercutting the F natural hole, though it is probably close enough that you could blow it in tune. Before trying the modification I would want to dry run some tunes where the long F is used a lot to see how the D fingering would work out.
I was going to suggest the same thing as Dave, my only concern would be how the note behaved in the second octave.
A key system with a duplicate hole wouldn’t be difficult to make, you could even make it so that when you have six fingers down and hit long F = two holes open , when you have five fingers down and hit long F = one hole opens.
Similar mechanisms can be found on modern oboes and German clarinets.
Well, I’m very much glad it hasn’t been declared a bad idea from the get-go! Thanks Dave and Dominic.
Dominic:
Good point about the second octave! That would be another issue that isn’t a problem in my proposed altered system.
A key system with a duplicate hole wouldn’t be difficult to make, you could even make it so that when you have six fingers down and hit long F = two holes open , when you have five fingers down and hit long F = one hole opens.
How would the mechanism know when you have 5 or 6 fingers down without adding additional keys to depress (and thus adding cost and difficulty)? As far as the keywork on a standard 8key flute goes R3 is only detected when using short F, and R2 is never detected.
Dave:
I have not had much time on an 8key flute (never owned one, but played a few here and there for a few min each. I’m used to 1 and 4 key, but will have an 8key to restore soon.) so I never had the chance to play around with D + long F. I think the lack of venting would make the tone a bit veiled even if the flatness was corrected by adjusted hole size though. As far as for a flute with an adjusted hole size on a standard long F there is an alternate fingering I thought up that might give more venting, but I have concerns about the intonation and tonality for it as well: (XXX’ XXX, / OXX’ XXX,) D + long F + Eb.
Keep the feedback coming! I’d love to hear from anyone with an 8 Key+ flute who is willing to give these unmodified flute fingering changes a shot.
“How would the mechanism know when you have 5 or 6 fingers down without adding additional keys to depress (and thus adding cost and difficulty)? As far as the keywork on a standard 8key flute goes R3 is only detected when using short F, and R2 is never detected.”
Such a system would require four keys including a clarinet style ring key for R3. I’ll draw a diagram when I get time.
There have been many of this kind of experiments (using rings) in 19th century. With a good use of this rings perhaps makers could reproduce many (all?) of the fingering features on Bohm flutes (like the fingering for F and F#, and Bb…). But would the flute players appreciate the added rings? I’m not sure I would (but I haven’t tried them).
IMO the normal long F works quite fine…
That is an interesting point. On my F-flute with six keys I make only use of the short Ab-Key (F-key on the d-flute).
My fellow musician from Brittany owns a Bombarde (conical double reed instrument) with a rather peculiar key for the minor third.
It has a key-mechanism for the minor third that I have never seen on any other Instrument but I am not sure if this would work on a flute.
It is a key that is operated by the right thumb. If pressed, an open hole key / ring-key (like a lid with a smaller hole in it) goes down on the second hole (E-hole on D-Flute).
That means you can play the minor third with exactly the same fingering as the major third (f# on a d-flute) by simply resting the right thumb on the “minor third key”.
I can post a picture of it next week.
I am curious if such a mechanism could work on a flute. I know that the acoustics of the flute is much different than the acoustics of reed instruments. Maybe the result would be a much more quieter f with a muffled sound ?
There’s no reason why you couldn’t make a Boehm system conical flute with ring keys. I did start work on a prototype a few years back but ran out of time for it. I’m not sure how popular such a flute would be.
sounds like we’re back in the 1830s all over again!
precisely the stuff that went on back then: postulating, modifying, improving, etc, etc…until we finally end up with…again…Boehm.
Terribly amusing.
I’ll admit, I’m guilty of the same “sins” of improvement thought.
Of course, i’m also of the camp that says there’s no need for the Long-C key or the Eb key (less so the latter).
Yeah Jem, I was going to link that thread
Perhaps the difficult part is making a better keywork without covering any of the holes (not even with rings).
I used to have a good flute history book and used to consult it every time I thought I had a great idea. It was focused on the patents and such. Turns out there is nothing new under the sun as far as our conical bores are concerned. One idea I liked was keys that slide off the keyed note. I can’t remember who but someone patented it. I don’t have the book anymore to check. The problem I suppose was that you had to have the note slid into everytime unless the action of the key could be set up so a quick touch opened the hole while a slower touch would slide also because it’s mechanical you have no control or less control over the effect. Still sounded like a cool idea. Did it ever exist or only on paper?
Just about anything is possible as long you you don’t require “simple system”
This is an oboe with automatic octave mechanism, it’s about as complex as woodwind keys get.
I suspect that enlarging the long F hole is the simplest and most effective solution.
Böhm bore simple system isn’t what I was getting at (though you might have been replying Dominic’s post about Böhm system conical bore with ring keys). My modifications are merely that of the long F key such that fingering an E is no longer needed to play an F natural (you could finger a D and play Fnat as well).
Just to elucidate:
Böhm Bore + Böhm System (keywork) = modern silver flute
Conical Bore + Simple System = standard simple system 8key flute we all know and love.
Hope all this hasn’t been too much of a bore for you all. If possible I’d like conversation relating to my modified long F key to resurface, that is, as long as all that can be said has not already been said.
Despite having an antique 8key flute being restored shortly by our very own Jon C., I did not request my modification be performed. I wish to get first hand experience of a standard long F setup before I decide if it is worth the extra time and money to have my special modified keywork put in place. Not to mention one can take any standard 8 key and modify it to my proposal, so it certainly doesn’t need to be done now.
I did a couple of quick tests and I think that merely modifying the long f hole would do it. If I was asked to build a flute with this feature I don’t think that I would charge extra.
I wouldn’t be too keen to work on a flute by another maker without their blessing.
Interesting! In your quick mock up, how does the flute fare in both octaves as far as intonation when using the standard fingering (E + long F). One of the features of using a second E hole with keywork tied to the long F touch is that it could suit either fingering and still play in tune.
I completely agree with not wanting to disturb or modify another maker’s work. I do wonder if it applies to makers who have passed on for some time though. The best candidates for such tests are cheap antique flutes!
Here are two pictures of the bombarde with the strange key for the minor third.
The big advantage is that you can play in minor with the same fingering as in major.
But changing from minor to major third is really unpractical.
The flute of my dreams would play a strong f with forked fingering (xxxxox) like many other traditional instruments. But I think that it is almost impossible to make a large hole simple system d-flute with working forked fingering…
As a maker I’d say that’s not a problem to just make the long F hole bigger.
As a player, I have to ask myself “why bother”? There is a certain logic behind the closed key operation on our simple system flute - to play ANY keyed note, in mind you go down a half step from the note you want to play, finger that note and open the key, and you’re done. Play F: finger E, open key (as you said). Play G#: finger G, open key. It works like that for every “keyed note”. It’s really easy. I don’t know why one would want to change that system for a single note.
Additionally you would be forced to use the long F key for one single purpose then: when playing a D and going up to F. What key do you use when going from E to F and then to D? Or if you come down from G and don’t want to use short F, or don’t have it?
Honestly, I don’t think the idea brings us any benefits.
) and an idea popped in my head… let me explain:
for you all. If possible I’d like conversation relating to my modified long F key to resurface, that is, as long as all that can be said has not already been said.
