How is it that when comparing the intonation on any antique flutes, with all their inconsistencies, to any of the modern ones at hand, with their precise tuning, that I am struck by the " Musicality " and warmth of sound given by the older instruments and the colder less appealing sound that emits from their later improved counterparts?
Surely, you would think, this should not be the case, but to my ears at least I have to admit it is so. Somehow when all those sharpened and flattened notes are combined together they seem to make complete inter-tonal sense. It is not as though these notes were selected at random, as they obviously follow a definite pattern from flute to flute, and I believe tuning forks were available in the 19th Century.
It seems to me that these very " inaccuracies " in intonation are the thing responsible for their sweet/wonderful sound, assuming the foot isn’t flattened beyond redemption.
Am I alone in this observation? Do I need my ears testing? I would be really interested to hear other members thoughts/reasoning on the matter. 2TOOTS.
You might be interested in this article.
http://etheses.bham.ac.uk/4923/5/Shaw14PhD.pdf
The beginning has a nice look at changing perspectives on tone colour as the Nicholson flute took hold.
Thanks for the info. Oddly enough my son used extracts from this very thesis a month ago for his A Level music project on Charles Nicholson. It seems there was a whole plethora of varying ideas as to what should constitute " Tone " at that particular time, and it’s very interesting to read about what influenced their ideas, but a great number of them I would imagine would also be the goals of today’s flute makers. The article mentions the development of the eight key flute, and subsequent strengthening of individual notes with new tone hole placement eliminating the weaker cross fingered arrangements on the one keyed examples, which I am sure greatly advanced performance of these instruments. One of the most fascinating thing about these 19th. Century instruments is their rapid evolution/improvement, and I am sure that’s what grabs most of us.
At some point, these instruments reached their zenith, and were replaced by the ubiquitous Boehm. I understand that the revival in these flutes took place around the 1970’s. The big question for me is, along with the mostly necessary improvements was something lost at this point when the new maker’s effectively ironed out perceived failings in the original designs ?
The flute I play the most these days is an 8 key Rudall, Carte & Co. from 1892 just because I prefer the warm sound of it compared to an Olwell I have. It is also very in tune with itself at 440 with the tuning slide pulled out 20 mm or so.
At some point I made the choice to play antiques as well. I sold (traded) the Olwell and the Noy, to concentrate on my Blackman and Monzani flutes. I felt having the modern flutes was holding me back from the flutes I enjoyed playing more.
Funny thing once I only had the Blackman, I could play it in tune and with plenty of volume for gigs, sessions, etc.
I can remember playing with an older well known box player. At the time I had a Metzler and the Olwell. He commented that the Metzler sounded like “the old flutes” and that “new thing” sounded like something else.
Gradually I “phased out” the modern flutes in favour of antiques. I realized the older players I was listening to played “old flutes” and that my aesthetic sound was leaning more in that direction.
After playing an antique flute for a few days or so, I sometimes pick up a modern one ( of which I have considerably fewer) and my initial impression is " This is so easy. " It’s a bit like being given a short holiday. Short being the operative word. The feeling is short lived when the ease of play is quickly countered by inferior ( again to my ears ) sound I’m producing.
I feel actively more engaged when playing an older instrument - having to work just that little bit harder to produce the sound. It brings to mind the old adage " The more you put in, the more you get out. " Looks like I’ll be heading in the same direction as Steampacket and dunnp.
With the exception of those individuals with " Perfect Pitch " I wonder how far a note has to travel either side of base, before most people notice - what would that Forgiving Frequency Range be. Any Physics Boffins out there to illuminate the subject?
Is there a man whose soul is so low in preference to a Rudall an Olwell would blow…?
There was a great bang off the Olwell and Noy but it wasn’t what I was looking for at the time.
Who knows I might come into money and be able to afford a modern made 8 key and I might change my tune. For now the Blackman works. I’m working on using the Monzani more as I like it better but it still has me s bit stumped.
Thanks for the link to the Shaw thesis, dunnp. I’m about a third of the way through, now, and while it gives some insight into some of the aesthetic considerations that informed flute making in the 19th Century, I find the contrast between the performance practices of that century and those of contemporary ITM to be stark. . .
Regarding ‘sonic deviation’ I suspect with the emphasis on sensitive notes and various shadings of non leading tones in 19th century performance practice, the makers were less concerned with the precise intonation we have come to expect in this digital age.
Bob
I would be interested to hear an appraisal of your Monzani flute. I have never played one, but intrigued non the less by the individualistic design and overall flair of the ones I’ve seen in photo’s. They really seem to stand out in appearance from other examples from that period. Most importantly - how does it sound ?
One of the great things about old flute is that each note has its own character. This is, of course, most apparent in 1-keys where the forked fingerings are to varying extents veiled. In flutes with iffy tuning, embouchure gymnastics also give different notes different timbres. But even in well-tuned 8-keyed flutes, especially those with split hands, different notes sound differently due to the different hole sizes and all that.
Many modern makers have gone to great lengths to, and done great jobs at, make the sound uniform over the scale. Those are great flutes, and much easier to play than old flutes with wonky scales. But there’s still some character that’s missing from them.
Hello 2Toots,
My Monzani is probably not the best example to go by. Firstly the embouchure on the head marked 1 has had the original plugged with new boxwood and a new larger oval embouchure cut. This was not done crudely. All repairs are extremely professional and I think very old. The head marked 2 has a small circular embouchure that is a bit crude (this is possibly original).
The holes are quite large for a Monzani. Again they could have been enlarged but I don’t really see evidence of this. However I’ve not seen an early Monzani with holes this big. It is from the Dover St. Address so 1814-1819?
I affectionately call it Frankenstein as it has cracks with big visible pins on joint 1 The cracks were of course caused by the silver sockets.
Joint 2 must have cracked as well and an ingenious repair of sleeved new boxwood over the bore and tone holes and replacing the long f block as well. This repair is very well done.
Its a marvellous player with a unique tone. I’ve not come across another flute like it.
My only issue is I have to roll out the headjoint and lip up a it to play at a:440. It sounds better though around 435 ish with a more relaxed approach and the headjoint rolled in a bit to my ear. The second headjoint is pitched higher.
I will put up a video if I have time soon.
All the best,
Patrick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngabbBhPPkM
For 2toots…
You can hear I don’t really have the ‘hang’ of the Monzani yet but I do love it.
Wow!! I have just examined your pics of the the Monzani with it’s superb acid stained finish and elegant silver key work -what a looker. Better still, the YouTube link and the opportunity to hear it being played. Firstly, let me complement you on your wonderful flute playing ( I get the sneaky suspicion you’ll get a decent sound out of anything thrown at you - how long have you been playing?). The Tone you coax from this instrument is a great example of what just can’t be conveyed in words.
Thanks - That was revealing and inspiring in equal measure. I have been playing just over two years now and the sonic beauty of that delivery just reminded me of the reason I picked up the instrument in the first place, and in turn favoured the older makes. Sheesh, I shudder to think how you’ll sound once you get the " hang of it! " I’d say your on the right track.
2TOOTS.