new flutes... old flutes....

Irish Flute
1

in following the thread about “alterations to another maker’s flutes,” i saw several times posts the sang the praises of retaining the characteristics of the 19th century flutes… flat feet and all. players talking about the importance of learning how to “lip in” a note… or coming to like a flat D… or learning to roll the flute out for one note, in for another, blow soft for this one, hard for that one… and the question came to me… is it so wrong to want a flute that does not require all the gymnastics? is it wrong to want a flute that really is easy to play… historicity be damned. if we have the technology to make good sounding flutes that are in tune and can be played in tune, shouldn’t we do so? or am i the only one thinking that way?

it’s almost like there is an arrogance on the part of some players… like it has to be done the way it was done 100 or more years ago… “it” being playing flutes requiring the gymnastics… is it possible to play flutes that are easy to play and still be playing traditional music… or is it only traditional if it takes five years to master the quirks of the flute you happen to own, or become so proficient at the gymnastics that you can do it on any flute?

if a flute can be made better… why not? and what’s so bad about wanting one that is easy to play?

be well,

jim

2

Good questions. Nothing wrong with wanting flutes that are easy to play.
Sometimes…sometimes…easy to play flutes are less interesting to the flautist,
some easy blowing embouchures have less in them, like easy blowing
student silver flutes. Sometimes not. Some flutes that take a lot of work
to learn to play are very rewarding and satisfying. Some easy playing
flutes are very satisfying too. So it’s all a bit mixed up.

This business started in the 19th century when old orchestral conical wooden flutes
went into pawn shops because musicians needed the new cylindrical Boehm
flute to play in an orchestra (I think this was by the 1870s, about). Irish musicians
bought em, able to afford them for the first time. So these old flutes were
the first flutes ITM was played on.

Some of us are fascinated by the old flutes.
Many modern copies of the old flutes have been altered to work
out the quirks, the strange tunings, and so on. Others are more
faithful to the originals. Some of us like the quirks, find them more
interesting, the strangeness more beautiful and expressive.
Mastering some of these can make you a better musician.

Old Rudalls are said to have a very special character but they also
had tuning anomalies. Most contemporary copies have ironed out
the anomalies. There is sometimes the feeling that some of the
beauty of the flutes went with it. The Byrne rudall is hard to play
because the low D is initially flat and the low end weak,
but one can learn to play the low end very well and then the flute
sings, the second octave is very sweet.

It isn’t that we’re arrogant, we’ve just fallen in love with conical flutes.

3

it depends on how many octaves that you want to have access to. to keep 3 octaves going there are some compromises that are required that are not for just 2 octaves, since itm is mostly focused on the lower 2 octaves, modern makers can concentrate on those so their flutes are custom made for itm. in that sense you cannot beat them.

4

In 30 years of flute making I have observed this tension between old flutes versus faithful modern copies versus new directions. The flute world is hardly the only one. Same with other traditional instruments, the classical instruments, etc. and this is one of the things that drives the professional evolution of our designs.

Compare our flute world with violins, for instance. The ultimate desire for some is to own and play a genuine Cremonese instrument. Then again, how many can afford a Strad worth $750,000? So then there are all the copies ranging in various qualities and ages, some which are very nice. And quite expensive. But then there are several modern makers who are making trouble free and history free instruments - as well as trying out some newer ideas. And catering to modern needs and tastes and style.

For a while the old flutes were the only ones available and so that is what all the players went after, as there were no other instruments - and plenty of old ones. A bunch of us had to bootstrap and learn how to make these in the late 70s and early 80s and eventually we were able to make faithful copies of the old ones. But the labor involved to copy an 8 keyed instrument with all the keys was extreme, and some of us, myself included, couldn’t sell our flutes for what one could pay for an old Rudall or Pratten, and expect a decent wage. Fortunately, these old flutes became scarce compared with the demand. And when these old ones became collectible in an antique market, appearing and selling for higher prices in auctions such as Southbys, our attempts became more reasonably priced in comparison.

Rendering these old 8 keys into a keyless version was a fairly modern step. How many keyless original Prattens and Rudalls are out there? Many of us discerned that the keywork was not entirely necessary for many since the music is mostly played in D or G. So we were able to develop good copies but without these extra bells and whistles, including tuning slides. This should be recognized as an evolutionary step forward, not a reductionist approach to the past.

There are plenty of acoustical problems with the old instruments, originated from design, being designed for a different pitch standard originally, having been poorly tweaked at some point in the past, or just having suffered the ravages of time. It may be that the best examples were played hard and didn’t survive and the ones that did were the ones that played not so well or had other problems - and then got stuck in attics, in their more pristine conditions. I know of an old 18th century set of bagpipes made by Kennedy that was played every night. I once tried making copies of a pristine Egan from the same period and the chanter was impossible to reed. Not so with the Kennedy, which renders copies that are very forgiving to reed and play well. Thus there may be a rough relation between how beat up an instrument is with how well it plays, as an indication of how much and how easy it was to play. I have seen this phenomenon in some old flutes. Thus that perfect looking original Rudall with the flat bottom D may be perfect in looks simply because its original owner, frustrated by the flat bottom D, put the thing away and followed some other direction!

The old flutes are also not without some basic problems - especially in how they fit to smaller handed players. I’ve done much in my flute making to correct this by developing and offering instruments with holes much closer together than the originals.

The modern made flutes are not without their own idiosyncrasies - but the modern maker can usually adjust these to the players needs. Thus I always recommend getting a modern made flute over the old ones. The flutes are designed for our modern needs in mind and most of us are still around should problems arise.

Plus, catering to the modern makers will help us stay in business in these challenging economic times. These times are going to get worse unfortunately! Thus more the reason to keep buying from the living makers!

Casey

5

I just want to make clear that nowhere in the ‘alterations’ thread I put forward that ‘faults’ should be accepted for history’s sake.

There are certain perceived ‘faults’ that are a result of a flute maker’s choices, in other words some characteristics are there to achieve particular results. In designing woodwind instruments there are compromises to be made and designing a flute that may be easy for the beginner may well result in an instrument lacking certain elements sought after by an advanced player.

It would be silly to think old flutes are faulty because the craftsmen of their day lacked knowledge and skill. It would be quite the contrary, they may have made choices we today not fully understand. Which ofcourse doesn’t mean I am saying all old flutes are by definition great but I do think the top makers of 19th century flute making may have had skills and knowledge that are not always fully understood today.

6

I’m of the opinion that many of the “problems” in older flutes were, as Microsoft might put it, “features, not bugs.” The so-called “flat bottom D” of many Rudall flutes, for example, is designed specifically to allow the player to produce a massive, open and free bottom D when played correctly – it’s a sound that can’t be duplicated by other “better in tune” designs. Sure other flutes have a big bottom D, but there’s something unique about the open quality of the bottom D in a Rudall that leaves little doubt it was designed that way intentionally.

Compensating for the other tuning issues in older or older-style flutes, such as a sharp A, flat C sharp, etc. provides some variation in the character of those notes that would be lacking in a flute that allowed you to blow at just one angle all the way up and down the scale. Besides, the lipping up and lipping down on most flutes is pretty subtle and quickly becomes habit.

To me, it’s never been about preserving old features for the sake of authenticity or tradition, it’s about keeping features that provide complexity and character to every note on a flute. When you’re used to hearing that complexity, you start missing it when it’s not there.

7

. I know of an old 18th century set of bagpipes made by Kennedy that was played every night. I once tried making copies of a pristine Egan from the same period and the chanter was impossible to reed. Not so with the Kennedy, which renders copies that are very forgiving to reed and play well.

Interesting enough the Egans were highly sought after when their maker was alive as well as long after. Their reputation during the late 19th and 20th century was very high but with their need for reeds different from that made by makers of the day many were ‘adjusted’ and by today’s standards ruined.

There’s a bit of discussion going over on the piping forum re the need to reed Egan chanters with reverse taper or cylindrical staples. Which will account for the ‘impossibility to reed’ when you’re attempting a Rowsome style reed with a standard conical taper.

When reeded properly an un-interfered with Egan chanter will give you the volume and flexibility of expression that it had by reputation in Egan’s time.

8

I think you have a basic misunderstanding of the discussion here; most modern flutes, by modern masters, have had true quirks worked out, or at least reconfigured their models for modern trad playing, while leaving alone the essentials that make a flutes sound really great when played well. The best of the antiques (certainly not all) have little or nothing to fix - as Brad said, these makers knew what they were doing for the music being played. Ironing out any perceived “difficulties” usually result in flutes that cannot sound as good, and don’t. Think of it like any professional tool - the more refined the work you need to use it for, the more delicate the balance will be between using it correctly or having trouble controlling it.

What flute you choose to play, by whatever maker, is really up to you, and you shouldn’t feel badly for using it. But don’t call it arrogance if (mostly better) players choose an instrument that takes a bit more “gymnastics” to play right, when the end result is better sounding music.

9

I also think sometimes the “great chain of being” fallacy gets applied to flutes. In evolutionary biology, the “great chain of being” refers to a misconception that evolution starts with little one-celled creatures and ends with us – it posits that humans are the epitome of evolution and that we are the most highly evolved forms of life on Earth. It’s not like that at all, though - the process of evolution looks like a tree, not a chain or pyramid, and we’re just sitting out on one of the many branches. One could in fact argue that cockroaches are more highly evolved than we are, because their design reached perfection millions of years ago – you can find fossil cockroaches that look the same as today’s cockroaches, which is not the case for humans.

With flutes, I think some people see today’s flutes as more highly evolved than the antiques. But I see them more as different branches of the same tree. If we could say that we’ve had 100 more years of experience in understanding and fine-tuning simple-system flute design, then maybe what we’re seeing today could be considered the next step in the evolution of flutes. But there was a long gap between the late 1800s/early 1900s and the 1970s in which nothing new was learned. I’m no flute historian, but I don’t think many people were making conical-bore simple system flutes during that time. And as far as I know, the only significant new technology available today in the making of flutes that wasn’t available back in the 1800s is the electronic tuner.

I don’t think today’s makers have fully unraveled all the secrets of why the old makers did things the way they did, and I’m not sure that’s a worthwhile pursuit anyway, since most current makers are trying to optimize their flutes for today’s players and today’s musical environment.

10

interesting responses, so far. (especially Brad Hurley’s and Casey’s… well thought out, well presented, very reasonable responses.)
Peter: nobody said you did
Gordon: ouch! almost verging on personal there.
rama: ?
jim stone: thank you. you make good points.

be well,

jim

11

what rama was saying…
The old flutes were made for orchestral players.

The orchestral music spent quite a bit of time in the 3rd octave and ITM seldom uses the third octave.

It is easier (for the maker) to optimize a flute (tuning & voicing) for two of the octaves than three.

Hence: old flute is better at second & third octave than first
and new flute is better at first & second octave than third

12

oh, ok. thanks, denny.

be well,

jim

13

Sorry Jim - didn’t mean it to sound personal. Folks like Peter and Brad seem to have more diplomatic ways of saying much of what I mean to say, and I usually (try) to let their responses stand without adding my own two cents. I do truly believe that every player, at any level, should play whatever flute works for them; I don’t think that there’s strict rule about easy or hard-to-play flutes being necessary in order for someone to sound good. A good flute is one that sounds good for that player.

Since this thread sort-of bounced off the alterations thread, I was perhaps still thinking - and addressing - what I see as a false (and even dangerous) assumption that one approach to sound and tuning is the correct one. The whole conical flute world would have faded from existence if modern concert Boehm flutes were simply pronounced better in tune and easier to play, and it was left at that. Clearly, this wasn’t the case.

14

Yes, well said Gordon, and I agree wholeheartedly. I am happy to have the many choices we have today, to find a voice and playability that meets my needs as well as others who have very different ideas about what they want in a flute.

The only way to know is to be able to play as many examples as you can find to try, or if you are very lucky, find one early on that is a good fit. Of course, along the way your tastes may change as you develop, but not always to extremes either. What you like and sits well with you from the beginning may be what you are most comfortable with after time-but everyone is unique, and travels their own path, hopefully if they are able to do so. In time you will figure it out for yourself, of course, with a little help from the Chiff crew when needed.

Barry

15

gordon: no harm, no foul. all is well.

i agree that having only one approach to anything is bad. not just flute design and tuning.

the bottom line is making the music sound good. no more. no less.

be well,

jim

16

after all… Joanie Madden plays a Miyazawa. Anybody wanna call her music bad? not me.

i’ve never played a Miyazawa, but i do own a couple Gemeinhardt’s that i use on occasion to play trad music. (i have a deep and abiding suspicion that i present no threat to Ms. Madden.) the gemeinhardt does not require a lot of gymnastics to play well throughout its range. does that make it less of a flute? or an improper flute for trad?

i don’t think it’s less a flute than any other. it may not be what people are used to hearing.

i also own a nice M & E keyless. (had a Seery before… sorry i let it get away.)

but, between the M & E and the Gemeinhardt, in all truth, the Gemeinhardt is a lot more predictable, consistent and in tune with a lot less work. however… they are different flutes designed for different musical tasks. one is not better than the other… they are different one from another.

be well,

jim

17

Mostly agree, Barry - although, a quibbling point, with all due respect; collectively, the Chiff crew, in it’s exuberance, often confuses issues more than it elucidates them. This confusion is no doubt helped along by input from a small, select group of highly educated and well intentioned flute makers who disagree entirely from one another on what attributes a good flute should have.

When I really want to stay focused on my playing, I do so on one, main flute, imperfect as it may be. Getting a consistently good sound from one flute, I believe, is very important - it translates to other flutes, of course; sometimes, in trying other flutes, they will sound wonderfully, enticingly better, because it’s really me that I’m working on and with, not the flute. Consistency in playing often involves being consistent with one instrument, flaws and all.

Best,
Gordon

18

well said.

be well,

jim

19

Ha ha, the bit that amuses me is that we have a number of enthusiasts for old-style out-of-tune flutes that can be relied upon always to trot out their old untested assertions, but never to respond to my many offers to test them! Now, come on, Brad, Peter, Gordon (and apologies to others I’ve missed!), scuttle back over to “Alterations to a flute by other than a maker” and respond to my kind offer!

And don’t fear it is a trap, I’m reasonably confident we now have a theoretical basis for this working, but I need someone who thinks they can do it to provide me the samples to test the theory. I’m looking for a win-win outcome!

Terry

20

Well, there hardly ever is total agreement on just about anything in this wide world, so why would you expect unanimity here, especially when we are discussing something so esoteric as how we relate to our music and instruments? Things as seemingly simple as how to blow, or maybe how to oil your flute are very easy examples of various approaches that are always debated.

Confusing issues by well meaning Chiff contributers and flutemakers? Maybe, but everyone has to answer their own questions in the end after taking what advice that seems to apply from what is offered. Most people can only give advice from their own experiences, or what works for them. I know, I’m probably misunderstanding you again, but that too is the way of the internet-nothing is absolute here, nor only what something may seem on the surface, and thus communication suffers. Is it ever easy?

I’m happy to hear that you have figured out what works best for you and your playing-so it’s the path you have chosen, and what you recommend. Knowing how things work best for you (by playing whatever flute or flutes you can) is really what I am trying to say too-but not everyone’s path is as clear cut or defined as your own, depending on the individual.

Yes, I agree, it makes good sense to play one flute and get the best you can from it over time, providing it works for you, and you enjoy playing it. Does everyone want the most efficient and quickest method of getting from point A to point B? Will your method be the solution for someone else? Only one person can really know the answer, and it often doesn’t happen overnight, even with all the free advice anyone can get here, or anywhere else.

Sorry to have confused anyone or their issues here, and no doubt if anyone reads all the words here without getting a headache, I’d be pretty surprised at that. It’s all clear to me though.

Buy and play what you want, and how you want-it’s your choice. And don’t forget to support your favorite exhuberant flute maker too. Now I’m the one with the headache-time to take some time off from the forum and just play my flute. See ya.

Barry