I’ve uploaded a video of the Murray flute playing the same jig I played on the Bryan Byrne flute.
Both the videos are linked to below. I’ve wanted to do this for a while, compare these flutes.
The Byrne has smaller tone holes, narrower bore, and a fully lined headjoint. It has a very different sound, a lot more focused. The Murray has a partly lined headjoint, a more open and woody sound, it’s very expressive. It’s lighter than the Byrne.
Obviously the comparison has the limitations of the musician, still I’m really trying to do these instruments justice. As the Byrne certainly seems to keep pace with the Murray, but in a very different way, I reckon Bryan Byrne is insufficiently known as a flute maker. I wish I could play a Murray with a fully lined headjoint.
Here’s a more robust version of the jig on the Sam Murray, in response to helpful comments.
I’m a bit out of control, not being used to pressing the Murray so hard, but the flute does sound better.
And here I am with another tune on the Murray, less out of control.
Jim, I can’t view the clips just now, or therefore comment on topic, but I think your thread title is misleading. You are discussing two Rudall type or model flutes, or maybe Rudall copies, NOT ‘two Rudalls’. And no, I don’t think this is an acceptable colloquial usage.
Of the two I think the Byrne is more faithful to the 19th century design.
My impression is that the Murray has been rethought somewhat for the sake
of playing Irish music.
you can be faithful to the design, yes…but which one?
Rudalls are extreme in their variation of bore profile over the tenure of the 8key years.
too…what we see today is a 150+ year-old flute bore…whose wood is no longer only a decade or two old (assuming even that was the case when they were made, but undoubtedly not green)…
age of wood would enrich the sound, too…why else the difference in tone quality between a boxwood, a cocus and a blackwood?
and do not forget that bore profile is affected by embochure cut, so your maker’s rudall copy may only be that for the bore…but not the embochure, which also varied for the rudalls from vertical chimneys to severely undercut, from eliptical oval to the very large round.
Will we (should we) ever move beyond the Rudall-Pratten dichotomy in describing modern flutes? Some modern flutes are fairly faithful reproductions, so the terms may be useful there (although as David points out, there’s wide variation in the design of Rudalls), but many contemporary makers are making their own designs, even if they’re inspired by a 19th century model. Are the labels Rudall and Pratten useful? And who’s propagating them–makers, players, the flute lobby?
In the case of Jim’s comparison, the two flutes are (at least to some degree) based on instruments from the Rudall shop, but they’ve got as many differences as they do similarities. Is it helpful to group them under a common heading? Ultimately, isn’t the comparison between two “Irish flutes,” one by Byrne, one by Murray?
As someone very new to the world of flutes, I’m not at all clear about the differences between these two types. Is there someplace that explains the structural differences between Rudall (or Rudall-derived/based) and Pratten (or Pratten-derived/based) instruments? That compares them in terms of bore, embouchure, etc.?
I’ve viewed the clips now. Jim, the Byrne seems to suit you better/you play noticeably better on the Byrne clip, but I’m not sure the exercise tells us much else about the flutes.
Well, one way I personally find the comparison useful, FWIW, is that I’m increasingly impressed
with the Byrne.
I reckon Bryan is after what the narrower bore, smaller holed rudalls did. Mine is somewhat larger holed
than his earlier flutes but still smaller holed than the Murray. It handles like a smallish holed flute.
I believe he has gone back to making small-holed flutes. I had the devil of a time learning to get
the low D, by the way. It’s bigger n’ hell on the Murray right out of the box.
Yes, it may well be that I’m not playing the Murray as well as I’m playing the Byrne.
Obviously people get more out of it than I do. But I’ve played the Murray a lot, FWIW,
and like it a good deal.
Also I trust it’s plain that these do have a different sound, along the lines I described in
the first post.
Ah! People are writing me that I need to play the Murray with more punch, a harder edge.
Thanks.
Good man!