At the risk of sounding grandiose and reverential, I take a longer view of flute ownership. I have three great flutes (one in D, one in C, one in Bb), all by living makers, and these flutes will outlive me. I know the makers and have watched them work; I know how much time and thought they put into the tiniest details involved in designing and making these flutes. I also know that they know far more about flute-making and design than I ever will. So I view these flutes not just as the instruments I play every day (and they are made to be played, not stuck in a museum) but as works of art, and I view myself more as their custodian than their owner. It’s like a plot of land: you can pay for it, but you’re merely one in a long line of so-called owners, and someone else will own that land after you’re gone. It is thus my wish that my flutes pass into the hands of better players than me after I die.
Clearly there is a range of sentiments among living flute makers about subsequent modifications to their work, and I agree with the rule of thumb that was proposed above: consult with the original maker first, if that maker’s still alive, before making modifications. It’s not just an issue of courtesy: nobody knows a flute better than its own maker. The maker can best predict the side effects and risks, if any, of your planned “improvements.” But I’m also of the school of thought that if you have a flute by a good maker, it’s your job to learn how to play that flute as it was designed to be played. I’ve spent years getting to know my three flutes, it’s an ongoing process, but I wouldn’t trade that process of discovery and growth for anything. I’m not interested in having a flute that’s been modified to suit how I’m used to playing; I want a flute that asserts its own personality and requires me to grow as a player in order to tap its potential.
I would probably feel differently if I were a professional flute player like Calum, where I’d be making my living with this instrument and would need a flute that’s going to be able to do what I ask it to do.
Right. There is a certain class of makers who are producing art works and lavish extraordinary care
on their flutes. The music matters more but the instruments
are still art works. And I am the custodian of that art work and have a responsibility to preserve its integrity.
I would get the maker’s permission to make changes. Pat O is one of them.
Art isn’t just visual, though. With flutes, it’s not just marriage of form and function, there’s a lot going on “under the hood” when a maker is trying to achieve a certain kind of instrument that has specific tonal/timbral qualities. My C flute came with two head joints, and it’s like having two completely different flutes. The sound is remarkably different between the two of them, and those differences were 100% intentional. I don’t think we’re just talking about artistic touches in the craftmanship. I think we’re talking about a combination of art and craft that produces a unique object. And this process is repeated with every flute – otherwise for the maker it becomes like rote factory work and where’s the fulfillment in that?
I already went to Marcel Duchamp for that on the previous page Steve.
I don’t know about art. To be honest I don’t think instruments are in the realm of art. But they are a valuable piece of craftmanship and while I can see the point of seeing them as an utilitarian piece of kit that needs to do the job my own point of view where it comes to maintaining their integrity is probably more along the lines of Brad’s.
It’s a bit like living in a Frank Lloyd Wright or Corbusier house and wanting to bung a block built extension on the back because the children are growing up and need rooms. A bit of care with regards to the original intention of the maker is well in order.
I have more experience with old sets of uilleann pipes, most of them banjaxed and reamed out to keep them going with the reeds and aesthetics of the pipemaker of the day. OK, it did the job at the time but most are now considered ruined with the nuances of their original capabilities destroyed.
This unidentified second maker may be reputable, but he/she is not very smart. What he/she should have said when the owner asked him/her to put keys on the Olwell flute was “No, I will not do that. But I will sell one of my own keyed flutes to you.”
Why? Because presumably the owner respect’s this maker’s work, or he/she wouldn’t be asking him/her to do the retrofit of keys onto the Olwell in the first place. Because the keywork is the most time-consuming and expensive part of the flute-making process, so making a new keyed flute would not take all that much more time or cost that much more than doing the retrofit job. If the owner balks at the added cost, the Olwell flute could be sold to cover that. If the owner balks at the added time, he/she should be reminded that the Olwell flute will still be available for playing during that time, whereas it would not be available during the time required to retrofit it with keys. The owner should be told of the risks inherent in drilling new holes into a flute and reminded that a new flute from this maker would be warranted against such risks while the retrofit would not. If the owner expresses love for the Olwell flute’s embouchure cut, the maker should tell him/her that a new keyed body can be made that will work with the Olwell head joint. In short, there is absolutely no circumstance in which this maker will take the risk of screwing up an un-damaged flute made by someone else. If the owner doesn’t like that, there are other reputable or unreputable makers out there that might take his/her business.
In theory, I agree with you, and I haven’t personally tried to engage one maker to augment another’s, so I’m not coming from the point of view of advocating modifications.
That said, many of us do not, and may never own, flutes in the quality range you own and describe. What we might own is a flute that’s good, but lacks, say, keys, for example. This thread brings us back to the wait-list problem - If I owned an Olwell and wanted either keys put on it in my lifetime, or post keys Olwell tends not to make, then I might query a maker to add them. That maker might not do it, for a number of both practical and honorable reasons, or he might. But should keys be added, the owner now has an albeit hybrid flute that he wanted, in a more reasonable time frame. And playing flutes is what we do, not collect them.
The posterity question also goes toward the value/resale question: if you’ve changed it, you’ve lowered its value in practical terms (though not necessarily in utilitarian terms). So, in the case of the questioned flute with someone else’s keys, there will be one less Olwell flute in the future than Olwell actually created exclusively. This is true with all objects that are both utilitarian and perceived as art, whether they are antique cars, furniture, or musical instruments - sometimes the changes are heresy, sometimes they’re improvements, sometimes they make no intrinsic difference.
I think it’s great that owners such as yourself revere the instrument as art, and think of yourself as merely a temporary owner. That’s why perfectly maintained examples of antique things exist. OTOH, the depreciated flutes out there, tinkered with by other makers, only boosts the artistic and monetary value of the untinkered. Of course, if the new keys were put on by a name also well respected… Isn’t that, ultimately, like having an original R&R with an Olwell/Wilkes/etc., head, since we’re talking after you’ve passed the flute on for a few generations?
Don’t know how I missed that but, really, can you ever have too many Mona Lisas with moustaches?
I do a lot with Native American flutes. In that area some feel that the instruments are imbued with a spirit of their own, capable of healing, bringing people together, a conduit between the player and some greater force. Others see them more from the anthropological, removed perspective as tubes with holes capable of making beautiful music. The divergent perspectives generally shape how the instruments are treated.
The current discussion seems, to me, to be somewhat similar in that some see flutes as a tool to make music that can be reshaped to fit the player and the type of tunes to be played. Lots of stories about how the early Irish flute players (the Elders of this music?) turned around the footjoints or tied down or even removed keys just 'cause they were in the way. Others see them as inviolate.
Surely some of the contemporary makers make instruments of rare visual and sonic beauty and out of respect for the fact that their skills are far above either my flute making (nil) or my playing (marginal) I wouldn’t think of making any modifications. But were I to, through some deal with the devil, become an outstanding player, I suspect that I would have few qualms about making modifications (or having them made by competent repair/renovation/modification technicians) if such changes would make my outstanding playing even better, easier or more comfortable.
After all, its just a tube with holes that makes beautiful music…
Them’s my thoughts.
Best wishes.
Steve
P.S. Current actuarial tables tell me that I will never make it through Mr. Olwell’s wait list for a keyed instrument. Donations, however, are readily accepted. I’ll even pay postage.
Ouch! Depending on the conditions under which he sold the painting, he might have been able to sue the hotel - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rights_(copyright_law)
The creator of a work of art has a right to integrity of the work. This right cannot be transferred. I doubt this would apply to flutes in any jurisdiction…
Without having done any reading on the subject, I doubt very much that an artist has any rights whatsoever to what a private purchaser does with the work. However, if the piece is displayed in public as a work by the original artist or being sold as an original piece and that work has been tampered with, the artist is now being misrepresented and applicable laws likely offer some protection.
I think we need to be clear that the fact that we appreciate what goes into a finely made flute does not qualify the instrument as a work of art. I don’t want to debate what is or isn’t art, but I submit that you get yourself in trouble if you regard anything that is finely made as art as opposed to expert craftsmanship. There is nothing sacred about a flute. It makes sense to go back to the original maker for modifications and even repair, but if there is a reason to do otherwise, I really think it’s a stretch to consider so doing unethical, a slap in the face of the maker, or in any other wise, wrong.
I would expect it to void the warranty; that’s standard. As to whether the maker disapproves, wth no disrespect intended, I’m have no idea why I would care. It’s frankly none of his business - he did his job. If I want something that I cannot readily get from him, I don’t know how he’d ever know or what difference it makes if he did. Look, I’m not suggesting trashing a fine instrument, but some of the posters here seem to think there’s something holy about this. Must you go back to the dealership to get your car painted? Geez, get a qualified person to do the work if the maker is not readily available or won’t do it.
I’ve always had good relationships with makers whose instruments I play. I value those relationships, and that’s reason enough to respect their wishes with regards to their instruments.
If you genuinely don’t care, then of course you won’t have lost anything yourself.
I agree - if you maintain a relationship. I have a vintage flute that has seen the attention of three individuals. Obviously, I had no choice. I’m not encouraging anyone to avoid the maker, but in the end the most important thing is to get what you want - no? Would you place the maker’s wishes above your own? Really?
And I’d actually be surprised if makers truly feel slighted if their flute is worked on by another craftsman/maker once they’ve sold the flute (although that would certainly void any warranty).
I have many artists in my family, and they sell a lot of work. Those involved in selling learn to let go and move on - outside of photographs taken, they rarely see the work again, unless it’s in a museum or art center, and even then, it’s done - they’re busy with new pieces. My stuff, I get attached to the work, so, yeah, I’d be annoyed if someone came into my house and ruined a personal favorite. The few pieces I’ve sold over the years, I remember and think about and wish I could visit sometimes. That’s why, when it comes to paintings, I’m still an amateur - I’m not painting to sell, just create.
Flute makers are in the business of making the best flutes they can, and then they sell them. They warranty them and will fix them if the flute is flawed or something comes undone, and they’ll charge if the damage is not their fault. All original care and artistry aside, ultimately, they let it out the door, hopefully to make fantastic music. If it’s modified and still makes fantastic music, I’m sure they won’t obsess about it. If it’s ruined or lessened in some way because of the work they weren’t responsible for, the owner brought it on themselves, and, again, I’m sure they won’t obsess about it.
As an owner, my first thought/response to altering an instrument would be to seek or contact its original maker - that’s the most obvious and practical way to go. But beyond the common-sense move of asking the original flute maker to make these alteration, things happen in life. And other priorities - like wait lists and cost - factor in as well. Makers live in the real world, too, and few have apprentices and staff. I’m sure they don’t all have time to comply with every request, every time. So some people/players go elsewhere. I think most makers will understand that.
I am quite sure that if I had gone ahead and had keys put on my Olwell pratten by another maker, after Patrick told me
he preferred I didn’t do that (remember I called him and asked), he would never have sold me another flute.
He did think it was his business and personally I think he was right. I also think that it was respectful and
courteous for me to ask him.
I could say something more about why I think these instruments merit the attitudes I favor, but I’d bore and
bewilder everybody. We’ve had this discussion before and it seems people just see things differently.
