I have some antique (mid-1800s) boxwood flutes, most made in/around NY. Each of them has a noticeably flat F#. (Each of them has its own special preference for A=XX, but in all cases the F# is flat in comparison to the rest of the scale.) Any reasons? Is that just a difficult note to get in tune? Or did they tune things differently back then? Or is it me?
Questions from a quiet Sunday morning.
Best wishes.
Steve
You might ask Walt Sweet, if you can catch him.
Somewhere I read his discussion developing the Shannon, where he delves into some of the bore compromises a flute maker faces. IIRC it involves the E, and getting it to have a nice presence. I’m sure any of our other makers could also contribute to the discussion,
Bob
Some previous discussions, not necessarily enlightening, though. Venting fingerings? Different temperament?
From 2008
https://forums.chiffandfipple.com/t/wooden-flute-tuning/79919/1
Some 2008 thoughts, well into a discussion of RTTA
https://forums.chiffandfipple.com/t/rtta-in-use/56012/1
From 2009
https://forums.chiffandfipple.com/t/ruminating-on-my-byrne-and-gallagher-flutes/68719/1
From 2012
https://forums.chiffandfipple.com/t/question-old-rudalls-internal-tuning/55795/1
The makers of antique flutes aimed to optimized the tuning of their flutes across three octaves. In ITM we tend to ignore the third octave altogether, but these old flutes were not designed specifically for ITM, and in other musical genres third octave tuning is very important. I think you can trace many of the apparent idiosyncrasies in antique flute tuning to trade-offs that the maker made deliberately in order to optimize overall tuning of their instrument across all three octaves. The expectation is that (a) there really is no such thing as a perfectly in-tune flute – if a flute is in tune with itself for a given pitch standard across all notes at a given temperature, then it will be out of tune with itself for the same pitch standard at a different temperature, since tuning slide adjustments affect different notes differently, and hence (b) the onus is always on the player to play the flute in tune. With these points in mind, flute makers aim to get all notes, across all three octaves, sufficiently close their ideal tuning to be easily played in tune by a decent player. This approach leads to sacrificing perfect tuning for one note in order to gain better tuning for a different note that shares the same venting holes.
The fact that these deviations from our expected tuning in the lower octaves are so consistent across flutes by the same maker, flutes by different makers from the same country, flutes by different makers in different countries, and even across flutes tuned to different pitch standards and in different keys, leads me to believe that they are not accidental, but are deliberate trade-offs made to optimize overall tuning.
Perhaps one of the experienced makers here can let us know specifically which third octave notes are affected by the hole that vents F#? Or perhaps we can take a look at some fingering charts and make some educated guesses.
Jon
Jem Hammond (Jemtheflute around here) taught me fingering when I started some years ago. He gave me standard fingering charts from the 19c. They always include venting the Fnat key when playing F#, which does tend to bring the note up to pitch, so was clearly part of how they made the flutes.
(I know kkrell has also alluded to this above.)
Thanks folks.
Kevin: lots of interesting stuff in those past threads—even if I don’t understand it all.
Paddler: the third octave issue never occurred to me. Everything I (try to) play is in the two-octave “Irish range”.
Ben: I’m presently digging through Jem’s fingering charts (Where is Jem anyway, haven’t heard from him in over a month. Hope all is well).
So venting the Fnat key will sharpen the F# note, and that’s fine for a 4/6/8 key instrument. Is there a suitable option for a 1-key instrument?
Best wishes.
Steve
I have an 1840 ersatz rudall and the F sharp is fine. So I don’t think the problem was universal, anyhow.
However I did send it to a flutesmyth who adjusted the internal tuning. This was some time ago.
Anyhow I don’t remember whether the F sharp was flat before she worked on it. The A was pretty wonky,
I recall. Also by now I may be ‘blowing the flute in tune.’ But I do think these things can be adjusted now.
Its easy to sharpen the tuning of a flat F#, by slightly enlarging or undercutting the hole that vents it. But this adjustment will also affect the tuning of any other note that is vented by that hole, particularly those in the third octave. The net result is that your flute may not be as well in tune, over its full range, as it was before. So rather than improving the tuning, you could well have made it worse. Of course, if you are planning to use the flute solely for ITM, it may seem like an improvement in tuning, but by doing this you have taken what was a general purpose flute and made it an Irish flute.
Jon
FWIW, I’m in tune up to the third octave G, which is as high as I remember the fingerings.
I don’t play up there anyhow, except very rarely. I have the feeling a powerful embouchure
is the flooter’s best friend.
One-key instruments were designed to finger Fnat XXX XOX, which necessarily makes the Fnat horribly sharp or the F# horribly flat, or (best) both something in between. The fingering charts in the baroque/rococo era always had the F# as XXX XOO (Eflat vented) and the Gflat as XXX OXX. On some flutes I find that it’s easier to lip the latter up for an extended F# than to lip the former down. Of course, XXX OXX generally sounds a little veiled, venting the key makes it more robust, but sharper.
Any way you have to lip up or down.
I agree with your line of thought Chas–I suspect that a lot of the intonation quirks of simple system flutes through the mid 1800s were inherited from the baroque flute.
I’ve observed that cross fingering works less well the further you get down the flute. Even with small tone holes, you won’t get as much separation as you want down in the right hand. So, the flute maker compromises, leading to a very flat F# and a very sharp F nat. If your goal is to make an instrument that plays in all keys, I think it’s a pretty reasonable choice to make.
The early keyed flutes seemed to try to retain the ability to cross finger in addition to use of the keys to produce out of scale notes, like F natural. I suspect that one of the appealing things about keys was that you didn’t have to use them if you didn’t want to–they were an “extra feature” that you could just ignore if you wanted to. Given that most flutists had learned to play on one-key flutes, that was the only logical choice to make. Even when the holes were made bigger, thereby wrecking many cross fingerings, experienced players had learned the “intonation profile” of the old flute. Also, if the holes were re-arranged for better pitch in the first two octaves, it would change the third octave fingerings. I can understand why many makers chose to make something more compatible with the old flute. It’s really hard to change something on an instrument where most people are used to what is traditional!
Of course, things did change eventually. Flutes I’ve played by modern makers all have nice F#s and good intonation in general. And, I get the impression that some simple system flutes in the late 19th/early 20th century have quite good intonation. Maybe makers decided at some point to “break compatibility” with the old flute in favor of better intonation and power? Anyone with any experience of this?
Keeping a weather eye. Carry on.
Our early “Irish” flutes grew out of the traditions of what is now the Baroque flute. There, F-nat was an important note, and the player had to lip everything anyway.
If a maker makes flutes with a just F#, it can be at odds with all the other flutes in circulation (even that maker’s previous model). It’s a bit of a joke we have seen bubbling to the surface among the Basel players. It goes like this: please make a new instrument that’s well in tune, but make sure it’s compatible with all the instruments already in use. I have confirmed this absurdity with two competent makers already. In the American Fife and Drum Corps, overall pitch has been creeping steadily (it’s about 27 cents sharp these days). In the early 60s, Patrick Cooperman sought some professional advice to stop the madness of creeping pitch, but that’s a bit of a losing battle.
A traditional flute is very sensitive to the size of holes. When that #5 hole is made large to correct the pitch of F#, the octave stretches a lot (while the octave doesn’t stretch on the notes around F#). A royal pain; those players focused on tuning have complained (and rightly so). You can demonstrate this phenomenon by adding abnormal venting: if your A has a good octave, just open the G# key and listen for the stretch. In the same vein, most flutes have a compression problem on C#, and this can be stretched back to normal by opening the C-nat key (that’s the classic fingering). On my SHANNON flute, I drill the #5 hole then undercut above to correct the octave. When that hole gets too big, people complain about the look and the feel of it.
The third octave will be more greatly influenced by the tone-hole lattice in the left hand rather than the right.
I drill the #5 hole then undercut above to correct the octave
Undercut above?
I think Walt means he undercuts the tone-hole on the up-tube side.
Undercutting means to make the tonehole wider as it goes in: the hole is larger inside (near the bore) than at the Outside Diameter of the flute (where the finger touches). This shaping can be done with a fraising tool or with a file. Undercutting improves the tone and many other playing characteristics. On a modern flute, the soldered-on toneholes are filed inside a little near the bore to create a convex arc(1) at the joint rather than a sharp corner. This work is done above and below. On the smallish holes of a wooden flute, the undercutting can be found all around.
The side of the tonehole that faces the blowhole is called “up-the-bore” or “above”; the side facing the foot is called “down-the-bore” or “below.” Recorder-makers apply this type of discrete undercutting: undercutting above compresses the octave, while undercutting below stretches the octave. I drill some toneholes at an angle for the same reason. It’s a popular idea that toneholes are drilled at an angle to ease the reach, but there are many factors to consider.
It’s a funny thing that old woodwinds were made with simpler tools. Sometimes these could break chunks loose where the tonehole met the bore, and then the maker would smooth the intersection with a file. Toward the later 1800s, tools improved, and the toneholes could be made with nice, sharp edges at the bore. Not good for the sound quality or playability!
(1) rounded over, as the edge of a countertop. In metal casting (and pattern-making), it’s called a “round” (while an internal arc is called a “fillet”). Machinists like to say they have put a “radius” on the edge (they should be saying that have created an arc of a given radius, but that’s the way they say it).
Hi Walt -
Appreciate your comments and input—even if I only understand a portion of them. In particular, what does “compressing the octave” mean—both in theory and flute-making practice?
Best wishes,
Steve
Stretched octave: slightly more than an octave. An example is playing a low A at 440 Hz, and high A comes out at 892 Hz instead of 880 Hz (in a 1:2 ratio). It’s still identifiable as A, but it’s 27 cents sharp. Some people may phrase it to say that A tends to sharpness without clarifying that high A is the problem. If you bush the hole, then the pitch will go down in both octaves, now the low A is flat, so that doesn’t address the original problem of the stretched octave. When designing an instrument, these intervals (octaves, harmonic series) take most of the designer’s attention; if the interval is good, then bringing the pitch down for both is a pedestrian task. I’m afraid that much of the tonehole-placement software does not address these significant issues at the heart of good instrument design. Also, when the intervals are good, the tone and resonance improve. Or, if the octave tends to be too narrow (as on C#), then we want to stretch or bring their pitches farther apart to achieve a truer alignment. I insist on saying it this way rather than saying we’re raising the high or lowering the low: in good design protocol, we adjust the interval, then we go after the pitch of the note.
A compressed octave is slightly less than an octave. Or, if the octave tends to be too wide (as on F#), then we want to compress or bring their pitches closer together to achieve a truer alignment. Protocol!