Hi,
Terry Mcgee is offering Pratten flute plans for $50.
The plans will show bore dimentions, hole locations, keys etc.
Just thought I would give you a “heads up” on this.
Jon
Interesting
So, should I have charged money for any of the makers out there to have measured any of my flutes, including my own Hudson-Pratten original? As the oldest RSPratten’s Perfected flute in the world, I’d assume I could garner much more than the $50 that Terry is asking for his much older 8626 Boosey, right?
Perhaps then Peter Noy should pay royalties to the woman in upstate NY whose Rudall/Rose flute is the original on which his gem-studded, ornate flute is a replica?
How about the Clementi-Nicholson that I own (another presumed as the earliest of its kind at #315) on Terry’s website, from which he obtained measures and information that help his own work. Shouldn’t I receive something from that as the owner of the flute?
I personally think Terry’s making a mistake here.
Measuring flutes isn’t so easy, and he is providing working plans, not just an instrument to be measured. I’m all for it.
Museums commonly make available drawings of instruments in their collections. The difference here is that I cannot tell from the website if this is a specimen in Terry’s collection or one in a museum and if so where or if it is one in a private collection and if Terry has permissions. I am assuming he has done that.
I’ve had the opportunity to measure several Prattens - 4 here on the west coast, the ones at the Dayton Miller and Skip Healy’s specimen and a few traveling through. Except for adjustments to pitch length, these are all very similar and don’t show the variations and evolution found in the Rudalls. Thus I can expect Terry’s drawings to be nothing extroardinary. Perhaps it could be argued that it is not the owner of these instruments that owns a “copyright” but instead the maker, if they are still around. Boosey is certainly around. But fortunately I am not a lawyer and I am not going to get too excited by this!
I think that making this data available, even at a modest price which barely covers production costs not to mention the time required handling, is commendable. Also useful to me as a maker as I get requests for this type of data frequently and now I know where I can send these requests. I would also be interested in seeing some of Terry’s Rudall data.
I have my own data but it is scattered across several books worth of field notes, sheets of drawings, photographs etc. and would take too much time away from instrument making for this to be “presentable”.
I have sometimes remeasured the same instrument 2 or 3 times as my skill level increased and find inconsistancies between the measurements. In the case of one of the west coast Prattens I also have access to drawings of the same flute by other makers. My point here is that I look at data, including some of my own, with a healthy dose of skepticism and a critical eye for errors. Terry’s data may be reliable - but as a maker I would want to see some data validation or peer review before I relied upon it. However, for someone just starting out or wanting a project these drawings are more than adequate.
Just some thoughts before I head out to the workshop to work away at the Christmas Rush waiting for me!
Casey
www.caseyburnsflutes.com
Very good, Casey
then I can expect to rejigger my website so if people want to look at the Hudson-Pratten, they’ll need a password after having paid a small fee (after all, I did indeed pay someone else to own this instrument) to get into that portion of the website.
Ah yes, and I’ll be glad to send off letters to the makers who have measured my Pratten (don’t forget…this is the original source of the measurements, as you note…very little change if any over the years!) and ensure that I’m compensated thusly.
And I’ll be making my own measurments and drawings available (thankfully I was a civil engineer before a writer, so my drawing/measuring skills are quite acute) and make them available at a nice fee to myself.
Silly?
Absolutely.
But now we’re beginning to see the one thing everyone worried would happen years ago as McGee and others stepped out to begin measuring the flutes owned by others.
Please know emphatically that Terry and I are colleagues in the truest sense…helping each other whenever possible in our research. He and I are friends.
But friends disagree sometimes.
We do a favor to all by allowing makers to measure our instruments, to learn from them and then later through their own models…ahem…they profit from that knowledge.
To whose compensation? The owners of the instruments? Hardly. But that wasn’t the point. We were/are okay with that.
If that weren’t the case, if owners charged to have their instruments measured (not to mention have them copied in some instances), then you as makers would only have access to the museum instruments, many of which you cannot play, and many of which are sub-par examples of the betters ones out there.
Beginning to see my point?
It’s one thing if Terry wished to present drawings and measurements of his own model of flute (intellectual property, perhaps?), quite another to put out there one of his own collection and not renumerate those whose flutes he’s measured and used to help his business.
I don’t begrudge that his drawing work needs to be compensated…but at the cost of the paper and perhaps the mailing stamp. Why not just make it a pdf for all to access?
What if someone else made Boosey #8666 available in drawing for $49 instead? Or I made mine available for $35?
That would make the $50 one less valued, no? Seeing as the others play just as well, why pay the higher price? Shouldn’t I use the market place to out do the competitor?
Since when, as Casey noted, is Terry’s Boosey-Pratten the panacea for all flutes?
Again…the knowledge is what is important. Now, to profit from the same type of info (measurements of an antique flute) that you had requested from everyone else (when we all wondered if there was a profit to be made and assured there would not be) is not right.
That’s where I stand and I surely believe many others do as well.
As I noted, Terry and I are friends and I’ll disagree on this point with him. But we’ll remain colleagues for sure simply because we can respect the other’s viewpoint.
Edited to remove inaccurate information. Apologies to all.
Loren
Loren
I’ve not see the woodenflute discourse on this at all, though I check the emails regularly.
Nevertheless, I have emailed terry privately on the matter
It would have remained private…until the sale of the plans went public.
As I said…and please read very, very carefully…I do not castigate Terry for his decision. I do not agree with it and feel those who chose to agree should hear the other side.
This is not an issue to sully Terry…it is an issue of debatable point.
As you read my criticism, of which I do not put myself above his own choice, note that it is generally in the general sense and not specific to only McGee. It may appear that way as he put it out there, but it is not. It is a debatable point for all. Specifically because many of us own original instruments and, quite literally, could do the same.
Yet another question: Why not put the drawings of my Olwell out there? It is not a patented design. HOw about replicating my Olwell, not marking it, then merely making drawings of my “anonymous” flute available for all the other makers out there? Lookie what I found!
Hmmm?
My apologies David, the discussion has been taking place solely on the Yahoo flutemakers list, not the woodenflute list (obviously I get so much email I can’t keep 'em strait!), so what you say makes sense with regards to not having seen the discussion elsewhere. My mistake. Glad to hear you’ve communicated with Terry. I’ll blank my previous post as it was inaccurate.
As for the rest, I have no interest in getting involved in this debate, I can see points on both sides.
Best,
Loren
FWIW, here is the justification for the charge, which
if I understand it, flows from the labor involved in
measuring the flute and presenting the information.
Flute plans are available from some museums, but the range available illustrates that most of the work so far in drawing up
instruments has been carried out by the makers of baroque and early classical instruments, rather than the makers of flutes
suitable for Irish music. Consequently, I’m often asked for information on later flutes from people who want to try making.
You’ll understand that I can’t afford to give such information away - it represents days of work gathering it and more
presenting it. But it seems unnecessary to force everyone down the same path - find a good flute, measure and draw it up -
especially when some of the best old flutes aren’t easy to come by. So, I’m now offering a package of information which
should be enough for you to make a top class flute (assuming you have access to the equipment and skills required).
David,
If that is indeed your instrument that Terry is selling plans of then yes, you have a bone to pick, but with him only.
As a maker I routinely ask for permission to measure instruments that I wish to examine further, sometimes with the aim of copying and producing as a finished product. Most if not all of the people I have approached have been very happy for my interest.
I have also sought permission from museums and collectors for the right to publish drawings and photographs I have made of bagpipes - in a collection I wanted to call “Bagpipes in American Collections.” As you can guess there wouldn’t be a huge market for such a work - and thus it would be a labor of love, or something that I would have to receive a huge grant to complete. The intrinsic value would be there as a repository of data. The permissions would all be on a case by case basis and would need to be in writing, and part of the document. However, in the interest of survival, not to mention the lack of any granting pursual, this and many other projects have been shelved.
I suppose who owns the “intellectual property” of a specific instrument design won’t be tested until someone decides to sue in a court successfully. I once had someone tell me they were going to patent a more or less public domain design for a Quena, to impress me with his “turf”. All I could do was laugh at him.
From my point of view as a maker, the information flow should be encouraged, even if someone is making a modest profit from it. Had Terry’s designs been available 23 years ago it would have helped me as a beginning maker. Most all of the woodwind makers I have encountered have been very sharing with information and this has helped me - and I have tried to do my part by sharing what I have with other makers.
On the other hand, restricting the flow of information, if that could be done, might have a chilling effect on this craft. A descent back to the days of Secret Guilds, etc. Initiation Rites and all sorts of Medieval Treachery. Ah, the good ol’ days!
Cheers!
Casey
www.caseyburnsflutes.com
I once watched a documentary on the spotted owl controversy with regard to old growth redwoods. Each side, the enviormentalists and the lumber company were given an equal amount of time to share their side. Both were very good. When the enviormentalists got through I believed their side, the same thing happened to me when I heard the lumber company.
My point is that both sides of this arguement seem very compelling, in regards to the flute plans. Mr. Migoya from his perspective is correct and Mr. McGee from his perspective is right.
I appreciate how careful Mr. Migoya has been to keep this from turning into a war. He’s kept it at the level of a debate. Very appropiate. Thank you for your thoughtful words.
My opinion is that Mr. McGee is not going to make alot of money in this plan venture. He’s offering it as a service. It’s unfortunate he hasn’t measured one of his own original flutes and offered that plan at a modest price (especially if it was unique to him)
Hi everyone,
I didn’t realize this thread would make such a splash! 
First of all, Terry owns the flute.
Second of all, he is just trying to help some of us newbees get plans for a flute to build.
I originally bought a set of plans from “Lark in the Morning”. They were nicely drawn, but they didn’t have any bore dimentions! (Maybe this is where the Pakistani’s got there plans…)
I think it would be great to make all the old flutes available to study and possibly build, why not?
Terry helped me, by giving me the bore dimentions for his P Nickolson flute, at no charge, he also helped me with some of the other dimentions of the flute. But it takes time to put this stuff together, and write emails etc. So I cannot blame him for wanting to get some recompence for his time.
Jon
I’m afraid I have to weigh in an opinion on this one, too. Anyone who knows Terry is aware just how free he is with his knowledge–there are no other makers as willing to share experience and ideas. In fact, he has spent hours compiling flute-design information for his website–for free. He invariably sends responses to any reasonable inquiry, no matter how simplistic, and is one of the most frequent posters on the Flutemakers (and Woodenflute) mailing list.
So, for what it’s worth, a modest attempt to recoup some of his time, in response to a direct request from someone else, and based on a flute he owns, is more than reasonable.
Besides, most of us aren’t too concerned about submitting royalties for the music we perform when we know the composer or their heirs, are we? I think that the same principle applies to both old flute plans or Seamus Ennis tunes: the person directly hurt has the choice to take action. Anyone else can grumble quietly at home and leave the rest to the lawyers.
Best,
David
Terry has undertaken some effort here provide more than a few measurements. He has outlined quite a bit of work. I think this is a positive step being made comparable to some unusable photos offered by an unnamed online store that were over $100.
I myself have written a few books on making instruments and it takes longer to write these than it does to make an instrument. That time is worth something. If someone came into my shop to take measurements on something is not that same as me sitting down and writing a complex manual.
I applaud Terry’s efforts.
Spare a thought for those of us who are still stuck as civil engineers (the ultimate oxymoron, surely).
I drew up my Wylde before I foolishly sold it , which, if any of the budding makers here want a copy, they may have for the cost of a pleasantly worded private message, such is the spirit of Christmas currently enveloping me. (Or indeed, the spirit of Christmas currently being ingested by me 
)
Cheers,
Graham
Since I live just down the road from Terry, do you think if I buy the materials and offer him another $50 he’ll show my how to put it together?
Love the dialogue!
And most who know me, know that I usually side with the capitalist entrepreneur. I’m far from ruthless, but frequently I find the Americans or their ilk seem to be so idealistic to expect that people should follow some code of behavior that is perhaps commonsense to only some cultural subset of the world (..and yes, I’m an expat American).
Ethics not enshirined in law do not count in business. Only patents and legal rights do. If someone is selling drawings for designs which are not patented or now outside the patent window, he can sell what he wants. If people buy it, who can blame him for making money legally? If he measured your flute and told you he would not sell the design, but sells it anyway…it’s a personal trust issue, and outside of the business argument–maybe his reputation will suffer, maybe not, that’s his deal.
Olwell sells flutes made from simple bamboo flutes for more than his cost of manufacture for what are really exorbitant prices…because the market will bear his cost because of perceived value The same wirth flute designs–cost of paper and time is not a business argument–what the market will bear is the only argument.
As a compromise, I suggest more makers contribute to the collective truth by offering their Linux flute designs free of charge. Then you can close the market opportunity. I hope Terry makes a bundle…or nothing at all. At least he tried to find a market for his product. Don’t quell his innovation with boundless ethical arguments.
Is it any cooincidence that I retired from Microsoft? 
G
Hey G.,
Those your kids in your avatar photo? Cute picture.
Loren
Hey Loren, that’s actually me in the photo with the piano accordian–I’m only 6 but quite precocious. 
Yep, those are in fact my kids. My 6-year old is learning piano accordian, not much button action in China. My 3-year old love to sing and dance while his brother plays.
G
GCOLLINS wrote that Patrick Olwell’s prices for bamboo flutes are exorbitant and that he sells them for more than his cost of manufacture. Well… duh. Should he sell them for less than it costs him to make them?
Olwell’s prices include a three day trip to gather the bamboo, the cost of cleaning, measuring, tuning, finishing. He has spent years developing and perfecting what are arguably the best cheap flutes there are. There are in fact several other bamboo flute makers who sell their flutes for hundreds of dollars more than Patrick charges. Patrick is aware of this and still sells his bamboo flutes for less than the market will bear.
Far from being overpriced, Olwell’s bamboo flutes offer one of the few real bargains in wooden-flute land.
If you’re going to complain abut them the real complaint is that they aren’t more readily available.