Has anybody here ever played a conical Boehm?

[LorenzoFlute]

Has anybody here ever played a conical Boehm?
I'm more and more curious about them. You know, the sound we love combined with easy of fingering, and not completely covered holes.
Of course I can try to imagine their sound (perhaps not too far away from their simple system friends) but I'd like a more direct experience.
Thanks

http://www.oldflutes.com/boehm.htm

[dunnp]

There are two on eBay just now.

[LorenzoFlute]

I know... I probably don't have the money anyway.

[groxburgh]

I own one and have played a few notes on it but it's not in a state where it's able to be played properly.... A future project is to get it going.

Cheers
Graeme

[LorenzoFlute]

Update us when you do

[Terry McGee]

I have one, Lorenzo, a French-made instrument from around the end of the 19th century.



I wouldn't get too excited about it, at least for ITM purposes. The bore and holes are small, so the performance is not big. I just compared it to my usual playing instrument, my Rudall 5088 model, and the tone is definitely quieter and less edgy. It might respond to some supercharging, with a new head and a more responsive embouchure.

Tuning is pretty good (as you'd hope) although it seems better to me at 430 than 435 or 440. Might be a getting-used-to thing.

Terry

[LorenzoFlute]

Thanks Terry!
So you think that most of this flutes will be similar in volume to the one you have? Why don't you try it with a new headjoint (I'm sure you have plenty around!)?
For comparison, how big are the holes and the bore?

[Cathy Wilde]

A friend bought one and she's happy with it (it looks just like the one in Terry's collection -- a Thibouville, maybe?), but I agree with Terry that it's not exactly a master-blaster. Its sound carries across a circle of musicians just fine (better than you'd expect), but you can't push it around like you can the bigger-bored flutes. Of course, it's French and of that period of refinement, so there you go. But the Boehm setup suits her down to the ground, and it's got about the sweetest tone I've heard, esp. in the upper register. We'd been looking for more of a Rudall-made Boehm in the hopes it'd be a little more "best of both worlds," but this one's fine for her purposes.

[keithsandra]

Has anyone tried the Garry Somers' cylindrical aluminum keyless 'Boehm"?

K.

[Terry McGee]

Thanks Terry!
So you think that most of this flutes will be similar in volume to the one you have? Why don't you try it with a new headjoint (I'm sure you have plenty around!)?
For comparison, how big are the holes and the bore?

I will, but it's not a simple matter of a swap with an existing head. The head section is unusually short compared to most flutes, and so the instrument would be so flat that the test would be meaningless. Also, my usual heads have a bigger bore. I'll have to make a head specifically for it.

Head bore on the Laube is 18.3mm. Body tapers from 18.1 to 11.75mm. End of foot bore is 11.1mm. Hard to get at most of the holes because of the keywork, but the 5 ring-key holes vary from 7.3mm to nearly 8mm. The key covered holes are no larger, sometimes smaller. So, smooth, well-tuned but not loud. You can see why it didn't catch on with the English, who were used to the big-bodied sound from post-Nicholson flutes.

It needed Boehm's 19mm cylindrical bore to overcome the weakness due to the narrow bore. And even then, it waited until Clinton introduced large graduated holes in 1862 to catch up to the big bore, big hole Siccamas and Prattens and give us the basis for the modern Boehm flute.

I'm constantly reminded that the three flute makers (Boehm, Siccama and Clinton) that Rockstro puts the boot into were actually the three greatest minds of the era. But we only have to watch or read the Murdock press today to be reminded of the destructive power of well-presented lies.

Terry

[LorenzoFlute]

Thanks again Terry, let us know when you try that new head on it.

I wonder how the flute history would be different if Boehm made a bigger bore from the beginning, and maybe a square embouchure hole (you kind of need smaller holes if you want to use rings, don't you?).

[Terry McGee]

Boehm did in fact make and prefer the rectangular embouchure hole, but neither the English or French liked it. I think it wasn't until mid 20th century that all the modern flute makers switched to it. I think it would help to supercharge the Laube.

On hole sizes, yes, you are limited with ring keys to what the finger can cover. As we know on post-Nicholson flutes, this can get up as far as 10.5 to 11mm on one hole (hole 5) but a flute with multiple holes this size would be harder to control. I think 10mm would be a reasonable limit, so the Laube is pretty safe at less than 8mm. French simple system flutes of the time rarely got over 7mm, so you can see where he was coming from.

Terry

[Terry McGee]

I shouldn't leave the topic without observing that a Boehm system conical flute doesn't have to be quiet, it's just that at the time and place they were designed, emphasis was on improving uniformity and tuning, not power. Even when Boehm turned his mind to the cylindrical flute, he was still looking for better tuning, not power. Even so his new cylindrical flute proved too big for the Germans and the French, and they both set to to improve the conical some more, with extra keys to patch over the problems.

There's no reason why an adventurous modern maker couldn't apply Boehm's keywork to say a Pratten's bore (it would need some tweaks to take into account the semitone venting steps, rather than the mostly tone venting steps on an 8-key). With the big bore and fully vented design, it should be pretty full-throated.

Terry (feeling uncharacteristically unadventurous...)

[jemtheflute]

Here's an affordable one newly on eBay from a reputable source, playable at 440 and in fully fettled playing condition, at a very reasonable Buy It Now price. I'd be tempted if I was in a position to be so (and didn't need to save up about that much to pay for the restoration of the RC&Co Radcliff I acquired recently.....).

And here's another - needing restoration and not as attractive proposition, though maybe a more valuable instrument once fixed and properly identified - more likely to be diapason normal (LP), too.

[pandscarr]

Interesting conversation - do they finger just like Rudall's?

My new dirty secret, after the long discussion about playing Holst in Dflat on the wooden flute , is that I've gone a different route - and bought myself a silver concert flute. I'm really enjoying playing it, although switching now between the wooden flutes and the silver flute for my course feels a little bit like shooting myself in the foot. But hopefully that's just a muscular memory thing and it will just get better. I'm fine if I move from wooden flute to silver flute - not so fine always moving back as my thumb just wants to put the B key on.

But it is a different perspective - they're all flutes, just some are better for sharp keys and some are better for flat keys... and the thing that surprises me, is apart from some difference in timbre, I just sound like myself on all of them.

Cheers,
Pamela