I hear that Pratten style is large bore and large holes, and Rundall style is small bore and smaller holes. That is really all I know about it. I would assume that the larger bore and holes give a Pratten a louder, “bigger” sound, but I don’t really know much about it.
But I want to.
To the player it is usually this: Pratten open is more open yes it is louder it usually has a clearer tone than a Rudall, now Rudall’s have a very woody tone they are not as loud usually but a player can push them to be just as loud as a Pratten but a Pratten can be pushed louder. As a whistle player you could compare the tones like Burke vs. Generation The Pratten is like a DASBT it is a pure louder sound whereas the Rudall has a less pure sound making it rough (some might disagree). That is how the player usually hears it and yes you can change the tone of a Flute with different embochures.
David’s point number one is right on.
The more flutes I play the more I realize the player is half of the equation.
Having said that, I do think that in the hands of the same player a Pratten will tend to have more inclinaton to bark and honk and have a bit more volume. Whereas the Rudall will be inclined to have a warmer more complex tone.
But as David and others have said, a good player can make about any flute do about anything. I personally have a Hammy and a Burns boxwood Rudall. Very different flutes and each is at its best with a different sort of approach but either can be made to really honk or be wonderfully buttery warm.
The difference is the Hammy “wants” to really honk and the Burns boxwood Rudall “wants” to be wonderfully buttery warm.
I don’t know if that makes any sense. I prefer Rudalls in general but I play my Hammy almost every day. I’d be sad not to have both as they are different.
The smartest thing we could all do is stick with one flute until we can really master it (this from a guy that sells flutes :roll: ). I recently got a CD from Desi Seery of Pat Fitzpatrick and another fellow playing the same Delrin Seery flute. They are outrageous. I can’t believe the tone, the power , the ornamentation they are getting out of that thing and yet they both sound very different. It just tells me I need to spend a lot more time in the wood shed and a lot less time looking for the Holy Grail.
Doc
hey doc…what do you do in the woodshed if I may ask???
berti
Rudalls tend to have a more focused sound; they cut
through. Prattens are more open. Rudalls tend to have
a very sweet second octave; Prattens have a full
and resonant bottom D. One may have to work
to get the bottom D of a Rudall to sound strong.
It comes more easily on a Pratten.
If I may hazard an analogy.
In guitars, dreadnoughts are big and booming.
There used to be archtopped guitars in jazz
that lacked the big sound but had
a pure sound that cut through the
other instruments, making them
audible. The dreadnought is a Pratten;
the archtop is a Rudall.
he uses his “axe.” 
Sorry Berti. It’s an old American expression derived from the old blues guitarists of the South. It refers to the habit of aspiring guitarists spending time out in the woodshed practicing so they could be famous some day. 
Cheers,
Doc
I’m new to the flute world, but I know that for a lot of (wind) instruments, the main difference is how they “feel” more than how they sound. Prattens, I hear, are more demanding on the player, whereas Rudalls are a bit more forgiving. This is not me speaking from experience.
I know, being a saxophone player, I am constantly barraged with outrageous statements about one brand’s obvious superiority in sound over another. I have a very expensive sax, and a very inexpensive sax, and really the sound from the two of them is pretty similar (to a point). So when people start to compare the $4000 selmer to the $4000 yamaha, I just ignore them.
My suggestion: find the one that you are most comfortable playing, the one that “feels” the best, and you’ll have the one that sounds the best for you.
In my experience, having played both Rudall and Pratten-style flutes, I don’t think either is really “less demanding” than the other. They may be demanding in different ways, but both are pretty demanding.
Small-holed Rudalls that I’ve played and owned are fairly forgiving in terms of breath requirement and hole-coverage, but the embouchure is often a bit more challenging (and really, that’s the primary interface between player and instrument).
Prattens may, for some, be more challenging to finger due to hole size, and may demand a little more air if they’re large-bore instruments, but the embouchure cut is often more forgiving of a less-than-highly focussed embouchure (in my own experience).
It turns out I’m a big-hole flute kind of guy, and the tone I want out of a flute has been easier (for me) to obtain from the Pratten-esque or large-holed Rudall instruments than from the smaller-holed examples. But I’ve loved the tonal flexibility and focus one can obtain from the latter. So for the kind of player I am, and the kind I want to be, I find the Pratten-ish slutes to be “easier” (though I still find them pretty challenging, in a good way). And I’ll bet that, to others listening, that I mostly just sound like me when I play, and not like me-playing-a-Rudall-or-a-Pratten. the Prattens just suit me, so I can better express the music as I’d like to. I think.
A long way of saying that I think that whether an instrument is “forgiving” or not is largely up to the player and their preferences, and not a quality of the flute style so much. Thus all the “in my experience” stuff above.
I do think that Rudall-esque and Pratten-esque sticks have certain attributes that differ between them, but “level of forgiveness” isn’t one of them.
Unless I’m totally wrong. Which is absolutely possible.
(What do these poor flutes have to apologize for, anyway?)
Prattens can be more demanding windwise;
Rudalls embouchure wise.
Personally I find rudalls harder to
play but I think I like them better
Folks
I have to say that after many years playing original Pratten’s Perfected flutes (made by Hudson and made Hudson and others at Boosey) and many Rudall flutes of a varying sort (from Rudall & Rose up through Rudall, Carte & Co), that talk of pigeon-holing these two flutes is bunk.
I used to be a sole fan of Rudalls; now I am a devotee of both.
I own and frequently play 5 Rudalls (four cocus and one boxwood) and own/play four Prattens (two Hudson and two Boosey).
For anyone to uniformly suggest that Rudalls have a “less pure sound” than a Pratten or any other flute is crap.
In fact, Rudalls typically have the single most fluid and focused of the tones. And their second octave is nice, but it is their third octave that makes them best. Incredible pitch and range for the responsiveness. They have a refined tone unparalleled by any Pratten. In this I mean the best of the Rudalls and the best of the Prattens. There are, I’m sure, exceptions.
For anyone to separate Rudalls into small-hole and Pratten-models into the large-hole is also crap.
One of my Pratten flutes is actually a medium-hole model, and the label signed by Mr. Pratten himself shows it to be for “small hands.”
I also own a Rudall (#6208) that has some of the largest holes available, bigger than even my largest-hole Pratten. I will put this flute up against any – ANY – Pratten out there, not matter the maker or original. Even Pat Olwell marveled at how large the bore was on this flute.
Among the early Rudalls the holes were typically large. Why? Likely because George Rudall was a student of flute with Charles Nicholson Jr., whose father espoused and the son popularized the large tone holes.
The Rudall firm made many a variety of flutes, from smallish holes to some of the largest available.
For anyone to say Rudalls have small bores is also crap.
Most Rudalls, in fact, had much larger bores than most flutes, even Prattens! What distinguished Pratten flutes was the ability to open the LOWER end of the bore more so as to make the holes there larger. That made for a bigger sound on the very bottom notes, which it turns out where Mr. Pratten enjoyed playing.
Prattens are indeed loud flutes and, I dare say, have the most unfocused tone without the benefit of a skilled player. You need a good lip to make it work.
But Rudalls are easily the most responsive of all the flutes, provided you have a good one. There is so much more variety available to Rudalls than Prattens. After all, we know they made about 7400 simple system flutes; the number of 8key Prattens is unknown, but far fewer indeed.
And remember, too: Boosey Pratten flutes were being made largely for the military band units. That was their market, although they did make for orchestra play.
Rudalls were much more refined, made primarily for the parlor or orchestra player.
The characters are different, but not as vastly as many of you make it out to be!
Think of it this way:
Prattens typically (TYPICALLY…..NOT always) are the balls-to-the-wall flute, the Indy 500 Formula One car. Loud, fast and awe-inspiring.
Rudalls typically are the Lamborghinis; classy, sexy, all-out speed with beauty and power.
So let’s stop saying Rudalls are small and Prattens are large.
It’s nonsense.
If you’d like, use the nomenclature you’re looking for: Small-holed, medium-holed, large-holed.
Small-holed flutes are more in tune with themselves. Medium-hole flutes have larger bores. Large-hole flutes have larger bores and typically are louder sounding, but sometimes expense tuning balance (old flutes, that is, not the newer makers who have made adjustments).
The makers of today model their Rudall style flute on just a couple flutes they’ve measured. Chances are it’s not like the other Rudalls, so they miss out on the large-hole capacity of that style.
Same with the Prattens; only thing is, until I discovered this medium-holed Pratten, no one even knew they existed!
Couldn’t agree more David…
Just been having fun re: this discussion, switching heads back and forth amongst what I’ve got here…sometimes surprising !
You should hear your old Rudall with a Peter Noy head !
Jack
My wife calls them “Franken-Rudalls” jack
I have a Rudall with an Olwell headpiece…
and temporarily have another Olwell head on a Boosey that I’ve been workhorsing of late while I fix the original.
Grand flutes them all!
Interesting comments, David. . .
The question is, are the current stereotypes of “Rudall Style” = smaller holed/bored and “Pratten Style” = larger too entrenched to be corrected?
Or is it perhaps even a positive development, in that it gives flute players a common vocabulary and set of concepts with which to work?
Frankly I think it started with Pat Olwell, who was one of the first to offer his Rudall model (smallish holes), Nicholson model (medium-large holes) and Pratten model (large holes).
Then it became Pratten flutes to mean single-body middle and Rudall to mean the two-piece mid-body.
Then it came to be Pratten to be loud and Rudall to mean quiet.
Then it became Pratten to mean hard to fill because of its large bore and Rudall to be easier because of its small bore.
Why not say Monzani to be Small-holed, Prowse to be medium and Pask to be large?
I think because one man came to use just those two flutes, switching from a Rudall to a Boosey-Pratten: Matt Molloy.
He didn’t flip the nomenclature around; but his moves were certainly watched closely.
Fact is, it does a disservice to the flutes themselves. More of today’s flutes are homogeneous than the flutes of yore. As such we’re losing a great deal of diversity and quality that made each maker great.
Most people haven’t had the luxury of playing a diverse array of Rudalls, let alone just one. The same with Prattens or the other great makers, some not getting the credit they assuredly deserve. As such, they are inexpense and most people curl their noses at them…until they try one. One such maker is Henry Wylde. His work with the Rudall name garners thousands, but his own name, hundreds only.
It is indeed correctible if we make it clear. The makers have some responsibility in this, but I think the majority of the work are people such as myself and Levine who have played and been around many of these flutes enough to not allow them to be set into just two camps.
As I said, it would be better to do the large-hole, small hole camp than the Rudall/Pratten.
It’s sort of like the phrase “alleged victims.” No one is alleging that they are a victim; they are alleging they were victimized and that someone committed a crime. So it should be “the person who accuses so-and-so of this-and-that.” It’s clear, it’s precise, it’s accurate.
I don’t mean to run off on this topic, but I’d rather help people appreciate the flute rather than let the miseducation and misinterpretations go on and on to such a point that you can’t ever get at the truth again.
My 2 cents
Can any of you out there with more discerning ears than I tell the difference in sound between Mr. Molloy’s Rudall and Pratten (and Olwell) playing?
To bear out David’s point, Glenn Schultz’s flutes were based on a Rudall, and they have some of the biggest holes on any flute I’ve played. Not Hammy big, but Seery big. It does have a smaller-than-normal bore with a small taper.
Re. the original question, I generally have more trouble with the low notes on large-holed flutes than on small-holed flutes. Interestingly, this includes Olwell Pratten- vs. Olwell Nicholson- and Rudall-style flutes, which all have the same embouchure cut. I don’t think it has anything to do with the design of the flute, but the flute that I cut my teeth on, which was a small-holed flute.
Doesnt’ matter if we can…
Matt can.
It’s why Pratten and Rudall hit the big time in Irish music.
If he’d been playing a Wylde and a Prowse…we’d be doing all that debate.
Point is…he was the first big name in flute playing whose weapon of choice became the focus of everyone trying to play.
And, yes…you CAN tell a difference.
He is better suited to the Boosey. Though these days it’s his Olwell he grabs most often.
dm
Most people haven’t had the luxury of playing a diverse array of Rudalls, let alone just one. The same with Prattens or the other great makers, some not getting the credit they assuredly deserve. > As such, they are inexpense and most people curl their noses at them…until they try one. One such maker is Henry Wylde. His work with the Rudall name garners thousands, but his own name, hundreds only. >
FOr people in the states, such as myself, it’s an issue with familiarity. I’m enthusiastic about several flutes I’ve played. To date, the “high end” flutes in that category are Olwell and Murray. We just don’t see the larger variety of instruments that are out there. The name recognition issue is self-perpetuating - who is going to risk money on a Wylde if they’ve never heard or heard of one?
Selfishly speaking, it would be very difficult for a lefty like me to find a suitable antique 
You’re quite right, worm
I suppose that’s one good reason for this board.
Ergo all the typing on this thread.
Wylde, by the way, is not a contemporary.
Visit www.rudallrose.com and follow the link to Wylde and you can read something about him.
Excellent flutes, by the way, for a very very good price (usually)!