Hi all
I’ve been reading posts on his forum for a few weeks now and I’ve gathered loads of useful information about what flute to buy as my first one ever. I am still wavering between a Seery and a M&E R&R and I was just wondering about the split embouchure proposed by Michael Chronolly: it is apparently a good thing to get a better and easier sound, but on the other hand, after you’ve got used to it, I imagine it’s rather difficult to get to any other flute with a standard embouchure. Am I right or not? Can those who have learnt on such an embouchure move on easily to another model or is it difficult?
I’d like to have firsthand impressions.
Thanks to all in advance.
split embouchure proposed by Michael Chronolly: it is apparently a good thing to get a better and easier sound, but on the other hand, after you’ve got used to it, I imagine it’s rather difficult to get to any other flute with a standard embouchure. Am I right or not?
I’m not sure it would cause trouble on just any other flute. I learned on a really nice Cronnolly split embouchure. The split is not in the hole. The hole is like the regular M n E and the split is further on, away from your body. The important point is if you move to a flute with a larger or different shaped embouchure. The Cronnolly flutes are really easy to play with an overly wide opening in your lips (aperture). I had difficulty going from mine to a Prattens-styled Olwell, since the mouth hole is bigger and requires a more specifically directed air stream to hit the “sweet spot”.
But I think if you went to a Rudall-style flute with a smaller rounder mouth hole, it wouldn’t present the same kind of problem. Maybe someone who did this could weigh in. You still would need to direct your air stream well but it would be more similar to the M n E.
Mind you, the M n E ought not be played without a well-directed air stream either. But the split lets you get away with it.
I now have a Seery as my backup flute (instead of the M n E) and it has a smaller “sweet spot” than the M n E. It is closer to a Prattens-styled flute. I think if I had realised that I would later want to play a Prattens type instrument I would have started on the Seery. but it would have been a tedious haul for the first few months.
All this also depends on your kind of lips, some people adjust more easily to the different types. And, any flute you get, you will have to get used to - they are all different.
Nah, don’t worry. I think the only advantage is it lets you blow harder (and play louder) on the low notes without breaking the sound. The embochure and technique is the same as in any wooden flute.
Each flute is different enough anyway that it’s always going to be a little bit of a learning curve.
Every M&E flute I’ve tried has been very forgiving in terms of embouchure, really super easy flutes to play with a good sound.
They aren’t as loud as Pratten flutes, but the R&R model comes very close, and its tone is excellent, in my opinion, comparing well against my blackwood Hamilton Pratten.
Ditto. Actually, I’ve gotten surprising volume (or it may be penetration due to timbre) from my M&E Rudall Rose, and it offers a broad palette of tonal color. That said, there are a lot of others out there for which the same could be said, too. In terms of pocket economy, M&E is one choice that shouldn’t disappoint.
Actually my question was irrelevant (Michael Cronolly gave me the explanation in a mail yesterday): the split embouchure is on his own design flute, not on the R and R model.
So now I’ve made a decision, thanks to your (and his) help: I’m going for his R and R model (rather than the Seery) as it is supposed to be easier to play for a beginner.
Thanks again
