fwiw, michael tubridy can be heard playing his wylde/r&r on his wonderful solo recording ‘the eagle’s whistle’ as well as on the first few chieftain recordings. that should give a good idea of how they sound.
Where does one find Wylde’s flutes? on e bay? or?
On those Chieftains albums I happen to own, the flute is very muted and buried in the mix. . . hard to tell what he sounds like. Maybe I’ll try headphones next time.
I think The analogies are the only things that I understood in this thread.
Sounds like I’m going to be looking at Rundalls to start with. I more of a Archtop/sports car guy. Chet Atkins over Jonny Cash.
One important feature on a flute, for me, which hasn’t been discussed yet, is the ability to bend and half hole easily, but I suppose this has a lot to do with the holes and the bore than “Rundall vs. Pratten”.
He also plays the Wylde on A SELECTION OF IRISH TRADITIONAL STEP DANCES from http://www.setdance.com/ . I think also available on CD, perhaps from NPU.
Kevin Krell
I already explained to you that large tone holes and thin walls assist glissandi (glissando?) in the other topic.
I know David Migoya has great stature on account of his knowledge, dignity and mentorship of others, but I have problems with his assertions about Prattens.
OK, so David has an atypical medium holed Pratten. That does not shake the generalisation that Prattens are characterised by large tone holes. It is a generalisation based on predominance.
There’s a series of four tapes for setdancing of Tommy McCarthy, Eamonn McGivney and Michael Tubridy playing for Clare sets (with help from JUnior Crehan on a few tracks) produced by Larry Lynch (there’s also a number of Sliabh Luachra sets o nthe tapes by players whose names I keep forgetting).
They were still available last time I saw them (hehe, last year) for 2.50 euro each. A Claddagh set dancing CD has some tracks from these as well as other stuff. Mighty music.
Both can do it. Bigger holes may facilitate half-holing, but
smaller holed flutes facilitate crossfingering accidentals.
I have both and I can slide and half hole on
them all. You get used to what you have.
Tal’s point, if I may put it this way, is that while there
are exceptions to the generalizations, the
paradigm case of a Rudall is a smaller holed
narrower bored flute with a more focused sound,
the paradigm case of a Pratten is a larger
bored larger holed honker.
You’re a better man than me.
My current queen flute is a Seery blackwood (now with a replacement Delrin head). I don’t know how you would classify it but it definitely is not Prattenesque or bansuric. Frankly, I’ve given up half holing/xfingering anything but C on it. It has a lot of positives and my audience loves it and it is my concert flute no 1 and I will never sell it but half holing anything but C - forget it. The Tipple flutes, in contrast, are ever so receptive.
When I was in Terry McGee’s workshop some month’s ago I played a range of the flutes there at his invitation. I seemed to get very excited with a certain type of flute and, as it turned out, he described these as Pratten type flutes. They had, as I recall, larger tone holes than the others and felt like bansuri under my fingers. Now I have very very small dainty hands but I had no probs with these Prattenesque pipes including the Bb.
Terry and I agreed that my leaning was no doubt due to my bansuri background.
off hand, i recall a few places on the first three chieftains recordings where michael is solo or at least leading off a set… look for tunes like ‘tie the bonnet’, ‘pigtown’, ‘lark on the strand’, ‘queen of may’ etc. this stuff is classic
I suppose the generalization of Pratten flutes as the large-holes is less offending to me (and reality) than the characterization of Rudalls as small (or medium) holed.
That’s what truly gets me.
It takes away a great deal of credit from the firm’s work
I did a spot check on the RudallRose catalogue I have compiled over the past several years.
Slightly less than half the flutes (48%) catalogued have large holes. The remainder is mostly medium (in the Nicholson sense) and a small handful are smal-holed (in the Monzani sense).
I suspect the best note on this I can offer is that it’s difficult to watch people generalize these makers and the flutes of today when most have not actually tried the real thing. While I quite understand it’s a disadvantage, and I do all I can within reason to help tear those walls down (a board member was recently in Denver and he got to try all the flutes…his first time with a Rudall or a Pratten, let along a dozen of them), it’s important that we defend by educating rather than allow the misinformation to continue. It is a useless fight? Perhaps. But as I see it, why horde all the knowledge?
dm
This is definitely one of the reasons I’m glad you’re here.
While it’s very nice of you to share your knowledge with us, for many, there will never be a close connection to the realm of the original collector’s flutes. We can only go by what the modern makers models are fashioned after because we are players and not collectors, who buy modern flutes that meet our wants and needs. To most of us, these are the “real thing”. So, while it might be nice to know the many originals as intimately as you do, David, most of us will never play an original, nor delve that deep into the history of flute making.
Yes, we are talking generalities in their characteristics from what the makers list our flutes lineage as, and might be one example of which they have the measurements, or may even be a modification of the specs (a hybrid-things change!). It might not describe what most Rudalls or Prattens were patterened after, but it’s what we have to go by-their descriptions of their flutes available for sale.
When people ask what are the differences in tone between a Rudall and Pratten, most are not talking about your historic flutes. They just want a general idea of how today’s flutes differ in tone and playability. I think the question needs to be more specific, like how do Doug Tipple’s Pratten’s compare to his Rudall models? 
Most of this kind of information can be found on the flute makers’ websites, if they have different models available, and through soundclips to help find what we find appealing in tone. But, the best and really only way to be sure, is to buy a flute that you think you would like, and just play it, and start forming your own opinions on tone and playability, and go from there.
So, maybe the question is wrong to ask the difference between Rudall and Pratten instruments, because as we can now see, it’s a hard question to answer, historically speaking, and talking in generalities. So, thanks for sharing some historical knowledge with us, David, at least it gives us a sense of what was!
My two main flutes are a D Williams body with an Olwell head and barrell, and a D/Eb Noy. The Williams body was pronounced Prattenesque by Pat, but the headjoint is pure Olwell, I’m sure. Don’t know how close to “Pratten” its embouchure falls, but there are far broader overtones to that stick than with the Noy, which has a “Ruddall”-style embouchure (Peter’s designation), narrower bore, thicker walls, somewhat smaller toneholes --some of them-- and a narrower reedy sound, almost oboe-like.
I use the Noy for gigs and sessions, and the Olwilliams for ceilis and playing for dancers especially if I know they’ll be in hard shoe. Each is as loud as the other for all practical purposes, but the overtone palette of the “Pratten” is more easily heard at close range through the storm and fury, a boon --or not-- to the other musicians. As for the D “Rudall” at sessions, I really don’t care if I’m heard. Sometimes it’s better that way!
well noted, barry
a lot can be culled from your note!