Tell us something.: Playing Scottish and Irish music in California for 45 years. These days many discussions are migrating to Facebook but I prefer the online chat forum format.
Gordon wrote:Rudalls can be as different from one another as modern makers' flutes can be. Such a question is unanswerable.
Do you mean closest in spirit, or in god-awful tuning?
I played for many years a beautiful boxwood Rudall & Rose made at their 1827-1837 address. It had ivory rings and endcap, silver keys, and pewter plugs on all three footjoint holes (which worked flawlessly I might add).
The tuning of this flute was anything but "god-awful".
In fact Rod Cameron measured my flute back in the 80's when he was thinking about making a R&R model.
He devised an electronic contraption that he shoves up a flute bore to measure quite precisely all the little contours. This was because in the Baroque period a flute's bore was only half-done when it was reamed. Afterwards the maker came in with little files and widened the bore in various places to correct the tuning of various notes. The only way to exactly replicate such a bore was to measure it precisely and continuously along its length.
BTW I compared a Wilkes R&R to my original back years ago and the Wilkes was a pale imitation indeed.
Interesting story there...I was visiting with Cocus on the Soggy Isle, and he persuaded me to record a clip on his machine. We'd already done the little duet on "Christmas Eve," using two original Rudalls. For my own one, I wanted my own flute, so I ran out to the car to get the Wylde 8-key with the Olwell head that I play often. As I was plugging it together, Cocus asked me what version of "The Rainy Day" did I play, and could he record it. I twisted the flute 'round right, knocked out the tune without thinking, and Cocus said, "there's your clip." I said, "okay!"
I sure could have thought of a tune I'm more in the habit of playing. I could have (should have) warmed up the flute first. I might have practiced a bit first, and/or tried to get a good take. Still, there's an honesty about the clip - this is what you might get if you catch me unawares. I do intend to add another clip at some stage, something a bit more polished. Until then, I don't mind being represented, and my peur aul' flute as well, by a clip which shows both of us in a perfectly natural state: unrehearsed, unprepared, un-lubricated, unedited, and unabashed. That's how you'll usually find us! Cheers,
Gordon wrote:Rudalls can be as different from one another as modern makers' flutes can be. Such a question is unanswerable.
Do you mean closest in spirit, or in god-awful tuning?
I played for many years a beautiful boxwood Rudall & Rose made at their 1827-1837 address. It had ivory rings and endcap, silver keys, and pewter plugs on all three footjoint holes (which worked flawlessly I might add).
The tuning of this flute was anything but "god-awful".
In fact Rod Cameron measured my flute back in the 80's when he was thinking about making a R&R model.
He devised an electronic contraption that he shoves up a flute bore to measure quite precisely all the little contours. This was because in the Baroque period a flute's bore was only half-done when it was reamed. Afterwards the maker came in with little files and widened the bore in various places to correct the tuning of various notes. The only way to exactly replicate such a bore was to measure it precisely and continuously along its length.
BTW I compared a Wilkes R&R to my original back years ago and the Wilkes was a pale imitation indeed.
Well, 'twas meant as a bit of a joke, actually. Still, modern makers often have to readjust the tuning of their copies, mostly to fit modern sensibilities and playing techniques. Old Rudalls, generally, did have problematic tuning, set a bit sharper than modern flutes, generally flat in the F#, sharp on the low D (or did I get that backwards..?) - and need key venting in order to correct much of this. Not a problem, necessarily, but that gets into another topic of what tuning is right, how much it's in the hands of an experienced player, or what sort of music or instrumental accompaniment you may or may not be playing alongside. Modern copies, in answer to Jim's original question, tend not to be all that comparable to original R&Rs.
I haven't quizzed loads of modern makers about their flutes, but I get the general impression (partly from personal contact with Chris Wilkes and Hammy Hamilton, partly from reading Terry McGee's, Michael Grinter's and many other websites, etc.) as per Gordon's last comment that the majority of them model their flutes closely on a particular original, but do adjust it for todays needs - less extreme tuning-range demands plus very fixed equal temperament - and less need to play 3rd octave or in all keys, so with tuning optimised to reduce need for key-venting in "near-home" keys and tone-defining characteristics optimised predominantly for a strong low register.
These flutes are therefore NOT "copies" as that term should strictly be used or would be understood by period instrument specialists in the Classical Music world - they are modern instruments "modelled on" originals - and most of the makers actually mention the "improvements" and "advances" they make in their publicity. (I don't mean to imply scepticism by the parentheses, but those issues are relative depending on the aesthetic and functional context of use of the product.)
Many of these makers, as Jon C described, do work from close measurements of a chosen original, or amalgamate features from several such, but I think relatively few of them set out to make as true as possible, unmodified, accurate copies of specific historic instruments, certainly not as their main product, though some (not all!) of them are indubitably capable of doing such work if required by a client.
Ultimately, unless we propose to start making high quality accurate measurement surveys of both period and new-made instruments, we punters on this forum cannot usefully answer the original question. The only people who can do so are the makers themselves. Jon C has done so. Terry McGee explains copiously on his website. As for others, they mostly just give general information that implies that they modify the designs. I don't think I can remember reading any that claim consistently to make 100% historically accurate copies, even amongst those few makers who also make and (claim to try to) do just that with their Baroque Flute copies.
BTW, Gordon, most original R&Rs have flat low Ds as part of a general "flat foot syndrome", though how flat they tend does depend significantly on the embouchure and tone-production skills of the player! (I struggle constantly!) The F#s are pretty well in tune vented, but flat without, ditto the 1st 8ve open C# and the low E. Vent 'em! It's not a problem!
Last edited by jemtheflute on Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I respect people's privilege to hold their beliefs, whatever those may be (within reason), but respect the beliefs themselves? You gotta be kidding!
What one means by the "originals" is subjective. I have seen many versions of original Rudall flutes but have yet to see a really good, peer reviewed scientific study of the significant differences between them. The ones that I have measured have all been different from each other in ways that seem insignificant to some and greatly significant to others. Some have looked pristine yet played lousy and others look lousy and play perfectly.
If visual considerations are what matters, then there are makers who are skilled in block mounted keywork who do a very fine job following the originals. I am not one of them! I've seen some cast their keys using the originals as patterns and that is one way to get close - though I doubt if the original keys were cast and have seen evidence to the contrary. One can get a flute that looks original enough.
However, to me it is the acoustics that matter - thus type of key, faithfulness to outside visuals, etc. are less important. Then it becomes a matter of selection of which original. Chris Norman's was mentioned and it is a fine instrument. I know of a Rudall Carte (#6776) with the same bore, but different fingerhole placement and it required a bit more breath as the embouchure had been mucked with before I saw it. This bore profile allows one some flexibility as far as moving tone holes up and down the bore and of the Rudalls I've measured it seems the most forgiving. I know of one other Rudall down in Portland, an earlier, slightly narrower bored one in boxwood. This flute plays lovely - yet my attempts to copy it were frustrating. Unless every kink in the boxwood is rendered exactly, copies of this one just don't cut the mustard. I suspect these kinks are what makes the original play so well. I know of a very similar Rudall from the same period that has exactly the same fingerhole placement, a very similar bore - but unlike the Portland specimen this one is pristine and unwarped comparatively and it plays stuffy to me. It needs a few days in the back of a hot car in a humid climate like Florida!
The original question could be refined to a number of questions, such as:
1) Who makes a flute that looks visually closest to a Rudall original?
2) Who makes a flute that plays like a Rudall original?
3) Who makes a flute that plays like a Rudall original, but has improved on it?
Few, even makers, get to see lots of original Rudalls and play them, then compare these with flutes by modern makers - so the question or questions probably aren't answerable accurately. Rudalls and other flutes of that period are fine instruments, but unlike Cremonese violins, do not age as well and worse. My guess is that much better flutes (and perhaps ones with greater durability) are being made today. That is certainly the case for Baroque flutes.
Casey, thanks for taking the time to write such an excellent post (which very much reinforces and elaborates what I was trying to get at in my last).
To be fair to everyone participating in this thread, I very much doubt whether any of us was particularly concerned with external cosmetic copy-accuracy, nice though that is aesthetically (and I personally find say, a Wilkes or an Aebi much more attractive then an Ormiston or a Reviol, for example) - it seems to me the thread was always about playing characteristics and how those are governed by bore and tone-hole and embouchure placement and cut - the really crucial functional parameters.
Another relevant point for our imaginary survey would be to test the playing characteristics of modern "copies" and derived designs against the usage expectations of the originals. How do they cope with working across a full three octaves in all sorts of keys in orchestral and chamber settings playing the Romantic repertory? Is a Wilkes or an Olwell or a Murray or a Hammy or an Ormiston or a McGee or a Burns or whoever's 8-keyer "up" to it by comparison with a good example of a period flute in suitably capable hands (e.g. a Chris Norman or a Brian Berryman or a Stephen Preston? Now that would be an interesting survey!
Last edited by jemtheflute on Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I respect people's privilege to hold their beliefs, whatever those may be (within reason), but respect the beliefs themselves? You gotta be kidding!
sad that flutes purporting to be Rudalls yet have no serial number means you can never tell where they really came from.
there are a couple w/o them......but w/o the number, no way to verify it's the real deal. I guess it doesn't matter if it plays well....
but surely brings the price way way down.
That's why the serial number catalogue!
Casey makes great points, most especially about the time factor the flute has lived through. I have a Clementi-Nicholson that by rights ought to be a problem flute, but the embouchure has been modified so many times by just the right combination of people that it's the entire character of the instrument. John Gallagher (WV john) took a moulding of it to replicate for me, but it's difficult at best, as Casey alludes.
RR worked the on the process of "chambering" the tubes, which lent a critical one-of-a-kind quality to each flute. That ended ~1850 but the early flutes had very distinct sounds quite individual from one whose serial number was consecutive to it!
I'm saddened that I won't be around to hear the flutes made today in 100 years and see how they compare to a Rudall! That's the ticket!
I'd think a Rudall without a serial number is kind of neat, as there is some element of mystery behind it, and quite frankly it is rare. I don't think a lack of serial number should affect value, after all when it really comes down to it, its the playability of the instrument that matters not it's pedigree.
Another factor to consider is the fact that no two flutes by any of the modern makers play exactly like each other! They come closer to each other than perhaps two Rudalls - that might just be the measure of time as well. I see that in my flutes - some which were well cared for that play like cannons and others that were never oiled that need a little bit of reworking (usually the bore has shrunk some in the latter).
I'd think a Rudall without a serial number is kind of neat, as there is some element of mystery behind it, and quite frankly it is rare.
try proving it. There would always be a question. Try paying $5k for something you can't prove is authentic. A serial number goes a long way to helping that. nevertheless, I have several items here w/o serial numbers.....all yours for the same price as the real deals. They play great, by why should it matter to you?
its the playability of the instrument that matters not it's pedigree.
True. Then why do we pay so much for "name brand" items?
its the playability of the instrument that matters not it's pedigree.
True. Then why do we pay so much for "name brand" items?
We pay more for a name brand like Olwell or Hammy because we know it's gonna play well. We don't pay much at all for a name-brand like Meyer because we don't know whether it's gonna play well.
As for the people who pay extra for a regular ol' T-shirt because it has a Bennetton or DKNY logo on it, I don' get it.
Charlie Whorfin Woods
"Our work puts heavy metal where it belongs -- as a music genre and not a pollutant in drinking water." -- Prof Ali Miserez.
