Well, since everyone on the board seems to be in the mood to rumble, let me just get this off my chest:
Despite what I’ve read here time and time again from various contributors, the Olwell Nicholson is not possessed of the same capabilities as the Pratten. It’s been asserted repeatedly that the Nicholson is just as “loud” as the Pratten. This may be true in some hands, but the fact of the matter is that, for the player with an efficient embouchure and a strong blow, the Pratten has more on top; in reading some of the assertions to the contrary, I’m reminded of the old adage that, if you only ever get to the first floor, all bordellos are the same.
I own one of each, and have tried many more. If anything, the distinction has grown since Patrick redesigned the Nicholson model. My old one is a hybrid N/P with a really wide-bore foot, much more like a Pratten than the current medium-hole offering from Nellysford. Wide foot notwitstanding, it’s still not the equal of the Pratten at the top end of the volume/pressure range, (tested, of course, with the same headjoint). The Nicholson does have the edge in sweetness in the upper octave(s), but the Pratten will submit to being pushed just that little, but significant, bit further.
To sum up: they’re not the same, folks! If you’ve got your blow together, you can take the Pratten much further than you can the Nicholson. And that’s the final word (said in Colbert voice). Cheers,
Well, many of us agree, but it’s a matter of degree really in what is being agreed, or disagreed upon:
Is there a difference between flutes, any two flutes? Sure. How much of a difference is the question. In the mind of the beginner the differences are large, to the ear of the more experienced player, the differences are subtle, and so not particularly worthy of concern with regards to beginning players, since as you say, if you don’t have the legs to make it up the stairs, you can’t take advantage of the differences. Hence the suggestion that folks work on their “legs” so they can get up the stairs on any flute, as opposed to wasting time pontificating on what is, or is not, up the stairs one can’t yet climb…
If you’re saying that in the hands of an expert player, perhaps even a virtuoso player, that one flute can perform better than another, my response is: So what else is new? If you’re saying that an expert player can get more from a flute than a beginner, again, so what?
I’ve played only a half dozen flutes in my life and they’ve all been very different to me. But I would expect that to be true for someone at my low level of playing. I would expect that a top player would be able to play any of those six flutes better, louder, and more musically than I.
I’m not certian I understand the relevancy of testing two flutes with a common headjoint. To my flawed thinking, one flute would be played as it was designed, the other would be in an altered state. Or if you have played both subject flutes with the headjoint from a third flute, then neither test flute would be played as designed. Could you elaborate on your test method to clarify this please?
This is my impression as well. The Pratten has a bigger, more open
and louder sound, though the Nicholson has good volume.
The Nicholson’s smaller holes and closer spacing are nice, and it has a more focused, sweeter sound.
David Levine advised me to get the Pratten because it would
give me more volume in sessions if I needed it.
Though he certainly thinks well of the Nicholson,
I’m actually wondering about ordering a Nicholson.
From the little I’ve played one, it seems to have
a very interesting and beautiful sound.
I own and considerably like the Pratten and I wonder, those
of you who have both, whether you think
the Nicholson is worth owning too. Or is
the base already covered by the Pratten,
so to speak? Practical question. I cannot
get my hands on a Nicholson long enough
to answer it myself.
As far as the headjoint goes, they’re effectively interchangeable in this case. My original Olwell, #473 for the record, was the wide-foot Nicholson. A few years later, I acquired the Pratten center section, which was made at about the same time as the Nicholson. In the interest of full disclosure, I only have the one footjoint as well; I’ve been through a pile of them at the shop, and Patrick and I both agreed that the original worked best on both center sections.
Back to the headjoint: different headjoints might feature significantly different embouchure hole cuts, and therefore different responses. Keeping the same one, however, is just a pretty little quasi-scientific conceit; I get the same result with different headjoints as well. Cheers,
I have both a Nicholson Olwell and a Pratten Olwell. I keep thinking that I should sell one. But I play the one I think of selling I realize that there’s no way I’d sell it. David Levine is right when he says that the Pratten might give that extra little bit. But I happily play my Nicholson in sessions with no problem. I agree with myself. You should have both. At least.
Here’s a little story I wrote a year or so ago.
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. If you care for a slightly more refined tone rather than for gross volume then the Nicholson is the way to go. Many 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 can be 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 and 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 good to have different flutes and to learn over the years how best to play each. You certainly don’t need a flute capable of huge volume unless you’ve been playing for years, and the Nicholson is really sweet and projects very well.
A while 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 (a good one) and a guitar player who is a famous player’s husband (very loud - a real slammer). I wanted to take a flute that would be loud. I finished the gig ok and the flute sounded great in the large hall.
Later I went to play in a session at a pub (it was the Welsh singers’ weekend, a small local festival). There were three other flutes, a whistle, a concertina or two and a fiddle. I enjoyed the session.
I was stopped on the way out by a man who was sitting at the bar talking with a girl and nursing a pint. He complimented me on the sound and projection of the flute, saying that it carried above the other instruments, with little effort on my part, 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, with the slightly smaller holes. All along I thought I’d been playing the Pratten. The tone and projection of the Nicholson more than compensated for the (perceived) reduction in volume.
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 than that 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.
It is dangerous to make flip assertions about the differences between a Rudall and a Pratten. Rudalls are no more all-of-the-same-design than are Prattens. I have a late Rudall (1866) that has larger holes than most Prattens. My Hammy Pratten has a narrower bore than many Rudalls.
The differences between a Nicholson Olwell and a Pratten Olwell are even smaller.
There are, you know, at least two views.
the nicholson is a pratten-lite, for those without
the moxie for a real pratten. The other is
that it is an individual voice worth having
for its own sake, even if one is right
at home with the olwell pratten.
Obviously people can at best give opinions,
and I value those, in truth.
But why? You’ve asked the same questions nearly a hundred times before Jim. Okay, many times before, but probably not quite a hundred, although at over 10,000 posts it might actually be a hundred…
Rudall, Prattens, Olwell, Murray, Blackwood, Boxwood, etc. etc. etc., it’s all just distraction from the music. As Chris Norman (who should know better than the vast majority of us) said to Chas, develop you own sound and stop getting hung up on the hardware.
Sheesh, we’re worse than a bunch of weekend golfers around here!
As the as the saying goes, “It’s not the Arrow, it’s the Indian”, Kemosabe.
I will set aside the ad hominem about the number of my posts.
To answer your question, I asked about the difference between
the Pratten and the Nicholson because I’m intrigued by the
Nicholson and want to know if it is a voice worth having
for its own sake or if it’s really a Pratten-lite. I can’t get
to play one myself enough to decide. That’s why I’m
asking the question.
This is the sort of thing that gets discussed on fluteboards,
it’s a legitimate topic of conversation.
Also I’m having various physical problems
that may, before long, make it harder for me
to play the bigger flutes. So moving to a smaller
Olwell is of interest to me.
As to your assertion ‘Rudall, Prattens, Olwell, Murray, Blackwood, Boxwood, etc. etc. etc., it’s all just distraction from the music,’
I disagree. For me this is no distraction from the
music. Learning about flutes, considering these questions,
makes me play more, keeps me more involved in
the music. Just as reading this forum doesn’t distract me
from the music–it energizes me to play more-- learning
about flutes energizes me to play more too, and keeps
me more involved in the music than I would otherwise be.
I am consumed by the music. More so if I also
pay attention to other things.
Also the difference between the voices of flutes is of great
beauty, as are questions about their construction. I would
like to learn more about how flutes are made. I don’t
see that as a distraction from the music, either.
The idea that after five years of constant practice a musician
should have no serious interest in practical knowledge about
different flutes is unreasonably austere,
IMO. Good musicians are typically going to become fascinated
by a constellation of closely related things, the music,
technique, different instruments, even instrument making.
These feed one another and support one another.
The idea that one should cut all of that away and just
concentrate on the music is unrealistically monolithic–
it’s not how people grow. Or for that matter, live
and find joy. It’s the Taliban approach to musicianship,
if I may say so.
There’s usually a kernel of truth in what you’re saying,
but I think you take it too far–which produces false
dichotomies. Either one stays with one good flute indefinitely
or one flits from flute to flute without practicing. If, after one
is up and running, one tries out Rudalls and Prattens to see
which voice suits one better, one is hung up on hardware.
If one tries different flutes one is neglecting to find one’s own voice.
To the contrary, that may, done intelligently, help one to
find one’s own voice. If one investigates the Nicholson
one is therefore a week-end golfer, or somebody who thinks it’s
the arrow, not the Indian, or somebody who is looking
to a ‘magic bullet’ flute that will accomplish what only
hard practice can do, and so on.
None of that’s so in my case. I’m just interested
in finding out more about the Nicholson.
Thanks for your opinion.
Anyhow if people wish to send me PMs about Nicholsons,
I would welcome them. I actually need to make
some decisions in the next couple of weeks.
That’s a very good reason to look into this, Jim. In the end that’s what made me give up the Hammy. The Olwell Pratten isn’t exactly the same hole layout as the Hammy, but it’s close, and the hole sizes are really close. The Hammy gave my hands fits, but the Olwell Nicholson (old style that Rob S was talking about) is quite comfortable.
A few thoughts from someone who has played many types of flutes and who has owned original Prattens, Rudalls, Wilkes, Grinters, Olwells Hammies and has played others as well.
Different flute makes make a difference. As good as Michael Schumacher is as a driver, he will still not win a Formula 1 race in a VWbug, even if it is souped up.
That said all the key makers today make better flutes today than they did 5 or 10 years ago. Why? Because they keep fiddling with the design. Grinter has created a larger hole design flute in the past 2-3 years and both Wilkes and Olwell are fiddling with the bore design on the foot joint. This latter development is a real insight and I think both Pat and Chris are on to something here. One can blast those new footjoint bores much more powerful. Embochure cuts are critical and a good flute can be made sound crappy simply because of the embochure cut.
We have to recognize that these are handmade instruments which means even in the hands of skilled craftsmen there is going to be variance. Less variance with the most skilled craftsmen, but some variance nevertheless. Not only is there variance in the actual manufacturing result, but there are factors such as wood, embochure cut, age of the flute, the player etc.
I own a keyed Olwell cocus Pratten and a keyed Blackwood Pratten and both are fantastic players. I also had a chance to play a cocus Nicholson while at Patricks and the flute was fabulous. I would argue that a Nicholson is easier to fill, for reasons of bore and holes. It can achieve a really nice volume. The Pratten is an interesting animal. It can be pushed to a volume clealry exceeding the Nicholson. To be honest I don’t think most players actually can do it. Even at 90% the Pratten can be very very loud so a player that can’t do the last 10% would think they are racing, but that final 10% of solid tone and power most players wouldn’t be able to reach (I’m thinking i’m currently at 96-97% on mine). I keep finding ways to improve and it is very satisfying when that point is reached.
HOWEVER, the point is you don’t need to push your pratten to the max, in fact for purposes of senstitivity you can/should hold off. The Pratten can be played very sensitively if one choses to do so. I find it to be a very versatile flute.
At the end of the day it comes down to the individual player and their preferences.
I’ve found that no two flutes, no two instruments play exactly alike, even if the two flutes are made by the same manufacturer and are the same exact model. Someone mentioned that these high-end wooden flutes are for the most part handmade; this may even increase the degree of difference between exactly the same flutes made at the same time by the same maker. I have no doubt that great makers like Olwell do all they can to achieve constistency. I also know of a local Boehm flute maker with a very strong reputation who admitted that somewhere around 4 out of 10 of his flutes of the same model were excellent; the other 6 good.
I wonder if any other folks have tried multiple Olwells of the same exact make/vintage and have found any degree of variance. I am very hesitant to be on a long waiting list and receive a flute without trying it out.
The good news is that it’s a fluid system. As Patrick makes the flute, he’s constantly checking its response/tuning and making little changes to compensate. What really makes this work is that Patrick is a dynamite flute-player himself. He’s capable of producing a great sound on any flute, an attribute more usually applied to the likes of Molloy. By the time you get it, he’s optimised the sound and tuning; you can rest assured that the process of acquiring a flute from the Olwells won’t be anything like buying an assembly-line product and hoping for a good one. Cheers,
I will be the first to agree that I’m not a great player. I do however play a lot of flutes. I’ve played many Olwells of both flavors.
I think Blackwood described the differences very well and would agree with his comments.
Personally I prefer the Nicholson but I always prefer Rudalls to Prattens (I understand the Nicholson isn’t a Rudall…errr…it’s actually not a Nicholson either but I digress) and my Personal flute is a McGee Grey Larsen preferred so my leanings are clear.
Interestingly, I also prefer the Nicholson to the Olwell Rudall…weird.
I find the assessment of Blackwood to be spot on as I said.
I would also say, for the record, that I personally find the Olwell Pratten to be easier for me to manage than a Hammy. My Favorite Pratten might be a McGee with rounded rectangle but that’s another thread…
Were I personally to “go Pratten” it would be one of those two. I tend to prefer unlined heads and a more “modern” type embouchure so the McGee with his “rounded rectangle” may have a bit of an edge in my race for those reasons. But the decision for me would be a very difficult one as I think both are fabulous.
Were I to get an Olwell today I’d certainly get the Nicholson…just like them better than the Prattens for the reasons mentioned above…more nuanced and interesting to me, plenty loud for my purposes and easier to manage.. What could be bad?
