how does the player or the flute contribute to that “reedy” sound?
any particular way of playing that you should look for.
any particular flutes that are known for the reedy sound.
just wondering in how far which factor goes…I guess it is both?
hope this not a stupid question 
but was just curious.
berti
Hi Berti,
I think the best way to get a reedy sound is to have a focused embouchure, and aim the airstream more downward into the embouchure hole.
Pratten’s are supposed to have a more reedy sound.
(We will have to define what “reedy” is, this will take a few threads and then we can discuss, why we need a reedy sound, then we can discuss if a Pratten is reedier, I just missed some steps here…) 
Jon
I,ve heard the Reedy sound in both Pratten and R&R flutes, so I think mostly is due to flute player.
Serafin.
Some flutes definitely lend themselves to a reedy sound more than others. I don’t think it’s a Pratten-vs-Rudall thing, but has more to do with the embouchure. I have one flute with a taller chimney, and that one just doesn’t lend itself toward a reedy sound. It can be done, but it’s a lot of work for me. That said, I agree that it’s mostly the player, as I haven’t met a flute that can’t be played in a non-reedy manner.
As far as defining reedy, I’d say oboe-like, especially in the lower octave. It’s literal.
Hey Berti,
If you want to make yourself and the flute sound more reedy. Try rotating the head of your flute nearly 40 degrees from all the holes being strait up. Or, rotate the head till the top of the embouchure is even with the bottom of the first finger hole. These are not precise rotations and may need some adjustment.
Then use a focused stream of air, if you hear to much hiss or wind noise you know you need to tighten up your embouchure.
Hope this helps!
Jordan
Keep Makin Music!
i will go along with the embouchure being the focus. a tight embouchure (of the lips) and a well cut embouchure hole make a difference, the tighter the better w/ downward airstream, works for me. having said that, i also believe from discussions with others, that the term ‘reedy’ may actually mean different things to different people. ‘reedy’ to me means the flute is sounding as though there were a reed vibrating in it; and does not necessarily mean ‘loud’ or ‘honk’ or a big sound. i seem to find reediness in the low ‘g’, ‘d’, and c# notes in particuliar. there is a warmth and focus to the tone as opposed to a broad and open sound.
Grey Larsen’s suggestion to blow as if you want to make a long “e” vowel sound helps me. If you want less “reed,” think about a long “o” sound.
I only very recently found that reedy sound, and found that I get it best when I relax my embouchure more (especially for the low notes), and cover more of the embouchure hole with my lip. Also, I like the Larsen’s suggestion about the long “e” vowel sound. I almost find that I feel like I’m actually singing or humming into the flute. That gives me a real haunting sound that really has a life of its own.
Both.
The Olwell Pratten is the reediest flute I ever played.
I once said to Patrick O that the flute is reedy, however,
and he disagreed–the wrong adjective.
I didn’t have the presence of mind to ask
for the right one.
Rudalls can be played with an edged sound,
which is lovely in a Rudall way–Chris Norman
has it. But for reediness, Prattens are best,
in my experience, anyhow.
Rolling the headjoint in, perhaps not
so radically, but so that the embouchure
hole’s outside edge is at the center of
the finger holes, helps make for reediness.
For me, both are capable of reediness but the effect is different. So-called modern-day “Rudalls” have a narrower, more focused tone, and it takes me more skill to get a honk out of it, but it’s doable, although it’s not the broad beefy sort of bark that you get out of the “Pratten”. Rather than loud, your “R” is instead penetrating, and can be quite oboe-like in tone. Love 'em both, but I’ve pretty much gone Rudall now (or more properly nach Rudall, with a nod to our erstwhile Chiffer, AndrewK). I know I’ll be heard if I need to be. Sessions, I couldn’t care less. I just blend in better now.
i think that reedy sound depends of flute player mostly, because one of reediest sound was produced by barry kerr who play on sam murray flute, wich is ruddal type.
reedy sound of davy maguire( belfast) is produced on hammilton flute.
reedy sound of brendan o’hare (belfast) is produced on nicholson- prowse flute.
maria rafferty produced very reedy sound on old flute wich isn’t pratten .
but seems that in belfast area flute players likes pratten style flutes most.
so, player is main key imho.
marin
I’ve heard Patrick O play a Baroque flute with a reedy sound. I could barely get a sound out of the thing at all. I remarked on how a boxwood flute barked when he played it, and he said, that’s not barking, (after picking up one of his big-holed (Pratten) flutes in blackwood), this is barking, and proceeded to blow the windows out of the place.
This is just intended to say that Patrick seems to be able to get any sound out of any flute that he wants to. (Chris Norman can, too, for that matter, to allude to another part of you post.)
I would put the player to embouchure ratio at anywhere from 60:40 to 80:20 depending on the flute (this is purely conjecture).
Reedy has got to sound, as the adjective implies, like a reed. Think oboe or bassoon.
Cheers,
Aaron
(We will have to define what “reedy” is, this will take a few threads and then we can discuss, why we need a reedy sound, then we can discuss if a Pratten is reedier, I just missed some steps here…) >
Jon
I think it’s ultimately the player. BUT, I think embouchure cut and chimney depth make a contribution. I’m also starting to think wood density and thickness, as well as bore finish, may come into play as well.
All that said, I get a far reedier sound (at least what I view as “reedy”, which is pretty much what rama describes) out of my Murray flute.
(Which I view as a smaller-bore, almost “thinwall” flute, the “live-ness” of which gives it that humming reedy tone.)
If I play my other flutes (2 Prattens & a hybrid; varying bore sizes and embouchure shapes) the same way, I would describe the resulting sound as more “dark” or “edgy” than “reedy.”
???
There’s a lot of talk and research done on how the material of an instrument relates (or doesn’t relate) to sound.
I am sure that many people on this list have heard of the concrete flute. I am not so certain that material in itself makes a difference. But I definitely agree that the bore surface makes a huge difference, and it makes sense to me that bore surface is related to the material used. I also have some fist hand experience with this as an oboist.
I was lucky to be chosen as a performing student at a master class held by the retired Philadelphia and Curtis School oboist John DeLancie. During the course of the master class, we had a demonstration about how just changing the bell of the oboe affected sound. It was quite remarkable, but the most interesting thing that happened was at the end of the demo. The demonstrator played two oboes behind a screen. One sounded good, but the other one sounded great. Everyone in the room heard the difference and remarked on how much more vibrant the sound was on the second instrument.
Surprise, surprise! The two “different” oboes were the same instrument. The player had played the instrument perfectly dry inside (the first sample), and then had taken a turkey feather, dipped it in a glass of plain water (no Guinness available – these were oboes, so the most appropriate tonic would probably have been champagne), and swabbed it around the inside of the instrument.
I have not until this very moment thought about trying this on a wood flute, but now I am itching to leave work and see how it works.
Technical stuff about concrete flutes:
Here is a link to a senior thesis by a physics student that has some good information about material and sound.
http://www.phy.duke.edu/ugrad/thesis/hurtgen/CMHthesis.doc
Here’s a link to The John Coltman archives (Coltman is the guy who cast that concrete beast in the first place). I haven’t looked here much, but what I have seen looks kind of interesting. There are some full text articles on flute acoustics, in particular.
http://ccrma.stanford.edu/marl/Coltman/
As Cathy and some of the previous poster already have pointed out, I too believe that much of the sound characteristics is up to player skills.
And everything you hear has to be created by the interactions of the reed (your lips) and the embouchure, no new tones or harmonics are created along the bore. Density can’t be a factor as the minor differences of different wall material can be ignored compared to the density of the vibrating air column. (Both Paul Thomas and Nelson have made some very informative and interesting comments on this subject in previous posts. Edit: also, see post above).
The thickness, if not too thin, should not have any impact as the wall isn’t vibrating. But I think you are right about bore size and bore smoothness Cathy as it will affect damping (viscous drag) and propagation of harmonics, though I’m not sure how and to what extent yet. There are also more complicated factors such as moisture build up effects, condensation and adhesiveness, I don’t know much about these so I leave them for someone else (Edit: described by fluti31415) .
One thing that I have been thinking about is the bore volume above the embouchure as this air will serve as a backing material (air cushion) for the generated vibrations.
I don’t think that there ever will be a consensus on this subject for the same reason that we can’t find a flute that we all think is “reedy”.
I’m sure your Murray has a reedy sound when you play it, but I would describe the Murray I played as rich but more “hovering” than “reedy”
Our perception of “reedy” may differ but I think the differences in embouchure and tone intonation is a major factor.
/MarcusR
“Hovering” – now that’s a fascinating term; near-poetic! Marcus, would you mind a little more elucidation? (no, I’m not kidding, I’m intrigued)
I don’t know why I can’t let go of the density notion … maybe it’s all those thinwall Boehms I grew up lusting after? The ideer there was that the thinner wall wouldn’t dampen the vibrations created along the air column, so it would result in a brighter, more brilliant sound than one would achieve with a thicker-walled flute.
But again, I’m only operating on feel, here.
Also, anent dampness/condensation … I think I recall a great discussion of this in a thread before, but I sure believe there’s a difference in the sound and feel of a flute played in dry conditions vs. one on rainy/high humidity days, or after it’s been played a good while … until, of course, errant condensation gets under a key or in a fingerhole and bungs everything up – right at your solo turn, of course.
There are two ways in which I think wall thickness would affect the sound. First, of course, is chimney depth – I think we can probably all agree on that. The second is the depth of the tone holes. I think the volume of dead (i. e., damping) air in them, especially in a huge holed flute like a Hammy, could affect the sound. Also, it affects the intonation to an extent, as the amount of undercutting needed will go up with the wall thickness.
I know these aren’t the sorts of effects you were talking about, but the first is certainly important, and the second may at least be noticeable.
Regarding dampness, I’ve noticed a couple of effects. Boxwood really seems to gain something after it’s been played for half an hour or so. I don’t know if makers factor this into their designs (I suspect not, as they probably use the same reamers, etc., as they do for blackwood), but to me a boxwood flute always sounds a little better after it’s absorbed a little moisture and swelled. The other is that I usually have to swab out lined or Delrin heads after 15 minutes or so. There’s a kind of a muddy sound to my ears in a head that’s got a lot of condensation built up.