I know I can’t be the only beginner that doesn’t know this so I’m just going to ask. What are the differences between these types of flute? I see many of the flute makers use the Pratten or the Rudall as their model and I just read that Michael Copeland’s new flutes are based on the Prowse style. Sorry if it’s a stupid question but can someone please give me the reader’s digest version of what these different types are? It will really help me in my flute search to know what the different models features are.
Thanks for any help anyone can give me on this.
Jim:
There was a thread not too long ago comparing Grinter and Olwell flutes. I think having a look at that might answer some of your questions regarding the characteristics of Rudall and Pratten style flutes. I learned a lot from it, anyway. You shouldn’t have trouble finding the discussion if you do a search on “Grinter.”
Paul
Just blow it all off and buy a Lehart.
-r-
Or an Olwell…
(here we go again!) 
I haven’t tried any Prowse models myself, but here are my impressions on Rudall and Rose versus Pratten:
To me, the two main differences are in tuning and tonal quality. A lot of people say Pratten flutes are louder, but that’s debatable.
Rudall and Rose flutes (and other Rudall-style flutes) have a flat bottom D that has to be blown strongly to bring it up to pitch. They’re designed that way (“it’s not a bug, it’s a feature”). Rudall flutes also have more complexity in the shape of the bore (the hole that runs the length of the flute), which gives them a more complex tone.
Pratten-style flutes have a more straightforward taper to the bore, giving them a cleaner tone that is slightly closer to the sound of a Boehm-system cylindrical-bore flute, but still very warm and woody.
Pratten-style flutes usually (always?) have large toneholes and a large-diameter bore. They are usually quite responsive, and in that sense might be easier for a beginner to play, but to really fill the flute and get a strong, focused tone requires some work.
Rudall-style flutes come in more flavors, ranging from relatively quiet flutes with small-diameter bore and small tone-holes all the way up to big-bore flutes that match any Pratten in volume and penetration.
Debating which of the two systems is “best” is a bit like comparing Windows versus Macintosh. If you try enough flutes, you’ll find yourself falling into one camp or another. But your tastes may change over time. I used to favor Pratten flutes, but I switched to a Rudall-style flute a few years ago and will never go back. Matt Molloy used to play a Rudall and Rose (and recorded with it on the first Bothy Band album) but then switched to a Pratten.
There was some discussion a while back of Pratten flutes being more suited for a “rough” or “earthy” style of playing, while the Rudall flutes had a more refined sound. It seems to me that this quality depends as much or more on the player than the flute. Would Chris Norman still sound like Chris Norman if he played a Pratten flute? My guess is yes. But there are qualities in the Rudall that make him lean naturally toward that style of flute for his style of playing. On the other hand, a player with an “earthy” style will sound that way on any kind of flute; that sound comes more from a style of playing than from a quality in the flute itself.
[ This Message was edited by: bradhurley on 2002-12-23 07:56 ]
[ This Message was edited by: bradhurley on 2002-12-23 10:10 ]
Brad that was a very nice posting! Well put indeed! Now I can’t wait to get my hands on a typical Pratten flute to have a test drive.
Yep, nice post, Brad!
I’m going to throw another log on the fire, though, and make another observation.
Brad’s comments are very well-taken. I myself haven’t played a Prowse-style flute that I know of, but I have played R&R (medium holes), a couple of Cotters (nach Hawkes), Olwells (nach Pratten und Rudall), Wilkes (nach Rudall), Burns (nach Rudall?), Grinter (nach Rudall), Byrnes (nach Rudall), McGees (nach Metzler), and Healies (nach sich (which means ‘after himself’)).
My number 1 take-home message is that whether you’re playing an Olwell Rudall or and Olwell Pratten, you’re playing an Olwell. I think the distinctions Brad discusses have become clouded in the innovations brought to the bench by modern flutemakers. Most of these guys (I don’t think I’ve played a flute made by a woman!) are very innovative and consummate researchers and experimenters who work on each flute to make it better than the last.
Modern-make Rudall styles generally don’t need to have the D# key vented to be in tune, for example. The Cotter Hawke-models I’ve played had excellent tuning in the first two octaves. Olwell Prattens are amazingly easy to play. In some ways, saying a flute is a so-and-so-Rudall just means it has a slightly more slender bore, slightly smaller holes, and the top and bottom hands are sometimes split. ‘Pratten’ implies a bigger bore and holes, and usually a one-piece body (though Loren’s beloved-yet-dangerous Olwell Pratten has a Rudall-esque split between LH and RH).
The other thing I think we sometimes overlook when discussing various flute styles is the cut of the embouchure. This is crucial, and in some ways I think it defines the instrument moreso than whether it’s a Pratten or a Rudall. I had an interesting conversation with Pat Olwell on my one-week-checkup after receiving an instrument from him.
“Hey Pat, it’s Stuart,” says I.
“Oh, hey! How’s the flute?” quoth he.
“Wow, I love it. So easy to play! Strong low end, great response, nice upper end, it’s everything I want in a flute,” I said laconically.
“That’s great!” he replied.
“And the embouchure . . .” I began.
[nervous laugh from P-daddy]
“It’s great! How’d you do that? And why’d you laugh?” I asked quickly.
“Oh, I’m glad you like it. I get nervous sometimes, since I do crazy stuff to the embouchure and I’m always afraid people won’t like it and I should just go back to the way they used to do it,” was his humble reply.
So I guess I would have a couple of pieces of advice for folks going out to buy a timber flute. First, play as many as you can, and find a style/maker you like. I think you should remember that a McGee Rudall and a Copley Rudall will play differently, but that’s my opinion. Next, if at all possible, contact the maker and discuss the instrument with him or her. Talk over what you want about the flute. You’ll get a great idea of all kinds of things, like that maker’s preferred design, his or her preferred timber, preferred material for the slide, etc. Make your order when you’re ready, and use the wait time given as a guide for when you should give that maker a quick call to find out when you can expect your flute.
For early beginners wanting a timber instrument, I think there are a couple of good options. Finding a keyless instrument for sale from someone moving up into keys is one good bet. By this time, I think everyone knows the general biases towards makers, and a beginner can pick freely from one of the “standbys.” If all else fails, a beginner might be well-served by buying from someone close to home. I think it would be incredibly frustrating for a newbie to order sight-unseen from another country unless that’s the only option.
Wow, this turned from Pratten-Rudall-Prowse, et al. into my Treatise on the Purchase of Flutes. Sorry about that!
Stuart
Edited because I put something in brackets that didn’t show up and was important to the story!
[ This Message was edited by: sturob on 2002-12-23 13:36 ]
I totally agree with Stuart about embouchures and headjoints. You can play 10 different flutes by the same maker and all of them will sound subtly different; much of that is due to differences in the way the embouchure hole is cut. The headjoint has an enormous influence on the overall sound of the flute. You can take the same headjoint and put it on 10 flutes by 10 different makers, and you’d be amazed at how similar (but not identical) the 10 flutes will sound. I’ve tried it.
That said, the stuff I mentioned about the perturbations in the bore of a Rudall-style flute versus the more straightforward taper of a Pratten bore is also important. I agree with Stuart that the modern makers are innovating on the old designs, but I think you’d still see a noticeable difference between the reamers that today’s makers would use to shape a Rudall-style bore and those that are used on a Pratten.
OK, I agree completely with Brad. 
I’ve never been to a flutemaker’s workshop so I’ve not been able to see that stuff. Boo hoo. Well, someday.
Stuart
Brad and Stuart thank you so much for your posting, never have in seen it posted so clearly the difference in design between the two foremost styles of flutes.
MarkB
Well, thanks, but I do think it would be nice to get the perspective of an actual flutemaker (i.e. someone who actually knows what he’s talking about). Stuart and I are just groupies
Thanks for the info everyone. I think the Nicholson and Prowse are similar if I’m reading stuff right. Sometimes I see it written Nicholson/Prowse so I’m thinking they are close in design. So let me recap the general info and tell me if I’m right:
Pratten: Wider bore, larger holes, generally louder, slightly stronger embousure needed to get the sound right, slightly higher wind requirements
Rudall: Narrower bore, smaller holes, generally softer, slightly easier embousure, slightly less wind requirements.
Modern makers have modified these to improve perceived faults so that the descriptions have started to blur.
OK, Anyone have a description of the Prowse Nicholson type for me?
\
-Jim
I may never be the best, but I can always be better than I am now!
you almost have it.
Rudalls and Prattens and Prowse vary distinctly, although all have pretty much one common feature (at one time or another): large tone holes and large bores.
First, it’s important to know which came first.
Thomas Prowse Sr. (jr came later) was the principle flute maker for Clementi & Co. in the early 1800s and made specifically the Nicholson flutes, which were the design preferred by the eminent player of the day, Charles Nicholson Jr.
Jr. liked large tone holes, which correspondingly needed a large bore to accommodate the tone. He also abhorred the long-F key and the long-C key, as well as the pewter plugs on the foot joint. His was a 6-hole (sometimes 7) flute. There are some Clementi flutes out there that Prowse made that are truly wonderful.
The idea of large tone holes seems to have eminated from Nicholson’s father, Charles Sr., according to some manuscripts.
Anyway, Rudall/Rose came next, c. 1821, and their early flutes were of the large-hole variety. Why? Probably because George Rudall was a flute student of Charles Nicholson Jr.
Oddly, though, Rudall/Rose started to change their designs to include the smaller holed flutes sometime around 1830, maybe to work toward a more even tone. Small-holed flutes are more in tune with themselves at the upper registers.
That all Rudall flutes had a flat bottom D is not entirely accurate. This seemed to be more of the trend of the day, mostly because they did not deal with equal-temperament tunings.
Clementi/Prowse flutes were flat on the bottom, too, as were later Prowse flutes.
Several later Rudalls moved toward the large holes again, and the bores got larger too.
As a result, the flute also got shorter and the flat-D syndrome began to disappear, although it wasn’t universal among early Rudalls.
What made Rudalls distinct is the “chambering” of the bore, where small variations were done at strategic locations inside the flute to affect tonality and quality. It’s not really visible with the naked eye, but you can surely hear it from one Rudall to the next.
Early Rudalls are very good, but I prefer the later ones (and several other players i know do as well). Chris Norman’s Rudall (the boxwood one he got from Linda Hickman) is a fairly early one with smallish holes.
Pratten flutes are a tad more interesting. You must know first that Robert Sydney Pratten didn’t actually make any flutes. He was a player of particular prominence (after Nicholson had died). He was playing a Siccama flute (designed by Abel Siccama, the flute had two extra keys covering the third holes of each hand because they were further down the flute to improve its accoustics and tone). The flute was being made c.1845 or so by a fellow named John Hudson.
That continued for Pratten until about 1852 when he opted to make his own “Perfected” model. Of course, he went to the person he knew as a flutemaker: John Hudson, the very man making the flute Pratten was already playing.
What came was a flute with very large toneholes outside the flute (not just inside, which undercutting does and Rudall seemed to master), and an extremely large bore.
Remember, Pratten was a large man in his late 20s at this time. He was actually devising a flute with keys, not just the simple-system 8-key type, to be played in the “old” fingering, where F# was fingered 1-2-3-4 rather than the Boehm flute, which played F-natural when fingered that way.
The flute was louder and more powerful than most any before it, partly becuase of the very very large bore and taper.
Hudson and Pratten actually used some of the ideas from Siccama’s flutes (when you put the two together, the similarities are stunning), as well as design ideas from Rockstro (who is the only source of this tidbit).
Pratten (really it was Hudson, with Pratten’s help, but no one would buy a Hudson’s Perfected flute over a Pratten’s Perfected, would they?) was actually trying to move toward the cylindrical bore (as was Boehm) on the wood flute, using a conoidal head (as it came later with the multi-keyed version of Pratten’s Perfected).
Along the way, Boosey & Co. now wanted to market flutes (which they had not done as yet) and in 1855 hired John Hudson to be shop foreman and bring along his Pratten design. That first year’s catalogue shows several versions of Pratten flutes, from 8-key to the multi-key Boehm-type.
The 8-key style remained with some modifications, but Pratten actually died at a young age before he could finish his studies on bore design and what he wanted to accomplish. Boosey & Co merely kept the 8-key as a novelty sale for those who preferred it over the ever-encroaching Boehm flute.
That’s why the makers of today rely on these three flute makers’ work, because they were the most eminent at the time of the 8-key models. Others, too, made wonderful flutes, but their work wasn’t as extensively known, such as Wylde (who worked for Rudall/Rose) and Binyon (whose shop was just down the street from Rudall’s).
The character of each flute is very different. I play one of each almost constantly and rotate between them since each has a different flair and color of tone.
The Clementi/Nicholson (by Prowse) is very dark and reedy (which Nicholson especially liked).
The Rudall I play most is a later one (#6208, c.1850) and it’s very bright and clear, a stiff bottom note and crystalline upper register. I have several others, but this one is my favorite.
The Pratten I play is a very early one (#49, c.1852) and the tone is clear and very strong, very little “color” as the Rudall or Clementi. It doesn’t move around on color and tone like the Clementi can (the most of all three, probably because of the large, round blow hole).
Of all three, the Pratten requires the least “lipping” or cross-fingering to put notes into tune with today’s standards.
All in all, I’d say today’s copies (and improvements to them) will put the Rudall flutes at a brighter sound, and the Prattens at more boastful (without having to blow it out). I’m glad some are making Prowse copies, because they have some of both qualities (although not all the models did…some were pretty pitiful since Prowse was very much an island at the time compared to his contemporaries).
I hope this all helps in some way!
Hi David,
Your posts are always very informative. I’m always amazed at the amount of info you convey to the board.
So the Prowse would fall somewhere in between the Rudall and the Pratten? Does this sound correct? So the Clementi/Prowse were pre-Rudall so the early Rudall’s had similar features to the Prowse and only later developed into the smaller bore and holes whereas the Pratten which also developed after the Prowse was designed for a larger sound and so had larger holes and bore than the Prowse.
Does this sound correct? I think it almost makes sense
Thanks for the great historical breakdown.
Yessireebob, David’s post is very eloquent! And David’s closer to a maker than either of us (Brad/Stuart) so there you go.
I think, Jim, that one of the keys, if you’ll pardon the pun, is not to think of Rudall and Pratten at either end of a continuum. They’re just different. Even further left from Rudall, if you were going to look at them that way, might be the Metzlers and the Noë Frères of the world. You can get into tiny, quiet, but amazingly responsive flutes if you look hard enough.
Terry McGee actually has a nice, boiled-down description of the various makes on his webpages here.
Now David, just to add a maker to the bunch, where does the Hawkes Excelsior fit into all this? It’s related to the Pratten style, is it not?
Stuart
Prowse would fall somewhere between the Rudall and Pratten?<<
Actually before since Prowse was making flutes at about the same time/slightly before Rudall/Rose came to be, then went off on his own.
The early Rudalls did indeed have many of the same concepts as the Clementi/Prowse/Nicholson flutes. Features were even “borrowed” as some Rudalls has the “ergonomic” features Nicholson liked on his flutes and which Clementi/Prowse gladly obliged. I kind of like them, too. Easy on the hands.
I don’t think Rudall “developed” the smaller holes. That was a long-standing feature of most flutes, even then. The Nicholson idea of large holes was very much the avant garde theory of its day (which he goes into great length defending in his books).
Stuart makes a better point in noting that McGee has much more accurate info since he’s coming at it with measurements in mind (including a few of my own flutes that I shared with him), and that tells a very accurate story as only Terry can explain it. He’s a maker and much more in tune with the physical minutia.
The Hawkes Excelsior came much, much later than this debate looks at, probably around 1900 or so. The firm had the “sonorous” class of instruments and, after having played Hawkes flutes of the Pratten design and the Siccama design, they certain did their own borrowing.
At this point in history, the original Rudall and Clementi/Nicholson flutes were no longer worth copying since flute design had moved so much in the other direction, toward multiple keys, etc.
I think the Hawkes flutes of that day were based more on the Boosey/PRatten models that were out there by then.
That’s my feeling about the Cotters I’ve played, which were (of course) his take-off on a Hawkes Excelsior. Nice instruments, very easily played. I had no idea that Hawkes would have been making a simple-system flute that late, though. Hmm!
Stuart