Historical Flute Syndromes

It struck me that many players might be interested in this article on Historical Flute Syndromes, even though they might not be planning to do any Reel Time Tuning Analyses of their own (yet!). So, I thought I’d draw separate attention to it.

Although I’m calling them Historical Flute Syndromes, don’t assume they are long dead and buried. There might be one alive and well in your flute even as we speak …

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/Historical%20Flute%20Syndromes.htm

Terry

Are you going to take a shot at describing what causes each sort of syndrome and/or what the fixes might be? E.g., a flat foot syndrome is caused by a flute that narrows too much in the foot area and can be resolved by flaring the foot…?

Hmmm, I’d have to think about that. I’m not sure that there’s always only one fix available or needed (you might need a blend of treatments), so I’d hate to give out inadequate advice and be thus responsible for some fine old flutes getting hacked!

But let’s see how this topic develops. I don’t believe we’ve ever ventured down this path before, except perhaps in relation to Flat Foot Syndrome, just one of the many I’ve identified in this article. My previous stuff on flat foot probably remains relevant:

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/flatfeet.html

Terry

You forgot to mention “boring flute syndrome” when the flute plays perfectly in tune, with a big easy embouchure… :smiley:

Hmm. My “session” flute is like that and I do find it a bit boring. My Monzani I find fascinating because I really have to focus my embouchure to get a decent tone and volume out of it. But either loose or focused embouchure give me the same tuning on both flutes.

However there’s something which is far more boring. That is - having a flute which after years of trying you just can’t play in tune with others.

Cheers
Graeme

So true…

Terry,

Thanks for formally bringing these syndromes to the forefront. I was thinking about posting about something that I’ve found challenging with most Irish flutes I’ve played–that the 2nd octave is usually sharp, sometimes very sharp. I wonder how much of this is due to me, the player. I surely have a large part in the outcome of how each flute I play sounds, and perhaps my Boehm training and habits add to the phenomenon because I was trained to aim the airflow higher as I go up in octaves. I believe I have tamed that habit significantly and do much to aim the air down in the flute (e.g. my embouchure hole is angled towards my mouth), plus I can feel only a slight amount air coming over the top when I play. Instead of aiming higher, I mostly produce the 2nd octave notes by tightening my lip embouchure, thereby increasing the airflow velocity, causing the flute to play the 2nd octave.

Has anyone found an approach to tame the sharp 2nd octave? I think I’m getting a handle on it, but wondering if there is some wisdom I can learn from.

Jason

Heh heh, the ones that leave you nothing else to do but concentrate on playing music, drinking fine ales and spirited liquors, and chatting up the pretty fiddlechics? (Or piping hunks, depending entirely on preference.)

Now some they take delight, in the flat feet and long scaling,
others take delight in wide octaves with notes wailing,
but I take delight in the juice of the barley,
and courting pretty young maids in the morning oh so early …

Terry

I think you’ve got to find out pretty early in the piece is it you, the flute or both contributing to the problem. A common cause of sharp second octave among beginners is blasting (getting up into the second octave through raw use of breath strength), but if you’ve been taught on the Boehm that doesn’t seem likely. Any other flutes in the area you can try, or any other flute players to try your flute?

If you can get the Polygraph working it will be valuable to do a run on both your Irish flute and your Boehm. Feel free to email me any results you’d like a view on.

Terry

Well Jason/akiba has clips posted for all to see / listen to, played on a JonC “Hawkes” flute. So I’ve had a look at one with the RTTA software just like anyone else can now do. I’m not going to comment on them unless I get permission from both Jon as flute maker, and Jason as the player. Do you both want to give approval?

I should add that although I have been working with Terry on the software I have no other connection with him. I’ve briefly played a couple of his flutes 2 years ago and didn’t check my tuning on them. I personally own a number of flutes all of them over 100 years old, (plus a 25 year old baroque flute) and have “tweaked” the tuning on a number of flutes (for better or worse), have made a number of whistles and other instruments. I play sax, baroque flute, ITM flute accordion and whistle, ragtime piano, and other instruments. I’m competant on all of these but great on none.

Cheers
Graeme

Maybe you could elaborate on how the replacement foot differed from the original foot? I understand your hesitation to say “this the only/proper fix for a problem” but if everyone is hesitant to discuss possible solutions, what good does that do? Of course, ideally we could get a bunch of flutemakers to weigh in with their opinions.

There are 4 possible solutions and I’ve used all 4 or a combination of them on different flutes

  1. Shorten the foot - well probably shortening the tenon on the end of the RH section to be more accurate. If you have keys for C# and C these may need to be altered to avoid getting in the way of R3 finger. Not so easy with an integral RH section / foot.

  2. Enlarge the vent holes for flat notes. If they’re keyed this may not be possible although some undercutting probably is. They’re probably already quite large so you probably won’t see major changes by doing this.

  3. Enlarge the bore in the foot. This is often the best approach as you can make changes to specific notes, plus there’s no change to keys or the outward appearance of the flute. You may be able to re-ream from top or bottom end, or may need to use sandpaper to chamber the inside.

  4. Make a new part

There’s an RTTA plot on Terry’s web site
http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/RTTA/using.htm
of me playing my Monzani after I’d done number 3 - chambering with sandpaper spun in the lathe. Before doing the operation Low C was at 0, C# at -50, D -45, Eb -50 , d -25, eb -30. E and e at +10. So with C in tune and an integral foot, plus keys I was not going to touch, chambering was the only way I could think of to “fix” it. The result has been more than satisfactory. C still at 0, C# D Eb eb all within 15 cents, d within 5 cents, E and e not moved. And as well as “fixing” the pitch issues it is now also more resonant on the low notes.

I’m happy even if some people think I’ve committed a crime against humanity by altering an historic flute.

Cheers
Graeme

Hi,
That is fine with me, I might add that Jason’s flute is a earlier model, and is not really a Hawkes, but a hybrid between Pratten and R&R, which Hawkes comes closest to that design. I now mostly make either a Pratten or R&R, as they both have strong points, in there playing quality, but haven’t made the Hybrid for a while. (Pretty good no-claimer!) :stuck_out_tongue:

I should add that although I have been working with Terry on the software I have no other connection with him. I’ve briefly played a couple of his flutes 2 years ago and didn’t check my tuning on them. I personally own a number of flutes all of them over 100 years old, (plus a 25 year old baroque flute) and have “tweaked” the tuning on a number of flutes (for better or worse), have made a number of whistles and other instruments. I play sax, baroque flute, ITM flute accordion and whistle, ragtime piano, and other instruments. I’m competant on all of these but great on none.

Cheers
Graeme

I realize that you are not trying to eliminate the stiff competition in the ITRAD flute making, as we are all a secret cartel anyway, a branch of the Illuminati.

I am currently working on a nice old flute made by Goodlad, the flute has a original tuning in the range of 420htz, which made the foot about 60 cents flat, the upper notes 30 cents sharp. To bad I didn’t have this program to do a before and after on the flute, that would have been interesting. What I have done to correct this, is shorten the foot, including the foot keys, as they were now hanging over the E hole, especially the Eb key, which was quite long. Shorten the lower section at the socket, as much as possible, (not much was possible) add amber shellac to the upper side of the C#, B, and A holes to flatten them about 20 cents, and increase the size of the F# hole. This was done on the request of the owner that loved the flute, but was just unable to play it in his group, with accordion and piano. There is always the question on when a flute is of historical value, versus playability in modern tuning. In some cases a new foot joint might be a better option, especially with expensive historical flutes, i.e. Nickolson’s Improved, which have a very flat foot.

Heh heh, I hear your frustration. But it’s a bit like asking the Doctor to give you some advice over the phone - he’d really needs to see the patient. Otherwise he recommends an insole for your flat feet, which later turns out to aggravate a pre-existing issue with your knees, which then requires anti-inflammatories which have the side effect of churning up your tummy requiring another set of pills to keep that under control. Then depression sets in, but alcohol helps there for a little while …

As Graeme has pointed out since, there are three levers you can pull - lengths, holes and bore. Lengths is the strongest lever as it has a 1:1 effect on pitch (or, more accurately 1/1). But it’s going to have similar effect in both (or all three) octaves, which you may or may not want. And this is where it gets trickier. It’s pretty rare that you get away with one lever, most times you need to use two, and sometimes all three. And sometimes you even need to push one one way and the other two the other! And of course, if you don’t have the facilities to work the length lever (often requiring silversmithing, as Jon has mentioned), you may or may not have enough room to move with the others.

On the flute in question in my article, we’d chosen to make a new part, which of course makes things much easier. So I essentially pulled the length lever real hard. The bore and holes were made pretty much as normal so that we could investigate just the effect of a shorter length foot - would it have produced major problems elsewhere in the flute as was commonly believed at the time. Myth Busted, as it turned out.

So, in summary, I think it’s important to make as full diagnosis as possible before doing anything. RTTA is going to help this enormously. Indeed, I will be asking my retuning customers to include a recording of them playing along with the flute, so I can see what problems THEY are facing, before doing a scan to see what problems it would cause me. Then I would consider which combination of levers are most likely to be effective, and consider what side effects that might produce. Then I’d move part way in that direction, doing another scan to make sure nothing unexpected was happening. Convinced that I was on the right track, I’d zero in on it, and do a final scan to convince me I’d done all I can.

Unless we turn up something to blow RTTA out of the water, I predict it will change the future of conical flute playing.

Terry

Hi Jon and Terry
I thought at some point I might write a web page on how to use beeswax on the upper edge of a hole to pull down the pitch of a problem note or two. It’s a completely reversible process and easy to do without having to have a workshop. It can quickly turn a flute that you’ve been struggling unsuccesfully to play in tune for years, into one that you enjoy playing with others. Amber shellac sounds like a good idea too.

Regarding RTTA, it will let you get a plot of your customer playing, and compare this to a plot of you playing the same flute so that any alterations you make can be tailored to how the customer blows it not how you the maker blow it. (I think Terry already said this.)

Jason is discussing with me via PMs what’s going on with him playing the “Hawkes”.

Cheers
Graeme

Yes, that would be good, Graeme. For some, that might be enough. For others, it might be a bold first step that confirms they are on the right track. As Confucius is alleged to have said, Better to light a single candle than forever to complain that the flute’s out of tune.

Regarding RTTA, it will let you get a plot of your customer playing, and compare this to a plot of you playing the same flute so that any alterations you make can be tailored to how the customer blows it not how you the maker blow it. (I think Terry already said this.)

Heh heh, I hope I did, that was of course my point. A Bright New Day, I reckon.

Jason is discussing with me via PMs what’s going on with him playing the “Hawkes”.

Excellent. There’s usually quite a bit you can do without getting too violent. As they say in show business, break a leg!

Terry

OK This will be a good test. I met someone at a session last Wednesday who has been struggling with trying to play her flute in tune for several years. She’s on the point of despair with it. So she’s coming around home here this afternoon and I’ll have a look at it. I’ll get some RTTA plots of both her and me playing it, see if I can do anything with beeswax, and get some RTTA plots of both of us playing it afterwards.

This is almost a blind test because I don’t know how it’ll work out, although I have altered (with beeswax) another players flute by the same maker previously, before we had RTTA. I’ll put the plots up on the web in a few hours time.

Cheers
Graeme

Well the last thing that I heard from Jason, was that the flute was playing great, save for the flat C# hole.
Here was his last email:

Again, very much enjoying the Rudall hybrid–getting better all the time as would be expected as my embouchure and ear mold to it.
C#/C, open holes/cross fingering–would like to get both notes closer to modern tuning. Can you make a C nat thumb hole in order to have C and C# play clearer and in tune?

He sent me a nice clip of his playing, sounded nice, even though he was playing in 445 hertz, got to pull out the slide a little more, Jason…
This was probably the 4th or 5th flute that I have built, back about 2005? (not that long ago…) I used to tune the flutes more to the original tuning. Jason is not the original buyer, but maybe the third or forth? This can be a problem with Delrin as it will follow me around for the rest of my life! :boggle: Maybe I should buy all my early flutes back, and burn them? I have heard that Delrin burns nicely. :smiling_imp:
So as Terry said “Break a leg”, and I might add “Bob’s your uncle”.
PS It would be nice to have a addition to your program, that would measure the “quality of tone” of the flute? (boring flute-o-meter?)It is so subjective, especially after you have knocked a couple of cold ones back… What makes a R&R sound so much better then a Pratten? Standing waves?
Embouchure cut? player? Matt Malloy seems to like them, so they can’t be all that bad. Just a thought.

Heh heh, just wait until you’ve been making for around 33 years. And of course I knew much less then than you guys know now - there was nobody else’s work to look at apart from the old flutes, and didn’t their tuning seem a mystery then!

Still, I saw my #27 the other day and it was still playing well - the owner had decided it was finally time to get some keys!

But your point is a good one. Before RTTA, we did our best with very inadequate equipment - ears and tuners. It’s always been my view that the maker needs to be able to discern problems 10 times smaller than the average player can. But players have ears and tuners too, and on the law of averages some of their ears are going to be better than some of our ears. If RTTA works as well as it promises, it should take us well beyond what a human can discern, and for the first time give us the advantage we need.

But we can’t expect it to happen overnight. Most of us have flutes “in the pipeline” that haven’t had the benefit of RTTA inspection, and while it might be possible to give them a final tweak to minimise the worst of any transgressions remaining, it’s come too late for those problems that need major attention like bore changes and hole position changes. But if people in the past haven’t complained, hopefully it means they’ve been OK! That might be a comforting thought, but it shouldn’t stop us from resolving to do better.

And if a maker finds his or her flutes do need major changes, this is not always achievable in one iteration. The first iteration should substantially solve the problems, but because changing anything on a flute tends to affect everything else, it usually requires a process of successive approximation to get everything just right.

And of course the challenge is multiplied for those makers like me who have a wide range of models. Every one now needs to be reviewed, tweaked, reviewed, tweaked, etc. It might take a few months for this all to happen. I’m gunna love it!

So, I think we have to draw a line in the sand, essentially when the first RTTA, the Tartini-R Polygraph, was released, just yesterday! Perhaps the Dunedin Convention on Conical Flute Intonation should state that no maker may be fried in oil, at least without their permission, unless it can be shown that they were aware of major failings that rendered their flutes impossible to play in tune and did not even try to fix them?

Further, perhaps the Dunedin Convention should grant a period of grace, say three months from this day, after which fair criticism may well be made in public places of new instruments that are quite untuneworthy?

And a further three months, after which all flutes can be expected to adhere to best practice?

Not all makers are going to want to use RTTA, but the chilling thought for them is that their customers may.

Terry