new flutes... old flutes....

[johnkerr]

As an aside, I don't recall anyone saying that professional players (and by that, you seem to mean famous professionals) use antiques - although they undoubtedly own a few. I do know of many that do play antiques, or did at various points in their careers/life, although more probably use modern instruments now, as you say, hand picked or even custom-made by a maker they particularly like (or endorse). Be interesting to see how far afield from their antiques' characteristics their moderns are... or aren't.

Well, until just the last few years Catherine McEvoy was playing only the antique Rudall and Rose flute she was given as a teenager - a unique instrument, BTW, with an unlined headjoint and no tuning slide. That's the flute she played on her first solo recording and the duet recording she did with her brother John called The Kilmore Fancy. Then she got a nice keyed flute with a C corps de rechange from Mike Grinter. I wouldn't venture to speak for her, but I think a big reason for that was not because she didn't like the way the old flute played but because it was getting harder and harder to count on it when the chips are down due to the many problems that are always around when you're playing an instrument that's a century and a half old. At any rate, on her latest recording The Home Ruler I believe she plays a few tracks on each of her flutes, including the Grinter in all its variations. So if you want a comparison of how old and new flutes sound in the hands of the same player, you could have a listen to her recordings and reach all kinds of conclusions.

Or, if you want a much more amateurish version of the same, in the box of on-line recordings available via the link in my sig line are a couple tracks of me playing my Olwell Pratten model (circa 1992) and a couple of me on my Rudall and Rose (circa 1840, restored by the good Mr. Olwell). If you can't really tell which are which, ask me and I'll tell you. Don't ask me what I'm doing differently on the two, though, because I really don't know. I just play 'em!

[dcopley]

The various opinions on "flat foot" syndrome make more sense if you consider that not all feet were equally flat.

Some early-to-mid 1800's flutes had a bottom D which comes out around 40 cents flat (give or take 10 cents) if you blow it uniformly with the other notes. I have three such flutes (a William Bark, a Henry Potter, and a Harris), and I (as well as most others who have tried) find it very difficult to get the D up to pitch even with major effort. The three flutes have similar dimensions, with the spacing between the "E" and the "D" tone holes at around 93 mm. I use this spacing as a rough indication of the flatness of the "D", recognizing that it is only approximate since it ignores the effect of hole size and bore taper.

Some other flutes from the same period are closer to modern tuning. The bottom D is around 15 to 20 cents flat, and you can get a really nice strong and in-tune bottom D by adjusting your embouchure and pushing the note. I have a Metzler flute which is like that (though I can't guarantee that someone did not shorten the foot in the last 150 years). The "D to E" hole spacing is around 87 mm. I have drawings of two Rudall and Rose flutes (Serial Numbers 655 and 5047) from the Edinburgh University collection, and these have a D to E spacing of 87 and 86mm. So I would expect those two R&R flutes to fit nicely in this intermediate category. The majority of Rudall Rose designs from modern makers also fit this category in hole spacing and in playing characteristics.

The third catergory would be the late 1800's and early 1900's Pratten and Hawkes flutes, where the bottom D will be pretty much in tune if you blow evenly down the scale. On my Hawkes flute, the D to E spacing is 78 mm, and you have to be a little careful not to blow the low D too sharp.

So if someone brings me a flute from the second category (slightly flat) and wants help because they cannot get the low D up to pitch, my advice is to spend some more time working on embouchure and getting to know the flute. However, if they bring one of the very flat flutes, I am certainly prepared to modify it by shortening the foot joint, since it would otherwise not be playable by the owner or anyone else. I agree with the comments that flutes of real historical value should not be altered, and that has to be considered. I also think it appropriate to provide the owner with a document describing what modifications were made, and asking them to pass the document on to future owners of the flute.

Dave Copley
Loveland, Ohio

[Cayden]

Well, until just the last few years Catherine McEvoy was playing only the antique Rudall and Rose flute she was given as a teenager - a unique instrument, BTW, with an unlined headjoint and no tuning slide. That's the flute she played on her first solo recording and the duet recording she did with her brother John called The Kilmore Fancy. Then she got a nice keyed flute with a C corps de rechange from Mike Grinter. I wouldn't venture to speak for her, but I think a big reason for that was not because she didn't like the way the old flute played but because it was getting harder and harder to count on it when the chips are down due to the many problems that are always around when you're playing an instrument that's a century and a half old.

I saw her play, what was it, two years ago on the Music Network tour with Caoimhin O Raghallaigh and Micháel O' Raghallaigh. She was on stage there with at least three flutes (she had three there at one time but there may have been additional changes). During the last Willie week she was in with the usual crowd and my impression was she was using her regular flute, I can't find any pics of her from last summer to confirm that impression (I do have a number from the concert mentioned above).

Maybe she just doesn't want to travel abroad with the old flute.

[johnkerr]

Maybe she just doesn't want to travel abroad with the old flute.

No, she's had it with her on every trip to America I've seen her on, which is at least six times now in the past 10 or so years. Once she had the Grinter, she brought it with her as well. A whole bag full of flutes. She plays them all from time to time. Not sure exactly how she decides which one to use at any given moment.

[jim stone]

Here's a famous professional playing an antique flute (and say what you will,
the fellow can really play). I believe he bought it from a chiffandfippler, in fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gjxxt4kRws

Joe Burke on Tailor's Choice.

Famously Chris Norman, whose boxwood rudall is semi-retired, apparently due to age, not acoustics,
and been semi-replaced by a Rod Cameron copy.

[Jon C.]

Here's a famous professional playing an antique flute (and say what you will,
the fellow can really play). I believe he bought it from a chiffandfippler, in fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Gjxxt4kRws

Joe Burke on Tailor's Choice.

Famously Chris Norman, whose boxwood rudall is semi-retired, apparently due to age, not acoustics,
and been semi-replaced by a Rod Cameron copy.

How horribly out of tune!

[brotherwind]

... is it so wrong to want a flute that does not require all the gymnastics? is it wrong to want a flute that really is easy to play.... historicity be damned. if we have the technology to make good sounding flutes that are in tune and can be played in tune, shouldn't we do so? or am i the only one thinking that way? ...

Nobody mentioned curiosity as a motive to get and play different flutes. I find it very astonishing how different flutes can be while playing. Since I started playing flute I sought to get to know different types and makes of flute.

Also, I think different flutes can teach you different things. I have one flute that is fairly easy to blow, with a very nice tone. Could have stayed with it. But another one, demanding much more precise embouchure, taught/forced/seduced me to give more atention and dedication to develop. Now playing again the first one is a real delight. Sometimes you need some heavier weights to train your muscles.

Just my few cents.
Cheers, Moritz

[Henke]

I've read this whole thread now, and it was interesting although I'm afraid it raised a huge dilemma on my part.
I have this one of a kind antique 8-key flute as some of you may know. It's a Firth, Pond & Co. 8-key in cocuswood which isn't all that unusual. But it is a left handed instrument from the mid 1800's which is extremely uncommon. It's one of the only surviving left handed keyed flutes from the period (anyone have an estimate of how many others there are?).
The reason I got it however, was not because of it's rarity. I play lefty and I got it as a players flute. I have some issues with the tuning which is hard to overcome. The F# and A are pretty off, but not too far to be lipped into tune (D is well in tune). But I do play other flutes, and I want to keep playing other flutes which are better in tune, and I want this one to play as easily as the others. I'm not interested in the "gymnastics" as the OP called it.

A few days ago, I felt there was no problem sending it off to have the tuning adjusted to my needs, but now I'm starting to have doubts. Should I let the flute be optimized to my needs and the needs of most other modern players? This would make it more valuable to me as a players instrument, which it was intended to be. I don't think they created it in the 1850s or so as a curiosity. Or should I leave the tuning alone, try to learn to live with it, maybe sometime in the future learn to play it as well anyway but probably having difficulties switching between flutes, all for the sake of preserving it in the original condition because it is a rare historical flute? A true moral dilemma arising...

I better mull this over with a few drams of
whisky

[groxburgh]

Henke am I right in guessing that the A is too high in pitch and the F# too low? Why not use wax in the leading edge of the L3 hole to lower the pitch of the A and use the F natural key on any long F#s to bring the pitch up on those notes. Another option which might help with the A is to not push the LH section tenon fully into the barrel socket - leave a couple of mm gap, which will lower the first octave note that's 2x this distance from the embouchure hole, usually B or A but it could be G depending on your actual flute - while it raises the 2nd octave.

There are other options as well with physically altering the flute really a last resort.

Cheers
Graeme

[jemtheflute]

Henke, I'm with Graeme here - he beat me to it....... I bet he's right about the specific tuning issues? They're much the same on my R&R - I have waxed the down-tube side of my A (T3) tone-hole (on the advice of Chris Wilkes) to good effect, and I have in any case always vented an F key for F# in the vast majority of circumstances - not all ornaments or in fast passages where it is very awkward to do so, but mostly - you can see so on my YouTube videos. Like venting the Eb key routinely, (also most likely necessary on your flute?) it is a habit quite quickly acquired with a little effort that then ceases to be much of an issue. You soon work out a system for knowing which key, long or short, to apply in which kind of passing context. Doing so then makes it much easier to deal with using the F keys for F naturals in tunes that demand them. It IS how the flute was intended to be used and need not be (save while learning it) an impedance to ITM style. (The F# played without venting a key is NOT "flat" - it is not being correctly fingered! Play it as designed for, venting an F key and it will probably be pretty close to proper pitch.)

BTW, I don't find having the habit of venting keys where available causes me much difficulty when playing instruments without the keys - I switch to keyless whistles perfectly happily. I prefer not to play keyless flutes, and miss having the keys when I do so, but don't get badly tripped up by their absence (mostly!).

Of course, there are plenty of genuine trad Irish players playing antique flutes or close copies of them who play without bothering with the keys or the intonation issues - whether Terry's RTTA analysis would show that they lip them in consistently....... I doubt! But they don't sound bad to us lesser mortals listening, for the most part! I don't think most of our ears are that fussy, though I'm not intending to present an argument for sloppiness!

I would say, even if your FH&P wasn't of special interest, that it would be very unwise to tinker with the tone-holes or bore to change the tuning in any permanent fashion. Don't!

[jiminos]

henke: my ponderings in the original post was not intended to create a dilemma for anybody. while it might sound like it in the first post, i am not really an advocate of altering the originals from antiquity. especially something as rare or unusual as your flute. i think jem and grox are absolutely correct in their suggestions. don't do anything that permanently alters your flute.

in the first post, my ponderings were more along the line of... or what was going on inside my very tiny brain at the time was....

... hmmm... our modern western ears have become accustomed to the tuning of the modern instruments.... we've somehow learned not so much what sounds right, but what doesn't sound right.... very flat notes seem to stick out horribly... very sharp notes do, too.... why is it that the modern makers aren't making the instruments closer to "in tune" across the range? i asked myself... and then i posed the question here. my own M & E requires a bit of work. it has a flat foot that is huge when it is blown in... if i tune to the G, the A is a bit sharp, the F# is a bit flat, the E is good, and with all that... i enjoy the hell out of playing it. it does take some work to keep from hitting a really sharp A in the middle of something... but, my ear helps me keep close to where i should be....

but given that, i wondered about the things i've mentioned... could it be done? if so, why hasn't it? or has it?

for me, this thread has been a great education. i'm glad i started it. i learned quite a bit, once i got past the few who couldn't seem to get beyond "stop yer damned whining and play" and "suck it up, that's just how it is".... this thread, like many others, in addition to teaching me more about flutes, also showed the "colors" if you will of some the the regular posters on the board.... some folks are just not very nice... some seem to be absolutists, brooking no room for difference... and most are truly devoted to ITM in particular, and music in general, seeking only to learn and help others learn.

[jim stone]

I think you will find that a number of contemporary makers
are indeed making flutes that are sweetly in tune, without
the anomalies you mention. Eamonn Cotter's flutes,
at least the one I have, are just lovely in this way, for instance.

As I probably mentioned earlier, some flutes are meant to have
a flat low D, e.g. the Bryan Byrne rudall copy, which one learns
to blow in tune. This is intentional (I've talked to Bryan about it).
As Brad H suggests, if one learns to play the low end properly,
one gets a fine and expressive low D. But the rest of the flute
is very well in tune, including the second octave D.

There are others like your M&E which have the sharp A,
the flat F sharp, and whatever, to some extent, but
much less than the old flutes often did. Some players
prefer this. But, again, you will find some contemporary
makers whose flutes are sweetly in tune.

I think part of the issue is that the holes on the simple system flute,
if they are to be fingered by a human hand, do not go in
optimal places to get true notes. The Boehm flute
solved that problem by putting an end to open holes.

[Aanvil]

Me... I'm not very nice.


Try the wax!

If it works you can use melt shellac for a more "permanent" durable and cosmetically appealing adjustment.

It will still be just as removable only it won't fly off in the middle of a set like bees wax is ought to do.

[jemtheflute]

like bees' wax is ought to do.

??????????????????

"Prone to doing"/"wont to do" ? Communication, dear boy.............

Right idea, though - reversible, non-damaging, durable but not permanent - way to go.

[Aanvil]

like bees' wax is ought to do.

??????????????????

"Prone to doing"/"wont to do" ? Communication, dear boy.............

Right idea, though - reversible, non-damaging, durable but not permanent - way to go.

Bah, perfectly clear to me what I was saying.

"Whale... I figger it otta fall off I reckon...yessur... with ya'lls fancy like fingerin' un such.... it otta"

Just because we both happen to speak English it in no way guarantees we'll be speaking the same language.