Pratten/Rudall etc.

[jomac]

Could someone explain about Pratten Bodies and Rudall Bores, (and Rudall Bodies and Pratten Bores, too, if that's applicable). I know that these are referring to 19th century flutemakers, and their particular body/bore types, but what are the physical characteristics (dimensions?) of these types and what are their playing advantages?

Thanks!

[dcopley]

The Pratten design has a long one-piece mid-section, a larger bore diameter than most other flutes, and some of the holes much larger than others (and larger than on about any other flute). They can be played loudly and with good tone. They tend to need a lot of air to play, and can be more tiring and more difficult to play in tune. People with small fingers can find it hard to cover the holes. Most of the originals (made by Boosey and Co. or by Hawkes and Son) are quite similar in design. Some modern "Pratten" style flutes are very different, and the only thing that some have in common with the originals is the one-piece mid-section.

Original Rudall and Rose flutes vary much more in design than the Prattens. The mid-section is split into two pieces. The bore and hole diameters are smaller, but there is a lot of variation from flute to flute. The tone can vary from fairly soft to loud and reedy. They are generally easier and more forgiving to play than the Prattens, but again, your mileage may vary.

Dave Copley

[RudallRose]

Beautiful explanation, David, except for one minor thing: The original Prattens were made not by Boosey & Co (later as Boosey & Hawkes) but by John Hudson, who was later hired by Boosey and brought the Pratten design with him (and the Siccama design, too, but that wasn't as popular).
Hudson was a maker of the Siccama-system flute and Robert Sydney Pratten, a great flute player of his day, used that very flute design to play. (footnote: Rudall & Rose turned Siccama down to make his flute and stayed with the Carte and Boehm models, so he went to Hudson).
Anyway, Pratten developed his own flute (called the R.S. Pratten's Perfected....of which there seemed to be many variations), even taking some ideas from Rockstro, and went to where it made most sense: to Siccama and Hudson -- the very people who made the flutes he had been playing.
Hudson made the original Pratten flutes for one year under his own name, in 1855. It's unknown how many he actually made in that year. Then took it with him over to Boosey the following year, which resulted in the name connection everyone now knows (Molloy plays a Boosey Pratten for years).
I have an original 8-key Pratten (serial #49)that's stamped as "R.S.Pratten's Perfected/Hudson/from Siccama/(etc.etc.)" of which, at the moment, our research shows it to be the earliest-made Pratten still known to be around.
I also have an original Siccama (serial #745) and it's interesting to lay the two side-by-side to see the similarities of shape in keys and design of body.
But, your description is correct: Huge holes and large bore.

[dcopley]

Thanks for filling in the history that I was missing - interesting to see where Hudson fits into the grand scheme of things. I see that I need to find some excuse to visit Denver and look at some of the Migoya collection.

Some more thoughts following on from the original posting. Choosing a flute for Celtic music is sometimes presented as a choice between a Pratten or a Rudall and Rose design. This is an over-simplification, and it is probably better to think of these as two points on a "size" scale, where there are a lot of choices in between, both by historic and current makers.

Dave Copley

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dcopley on 2001-11-17 10:55 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: dcopley on 2001-11-17 10:56 ]</font>

[RudallRose]

You're exactly right, David. The oversimplification actually hurts some of today's makers because of the modifications they've made in designs. Yet, not many have come up with their own designs without use of the best originals (or what one maker deems best....another maker might find it inferior, so it makes for great cocktail conversation!).
Many makers have moved toward the solid-midbody design, not so much because it makes a better bore but, when keyed, makes the placement of the G# key optimum. However, I think makers in time will move back toward the two-piece body as long pieces of blackwood become harder and harder to come by, which is inevitable.
So, there are many "tweeks" to designs that makers do today to accommodate our concert pitch (which Peter Noy recently said came to be at A=440 in the states after a convention of the 30s ...whether he means 1830 or 1930 I'm not sure).
So perhaps we should see "Copley's Perfected" or "Seery's Improved" or something of the like on flutes? Wouldn't that just confuse everybody! Now you know how players felt in the mid-1800s when the grand age of flutes was in total turmoil!!

[jomac]

Thanks, guys, for a very erudite discussion; exactly what I was hoping for.

David (Copley): Would you say your flutes are more Prattenesque or Rudallesque? Or something completely different?

Thanks again

[dcopley]

Jomac, I can try a partial answer to your question. Our design started from a Pratten design, with some simplification of the rather complex Pratten bore tapers. We reduced the size of the larger holes, but kept the smaller holes about the same, ending up with a hole layout which would not be unusual on a larger hole Rudall and Rose.

I don't think I can answer objectively on how the playing characteristics compare, but maybe Mr. Migoya could give an opinion since he has much more experience than me of the early Pratten and R&R instruments.

Dave Copley

[RudallRose]

Your point exactly, David!
In my hands the flute felt much more as a Rudall does, without the feel of those HUGE Pratten holes. (I'm finding earlier Prattens had much larger holes than the later Boosey-Pratten models, I would think as the bore profile adjusted)
I didn't look inside your flute, David, enough to tell whether you compensate the fluxes in Pratten bore to accommodate the Rudall-type holes with greater undercutting? I'd almost venture to say this would balance out, no?
The Rudall that I play has large holes, but the undercutting makes them simply massive. Ergo, a huge sound.

[Steampacket]

Do most Pratten or "Pratten model flutes have large finger holes? I have a Michael Doyle "Pratten" model here, a two-piece, just a headjoint & body, and the holes are the same size as on my "Rudall" type flute.

[sturob]

It depends on what kind of Rudall flute you've got . . . don't forget that there are "large-hole" Rudalls.

Stuart

[Steampacket]

"It depends on what kind of Rudall flute you've got . . . don't forget that there are "large-hole" Rudalls." S.

Have two modern "Rudall" type flutes with the same size holes as on the "Pratten" model. I don't think they are large holed flutes, Not bigger than a Grinter down at the local session anyway?

[jim stone]

I suppose the Seeri is a plainly Pratten flute.
One piece midsection, large holes, big,
loud.

[rama]

the number of sections to a flute do not define whether it is a pratten type or not largely because it has little to do with the internal dynamics of the flute. But Seery would be considered Prattenish although modified.
the key is that each maker nowadays does their own thing and are straying away from the original designs, except in a few cases where R&R design is involved. For instance Grinter and Bryan Byrne (and i suppose a few others but i have no firsthand knowledge so i won't comment) keep somewhat true to the rudall tone/tuning.

[jim stone]

Why want a Rudall? Given the diversity,
is there something they get you that
Prattens (or neo-prattens) don't? Easy to blow, darker
sound, quieter? What? Best

[sturob]

Do you mean why want an original Rudall, or why a copy, or why either, Jim?

I ask because the conventional wisdom on the Rudall vs. Pratten camps is that Rudalls are more flexible flutes, capable of a wider range of tonalities from IrTrad to chamber. They are often said to be easier to fill . . .

I think a better question would be, Why want a Pratten? I think Prattens are kind of an acquired taste, I think. They're one that I've acquired, but I think I'm in a minority in that I think Prattens are quite flexible. Or, that Olwell Prattens are. My lips have ne'er touched a real Hudson Pratten.

As for the original poster's questions, with regard to modern makers Pratten tends to connote a big flute: big bore, big toneholes, less easy to fill, easy to honk on the low D. Rudall tends to connote a medium-sized bore, with anywhere from small to large toneholes (but usually a little smaller than the Pratten's holes). For some people, Rudall is the small end, Nicholson the middle, and Pratten the large end. Rudalls are every bit as capable of honking like the Prattens, if that's what you want, but it's not as easy for the beginner to blast the bottom end.

And then throw in the Grey Larsen flutes, some kind of Firth/Hall/Pondish American-made 19th century flute, which is definitely smaller hole- and bore-wise than a Rudall.

That doesn't answer Jim's question, but neither (I guess) did I understand it.

Stuart