This subject gets a mention every now and again, in passing mostly. At this moment there are two threads where this practice is mentioned: people have a flute by one, living, maker and take it to another making t ohave it altered for real or perceived issues.
Personally I would NEVER consider buying a flute altered by a party other than the original maker. I don’t like the idea of someone second-guessing the original maker’s intentions and making alterations. As soon as the alterations take place you no longer have an instrument that should unreservedly be called a product of the original maker.
The practice of altering instruments by other makers would by many be considered extremely un-ethical, a lot of makers of Uilleann pipes would not consider working on instruments made by another maker for example. And with good reason.
Why not have the decency and discuss any issues you may have with an instrument with it’s maker before taking it to your local woodturner? Politeness and respect aside, there may be reasons why an instrument is made the way it is that are beyond your present grasp, or that of your local maker.
Anyhow, I am uncomfortable with the practice, especially when practised by people wont to sell on the instrument after noodling away with it for a short span of time.
I spoke with Bryan last year about the Byrne flute in the other thread which had been altered by someone else. He was, as always, very tactful and said nothing unkind about anyone, but I had the very distinct impression that he clearly did not appreciate someone else’s “tweaking” his flute.
Bryan has forgotten more about flute making and playing than I’ll ever know, and if he says he finished the job right the first time, that’s good enough for me.
I’ve had several repairs done on a flute here that, for various reasons, I didn’t want to send back to Ireland. In addition to having several missing keys replaced I also had a new key made with a larger touch. But I did first check with the maker and he said “by all means have the work done at home!” (In fact, the man who ultimately did the repairs insists on this as general policy, though I had already checked with the maker first.)
I’ve also had some work done on another flute but again, it was after the original maker’s shop told me to save money and either repair it myself or have someone closer to home do it the work. (I believe “Have you got a belt sander?” was the first question they asked )
So I think as long as you ask the maker first – with the understanding, of course, that you’re on your own as far as any tweaks etc. and it may void any original warranty – it’s cool, fair play to you and hope it works out.
Me, I’m sort of for maintaining the integrity of the instrument as well as that of my karma, but you know.
I am grateful that at least people mention the tweaks. I wouldn’t want to encourage misrepresentation.
And of course, if the maker’s no longer with us then good luck to ya. People mess with originals all the time – sometimes for good reason but often just because they’re people who like to mess with things. Look at some of the things we do to historic houses.
It sounds like a noble idea, Peter, and I agree in part that a maker should be asked, but that may not be either practical at times, or possible, if a maker will not respond to communication-and may have a reputation for being unreliable, so people seek help from others who can perform what work needs to be done-perceived or otherwise.
A flute should be judged on its own merits, not on an idealogical no-compromise stance, unless you just are not willing to believe someone else other than the maker, can improve a flute’s playing characteristics for certain players needs and desires. That Byrne is a fine flute, even if the foot bore was opened up by a whole .75 mm, as I had been told. It certainly didn’t stop me from playing it, nor appreciating what I heard coming out of it. They are flutes, made to be played, and to make music-nothing more. Unless one believes in spirits and muses, then, by all means-think what you will, and more power to you. It’s each player’s choice to decide for themselves what really matters. Consult the original maker first?Sure, that’s common courtesy. Then decide what’s best for yourself. An already tweaked flute? Judge it on it’s merits or not, that’s up to you.
I didn’t want to make this particular to the Byrne, or any other flute mentioned on present thread. I mentioned the two thread because the practice seems to be getting all the more common.
There has been a lot of discussion about this in the context of the pipes and I I have seen quite a lot of chanters return to the workshop that were manhandled by some hack or other for the sake of ‘improvement’ (and I am referring to ones by a friend of mine who is considered one of the finest pipemakers. I had personally test-played the chanters I am referring to before they were sent off to the customers and can attest to the fact they were not in need of ‘improvement’).
If you want to adjust a flute for your own preferences, that’s one thing, but if you sell the flute on within a short space of time I really think you had best left it alone.
I am interested in talking about the ethical side of this all. What moves people to alter holes, shorten overall length and change bore profiles and think nothing of it? I just don’t understand it. If you’re fussy you better make sure you try before you buy, give yourself time to adjust to the instrument but I feel you seriously lack respect for a maker’s work if you let loose with the file or the reamer.
I put in my .2 cents about the Hernon flute because I was truly interested; if the flute in question remains a fine flute regardless of whatever tinkering was done, it certainly remains a worthy instrument to play or own. Certainly, if the “tweak” was really a repair, then - given the many possible reasons for not dealing with an original maker - I can see the logic of going outside a maker’s shop.
Still, I suspect, that beneath many of these tweaks lurks an old favorite topic; that the easier a flute is to control the better, especially for beginners. I beg to differ, personally, as the payoff on a truly great flute is finding the sound the maker intended it to have, and that might only be gained with a cut that embraces that tone, and allows the internal tuning to function as the maker intended. Volume, too, comes with really hitting a precision embouchure; too often I hear flutes being classed as “quiet”, or not honking enough, when, in fact, it’s the player who can’t get them to honk, or truly sing. Mess with one part, be it the bore, the holes, or the embouchure, and you must “tweak” the rest to correlate. Eventually, it’s simply a different flute, a hybrid that really is more the product of the tweaker than the original maker.
It seems there are plenty of makers to go 'round, if a flute is just too hard to deal with; there’s always the possibility that someone else is looking for that very flute, and won’t find its “warts and all” warts at all.
I’m inclined to agree with Peter on this one. Fixing an errant key is one thing, but altering holes or bore in almost any way can immediately and fundamentally change the nature of the beast.
A tweaked Martin guitar is still a Martin. A tweaked independent-maker flute is no longer what it started out as. It may be better, or it may be worse, but it’s not he same. I wouldn’t do it.
I agree that there’s an element of ‘dumbing down’ to this : not very experienced sounding players complaining a particular note ‘isn’t in tune’ (with what, to what standard and without wondering a flute by a particular maker works the way it does) and having someone chop a bit off the end.
This is bad practice as a lot of the people involved in this on this forum will sell on a flute rapidly. They may say it’s been diddled but within two years and two or three owners further down the line the information is lost and a flute tampered with is out there giving people potential problems and the original maker a bad name.
I don’t make flutes. I just play them. And, as a player, I’ve long become accustomed to adapting to whatever particular sense of tuning humor a flute maker could have had when they made my flute!
However, I suspect that there could be those who aren’t so ready to adapt, and could then be so promiscuous as to attempt to re-tune a flute. Now, they just might be successful, but then again perhaps not, and here I’m inclined to agree with you, Peter, in that re-selling such a tweaked flute, especially a failed tweaking, really is an injustice.
I am inclined to agree, as long as you separate out altering the flute in some substantial way (“tweaking” it) from routine maintenance work.
Routine maintenance work could include things like replacing tenon corks, fixing a crack in the barrel, getting a stuck tuning cork out of the headjoint, or freeing up a stuck tenon. These can be handled in any musical instrument repair shop, as wooden flutes are no different from other woodwinds regarding these sorts of issues.
I would think more serious issues should go back to the maker: cracks through tone holes or through the embouchure hole; dislodged head linings; seriously bent or broken keys; warped wood; any issue involving wood that has broken away; any issues involving the embouchure hole except for routine cleaning; any issues involving removing wood or altering the profile of the bore or tone holes; any issues involving reaming or retuning the instrument–all of these I would recommend to go back to the maker as he is the most likely candidate to be able to effect a satisfactory resolution.
As for selling the instrument, you would hope any ethical seller would disclose any work done to the instrument, who did the work, and when. I know, though, that it often doesn’t happen that way.
That is another all-encompassing statement; how much did it change the flute, and in what way? Do you think you would be able to always discern a change in voice from any and all changes made to a flute? I doubt it, and certainly not in all cases, depending on the alteration.
One flute to the next from a maker sometimes is very different because of new methods they employed along the way-so, for example, is a 10 year old Murray (or insert any other maker’s name here that’s been around a while) the same as a 5 year old Murray? Does a keyless Murray sound exactly like a keyed Murray? Does Mr Murray make flutes to various fluter’s wishes (as Marcas O’Murchu states in the video series on Sam)? Will it suit the next person who buys or plays it?
Sure, if you have little experience in playing a flute, it’s not a good idea to have any flute altered to suit your undeveloped skills-but who is to say when it may be employed, other than the player himself, if he’s considered all the options-growing with the flute, getting to know it better, hoping for some more facility in their playing to appreciate it? It’s a hard call, but personally I wouldn’t do it unless I was sure about why I was having a flute altered. It’s not something that should be done lightly, or on a regular basis, and if possible, by the original maker to meet the needs of his customer, if it is a reasonable request. Of course, you may feel it is reasonable, and a certain flutemaker would have a different opinion.
Principle is a good thing sometimes-and other times practicality wins. Make your own judgements accordingly.
as the owner of several Martins (all collectible,) i would never allow a “tweak” by anybody other than Martin… and no major repairs unless it is by Martin (fret dressings and the like are normal wear and tear)… for much the same reasons as Peter gave to start the thread… and… it tends to destroy the collectible value if it has been altered in any fashion…
Good points, Barry. But having briefly owned a pretty mediocre used flute by a pretty good maker, I have grown leery about potentially-“tweaked” instruments. I think I had one, and ended up selling it at a loss, having given the buyer a full and honest account of my suspicions.
And perhaps my Martin guitar analogy wasn’t apt. The point was that you can more easily adjust most other instruments, (strings, nut, saddle, etc…), without changing the fundamental nature of the thing. With flutes, any tiny change can have great impact. A bad tweak could hurt the flute, but also reflect badly on the maker, which would be very unfair.
None of this is to pass judgement on any individual instrument that’s out there. And if I’m looking to buy, this is certainly the first place I come. It’s just that buying anything sight-unseen, is a gamble, and I’d rather place my confidence in the skill of the original builder when it’s possible to do that.
I don’t think it’s the “collectible value” that’s the main concern; it’s really the effect of altering what the original maker intended. If the maker made a mistake or made the flute in a different climate than yours and now something doesn’t work properly (e.g., a key was sticking when the flute was delivered, which has happened twice to me), that’s one thing. But to take an element of the instrument’s design that the maker presumably put some thought and intentionality into, and changing it, that’s another.
On the one hand, you paid for the instrument so it’s yours to do whatever you want with it. You can burn it, turn it into a lamp, whatever. But I do think there’s an ethical argument to be made against tinkering with the design to change the sound instead of learning to play it as the maker intended.
Two of the “hardest flutes to play” I’ve ever put my hands on were Kevin Crawford’s first D Grinter and Chris Wilkes’s original Rudall. And yet if you listen to Kevin or Chris play those flutes you realize there is absolutely nothing wrong with the flute itself. You just have to take time to learn how to play it.
In fact the first Grinter flute I played was owned by a friend of mine in New Hampshire; I remember the first time I played it I thought it had a very weak, flat bottom D. But that was when I didn’t know how to play a Rudall style flute. When I picked up the same flute a few years later the bottom D was full, rich, powerful, and in tune with the rest of the instrument. The only difference was that I’d learned how to play that kind of flute.
Maybe the best advice is “tweak yourself, not your flute.”
I agree that there are good reasons in this circumstance to send the flute to the maker;
certainly one ought to err steeply that way. However it may be virtually impossible to have effective communication with the maker, even to reach him and get a response; also one may have no preexisting relationship with him, and simply sending the flute off may be risky and expensive because great distances and other perils are involved. I think it also matters that the flute is plainly defective, that one isn’t trying to alter the maker’s creative vision. Here I agree that it’s a good idea to get the confirmation of professionals (e.g. flutesmyths and/or performers) that the flute really is out of whack.
If the flute shouldn’t have made it out of the shop in the first place
and dealing with the maker is seriously impractical, expensive, and risky, I submit one is entitled to get the flute fixed in one’s own country.
To be honest Jim, if the flute is ‘plainly defective’ (by what standard, you blowing it against a tuner? ) you shouldn’t have bought it.
As Brad pointed out, it may take a while and a development of skills before you know how to play a flute properly. And Sam’s flute’s, like the old Rudalls, have a slight flatness on the Ds if you’re not used to playing them. This doesn’t mean they’re defective but that they demand something from the player to make them play and sound properly. Your you tube videos show you may have some way to go before you can make the judgement it’s time to submit a flute to the chopping board.
)
Look at some of the things we do to historic houses.
