why the long foot?

[RudallRose]

For the makers: What is the advantage (and the reason) for making keyless flutes (and some keyed) with the long C-foot w/o the C keys?
I have been playing an original boxwood Rudall&Rose with a short D foot.....and it's tremendous in pitch, tone and volume. The low E is strong and clearer and the D thunders. The overall volume of the flute, and the upper register is eye-opening.
I should note the D foot is reverse conical in the foot, so the end opening is larger at the exit than at the entry at the joint. Robert Bigio asked this question so we measured. Clearly at some point the taper opens up.
It leads me to ask, after all these years playing keyed flutes, that unless there's a need for the lower two sets of keys (C and C#).....why are you not making a D foot instead? What's the actual reason?

[paddler]

I think the main reason is probably because flutes tend to get made via a process of copying pre-existing flutes that sound good.
Many of the highest quality antique flutes were made for orchestral players and had a full complement of keys. So for a modern
maker looking for a great sounding antique to copy in order to make a keyless flute, there is a strong likelihood of them starting out
by copying an 8 key flute such as a Rudall & Rose. Long foot (8 key) antiques are actually more common than short foot (6 key) ones,
so its probably just a matter of chance that most makers start out with a long foot to copy. Then there is also the fact that long foot
keyless flutes are also now more common than short foot ones, so if a maker starts out by copying another modern maker, the chances
are that they will be copying a long foot flute.

Practically speaking, it is a lot easier to create a foot for the new keyless flute by simply popping the keys off an original 8 key foot, taking
all the acoustically relevant measurements, and just copying it. Producing a good sounding short foot takes more work and more
prototyping of foot reamers and back reamers etc. I think a lot of makers probably don't see the point of doing this extra work if they
already have a great sounding keyless flute.

And then there is also the fact that the long foot makes the buyer feel like they are getting more for their money than a tiny little short
foot.

[dcopley]

Balance is one reason. A keyless flute with a fully lined head joint will be top heavy if it has a short foot joint. Not a problem if the head is unlined.

[Conical bore]

Marketing probably has a lot to do with it, for the modern flute makers. As a potential customer, we have all these famous flute players we're trying to learn from, playing flutes with long foots even if the C and C# keys are rolled away and not used.

It's become the standard "look" of an Irish flute, and I think a modern maker would have to promote some significant advantages of a short foot to sell that design.

[Casey Burns]

Why, indeed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Gt3_SjFowo

Casey

[plunk111]

Thanks for that, Casey! I actually "LOL"ed!!!

Pat

P.S. I agree with Dave (above) about the "balance" idea...

[jim stone]

One advantage of the short foot is that, at a crowded session, it makes it less likely
your flute will be sticking in the ear of musician next to you.

[LewisC]

I will second that. For me that means the drip line is 3" to 4" closer to me. The neighboring musician to the right can sit closer.
L

[Steve Bliven]

One advantage of the short foot is that, at a crowded session, it makes it less likely
your flute will be sticking in the ear of musician next to you.

So, what's the issue here ?

Best wishes.

Steve

[chas]

Dave references this in his evaluation of his Rudall, but I've heard at least one maker say that it improves the low notes -- tuning and/or strength. I've played many with long and short feet, including from the same makers, and I can't tell the difference outside of balance.

Phil Bleazey points out that the long foot is easier for dancers to hang ribbons on.

There's another pertinent youtube video in addition to Casey's (I honestly misread the title of the thread, so this routine was the first thing that occurred to me):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3fAcxcxoZ8

[RudallRose]

I got this personal (unsolicited) email from Pat Olwell, who then suggested to present here.

I can't say as I entirely agree with it all, but my experience is only from the pure performance of this one example that, admittedly, seems to be an anomaly that is much to my lucky benefit, so for that I'm grateful. I wonder, too, how much the wonderful embouchure cut has to do with the ease of play.

I don't agree with the balance issue presented above, but I suppose agreement with it is in the hands of the beholder (flute-holder?). I've actually found the short-D to be very very comfortable in many respects, not the least of which is its balance.

Nevertheless, the note from Mr. P.O........
>>>>>>>>>>>

Hi David, here is the short answer to the question of why I am not making all, or more short D footjoints, instead of long extended ones:

Well they play differently, it's subtle, but it's there, and I have come to prefer the long foot. All of the first flutes I made had short feet, all the bamboo flutes, a series of Renaissance and Baroque flutes, and the first 20 or so "Irish" flutes.

One of the earliest flutes I measured at the Dayton Miller Collection, a Rudall-Rose had both footjoints, and I used that D foot as a model originally, with the reverse taper like you are describing in your boxwood R-Rose flute. I'll compress about 10 years of trying to learn to play the flute, while doing lots of experiments, and just say that I ended up liking the long foot, as it "supports" the higher notes differently.

My understanding of acoustics is kind of rudimentary, but the extension on the footjoint seems to create different partials on the 2nd part of the 2nd octave, and has a greater effect on the third octave. The flute has a kind of balance to the tone, and and the response when playing very quickly seems better.

I do notice though, when I make the infrequent short foot, that the low D just pops right out, "fully-formed", without the elaborate coaxing sometimes necessary with the long foot, and this is indeed a joy to play if it's been hit or miss with the other. I also notice a "fuller" response on the low notes, but as I get moving, jumping octaves, I end up missing something. I think this is more evident playing the flute hard, with what John Skelton calls "Ya"...

If I am playing more quietly, on an unlined boxwood flute, I can get along quite happily with the short flute, as with the antique French flutes I own. (It's interesting that the short D foot seems to have survived much longer on expensive, professional flutes in France than in England. The footjoint is reverse-reamed more radically than your boxwood R-Rose flute, starting at about 12 mm at the break up to 15 mm at the bottom, which after a lot of years I still look at and think, "Huhhh??" )

I think it is possible to "balance" the sound and volume of the D note, and make it more like the other notes, with a long foot, and a vent hole for the D. Of course, we don't necessarily want this for Irish flutes, preferring to take our lead from the pipes, and seeking a loud honk!

Interesting, Chinese bamboo flutes have the extension on the bottom, with extra vent holes, and I think some Bansuri...
Don't know if this helps, but that's my 2 bits worth, all the best Patrick

<<

I will note that at Robert Bigio's coaxing to measure my Rudall&Rose short-D footjoint, the entry is at 12mm and the exit at 13.5mm. Where the taper begins/ends is unknown to me w/o a bore profiler.

[Conical bore]

Thanks for the Pat Orwell forwarded post, very interesting!

(Quoting Pat):
I do notice though, when I make the infrequent short foot, that the low D just pops right out, "fully-formed", without the elaborate coaxing sometimes necessary with the long foot, and this is indeed a joy to play if it's been hit or miss with the other. I also notice a "fuller" response on the low notes, but as I get moving, jumping octaves, I end up missing something. I think this is more evident playing the flute hard, with what John Skelton calls "Ya"...

Wow, there that is again... the difference between "driving" the flute as hard as you can, without going out of control, vs. making clean notes. Terry mentioned this in another thread as a possible reason for the Irish "hard D" sound.

I'm finally getting a handle on my secondhand Rudall copy flute, and I notice an amazing difference between how it performs if I push it, vs. laying back and sounding pretty notes. I'm sure this is common knowledge among the more experienced players here, but maybe helpful for those climbing the initial learning curve like I've been doing for the last few years.

Now I have to add "Ya" to my vocabulary along with "craic" and all the rest...

[Casey Burns]

Pat's observations are very good and consistent with mine.

I have always found that on my Rudall and Carte -based copies that the long foot rules, especially for tonal balance and accuracy up into the 3rd octave. On my Pratten-derived Standard Flute that is now nothing like a Pratten nor a Rudall (closest thing that comes to it is a later Metzler or some Prowses but these are still way off) the longer foot has little or no effect and none that is positive.


I can always drive a bigger tone out of the Standard flutes. The bore I use allows for great plasticity in terms of hole placement. Not so the Rudall and Carte copy.

As far as mechanical balance the shorter footed flutes are a few ounces top heavy and the flutes sometimes want to fall to the left. Keywork eliminates this.

Casey

[Geoffrey Ellis]

His comments about the Chinese flutes are significant as well. I make Chinese xiao (vertical flutes) and they have quite a bit of extension to the bore and a series of six tuning/vent holes that a friend and flute researcher I know has called "the tone hole matrix". He is actually doing some deep research into the physics of these holes and their function. We've discussed it a lot, but it's a painful process for me because the physics does not come easy to me (whereas he teaches higher math at a university in Vermont).

I make xiao both with and without these holes, and there is a difference. Much like what Pat described, it is subtle. Not a make-it-or-break-it difference at all, but noticeable. And most of the seasoned xiao players I know tend to favor the flutes with the tone hole matrix. It stabilizes the low note and allows it to be pushed a bit harder and the higher harmonics do have a perceptible richness to them. In theory it helps with third octave play, but I admit that I haven't tested that heavily.

The Chinese use a similar approach on the dizi (transverse flutes). The xiao has been around in China for millennia, and that's a lot of generations of flute makers working to optimize it. They definitely have figured it out, because the xiao is an incredibly well balanced instrument, and it has a cylindrical bore! Yet the intonation is incredibly accurate if well made.

[RudallRose]

I'm going to quiz here on the assertion of third octave because something seems to elude me.
Taken simply, the simple system flute for Irish trad music lives within the first two octaves, the following notes (not factoring the in-between accidents, just the whole tones). I'm relying on the lower-case/upper-case usages from the ABC notations to differentiate:

Octave I >> D-E-F#-G-A-B-C#-d
Octave II>> d-e-f#-g-a-b-c#-d'

by that, then the third octave is then:
d'-e'-f#'-g'-a'-b'.....

Now....I'm a long-ago fifer with a pretty strong lip who, as Dr. Frank Claudy so eloquently stated once, can get a note out of a thimble.
But in Irish trad music.....some fluters venture to the d'.....and only once have I heard someone other than I venture as high as the g'.....and I can get the b' and the c#' as well.....but that's hardly practical. And, more importantly, very very rarely used.

With that.....
What third octave are you all referring to with such importance? If it's this one....then quite frankly, it doesn't matter.

Unless you mean the second octave of the flute, which is effectively the third octave of the piano.

Anyone please?