When flutists talk about the “scales” of their flutes, they refer to the position and size of the tone holes. “Old scale flutes” are those based on A=435 (more or less) with a shortened headjoint to bring the flute to playability at A=440. “New scale” flutes are those with a scale calculated at A=440, or 442, or 444, whatever the player prefers (or whatever pitch is mandated by country and custom). The new scale “revolution” in fine flutes began with the introduction of the Cooper Scale, developed by England’s Albert Cooper.
I love the Cooper scale, having played it or something extremely close to it for over fifteen years. It was an immense relief to shed the extreme adjusting that was constantly needed to play in tune on what some euphemistically refer to as “long scale flutes”. And while no scale is perfect, especially while a human is blowing on it, the Cooper scale lets the musician work on the music, making adjustments for timbre. To date, the Cooper and Bennett scales represent the state of the art. If a better scale comes along – look for me to be playing on with alacrity!
While many are familiar with the info that follows, hopefully it will be of use to others who are newer to to the flute. The small C# hole is the most multi-purpose of any on the flute. There is no way that one hole can fulfill all of its functions perfectly. In balancing the roles of that hole – to make the second and third octave C# s and to vent the second octave D and D#, the third octave D, G#, A and A#, and the fourth octave C# and D – all designers have compromised. A full sized tonehole placed further down the flute would make wonderful C#s but the vented notes would be terrible. A hole considerably smaller than the C# holes we’re used to seeing would be better for venting. It would be placed visibly higher than the usual C# position. While making the vented notes nicer, it would produce extremely sharp and thin sounding C#s.
Boehm goes into depth about this dilema and his thought process about it in his book “The Flute and Flute Playing”. He devised the compromise small hole, accepting that it would do all of its jobs imperfectly, but well enough for musical players to correct, and he opted away from making the mechanism more complex. A more modern solution has been to add the key that most of us would call the “C# trill”, a full sized tone hole which is normally closed and opened by a touch operated by the right hand forefinger. This gives acoustically correct C#s. Some folks don’t care for the “extra” mechanism; I think its great. Going even further, Alexander Murray, John Coltman and Jacques Zoon have devised mechanisms that switch between small and large C# holes depending on the note being played.
But back to regular flutes made without special options like a C# trill. Time to compare the effects of some “traditional” scales (pre-Deveau Haynes and pre-Cooper Powell) and “new” scales (Cooper and Bennett).
I played on a great old Powell (#1735) for fifteen years. Made for James Pappoutsakis of the Boston Symphony, this flute is representative of vintage Powell’s at their finest. I also have played on old Haynes flutes extensively. This is a prelude to saying that one has to learn the large adjustments nevessary to play these old scale flutes in tune. The old Haynes scale required more adjustment by the flutist than the old Powell. Both the old scales were copied from a 19th century Louis Lott flute that was well in tune at A=435, the pitch it was played at when made. Lott made the best flutes of his era (I know some prefer Bonville, etc – but Lott is the acknowledged master of the time, acknowledged by Boehm himself). And thus, what Lott did, other makers copied mindlessly. They emulating his fine qualities, a plus. But because they didn’t analyze but merely copied, they didn’t modify the scale to bring it up to A=440. Instead, headjoints got shorter and the pitch relationships within the scale got worse. The notes above A got sharp and the notes below it got flat. A Louis Lott flute made by Lott himself is a marvel, if you play at A=435. At A=440, it is an intonational nightmare, a nightmare that Lott himself certainly never had in mind.
Players got used to this problem. We had no choice. Up until the introduction of the Cooper scale by Powell in the early 1970’s, the only well in tune flutes (at A=440) available in the US were student models. This includes the old Haynes closed-hole flute which Mara accurately pinpoints as having a good scale. My first teacher Henry Zlotnik used to say that in a truly just world, every talented beginner would have a Haynes closed-hole to start on. But the student flutes from other makers also had better scales than their professional models in those days. Student flutes had to play better in tune or band directors would buy another brand. Beginners coulldn’t make the adjustments that professionals could, so the flutes were made better in tune so as not to require such large pitch adjustments. The acoustician Arthur Benade commented about this in a long conversation we had about flute scales and flute bores (the acoustic type of bore; the conversation was fascinating). But those same makers, including Haynes, made a “French” scale for their professional models. Kind of dumb, isn’t it? Tradition is cool up to a point; the point when tradition means turning off the brain. Then tradition gets old and cold, and needs a warm, living infusion of new ideas.
Because musicians are musical, they learned to play on the long scale flutes, the flutes with an A=435 scale with a short headjoint. And since certain makers were gifted, most especially Verne Powell, flutes with remarkable headjoints and superb potential resonance were made. The old French way to deal with a long scale was to push the head in as far as it would go, and even to have the headjoints cut very very short. The player then turned in, covering the embouchure hole a lot and blew HARD. Some folks like this sound, but anyone who is honest when listening to players taking this approach, historic or current, must admit that the intonational problems it causes are extreme. With only rare exceptions, the intonation is generally awful.
In the US, flutists took a different approach. Beginning with Joseph Mariano, an American conception of how to get the most out of the old scale flutes was born. Players pulled the headjoint OUT, putting the flute in tune with itself at A=435. Then, with the headjoint turned well outwards from the French position, strong blowing was used to blow the whole flute up to pitch. This yielded much better intonation, brought to a state of perfection by Julius Baker. As a student, I learned this approach.
But as time went by, I realized that playing with the headjoint pulled out so far was restricting color possibilities. Its like playing tennis fifteen feet behind the baseline. Nobody is going to pass you, but you can’t shoot at many angles. Also, as I played the newer scale flutes that entered the US in the 70’s (Cooper scale Powell’s and the Japanese flutes like Muramatsu and Sankyo) I realized that by learning to play in tune on a better in tune flute, I could put more energy into expression and less into correction.
I most strongly disagree with flutists who say the new scale flutes are less colorful than the old. They are simply playing the new scale flutes as if they were old scale. Making the same corrections that would bring a 1950’s vintage Haynes or Powell into acceptable pitch will pull a current day Haynes, Powell, Brannen, whatever way, way off of its resonance. When players learned to handle the new scales, worlds of new colors opened.
Anyone planning to buy a good flute today ought to listen to themselves playing a variety of flutes. Record on whatever is available. But record! Nobody can judge your playing like you can! Of course its important to listen to advice as well. But please, ALWAYS consider the source. I’m afraid that not much reasoned advice comes from the long scale corner. Its more than a bit like shopping for a new car, looking at Fiats and VWs and Fords and Toyotas, and then asking advice from members of the Citro? club, or the Bugatti club. (Bugatti’s were once very fine French sports cars. They needed lots of maintainance and were very tempramental. Owning a Bugatti was a way of life; either you were a mechanic or could afford to hire one full time. Those who could do this were passionate.) The folks who are dedicated to the old flutes have a point of view, a strong one often eloquently put in poetic, but frustratingly vague terms. The border between passion and denial can be vague. Unless you understand their bias and why they have it, their advice will be misleading.
To the best of my knowledge, the main difference between the Cooper and Bennett scales is the small C# hole. The Cooper scale has a slightly smaller hole with a higher tone hole, and this tone hole is placed a tiny bit higher up the flute. The concept is to capture characteristics of the ideal vent hole, higher and smaller, and yet to bring it into decent intonation by making the tone hole higher, thus giving a flattening effect. I have never had a problem with insufficient venting from this hole. That criticism must be made by someone who plays with the embouchure hole very covered, a sound that, frankly, I’ve heard more than enough of.
William Bennett took a slightly diffferent approach to the C#. His C# hole is a little bit larger and is placed somewhat further down the flute. It is also slightly higher than the other tone holes. The concept is to capture more of the essence of the ideal, large hole C#.
In the end, I have to say that it comes down to a matter of tiny subtleties in feel. Both the Cooper and Bennett scales are terrific and are light years in advance of the 19th century “old scales”. Bennett himself is quite the colorful player, playing on a Bennett scale, naturally. Anyone listening to him ought to use the evidence of their own ears to put to rest fictional fears that modern scale flutes are less colorful than old scale flutes.
Robert Dick
from the FLUTE list - November 1999
