Grinter vs. Olwell Pratten?

[John Driscoll]

Hello! Here's a question for folks who have played both of these flutes. Can anyone shed light on the main differences in tone between these flutes, or how the feel might differ?

I live in northern Michigan, and rarely get the chance to play other people's flutes, so how can I know if I'm a Rudall man or a Pratten man? Life is full of difficult decisions...

Let me acknowledge that I love my Olwell Pratten. But, I've just not spent a great deal of time with Rudall flutes, and I wonder if it might be a better fit for me?

Any light that can be shed is much appreciated.

-John

[bradhurley]

I live in northern Michigan, and rarely get the chance to play other people's flutes, so how can I know if I'm a Rudall man or a Pratten man? Life is full of difficult decisions...

I don't think you can tell without playing them. You'll hear nonsense such as "Rudall flutes are quieter" or "Pratten flutes have more power," but perhaps the only generalizations that can be made are that there are differences in tuning (particularly on the bottom D, which requires a different technique for playing it in tune on a Rudall flute than on a Pratten) and there might be a bit more depth/complexity in the tone of a Rudall-style flute, but the differences are subtle.

If you love your Olwell Pratten, that should be enough. If you ever have the opportunity to try a good Rudall-style flute and play it for more than a few minutes, that'll give you the best idea of whether you'd take to it or not. And there's wide variation among Rudall-style flutes, even by the same maker; you can say the same for Pratten-style flutes.

The more flutes I play (I've tried dozens over the years, probably close to 100 by now), the more I think of flutes as individuals rather than slotting them into categories. Kind of like people, I guess.

[jim stone]

I think the olwell pratten weighs less than the Grinter. That may (or may not) matter to you. There are first-rate flooters, e.g. Harry Bradley, who swear by rudalls and will not play Prattens. I agree that, pretty plainly, the only way to really learn something about rudalls is to play them. On the other hand, the Olwell Pratten is one of the best flutes in the world.

[paddler]

I'd say they are much more similar to each other than they are different. As far as I can tell, neither are accurate reproductions of antiques, but instead are optimized for modern use and tuning, and as such arrive at a very similar point in the design space. Bore profiles, hole sizes and spacing are all very, very close. The main difference I notice is the embouchure cut. I don't think it is helpful to describe (or think of) one as a Pratten and the other as a Rudall. They are both excellent modern flutes.

[jemtheflute]

The business of how many sections the main body is in is an irrelevance to sound, and it's quite wrong to call all flutes with a two-part body "Rudalls". That format preceded R&R and was used by pretty much all the English makers who most certainly weren't copying Rose (Rudall didn't make flutes!). Most modern makers offer models based on either Pratten or R&R originals rather than on flutes by other makers and that is how the current mislabelling (when applied to originals) arose. The difference in timbre between the two broad types is due to bore profile differences more than anything. But as has already been noted, the only way to find flutes which suit you is to try them. No amount of written or verbal description can really help. And as has also been said, all flutes are individual. Bear in mind that modern makers do not for the most part make accurate copies of originals but "improve" on them in terms of modern pitch orientation and intonation expectations.

[jim stone]

Mike Rafferty, who usually played an Olwell Pratten, told us at a workshop that he liked to play the Grinter (with all the keys) too. I believe there is a lot more variety in bore and hole size with Rudally flutes than with Pratteny flutes (which is not to say the latter are 'all the same.') I don't know enough about large holed Rudalls, but I play a small holed Rudall (something like Chris Norman's flute) with a slender bore, and that sounds very different from the Olwell Pratten (which I also play). The Rudall (it is an antique) has a much more focused sound, a 'charming' second octave, and is less loud and open.

[John Driscoll]

You'll hear nonsense such as "Rudall flutes are quieter" or "Pratten flutes have more power...The more flutes I play (I've tried dozens over the years, probably close to 100 by now), the more I think of flutes as individuals rather than slotting them into categories. Kind of like people, I guess.

I have definitely been mislead by the "Rudalls are quiet, Prattens are loud" generalization. The main idea was that if you want to play in a session, you should get a Pratten-type, because that's the only flute that will be heard above the din. It wasn't until I realized that three of my favorite flute players (Kevin Crawford, Sean Gavin, Harry Bradley) all play Rudalls that there might be more to the story. But you're right, as far as I can tell, each flute has a personality of it's own and I really just need to get out and try more instruments.

I grabbed a lesson with someone in Detroit a few weeks ago and he was playing a Gallagher large hole Rudall, and it was so bright strong and reedy, it was just delightful. That's what started this whole deliberation.

[jim stone]

Well, of course the people you mention are phenomenally good, and such folk can be heard loud and clear playing the proverbial curtain rod. What happens to the rest of us in a large noisy session is less clear. Pat O once mentioned to me that, after many years of playing, he can now be heard at sessions in Ireland playing his Nicholson model, where before he had to play his Pratten. I don't know enough here, especially about large holed Rudalls, but I believe generally Prattens are a better bet for being heard in that sort of setting--unless you are very good on the flute.

[kmag]

This is my personal opinion. To me it is not about volume but about tone and cutting through if you are worried about sessions. I have never used a decibel meter and have no desire to. Prattens may be louder but I find that a Rudall style flute cuts through quite well and should be no problem in a session. Most flutes are based on a style anyway and I have never played an original of any style of flute. Like everyone here these are my opinions and you may have very different experiences.

I have played Pratten style flutes and although they seem very popular here in the States I find that for me the tone is more spread. I also play the trumpet and although I enjoy that tone on a trumpet I don't on a flute. I have owned a few Pratten styles in the past but I no longer do.

A Nicholson style flute is a nice compromise if that is what a person is looking for and the one I have is based on a Nicholson with a Pratten style embouchure. It certainly has both the volume and can be reedy as well. Very versatile but you need to be focused since it can switch tones if you are not paying attention from a big spread sound to a very focused tone. It is made by Peter Noy. Beautiful flute.

I have a large holed Rudall based flute right now and it gives me with great consistency, and not too much effort, a reedy and focused tone. It is made by John Gallagher and it is a large holed Rudall and the tone is just what I like.

I think the first thing to do is to figure out how you want to play. I like several flute players and all of their various approaches but there is a sound that I personally want to make when I play and it is rough, reedy and focused.

[flutefry]

Marcus Hernon plays a flute he made that is a Rudall copy. When he played it in a camp session with 40 people, it was easily audible from the door of a large room. I think there is something to the "cutting through", and my belief is this comes from the focus of the tone. The analogy is very inexact but when washing the drive one closes the nozzle on the hose to increase the speed and narrow the diameter of the water. A focused airstream has a similar effect (but with different physics since it is exciting an air column).

I have reported this before, but will repeat it here. When I did own a Grinter (I think I got it from Jim?), and frankly had a relatively poorly developed embouchure, it didn't seem loud to me. Yet I was playing in a pub session with 15 people or so, and a guest muso came in and joined us. He turned out to be a visiting professional flute player in a decent Canadian symphony, who liked playing wooden flutes for fun. Afterwards he asked me about the flute I was playing because he said he could hear it clearly through the rest of the musicians, and that didn't happen very often.

I am currently playing an original R+R, as well as an original Hudson Siccama. Hudson was the original maker of Pratten's Perfected flutes, and the bore and hole size closely resembles a Pratten. Most of the time the R+R sounds more focused to me, but once in a while magic happens with the Siccama, and I can get this amazing focused, penetrating, reedy sound. Working for consistency with producing this tone has had a correspondingly good effect on the R+R-it sounds louder to me than it used to.

My takeaway is that it's about the embouchure more than the flute.

Hugh

[Akiba]

I think one can hear differences in the tone and vibrancy between a Grinter and an Olwell by listening very closely to the pro's who play and record with them. It's also very telling to hear them play live versus recorded.

Grinter:
Kevin Crawford
Steph Geremia
John Wynne
Michael McGoldrick
Brendan Mullholland

Olwell:
Matt Molloy
June McCormick
Tom Doorley
Seamus Eagan (Nicholson)
Laurence Nugent
John Skelton

To be honest, when I hear the Grinter on recordings, they sound great. When I hear them live (eg Crawford and Geremia) they sound too "airy" and a bit soft. I think they blend too much and don't cut through. Though, to be fair, I haven't been blown away with live Olwells either (Nugent and Skelton). I also think the Olwell is much easier to play than the Grinter. Grinters seem crisper and lighter; Olwells deeper and huskier.

My 2 cents.

[tstermitz]

I really appreciate that people are trying to put their impressions into words.

I'm new-ish to flute, but it seems to me that volume isn't the important difference between Pratten and Rudall.

What about responsiveness?

Coming from whistle, the larger physical size and volume of a flute is notably slower than I'm used to. Smaller holes and smaller volume would seem to be faster. Maybe it doesn't matter when you get good with your instrument.

[jim stone]

All other things being equal, small holed flutes are typically more responsive. For instance, Terry McGee's Grey Larsen Preferred, which is touted for its responsiveness (ornaments 'pop out') has truly small holes. This is one of the reasons I play a small-holed Rudall, and if that's the sound you want, that's a good way to get it. At the same time Patrick Olwell is often enough called the Stradivarius of flutesmyths, and his Pratten is a beautiful sounding flute. It's responsive enough.

[bradhurley]

I think one can hear differences in the tone and vibrancy between a Grinter and an Olwell by listening very closely to the pro's who play and record with them. It's also very telling to hear them play live versus recorded.

I think most of what you're hearing in this case is the differences between players. The litmus test is to hand one player a few different flutes, rather than listening to the same kind of flute played by different players. If I had to guess at a hierarchy for "what factors make the biggest difference in how a flute sounds," I'd list them as follows:

1. The player
2. The headjoint (including the embouchure)
3. The flute body design
4. The material the flute is made from

In recent months I've had two world-class flute players visit my house and play my flutes. In both cases I was blown away; I never knew my flutes could make sounds like that. But I also noticed that when they played their flutes and then picked up my flutes, the sound they got from my flutes was quite similar to what they got from their own, even though to their ears they could hear and feel differences.

As for the headjoint, we've discussed here how amazingly different a flute can sound just by swapping out one headjoint for another. When I bought my D flute from Bryan Byrne, he had me choose between two headjoints he had made for it; the contrast was striking and it really felt like I was playing two completely different flutes. One had a foggy, velvety tone and the other was clear as a bell.

My impression is that the flute body design and the material it's made from can affect the level of turbulence in the air column, which some people claim affects the flute's tone.

[Akiba]

Great points, Brad. Maybe I'm hearing distinctions purely on psychological expectations. But I think a flute design does produce different overtone structures, etc. I also think I can tell a Grinter player from an Olwell player. Each player sounds unique; no one player sounds exactly like another; that's one of the great beauties of Irish fluting. But there are patterns and tendencies I perceive from flutes made by different makers.