Nicholson? Pratten? Rudall & Rose?

Irish Flute
1

I’m bringing this one up because to be honest I’m still a flute newbie.

What are the differences between Nicholson, Pratten and R&R style flutes? I’ve owned (own) Copley, Cotter and Bleazy and have played Burns and Grinter… where do they fit in?

I’m also interested in differences in hole size and reach…the Cotter seems to have a fairly wide reach, the Bleazy is great for small hands, and the Copley fits somewhere in the middle…do others find this to be true? And though the Bleazy is easiest to cover, it seems that the smaller holes don’t lend themselves as well to slides/half holing…

Dave

2

I’ll leave this question for the “experts” to answer…



Loren

3

I’m out of town… :slight_smile:

4

I can say a little about this, but others are better positioned to
answer some of these questions. Also a search might be helpful.
These are broad tendencies, not necessarily the case
with every instance of a species of flute.

Pratten style flutes tend to have a big bore, bigger tone holes,
a full, round sound and a bottom that honks nicely.

Rudalls tend to have smaller holes (note ‘tend’), a more slender
bore, a sweet second octave and a more focused sound.
In guitar-speak, they are a bit like the archtop jazz guitar
that ‘cuts through,’ the Pratten is a bit more like the Dreadnought.

While the bottom of the Pratten honks easily, on some Rudalls
one has to learn to address the bottom D so that it comes
up to tune and up to volume.

Pat O makes a Nicholson style flute, which seems to be
intermediate between the two. A number of players favor
these because they say it’s more responsive than the
Pratten but still has a good deal of volume if you need it.

I checked Dave Copley’s site, as you have one of his flutes.
Dave writes (I closely paraphrase) that the Pratten design has
long been a favorite for ITM because it can be played
to produce a loud and powerful tone, and is solid in the
low register with a strong low D.

The Rudall, Dave writes, though not capable of the same maximum
volume, has great flexibility of tone and expression.
Dave then explains how his flute is designed to get
the advantages of both designs.

http://www.celticlands.com/page8.html

Hope this helps.

5

Dave, I second Jim’s suggestion to browse the archives. There was quite an extensive discussion (one of many) in the last month or two. There are many points of view. I agree with Jim on the design issues.

Your Bleazey sounds like his Rudall design. It’s based on a very small-holed Rudall flute. The Copley, as Jim has said, is Dave’s own design, incorporating elements of both. I find his flute plays a lot more like a Pratten than like a small-holed Rudall. Olwell makes a Rudall with somewhat larger holes than the Bleazey, and his medium-holed design is remarkably similar, with the largest holes being just a few mm larger than his Rudall, and the stretch also being within a few mm. I’ve never played a Cotter, so can’t offer anything constructive there.

Playing-wise, my experience is quite different from Jim’s – I find it very difficult to get a good bottom from Prattens, they flip into the upper octave way too easily for me. If you can get a good rich bottom from the Copley, I doubt you’d have any trouble with a Pratten.

Again, you might want to browse the archives, you’ll find a lot of opinions there, and will probably less certain of anything than you are now.

6

I seem to have had a
momentary lapse of reason

I’ve finished my coffee now
much better,

Thanks,
:blush:

7

'It seems that the smaller holes don’t lend themselves as well to slides/half holing… ’

My impression is that your remark that smaller holes
don’t lend themselves so well to slides/half holing
is widely echoed. Perhaps others can say–the chief thing
I notice about smaller holes is that I seem to be a bit
more agile.

8

I do not think Phil Bleazey makes a Pratten design anymore, I know he did in the past but I don’t think he does currently. Copleys are hybrids and he does a damn good job making them that way. I am trying to resist getting a D to go along with my Eb. Grinters are larger holed Rudalls, the Grinter I once tryed reminded me a a lot of my Copley. Burns makes a couple different models, a Rudall, his standard, and his large holed standard. He used to make a Pratten, but not anymore.

9

Loretto Reid plays small-holed flutes and does some of the best sliding/note bending around. As far as half-holing, it’s not as necessary on small-holed flutes, which tend to cross-finger well. That said, I do have a dickens of a time getting a good Fnat on my Olwell Rudall.

10

I’m no expert, certainly, but I have played most of your flutes. :laughing:

Flutes who’s makers call them “Prattens” do, indeed, have largish holes, bores, and reaches. They tend to be strong in volume and require a bit more air. Your Cotter (I’ve played it) would be similar to what everybody is calling a “Pratten”. I think they tend toward a bit more edge and bark to the tone as well.

Rudalls are much harder to characterize as a group as they vary wildly (Rudall was apparently at it for a long time a tried lots of things).

Your Beazey (played this one too) is very like a very small-holed Rudall copy (I’d say the extreme end of small-holed Rudalls). Grinter also calls his flutes “Rudall Copies” but that’s a very different bird from your Bleazey as you know. In general I’d say that “Rudalls” have a warmer, woodier tone, a sweeter second octave and are less work to play. Many of the larger holed “Rudalls” compete credibly with many makers’ “Prattens” for volume.

I’d agree that the Copley is a bit more Prattenesque than Rudallesque (Yes those are words! I just made them up and they’re pefectly good!)

All that said, I really think the player brings as much or more to the equation as the flute (if each is any good).

For my money, give me a great embouchure on a more nimble flute any day.

I prefer Rudalls to Prattens because I’m lazy. But, if I didn’t have great Prattens around all the time I’d probably buy one so I could have one around all the time. :wink:

Actually, I prefer a Grey Larsen Preferred to about anything but that’s another can of worms (Firth and Hall, or Firth and Pond, or Firth and Hall and Pond or something).

Doc

11

Heh heh, very interesting marketing technique. Equating my carefully and lovingly made flutes with a can of worms. Fortunately, an Irishman has little need for dignity. Hurrumph! (Heh heh)

An important thing to remember is that there isn’t much real difference between a Nicholson and a Rudall & Rose. Very early English makers like Monzani, Astor, and Potter made variations on “the German flute” (as it was called at the time). Then Charles Nicholson senior opened up the middle finger holes of each hand, and packed his son (also Charles) off to London with one. Young Nicholson (the great player) then had them marketed by Clementi (and made by Prowse) as the C. Nicholson’s Improved. The improvement (enlargement of holes) really caught on and soon everyone was offering “Improved flutes” or referring to “The Nicholson flute” as opposed to the “German flute”. When Rudall & Rose got going about 5 years later, this was the style of flute they naturally started to make. So it’s fair to call Rudall & Rose flutes Improved era or Nicholsonian flutes.

Boehm came along in 1832 with his conical, and then returned in 1847 with his cylindrical flute, and as Rudall & Rose picked up the franchise to make these, their interest in the old flute waned, especially as the two original owners retired and Carte picked up the running. So no further development by R & R, other than to make some cylindrical 8-keys.

But other makers and players were still hot on the conical flute. Siccama had come out with his flute in 1845 with a bigger bore and better hole placement. Pratten played that for a while, then had Siccama’s workman Hudson revert it to an 8-key and shorten its scale, making it a louder, more accurate 8-key than the older Nicholson style. So, unlike Rudall’s, this was a radical departure.

So to summarise:

from around the 1750’s, the English “German flute”, very long scale (by current standards), small holes, a range of bore sizes

from 1816, Nicholson’s Improved flute, still long scale, large holes, medium bore. Made by Prowse, sold by Clementi, then subsequently picked up by other makers including Rudall & Rose

from 1852, Pratten’s Perfected flute, short scale, large holes, large bore.

And since Doc has introduced the topic of the can-o’-worms (Grey Larsen Prefered, originally Firth and friends) flute, my guess is that it developed from the French flute, even though it has English-looking construction. Those cheeky colonials, daring to mix and match traditions. And resulting in what the gardeners call “hybrid vigour”, to continue the agricultural metaphor.

Terry

12

Grey had a couple of the flutes at camp last week…very nice indeed. I was very tempted to take one home with me…but somehow I managed to resist… :smiley:

13

:really: :really: :really: