Richard Shepherd Rockstro published his enormous “Treatise on the Construction, the History and the Practice of the Flute” in 1890. In it, he provides us with an analysis of the tuning of a Rudall & Rose 8-key flute, at the time only about 60 years old. Does his analysis tell us any more about flutes of the time than we can determine today?
http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/RockstroAnalysesRRflute.htm
Terry
Hi Terry,
Interesting stuff, as always.
One point to pick up with you:
Re: the blue bit - I have to challenge you on the F# venting: Rockstro’s own basic fingering chart for 8-key does show the F and Eb keys vented for F#, but not the F key for G. The supplementary chart of variant fingerings is also relevant, especially regarding the use of the C natural key for (open) C# - where it is shown but commented upon as prone to being sharp.
Of course, Rockstro is 60 years later than the flute… but Monzani’s 1813 chart (cf Rick Wilson’s website) gives the F key open for F# and the upper C key closed for C#, just like Rockstro, ditto Dressler from the late 1820s, though Lindsay from about the same time doesn’t indicate opening an F key for F#. I think perhaps you might reconsider your wording there?
(To digress to a hobby horse of mine, nary a one of them gives the ITM C nat cross fingering of oxx ooo - it isn’t even in Rockstro’s comprehensive variant options, or anyone else’s!!!) Venting the F key for G in his test was certainly a bit (suspiciously) odd, though!
On another tack, regarding the overall intonation - since they were using a flute 60 years old, surely it was just as likely then as if it were available to you now to have suffered from any bore deviation due to tenon compression, aging or any other cause. The flute he gives measurements for wasn’t the same one as he tested, and we already know how variable these things can be in individual pieces of timber and depending on intensity of use and conditions of storage etc.
Also, Rockstro says they had the flute tuned to G=404Hz with the tuning slide half way along its range (if I interpret correctly - “The flute was sounded at its mean pitch”)… yet we now would expect a “standard” earlyish R&R to play at cA=440 at that or a little less extension - unless being played with a very open/across-blowing/sharp embouchure style??? (Yet we have fair reason to think Rockstro was a proponent of the English School reedy, Nicholsonesque tone which is produced by a down/blowing, tone-flattening embouchure approach…) Certainly the way we (try to) play them now for ITM, even with the slide closed, few of the pre 1850 models would get up to Rockstro’s high pitch short of with fully closed slide (my 1843 PH is c A=455 fully closed with my current embouchure).
These are probably for small-holed flutes, where the F# is incredibly, impossibly, dismally flat without the F key open. But I should probably make that point!
(To digress to a hobby horse of mine, nary a one of them gives the ITM C nat cross fingering of oxx ooo - it isn’t even in Rockstro’s comprehensive variant options, or anyone else’s!!!)
I think my old mate, Abel Siccama, can help you out here. He gives no less than 7 fingerings for B# / Cnatural:
x,oo ooo , (c-key)
x,o,o ooo , (c-key, Bb-key)
oxx ooo , (the one you seek)
oxx oxx (a flatter version of the above)
oxo xxx , (the usual cross fingering given for 8-key flutes)
oxo ooo , (the one Pratten favoured), and
x,x,o ooo , (clear proof that Siccama was willing to try anything!)
I haven’t seen oxx ooo anywhere else I can think of. The Siccama system fingering shown in Boosey & Hawkes Otto Langley tutor doesn’t show it.
Note that Siccama seems to be hankering for the good old days of Just Intonation (giving the enharmonic alternatives to all the notes), while all around him are boldly marching to the recently fangled Equally Tempered drum. Another reason for Rockstro to loath him! I should really write up his fingering chart, but it’s a daunting task. A full A3 sheet with something like 150 fingerings. He gives 14 fingerings for third octave F natural alone!
Venting the F key for G in his test was certainly a bit (suspiciously) odd, though!
Yeah, I agree. I meant to make that point too, although I tried it and it doesn’t seem to sharpen G significantly. Does it do much for your flute?
On another tack, regarding the overall intonation - since they were using a flute 60 years old, surely it was just as likely then as if it were available to you now to have suffered from any bore deviation due to tenon compression, aging or any other cause. The flute he gives measurements for wasn’t the same one as he tested, and we already know how variable these things can be in individual pieces of timber and depending on intensity of use and conditions of storage etc.
We don’t really know how long it takes for significant compression to set in, indeed, as we know, it is going to be variable. I was hoping his measurements might tell us more, but as usual in this business, and in particular when dealing with Rockstro, they probably raise more questions than answers. Still, it could be that when we assemble all the info available to us, we might see some trend that reveals more than we know now.
Also, Rockstro says they had the flute tuned to G=404Hz with the tuning slide half way along its range (if I interpret correctly - “The flute was sounded at its mean pitch”)… yet we now would expect a “standard” earlyish R&R to play at cA=440 at that or a little less extension - unless being played with a very open/across-blowing/sharp embouchure style??? (Yet we have fair reason to think Rockstro was a proponent of the English School reedy, Nicholsonesque tone which is produced by a down/blowing, tone-flattening embouchure approach…) Certainly the way we (try to) play them now for ITM, even with the slide closed, few of the pre 1850 models would get up to Rockstro’s high pitch short of with fully closed slide (my 1843 PH is c A=455 fully closed with my current embouchure).
I think he might have intended “at its mean pitch” to mean neither lipped up or down - ie in the middle of its embouchure range. Otherwise, I’d agree, that sounds too sharp to have the flute extended much. Rockstro makes the point somewhere else that a good flute should be in tune with the slide extended 1/8", so perhaps he tested it at that point? Or did he, like you, find the flute needed to be fully closed, and even then the F key opened for G to come just up to 404 (A=453.3).
Heh heh, it’s a shame Alexander Ellis hadn’t done the writing up - we’d have more to go on!
Terry
Not just small-holed ones, Terry. I mean, proof of the pudding an all that with even large-holed ones! I have the general impression that venting the F and Eb keys for F# was absolutely the standard expectation on simple system flutes in all countries throughout the C19th. The charts/sources not showing it are the exception, not the rule. Even Langey’s (no second “l”) Siccama chart gives it.
I think that is a misunderstanding of what Siccama, Rockstro or any other c19th source was at with their multiple alternate fingerings, including for Bohm system flutes and variants thereof. Nor, I think, would Siccama and Rockstro have been at variance on this. Even within a 12TET approach, the C19th aesthetic of intonation (OK, obviously that was an evolving continuum, not a one-size fits all) required “sensitive” notes (different from the Baroque approach to such) in certain contexts and also the variant fingerings allow for evading/easing specific awkward fingering combinations and also for volume/intensity sensitivity - especially in the 3rd 8ve, a fingering that may give an excellent, in-tune (to whatever intonation system/aesthetic) forte note may be hopelessly flat played piano, while another which would be sharp and harsh played forte may serve very nicely piano, etc. cf Rockstro’s variant fingering charts and his comments thereto.
No. Not even with both F keys open. Nor on several other flutes I just checked - at least, not to pitch, at all. On some of them there does seem to be a slight change of tone quality with one or both F keys open - a slightly clearer, harder sound, but the tuner needle doesn’t shift at all.
Right you are - interpretations, interpretations! It could mean either of those things, couldn’t it? But I suspect you are more likely to have the right of it.
I get the opposing impression, but I’ve never really looked into it. I guess if we really want to know, we need to list all the fingering charts in chronological order, and indicate whether they only give xxx xoo, or insist on xxx xo,o or give a choice. Then we might see when it was in fashion and when not.
For example, Clinton’s Universal Instruction Book, 1864, offers only xxx xoo, for F#, but gives four fingerings for middle C:
oxo xxx ,
x,oo ooo ,
oxo ooo , (Same as Pratten)
xox xxx ‘’
[quote=“Terry McGee”]
Note that Siccama seems to be hankering for the good old days of Just Intonation (giving the enharmonic alternatives to all the notes), while all around him are boldly marching to the recently fangled Equally Tempered drum. Another reason for Rockstro to loath him! I should really write up his fingering chart, but it’s a daunting task. A full A3 sheet with something like 150 fingerings. He gives 14 fingerings for third octave F natural alone!
[/quote]I think that is a misunderstanding of what Siccama, Rockstro or any other c19th source was at with their multiple alternate fingerings, including for Bohm system flutes and variants thereof. Nor, I think, would Siccama and Rockstro have been at variance on this. Even within a 12TET approach, the C19th aesthetic of intonation (OK, obviously that was an evolving continuum, not a one-size fits all) required “sensitive” notes (different from the Baroque approach to such) in certain contexts and also the variant fingerings allow for evading/easing specific awkward fingering combinations and also for volume/intensity sensitivity - especially in the 3rd 8ve, a fingering that may give an excellent, in-tune (to whatever intonation system/aesthetic) > forte > note may be hopelessly flat played > piano> , while another which would be sharp and harsh played > forte > may serve very nicely > piano> , etc. cf Rockstro’s variant fingering charts and his comments thereto.
I think you’d need to read some of Siccama’s texts to make that call. For example, he starts his Theory of the Patent Diatonic Flute (what we now call the Siccama flute) with 4 solid pages on music theory, including bold statements like:
“The division of the scale into twelve equal parts, or, as it is commonly called, doing away with the wolf, has been erroneously supposed by many to be applicable to the flute.” I haven’t delved into it yet, but it looks pretty much like Just Intonation theory to me.
I think that’s what prompted him to call his flute the Diatonic. What I think he was really trying to say was that it was capable of playing diatonically in all keys, rather than having some good keys and some bad keys.
He gives a simple test which he urges readers to try. Essentially, play the third harmonic of each note in turn, and compare it with the same note when fingered normally. EG:
3rd harmonic of xxx xxx, compared to 2nd harmonic of xxo ooo
3rd harmonic of xxx xxo, compared to 2nd harmonic of xoo ooo
3rd harmonic of xxx xoo, compared to 2nd harmonic of ooo ooo
etc.
He includes all the keyed semitones as well, and includes all the fingerings from low C to c#.
Terry