Over the summer, I met a guy who plays an Olwell flute–with keys by Reviol, thus side-stepping a multi-year wait. What other makers will add keys to flutes they didn’t make, and what do you see as the advantages or disadvantages of this approach?
I would think the disadvantages of this are rather obvious.
If the flute maker uses post mount keys, like Reviol does, it shouldn’t be a problem, as long as the keys were put in the right place! I would think that it would devalue a flute like Olwell’s. Though I may make a fully keyed flute for a Olwell, as a additional foot or his flute. I would be very reluctant to add keys to another makers flute (as I can’t seem to put them on my own flutes!) 
Patrick O definitely doesn’t want this done to his flutes.
Told me so–he ‘preferred’ I not do it-- when I proposed the same plan.
I think one should get the maker’s consent
before doing this.
I can see why he would be upset about someone else adding keys on his flutes, I think I would too. 
I can see why makers would prefer that other makers didn’t make alterations to flutes they have made, but that isn’t how life works. Once you have bought a flute (or anything else) it’s your flute and it’s your choice what happens to it. So if a customer wants someone else to add keys, re-cut embouchures, retune, repair it or whatever, that is their choice. Especially if, for whatever reason, the maker isn’t in a position to carry out the required work in a timely manner or in the required way.
I recently repaired a flute made by another maker because the owner was about to record a CD and the original maker was unable to comit to repairing it for 6 months. I’ve put keys on a flute that the owner didn’t want to have to send to Ireland. I’ve changed keys on a keyed flute because the owner found my keyshape worked better for him. I’ve recut embouchures because the owner played one of my flutes and found it much easier to play. And I’ve “given permission” (not that I think it’s needed) to have another maker add black keys, which I don’t do, to one of mine.
So, the original maker might prefer not to have his or her work revisited (it may confuse future generations), but hey, life is for the living. In my view, the most and perhaps only important thing is that people get the flute that best works for them and that they get it when they need it.
Terry
Suppose I buy a Picasso painting. It’s mine and in some sense
it’s my choice what happens to it. Certainly nobody can
prevent me from painting in some additional figures that
I think maybe will improve the aesthetics. But I figure,
even though I own it, out of respect for the artist I shouldn’t
do it. Nor would I
give it to another artist to ‘brighten up’ the colors
if Picasso refused.
Pat O’s flute is, IMO, an art object (I don’t mean
just visually) into which Pat has poured
an obsessive amount of expertise and soul. I figure I shouldn’t
alter it in ways he doesn’t want me to, out of respect for
the maker and respect for the flute itself. Not that I
can’t do that, hey, I paid for it, etc. Pat can’t sue
me or anything. Part of the flutes value
to me is that I feel it’s the sort of thing that I shouldn’t
alter substantially without the maker’s consent,
especially in ways he says he doesn’t want me to.
I do think there are things in the world it’s appropriate to treat
with this sort of care, even if we’ve paid for them, and also
that the world and our lives are richer for it.
That is, there are things we may acquire of which we are always
going to be the caretakers.
There’s a vision and integrity to them that deserves respect.
That I paid for the thing doesn’t change that, it just
means nobody can compel me to treat it as I should.
As to ‘that’s how life works.’ how life works is a matter
of what we do, and that’s up to us.
Of course how you feel people should treat your flutes
is up to you.
Oops, should have added that it’s equally possible to add block-mounted keys. Generally in blackwood, the joins are invisible (I think Andy Warhol pioneered the black on black approach [heh heh]). Trickier on coloured woods where grain, grain direction and colour all have to match! And although I’ve done one block-mounted 6-key in polymer, I think I’d use post-mount next time!
Terry
A good statement of your philosophy, Jim, and one I can find no fault with. I guess I’m pointing out that other people might have other philosophies as to how flutes should be regarded - art item, craft item, finely-honed machine, humble tool, whatever - and that these philosophies are to be equally highly valued. As they say, “The customer is always right”!
I think I’m of the “humble tool” philosophy. I’m certainly honoured when customers write back “it’s a work of art!” (which they do), and I sure put all my effort into making it so, but more important to me is whether it’s going to do the job. If a flute almost does the job, and I can tweak it so that it does do the job, that’s a job worth doing.
The issue becomes more harshly focussed when we wonder about altering historical instruments. If an owner presents with an early Rudall which is dismally out of tune with modern pitch, should we alter it for them? Does the maker gain or lose respect when they die?
Terry
Olwell’s objection to having other makers work on his flute isn’t so much that he sees it as desecration of a sacred object but is rather his attempt to keep his measurements from being copied by other makers. It’s a bit late in the day for this, IMHO, but even flute-makers have some paranoia.
I have been with Patrick Olwell when he altered an antique flute. He improved it. I have also been with him when he altered the embouchure hole of another maker’s flute. He quite properly felt that it was my flute, to do with as I wished. We’ve certainly talked about what could be done or what wasn’t done by some modern makers to improve their flutes. By the way, Patrick is a very secure, modest person who rarely speaks ill of other makers - whom he by and large respects.
When Patrick that saw his flute had been retro-keyed by Reviol he had nothing bad to say about the altered flute. Hammy, Patrick, and Terry are in basic agreement about changes done to their flutes. It won’t hurt them. None of them is anal about their flutes; they let them go. (Most players would be better off being a bit anal about their own playing.)
Violin repair-people have no hesitation when it comes to improving a fiddle. The finest fiddles, with lengthy pedigrees, have had their necks changed in accord with modern standards.
Hey, man – what’s a flute after all? Just a stick with holes in it.
Sometimes it is necessary to repair a Embouchure hole, especially when someone already tried with a pocket knife!
Here it is after being re-cut.
Wow, Jon, must be the season. I’ve just fixed up an embouchure hole too - this one on what appears to be a (Henry) Potter Pratten’s lookalike.
There’s a story told regarding a few well-known international flute celebrities getting seriously um…relaxed after a dinner party and spending the following several hours reworking Haynes flute heads with a Swiss Army knife. We may have seen some of their work.
Certainly, I have a Clinton flute here which proves beyond doubt that the knife was blunt. Perhaps they were using the blade for removing boy scouts from horses’ hooves …
Terry
I think Picasso and Olwell as a comparison is a bit out of touch, as cocus said the flute is a stick with holes in, yes some are more crafted than others, you could add some extra people into your picasso picture Jim and your right it would seriously de-value it, but we are talking about top flute makers doing the keys or adjustments, I would say Terry Mcgees flutes are as well crafted as the rest of the top makers, so lets say Salvador Dali decided to add some different color to Picasso’s the Italian Girl painting, you would then have two great artist in their own right, one adding to another picture, the flute is for playing after all and not to look at, were as with the Picasso the opposite would apply, unless you you were feeling a bit reckless and used it as a Rolf Harris wobble board.
sponge 
(fainting)
And after seeing the “re-worked” emboucher on the Pratten’s flute:
(comatose)
M
I agree with you and actually was thinking these thoughts
when I wrote my post. I know you’ve said that the
flute ‘shouldn’t get between you and the music.’
It’s an ‘instrument’, (my word but your thought, I think).
That’s fine. And you are the maestro when it
comes to your flutes.
I do feel, when you’ve got a handmade artifact–not
something mass produced in a factory, the maker
having poured her heart into the work–which certainly
is an art object (and again it’s not just a matter of looks),
and you have a personal relation with the maker (as
many of us develop in the process), it’s considerate
to count her wishes.
As to antique instruments, we can’t hurt the maker’s feelings
(barring that they’re looking down from heaven), nor can
we get their consent. So there it seems to me
these considerations are less strong. Part of being
the flute’s caretaker in this case is improving it
so that it can be played to modern standards.
But I sure wouldn’t drill a few more holes
and turn it into a lamp, and not just
because people would like to play it (though
of course that matters). Certainly there’s
a powerful feeling it’s simply inappropriate
to treat a Rudall in that way.
If this is right, then your explanation doesn’t add up
that ‘paranoia’ was
Pat O’s motivation
in wishing me not to have Maurice R make keys for my
Olwell Pratten. As you
describe him (and I agree) this isn’t a paranoid guy
and, as you point out, the measurements have been
taken many times already.
Maybe I misunderstood him, but I read Patrick as wanting to
keep control over the major aesthetics of his work.
That’s a perfectly sensible thing to want, it flows
naturally from the effort he puts into his flutes, and it doesn’t
require any irrationality on his part.
There’s feelings, and then there’s ownership, as Terry said. Desecrating a work of art is an unforgiveable act, but not a legal crime, if you own the work outright. I can understand an artisan not wanting others to mess with their work, but not wanting is not the same as granting ‘permission’, or - more importantly - being in the position to. As a flute owner, I’d rather the original maker do all the work on my flute, but between the time-factors and maker’s availability, etc., this is rarely doable. Might another maker/craftsman ruin the flute? Yup. That, I think is what David meant when he said ‘isn’t it obvious?’. But in all fairness, and in reality, it’s the owner’s, not the maker’s, flute to ruin, improve, augment, etc. Vintage instruments lose value with too much tinkering, but often they’re improved, as instruments. So what value are we talking about?
Well, just to add another thought to consider:
If you work done on your flute by someone other than the maker, and you later have trouble with the flute, wouldn’t the maker be within his right to refuse to work on it?
I’m not saying that anybody would refuse to fix your flute, but I’m saying that it opens up an avenue by which they justifiably could if they wanted to.
–James
auto owner: " should i bring my ford escort to toyota to get some toyota parts put in it"?
ford dealer: “i don’t know if that’s a good idea”.
auto owner: “why not, after it’s just car, like any other car, i’m sure their parts will fit, work fine, should be fairly easy right?”
ford dealer: “i know little about how toyota parts work in fords, you’re on your own.”
auto owner: "geez, you’ve been at it for like 30 years, 'bout time you lighten up. after all, i just got my license and i have owned my auto for six months now, i know enough (obviously more than you) and i know what i want. "
Good point Rama,
I have a paddy Ward flute, I enqiured about getting the head joint lined to one very competant and well regarded maker, who would be happy to line the head, he did ask the question if Paddy made lined head joints, but as far as I know he does not, I then asked a very good Uk flute maker who I know well via phone calls and many e-mails, he suggested that I try the original maker, although the maker I approached is highly skilled at doing very ornate embouchure and tone hole inserts in silver and silver tipped tennon joints, and as with all things I contacted another Uk maker again highly skilled at what he does he was happy to make me a lined head joint with the exact specifications of the original ward, as he said with head joint lineing you only get one shot, so I am guessing if any flute woodwind instrument maker has the skill and is prepared to take on the job, then they are not really going to do there reputation any favours by cocking it up, if there was any doubt that the job might go pear shaped I am sure they would walk away, I have a friend who repairs boehm flutes in London, he occasionally will fix up old wood flutes, when I asked if he could repair two tennons and vaious head cracks on and old Monzani flute, he clearly said yes, but there was a good chance that the flute would collapse on the lathe, so he new the limitations, it was then my decission to go ahead, I am sure if any maker thought they could add keys to another makers flute for whatever reason, and if they said yes they must know what they are doing.
if anyone has a flute that has the work of two makers out there feel free to chime in, let us know what you think.
sponge 