Thought I would see how people feel about the difference between the medium (Nicholson) and large (Pratten) hole size models of Olwell flutes.
About 5 or 6 months ago, I played an Olwell Nicholson that had magnificent tone quality and outstanding volume. Has anyone played both models? If so, please feel free to elaborate on the tone difference between each one.
I’ve spent so much time listening to Mike McGoldrick (since 96) that I tend to value the straight-edged, laser focused tone he gets out of his Rudall style flutes. Not terribly, terribly loud, but unbelievably focused and clear. Is a Nicholson style Olwell going to lend itself more to that type of tone (provided the player does his/her part), being that it has smaller-ish holes, or would a Pratten model offer more versatility?
One more thing: Does Olwell let you change what model you want once you’re on his waiting list, or is it set in stone that you get what you originally asked for?
I have an Olwell Pratten and I’ve owned an Olwell Nicholson.
However the pratten is blackwood with a lined head and
the Nicholson was boxwood and unlined, so I can’t
be as helpful as I would like to be.
If you want the straight edged, focused sound, I don’t think
you are likely to get it out of the Olwell Pratten or Nicholson.
A good Rudall is in order. I’ve never played an Olwell
Rudall, however some of us have and may chime in.
The chief comment I’ve heard is that the Olwell Rudall
is more Olwell than Rudall; this led me to go for
other Rudalls, especially the Bryan Byrne and the
Grinter. FWIW, people who perform on Rudalls don’t
seem to be using Olwells.
The Olwell Pratten has a big, lovely reedy open sound
with a big honking low D. It’s just an amazing flute.
John Skelton, on the Wooden Flute Obsession 2, I think,
puts one through its paces to extraordinary effect.
It is not a Rudall at all, and, though maybe somebody
great can make it sound like one a) I’m not great and
b) that isn’t what it does best.
Mike Rafferty is another–though I think he’s
playing a frankenflute of sorts, it sure sounds
like an Olwell Pratten.
The Nicholson is less loud, possibly more focused,
and, it’s said, a more responsive flute. A lot of people
favor them because they like the responsiveness
and they feel the volume is there if they need it.
Their perception is very much like yours.
I prefer the Pratten–it’s got great volume and
an amazing sound. Go for the gusto!
I did want to know what Prattens were about
and this seems to be it. It’s one of the best
flutes made and it’s very useful. Volume
helps (a lot easier to play a loud flute soft
than vice versa), it blends in well with
other instruments, it suits lots of different
types of music.
But I don’t think either of them is much like
a Rudall–neither has, in the hands of folks like me,
the focused and refined sound of a Grinter. I suppose the
Nicholson may be more like that than is the Pratten.
For me the Rudalls are harder to play well and less
versatile (I play blues and blue grass and heaven knows
what, as well as ITM). But they fascinate me.
Sillydill once said to me that the difference tween
Prattens and Rudalls is like the difference between
coffee and tea.
Yes, Olwell will let you adjust your order, within reasonable
limits. He doesn’t start making your flute
for a good while. But the best thing is to talk with him.
The Olwell Nicholson is much more similar to his Rudall flute than to his Pratten flute. I own both, and play them much of the time with little adjustment necessary. I’ve never been able to do this with a large-holed Olwell, although Pratten flutes have always been a mystery to me.
As with Jim, my two are different woods, and the Nicholson is all-wood. I find the Nicholson quite versatile sound-wise; I’d say it’s probably the most dynamic flute I’ve played – allows the player an amazing range of volumes and tones.
I suppose you asked because you want VARIOUS opinions, so here’s mine.
My O/P is cocus, and my O/N is boxwood. Both have lined heads, so, timber difference aside. . .
The difference between the two is sort of like driving a sports sedan versus an actual sports car. Like, the Pratten is an M5 and the Nicholson is a Porsche. Both are responsive, both nimble, but the Nicholson seems to do stuff for you (if you know how to drive it). The Pratten is perhaps slightly less nimble, but it’s a little louder.
I disagree with Jim (respectfully, of course) about their respective abilities to sound focused and refined. I think either can, but it depends more on you.
I know Pat would probably let you change your order up until he starts the flute. Talk to him, too; he can give you the maker’s perspective on his models. Which is enlightening.
I have played a very small-holed model Olwell and I have to say it felt very Olwell. Less different from these two than you might think.
I have two cocus Olwells identical except that one is a Nicholson and one is a Pratten design. There’s really very little difference between the two. I will avoid the flip comparisons about coffee or tea, or about sports cars. The analogies aren’t really apt.
Most people who have the Pratten over-blow terribly and get shrill and awful-sounding up in the 2nd. octave. People who over-blow a loud flute are lethal. Olwell should audition the people who order a Pratten flute. You don’t need to be the loudest flute in the session. You just need to hear yourself so you stay in tune.
I really can’t decide which one I like better- so I guess I like them both the same. I’ll play one for a few weeks and then rediscover the other. It’s been going on like that for some time. I am of the school that says it’s ok to have different flutes and to learn over the years how best to play them. But you certainly don’t need huge volume unless you’ve been playing for years, and the Nicholson is really sweet. And it projects very well.
A couple of weeks ago I played in Ballyvaughan, Co. Clare. I’d been asked to play for an art college function, without a PA- just me and a bodhran player (good one) and a guitar player (loud- a slammer), so I wanted to take a flute that would be really loud. I finished the gig ok. The flute sounded great in the large hall.
Later I went to play in a session at a local pub (it was the Welsh singers’ weekend, a secret local festival) and there were three other flutes, a whistle, a concertina or two and a fiddle. I was stopped on the way out by a good flute-player who was sitting at the bar flirting with a girl, and he complimented me on the sound and projection of the flute, which he said carried above the other instruments, effortlessly, or so it seemed. He was interested in what flute I’d been playing and when I told him an Olwell Pratten he shook his head as if to say “That explains it.”
When I got home I realized I’d taken the wrong flute- I’d meant to take the Pratten but by mistake I had taken the Nicholson. I thought that was a genuine endorsement of the Nicholson. All along I thought I’d been playing the Pratten.
I have never wished for more volume from my Nicholson or for a more refined tone from the Pratten. It’s hard for me to say more about the flutes, either about their tone or the music they make. As has been said before: Talking about music is like dancing about architecture.
‘Sillydill once said to me that the difference tween
Prattens and Rudalls is like the difference between
coffee and tea.’
Just to be clear, Jordan’s
analogy isn’t between Olwell Prattens and Olwell Nicholsons
but between Prattens and Rudalls (e.g. Aebi, Grinter,
Byrne Rudalls).
I think Sturob’s comments fit what a number of good
players and teachers have told me–when it comes to
Olwells, the Nicholson is a somewhat more nimble
and the Pratten is somewhat louder.
I’ve never played a lined Olwell Nicholson, but I believe
cocus is right about its good volume. Nobody who knows
these flutes has
ever said they are deficient volume-wise.
A lined boxwood Nicholson must sound very nice indeed!
Just want to add that the advice to be careful not
to overblow the Olwell Pratten, especially in
the second octave, is very well taken.
In general it’s tempting to ‘soar’ in the second
octave, whatever sort of flute one is playing.
Very helpful to play quietly.
If you like McGoldrick’s sound so much, why not just go for a Grinter? You’ll get a keyless model in around 9 months and a keyed in maybe 2 years, compared to Olwell’s 7+.
I had an Olwell Nicholson but sold it last year and have a Grinter on the way now. I find them infinitely easier to play and have a more focused, less breathy sound, which is what I prefer as well.
That being said, it’s certainly possible to get such a sound out of an Olwell and point to June McCormack as an example.
Just to say briefly that, as I’m on the point of placing an order and was veering towards the Nicholson anyway, this is a fascinating and very useful discussion (considering it’s dancing about architecture ). Now, any opinions on these half-lined ‘french’ heads? Thanks all.
Thank you all very, very much for your thoughts on the Nicholson vs. Pratten debate I’ve been having. After having read what sturob, jim stone, cocusflute, chas and other knowledgable folks have had to say, I’m probably going to stick with the unlined Nicholson at this point.
Dpmcabe, I actually played a keyless Grinter blackwood for a couple of years and it was a marvelous flute indeed. But last fall I played an Olwell Nicholson model and it just blew me away. In the brief time I played it that evening, I felt I had wonderfully focused tone along with good projection. I haven’t been able to stop thinking about Olwell’s Nicholson since then!
Yeah, having played and owned various Olwells, I agree. If you want to split hairs, the Nicholson is probably the better “balanced” flute, just in regards to overall performance/playability, with the Pratten having just a hair more “guts”. But really, the differences are small.
My current (and only) flute is an Olwell Pratten. If you took it away and replaced it with an Olwell Nicholson model, I’d be just as happy.
As far as tone goes, if you can get it on one flute, you’ll be able to get it another, equally good flute, which the Olwell certainly qualifies as.
I find it to be the best of both worlds. I tend to play a little flat, so having a slide is nice if I’m playing along with anyone. I feel like an unlined head has a woodier sound, so I prefer an unlined head. Plus I tend to make a lot of condensation, so with a lined head I seem to spend all my time shaking all the water out of it.
The lined Olwells do project (and
cut through) better.
That’s my experience, anyway, and it’s what Pat O says.
He says he plays the unlined ones in the
studio and the lined ones in sessions.
Very much depends on what you want to do with the
flute.
By the way, Pat O is streamlining his production so that keyed flutes
will be available with less of a wait–though
how much less remains to be seen. I expect
it will still be a matter of years.
You really should lick that habit, since compensating via use of the tuning slide throws the whole flute out of tune with itself, by varying degrees across the scale, causing you to have to lip, roll, or otherwise compensate more as you play. This may not be clear a person as he tunes up/down to a note or three, in preparation to play with others or to a reference, however it really does make you have to do more work in the long run, keeping the whole scale in tune with itself as you play, and it lessens the liklihood that you’ll ever get your pitch up.
Better to find out where a given flute was meant to have the tuning slide set, mark that spot in some fashion, or make a simple measuring device (make an additional couple of marks on your swab stick which you can then hold up to the bands at the tuning slide) and then learn to play the instrument up to pitch where it was made to play best in-tune with itself.
I don’t expect you to take that advice Chas (old dogs and new tricks etc) however for other players out there not yet so set in their ways, that’s my perspective, as a maker.
Better to find out where a given flute was meant to have the tuning slide set
That “meant” is curious. Wasn’t that “ideal” position determined by a human being blowing into the flute and looking at a tuning gauge of some sort, or watching a stroboscope while playing?
Or is there a mathematical formula involved that eliminates the human factor in determining the “proper” position of the slide? That would be the Platonic ideal “A=440,” regardless of the flute-maker’s embouchure.
Don’t flute-makers blow sharp or flat, as do the rest of us? Don’t we have slides to address that issue?
No, we (players of non-modern wooden flutes) don’t have slides to address that issue, we have slides to address the issue of occasionally being forced to play “in-tune” with fixed pitched instruments.
Altering the length of a flute by use of the tuning slide changes the relationship of all the notes of the scale by various percentages, rather than an equal percentage, so compensating for significantly sharp or flat playing, by adjusting the tuning slide throws the instrument out of tune with itself.
You’re just being argumentative, and you know full well that when someone knows they play sharp or flat consistently, the answer is to correct the problem with one’s playing technique, rather than to start yanking the tuning slide way in or out. But then you just like to disagree with me.
Absolutely, but are you suggesting that tuning slides are obsolete and unnecessary?
Given their original purpose, to change the pitch of the flute from, say, A=427 to A=437, they’re obsolete, but don’t they still have a use in the modern context of standard pitch A=440?
Occasionally, one does need to make some small adjustments, and I find it’s easier to do so with a slide than without. I usually make a small adjustment or two over the course of a session as my flute warms up. (I’m talking maybe up to 1/8" or so total movement.)
If there’s no slide, what about the gap that’s created when adjusting a head and tenon arrangement? (Maybe the announcement on the London Tube is directed at flute players: “Mind the gap.”)
). Now, any opinions on these half-lined ‘french’ heads? Thanks all.