Firth flute 6 key demonstration, and Rudolf Tutz

[GreenWood]

Often I come across links that might be of interest. Many might have seen these, others not, the first is a Firth 6 key demonstration which is worth watching if only to see it played with a more Irish trad style (first tune) and then more classical (the other two), found after looking for a demo of the 8 key version (not found) after tstermitz just posted on his

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUGKK5sATA

And Terry McGee has a page with related info

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/Firth&c.htm


Somehow I eventually ended up looking up Quantz and baroque flutes and landed on this short video of a German flute maker Rudolf Tutz, which is in German but nice enough to watch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eS0RpJWfF94


Just that.

[tstermitz]

Thanks for that. I'm not the musician that Michael Lynn is. He does great justice to the 6-key Firth Son.

These flutes serve for ITM tunes as well as classical music. I'm not able go back and forth between flutes very easily, because it take my embouchure some time (ahem, a lot of time) to adapt. I felt that the metal-embouchure sleeve prefers clean tone to reediness. At least for me, it played clearly and loudly. I didn't work with it long enough to find a reedy edge.

I did get a chance to play a Terry McGee "Grey Larsen Preferred" flute just the other night. It is very much a different flute from these late FHP family flutes. The flute I played had a good embouchure (easy to play), but has small holes (fast articulations) and a much quieter voice. It readily produced a reedy tone as I pushed the volume and air-flow.

[Terry McGee]

I did get a chance to play a Terry McGee "Grey Larsen Preferred" flute just the other night. It is very much a different flute from these late FHP family flutes. The flute I played had a good embouchure (easy to play), but has small holes (fast articulations) and a much quieter voice. It readily produced a reedy tone as I pushed the volume and air-flow.

Yes, I think a valid observation, tstermitz, I have developed the original quite a bit. In particular, the original hole 5 was pretty small, arguably to permit the old baroque F natural fingering (although I don't think it's really THAT small?) Probably more valid to assume the driving force for making it that small was the old French/German ideal of uniformity of sound, vs the English ideal of MAXIMUM POWER AT ANY COST! Consequently the F# note was, to my ear, unacceptably flat, unless sharpened by opening the Fnat key. Opening that hole up (and dealing with the ramifications and opportunities presented elsewhere!) not only solved the tuning issues, but of course brightened up the tone from that note up due to the better venting, rendering the instrument more "willing". The F# hole is still very manageable at around 8.5mm, compared to the 10 to 11mm of the typical Rudalls and Prattens.

The second major change is to go with the larger embouchure hole you'd expect on a Rudall or Prattens, rather than the smaller hole on these and French/German flutes of the era. Again, the driving force was to make the new instrument viable in the modern world. For that, it had to be able to hold its own in the session and, as mentioned above, be well-tuned. Interestingly, for many years after our collaboration, Grey continued to play his Firth etc flute, although with the modern head he had procured from a US head maker Chris Abell. A few years back, he switched to a Grey Larsen Preferred, citing the ease of playing, the tuning and the response as the convincing factors.

Having highlighted the changes I've made and the reason for them doesn't detract from my admiration for the originals. These are gorgeous flutes of the era, and deserve a lot more study than they have received.

And Greenwood, thanks for reminding us all about my page on these makers. It's prompted me to go back to it, update the format to make it easier to read, and add a Postscript.

[Terry McGee]

Ah, just as I had sent the response above, I suddenly grasped the real meaning of your comment, tstermitz. You're saying the GLP was quiet and small-holed compared to the Firth etc flute. So that is interesting, it tells us that Firth etc had either also done some later development, or had brought out a new model with bigger holes and more powerful response. We know they were very aware of what was going on in England, so that makes sense. So there's a challenge - if we look closely at your Firth etc, can we identify predecessors they were following, or can we determine if they were on a different path? As I have oft observed, there's much more study needed of American-made flutes.

[tstermitz]

Maybe Michael Lynn has some observations from his collection. I have looked at several (keyed) cocus flutes from the concert lineage and one boxwood FH&P, small-holed one-key flute.

The FPH family made flutes with smaller and larger holes, but the later ones I've seen are on a par with medium Rudalls. I have been watching and comparing some these flutes for a couple of years. Here is my small database of hole 4 & 5 sizes for several flutes. (If I recall from my statistics class, you need to get to 20 samples before you can have confidence in the mean):

9.10 10.5 R&R #3527
7.50 7.70 R&R #1696
7.20 8.20 R&R #4676

7.90 9.50 Firth, Son & Co 6-Key (1863+)
7.70 9.40 Firth, Son & Co 8-Key (1863+)
7.60 9.00 Firth, Pond & Co 8-key (1850s)
7.50 9.20 William Hall (1850s)
6.80 7.30 Firth, Hall & Pond Boxwood 1-key

Here is a link to Pat Olwell's "taxonomy of tone-holes". He measures the #4 G-hole as he feels it is the basis or foundation hole for the rest of the holes. Also, hole #5 seems to vary quite a bit compared to hole #4, even if it is usually the largest hole.

https://www.olwellflutes.com/post/a-tax ... den-flutes

#4 hole:
6.0–6.4mm (Smallest) Baroque and early Classical and Romantic period flutes.
7.0mm (Smaller) Romantic period flutes, smallest holes on Rudall-Rose.
8.0mm (Small) London-based flutemakers manufactured many of their flutes like this, even after Nicholson’s revolution.
9.0mm (Medium) Nicholson Flute. Prowse was authorized to stamp his “C. Nicholson’s Improved” and it’s my understanding these measurements represent the large-holed version of his flutes that other maker’s copied.
9.6-10mm (Large) Pratten Flutes.

[tstermitz]

Terry, wrt your questions about predecessors.

I think by the 1850s F, P, and H were confident in their own research and trajectory. By that time they had over 20 years of internal development, and craftsmanship. As you suggest, I'm sure they were aware of the trend in England for larger holed flutes.

Isn't there even a Siccama from Firth Pond, or did I imagine that? Nope, speaking of the devil, here is a reference to that:
http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/Sicc_Ext_others.htm

For a time, the United States had hefty import duties on musical instruments to protect local industry. (Not sure what years this covered).

[GreenWood]

tstermitz

I just went from a renaissance flute to a Rudall and it was like someone forgot to add the other side of the embouchure, my first thought was that how come people just don't miss ? I tried playing both for a while but it just confused me, so spent the last few weeks on the Rudall to be able to concentrate on learning how it is. The support for the lips, the difference in embouchure and air style are large, but it is actually easier to play. The trouble is like Terry mentions, it sort of invites to be played loud. Also, it is best in tune played open, and to get a good clean tone from it is not that obvious. On the renaissance flute tone is most of what there is, there is little volume, they aren't really designed for any extra expression only subtlety of, and that is mostly from learning tone. Terry had a discussion at The Session at some point where a teacher was asking how to get students to improve tone ... I wouldn't oblige anyone to learn renaissance flute but there that is what there is, and in fact most of second octave is not possible until you refine the embouchure. You cannot just blow harder, doesn't work. So when learning it was the first week or two to just sound first octave reasonably, while making the flute, the D'' is not that hard... but the rest was two weeks or more before each next note higher was even sounded, because each higher note needed a slightly finer stronger embouchure, and very precise placement. What is really funny, and I know this from other instruments also, is how a person "normalises" volume. On renaissance flute it is plenty loud enough to enjoy playing, and going to the Rudall it was "too loud and finger spacing too close together" ... but you get used to the loudness and then the renaissance seems quiet when I play it again. Playing "quietly" you are able to find the detail and be more intimate with the sound and own technique also I think. Im really no expert on this at all, but it is a side to playing that I think some people might be missing.

As Terry says... (as you say Terry)... "These are gorgeous flutes of the era, and deserve a lot more study than they have received."

The sound in the clip above just reminds me that they had a lot more right than given justice to. The tuning seems to have been a main problem up until later in the century, but the tone is excellent and to be honest I just have not heard it as good on modern flutes. The little of the more traditional style there is on that recording is not really reedy but very expressive, and I wonder if that quality is often left aside as flute makers cater for the deeper reedier sound. For example just now I was placing some shims in the Rudall style copy to try to get tuning closer in line, and it worked bringing the main difficult note (the D octave) into line, over sharpened another note a tad but not much, but mostly it really added to the reediness/barkiness of the flute ! That is supposed to be good (?) but the trouble is that the ability to play a clean vibrant tone was gone, just not possible. So I take out the shims and it is a different instrument all over again, where instead of reed (which is still possible if forced) the actual whole flute resonates for various notes ( like when you hold a ringing bell?) , and the second octave is sweeter instead of being more piercing. So there you have a sort of explanation why some very good players still choose to play on the older flutes, even with their errors...because correcting them changes the rest of the sound ?

You're welcome Terry, but really the thanks is to you for providing so much info at your site, it's invaluable. Anyone starting from scratch to find out just the info on that one page, it would take them ages, if they were able to at all.

[EditIn... where I say "where instead of reed (which is still possible if forced) " ... it sounds a little hard and unkind , so what I mean is more along the lines of "... which is still possible when played with that intent..." . ]

[Terry McGee]

So let me plug in the sizes of Grey's original, bolded for easy finding:

9.10 10.5 R&R #3527
7.50 7.70 R&R #1696
7.20 8.20 R&R #4676

7.90 9.50 Firth, Son & Co 6-Key (1863+)
7.70 9.40 Firth, Son & Co 8-Key (1863+)
7.60 9.00 Firth, Pond & Co 8-key (1850s)
7.50 9.20 William Hall (1850s)
6.80 7.30 Firth, Hall & Pond Boxwood 1-key
7.1 7.25 Firth & Pond, Grey Larsen's original

whereupon several things become obvious:
- yes, these holes are smaller than any of your data other than your Boxwood 1-key
- no wonder the F# was flat and I felt the need to increase it in the GLP!
- it still remains smaller in the GLP (8.5mm) than all yours other than the Boxwood 1-key, although that might be deceptive as I employ serious undercutting to keep it small under the finger, while appearing larger in acoustic terms

So, on the face of it, it appears that the GLP original was perhaps a 6-key version of your Boxwood 1-key, and the others you have data on cluster around a different, larger model.

Here is a link to Pat Olwell's "taxonomy of tone-holes". He measures the #4 G-hole as he feels it is the basis or foundation hole for the rest of the holes. Also, hole #5 seems to vary quite a bit compared to hole #4, even if it is usually the largest hole.

Heh heh, "it varies quite a bit" - the very reason I chose Hole #5 for my single point comparison!

Hole #4 enjoys a lot of venting support from Hole #5 only 1 semitone spacing away, while Hole #5 doesn't get much from Hole#6 and is doing a lot of heavy lifting for F# and notes above. I reckon it takes/sets the temperature of the flute!

[paddler]

For anyone interested in learning a bit more about antique American flutes, I have studied and played quite a few, from various periods and makers.
I started to try to document some of my flutes and have put the information, together with pictures, on a website so that it is easily accessible to the
other 2 or 3 people worldwide who might be interested in this kind of thing.

This a (stalled) work in progress, less than half done, but I think there is already enough there to be worth sharing. If you click on the image of each
flute it will take you to a page with more details, pictures, measurements etc.

My antique flute collection

I'm still not sure what possessed me to embark on something so time consuming and seemingly pointless, but I think Terry and his website had a big part
in it.

[Terry McGee]

Woah, a lot of good looking stuff, there, Paddler!

I'm still not sure what possessed me to embark on something so time consuming and seemingly pointless, but I think Terry and his website had a big part
in it.

Uh-oh....

[Terry McGee]

Now, let me throw a cat in among some pigeons here. Just one. I promise.

We all know that Rudall and Rose made large holed flutes, don't we. The ones we prize in sessions. Big holes, powerful performance. Compared to those wuzzy makers who made small hole flutes? Yeah?

So let me take you back to my Rudall, Rose and Carte study of many years back. (Many years? Hang on, I can't be that old! [Checks watch.] Oh dear! How time passes!)

This graph plots the frequency of various sizes of Hole#5 showing up, among all the flutes I received data on.



And look at what size of Hole#5 was most popular. 10mm like my Rudall 5088? 10.5mm like my Rudall "Perfected"? No! Around 8mm, like Chris Norman's No 742, or like the original for my "Rudall Refined" - my smallest Rudall model. So while our folklore and fantasies have Rudall and Rose slamming out large-holed flutes, that wasn't the reality. Most of their flutes are probably what we would call "medium sized holes".

Snitching again tstermitz' chart (and again bolding the new entries for easy location):

9.10 10.5 R&R #3527
7.9, 7.9 Rudall's most popular size
7.50 7.70 R&R #1696
7.20 8.20 R&R #4676

7.90 9.50 Firth, Son & Co 6-Key (1863+)
7.70 9.40 Firth, Son & Co 8-Key (1863+)
7.60 9.00 Firth, Pond & Co 8-key (1850s)
7.50 9.20 William Hall (1850s)
7.9, 7.9 Rudall's most popular size
6.80 7.30 Firth, Hall & Pond Boxwood 1-key
7.1 7.25 Firth & Pond, Grey Larsen's original

And so therefore sitting well down the list of larger Firth (etc) flutes tstermitz has illustrated above.
Curiouser and curiouser, cried Alice!

[rogervj]

Friends, I am really enjoying this conversation. I just acquired an Edward Baack (mid 19th century NY) 6 key cocus, courtesy of Jon Cornia. In comparison to the charts that you have posted it measures: #4- 7mm, #5- 8.4mm, embouchure- 10.5 x 11.2. This in comparison to my Burns Rudal copy: #4- 7.5mm, # 5- 9.5mm, embouchure- 10 x 11 mm. I find that the Baack has equal or more volume to the Rudal copy in spite of having smaller holes. Perhaps the embouchure size plays into these calculations of volume? I believe the embouchure size is original on the Baack because it is a fully lined head.

[jim stone]

Great thread. I think American flutes are really interesting.

[Jayhawk]

For anyone interested in learning a bit more about antique American flutes, I have studied and played quite a few, from various periods and makers.
I started to try to document some of my flutes and have put the information, together with pictures, on a website so that it is easily accessible to the
other 2 or 3 people worldwide who might be interested in this kind of thing.

This a (stalled) work in progress, less than half done, but I think there is already enough there to be worth sharing. If you click on the image of each
flute it will take you to a page with more details, pictures, measurements etc.

My antique flute collection

I'm still not sure what possessed me to embark on something so time consuming and seemingly pointless, but I think Terry and his website had a big part
in it.

I think you may have 10s of people interested in this site! Many more than 2 or 3 by the responses so far. You can pry my Firth & Pond out of my cold dead hands...love my old American flute.

Eric

[tstermitz]

Terry, I actually like your graph showing hole #5 size by time. It tells us that R&R had a variety of hole #5 sizes across multiple eras. What I'd REALLY like is a chart of #4 size and/or a chart of how the #4-#5 size relationship correlates across time.

In any case, the way I read your chart, hole #5 size from your sample of R&R flutes falls into clusters as follows:
27: 7.5 - 8.5mm
13: 9.0 - 9.75mm
21: 10 - 11mm

If I understand flute-making strategy... A smaller holed flute permits some cross-finger playing in the old style, at the cost of needing to vent the F-nat key to bring F# up to tone. So with a fixed size for hole #4, you could choose to leave hole #5 smaller, or open it up so you don't need to vent F#. In other words, you could have a smaller holed flute with a larger or smaller hole #5.

A regency-era flute player who prefers the traditional, more 18th style of flute playing, might choose a smaller-holed flute.

A session-playing gadabout trying to impress the ladies in Brighton might prefer a larger, more manly flute.