Irish Flute: The Luddite's Perspective

[Rob Sharer]

I've got a bit of a "thing" about some of these more scientific analyses you occasionally find here on the C&F. I can imagine the attractiveness of this kind of thinking to a certain type of mind, especially to those involved in the making of flutes (though I would point out that despite decades of similar analysis of violins by the Catgut Acoustic Society, they still haven't figured out what Stradivari knew). I do, however, question whether a player could take any of this information and use it to become a better flute player.

The tuning program comes to mind. My question would be, if you can't hear whether it's out of tune or not, why does it matter? And what program is going to do what your ear can't? The net result of some of those discussions seems to have been a recommendation to go to a Nicholson-style blow, which in my world was what most of us were doing anyway.

I don't mean to single that program out, or to devalue someone's work in its proper context, but I feel compelled to at least put it out there, for any sweaty-palmed beginners who may be reading these techno-threads and worrying whether or not they'll measure up, that you don't need to assimilate any of this information to be able to play your flute. None of the aulfellas I learned with over in Ireland either knew or cared about the harmonic series.

Speaking of the aulfellas, can you imagine reading the results of a computerized analysis of flute tone aloud in the pub? You'd be slung out over the half-door!



Rob

[benhall.1]

Oh good. For a minute there I thought this was going to be a thread advocating invading the premises of flute makers and trashing their machines ...

[Denny]

That kind of attitude is going to severely limit the likelihood of getting the grant.

[hans]

Yes, not the Luddite perspective, but, what did Rob call himself, oh yes: philistine

Please retitle this topic: Irish Flute: A Philistine's Perspective

Long live the techno threads,
long live diversity,
long live open mindedness!

[Rob Sharer]

I'd like to see the man who could rip a lathe apart with his bare hands.

On second thought, I wouldn't.


Rob

[crookedtune]

So in Torino, there's this old piece of cloth. How can you deny a super-geek who wants to bounce electrons off of it?

[Rob Sharer]

So in Torino, there's this old piece of cloth. How can you deny a super-geek who wants to bounce electrons off of it?

With all due respect, I'm not touching that one with a barge-pole!


R

[s1m0n]

So in Torino, there's this old piece of cloth. How can you deny a super-geek who wants to bounce electrons off of it?

Tell him to go get his own damn cloth.

[I.D.10-t]

From Terry McGee's site.

The tone ought to be as reedy as possible, as much like that of the hautboy [oboe] as you can get, it, but embodying the round mellowness of the clarionet.

[This oft-quoted ideal of Nicholson's starts to make sense when we see it in context. His high pressure, covered hole, short jet approach will redirect energy from the fundamental into the harmonics, avoiding a simpering flutey sound in favour of a dark, hard and reedy one. There are also clues here as to why some ten or more years later, so many English players opted not to jump on the Boehm bandwagon - the sought-after hard, dark tones not being available on that instrument.

And just in case we momentarily overlooked the pressure issue ...]

I find things like the above informative. It helps to show the strength and limitations of an instrument. Other things like understanding where fingering patterns came from and the history makes seemingly arbitrary traditions seem less mysterious. The "flat foot problem" seems to be something that was being addressed in the "Getting the hard, dark, tone" thread by investigating the way those particular flutes were played compared to the "modern" method of playing a flute.

To me it is like the difference between the harpsichord and piano. Both keyboard instruments, but the style in how you approach them due to dynamics is different.

[Rob Sharer]

Well, yeah, but that's verbiage, something we all can understand.

R

From Terry McGee's site.

The tone ought to be as reedy as possible, as much like that of the hautboy [oboe] as you can get, it, but embodying the round mellowness of the clarionet.

[This oft-quoted ideal of Nicholson's starts to make sense when we see it in context. His high pressure, covered hole, short jet approach will redirect energy from the fundamental into the harmonics, avoiding a simpering flutey sound in favour of a dark, hard and reedy one. There are also clues here as to why some ten or more years later, so many English players opted not to jump on the Boehm bandwagon - the sought-after hard, dark tones not being available on that instrument.

And just in case we momentarily overlooked the pressure issue ...]

I find things like the above informative. It helps to show the strength and limitations of an instrument. Other things like understanding where fingering patterns came from and the history makes seemingly arbitrary traditions seem less mysterious. The "flat foot problem" seems to be something that was being addressed in the "Getting the hard, dark, tone" thread by investigating the way those particular flutes were played compared to the "modern" method of playing a flute.

To me it is like the difference between the harpsichord and piano. Both keyboard instruments, but the style in how you approach them due to dynamics is different.

[hans]

Well, yeah, but that's verbiage, something we all can understand.

Do you got a particular problem with numbers and/or graphs?
As long as they are translated into words they are okay?

[Rob Sharer]

Well, yeah, but that's verbiage, something we all can understand.

Do you got a particular problem with numbers and/or graphs?
As long as they are translated into words they are okay?

Dunno...I'll hand you my flute, and you show me a number.


Rob

[crookedtune]

To the point, I think looking at anything from all angles leads to new ways of thinking. Most become blind alleys, and a select few lead to innovation.

The new tools give us a few more angles to pursue. Personally, I don't have the mind or talent for scientific analysis, but I enjoy reading observations by those who do.

[MikeS]

I am truly glad Terry McGee delves deeply into Real Time Tuning Analysis and Rudall bores and the like because my McGee flute is wonderfully responsive and easy to play in tune. He has provided me with a marvelous tool for making music. However, when I buy a hammer, I pound nails with it. I will likely try a few to see which feels best in my hand when I pound. I do not feel the need to buy something to determine the Rockwell hardness of the head or measure the speed of the head when it strikes the nail.

[chas]

I think there's something to be said for usage of machines/electronics, but not reliance on them. For a beginner, especially one new to music, use of a tuner can be quite useful. OTOH, Catherine Folkers wrote a brilliant article in Traverso magazine on training your ear and embouchure by using a drone to allow you to recognize and play perfect octaves, fifths, and eventually thirds. Likewise, a metronome can be useful for a beginner or to get the rhythm right in a passage you're having difficulty with. Reliance on it is counter-productive, though.

I'm about as geeky as anyone, and I admire Terry's interest in understanding what goes into making a good flute/tone, but it really all comes down to Duke Ellington's saying, "If it sounds good it IS good."