I’d love to hear an analysis and/or comments by David and Brad on how the size, design (elliptical, rounded, rounded rectangle, etc.) and undercut of the embouchure affect the sound characteristics and power of a conical flute. Their comments on the embouchure, sound characteristics and power of well known makers’ flutes would also be interesting.
Paul
I don’t have anything to offer in that regard; I think of the head joint as a whole piece although I imagine it’s true that all the magic happens in the shape and cut of the embouchure. Flute makers probably think about this a lot; I remember meeting a maker of Boehm-system flutes whose embouchures were rectangular. The closest I’ve seen to that in a cone-bore flute is the “boxed oval” shape.
I think I’m with Brad on this one as well.
I have only tried two makers’ rectangular embouchures, certainly insufficient in number to offer an opinion generally.
But for me they were not very efficient, probably because I’m not a straight-across player, though I am one to keep the flute more horizontal than most.
Preference to undercutting has much to do with the caliber of the player. It’s been said by some that more undercutting makes for a flabbier lip. I can’t say, but do notice it much easier and flexible to blow a well-made undercut embouchure. I do know Chris Wilkes’ flutes (the one’s I’ve played, that is; could be for all, but I can only speak to those that were in my hands) have a more vertical chimney in the embouchure (ie, less undercutting), truer to many of the Rudall models. You need a good lip to get the flute’s worth. His muse, as I’ve been told, was that if you didn’t have the lip to play it, you shouldn’t.
Undercutting is an art. Of the old flutes, I found that Clementi (aka Prowse) had a deeper undercut of edge than Rudall, though some large-holed Rudalls certainly went for the bigger sound that way. Prattens required a good lip because of the sheer size of the embouchure, which was often quite big (and eliptical).
The power and sound characteristics, IMO, are more the result of the player’s lip than the construction of the flute (assuming all things equal and a good instrument of reputable maker). That’s not to say bore doesn’t play some role here, but we’re focused on embouchure for this discussion.
It also depends on whether you like a nice reedy sound, a pure crisp sound or something in between. Much of that can be from how you use the lip, change its focus, it’s power stream and where on the embouchure you’re making tone.
I trust this all makes some sort of sense.
I’ll jump into this just to say I appreciate the OP asking about Grinter v. Olwell–and not more generically Rudall vs. Pratten. I think the Rudall/Pratten dichotomy is one of the most useless–even misleading–nomenclatures in all of flutedom.
First, Rudall and Rose made quite an array of flutes over the years, reflecting changing tastes, musical demands, etc. (As was pointed out above, there’s a world of difference between a small-holed Rudall-type flute and one with large holes–a much greater difference than between a large holed ‘Rudall’ and a ‘Pratten’.)
Second, most modern makers draw inspiration to one degree or another from historical models, but very few are making actual reproductions, so it seems misleading to use historical names. Part of the blame lies with those makers, who should be bold enough to claim their own designs without acting like they’re in the thrall of long dead makers from the 19th century; part of it lies with players who are looking for an easy shorthand to understanding an instrument from a distance. (As pointed out above, each flute is it’s own thing. The only way to know it is to play it.)
It’s as if all colors with any tint of red were called red and all colors with a tint of blue were called blue. Pink? That’s red. Purple, that’s red, too. Although purple could also be blue. “I drew on elements of both red and blue in my new purple design,” says a maker. But green is blue. OK, enough nonsense, which is what using ‘Rudall’ and ‘Pratten’ as adjectives amounts to.
I, for one, wish Rudall and Pratten would be relegated to their appropriate places in history, rather than muddying the waters of the contemporary flute world.
/rant
Buy a Grinter and play it for awhile. I promise you’ll have no problem selling it if it doesn’t suit you. It will be plenty loud for session work.
There are plenty of “Rudall” flutes out there that can stand toe to toe with a “Pratten” volume-wise if the player has good chops…including the Grinter.
Personally I tend to prefer Rudalls over Prattens but I own both. It’s a very personal decision, you have to play a flute for awhile to figure it out and bond.
We can try to articulate the tonal difference here but as a wise man once said: “Writing about music is like dancing about archtecture.”
Doc