Seery Improved?

Loren · Post by **Loren** » Fri Apr 12, 2002 9:52 pm

Some months back, I seem to remember hearing that both M&E and Seery were coming out with new (and improved?) models. Thanks to Michael E., we now know a bit about the new M&E, has anyone out there heard anything about a new Seery? I unsubscribed from the woodenflute list a long time ago, and can't access the archives, so I'm out of the loop......

Loren

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Sat Apr 13, 2002 9:58 am

I have started to hear from folks who have the small-hands model from Desi Seery, and the reports are good.

If you look at the Seery "homepage" at

http://www.csagraphics.com/seery.htm

At the bottom of the page there are some lovely flutes he's made of polymer and various woods, keyed and unkeyed.

I have also heard he's modified his design a little to correct some tuning deficiencies in his original design, but I don't know details.

I am extremely pleased with the Seery Pratten I have...it is a real powerhouse of a flute.

I haven't had a chance to see or play one of Michael Cronnolly's new R&R flutes, but I've heard wonderful things about them. I do have a 6-key flute with his "split" embouchure mod, which remains my loudest and most projective flute, as well as the one which can be "thrashed" the hardest.

--James
http://www.flutesite.com

totst · Post by **totst** » Sat Apr 13, 2002 7:03 pm

I've seen Seery flutes with a 2 piece center joint rather than the original "Pratten" one piece body joint. Could this be the modification?

Loren · Post by **Loren** » Sat Apr 13, 2002 8:14 pm

On 2002-04-13 21:03, totst wrote:
I've seen Seery flutes with a 2 piece center joint rather than the original "Pratten" one piece body joint. Could this be the modification?

Heya Tots,

Good to know you're still out there! Re: Your comments....Well, I hope there would be more to it than that. Perhaps James is correct; Perhaps Desi has improved the tuning or something as well. As it stands, there still isn't a polymer flute that holds up to the "Big Boys": The M&E's seem a little rough in the workmanship dept., plus the "Pratten model is a pig size wise. The New Rudall sounds good, if you don't mind the tuning, but personally I'd prefer a flute without the "Flat" notes.

The Seery seems better made, but the people I trust who've played them haven't been impressed. (What I mean by this is, the people I know who have played most or all of the top maker's woodenflutes have commented that the Seery's are dissapointing, as are the M&E's.)

Playing Healys, Copleys, Grinters, Olwells, and Hamiltons has apparently spoiled me. I'd really love to have a nice Polymer flute I could keep in my car (Florida gets HOT in the summer), but the M&E I had was so much less fun to play than my Copley, I ended up selling it.

Now, don't get me wrong: I think the M&Es and Seerys are good flutes for the money, and definitely serve a purpose, it's just that I'd really like a better polymer flute. Sounds like I'm going to have to wait a while longer......

Loren

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Sat Apr 13, 2002 8:49 pm

Well, not having tried any of the "big maker" Irish flutes I don't have much ground for comparison perhaps.

I do have experience with Boehm system flutes, including some pretty high end ones, like Haynes and an original Rittershausen, so I do have a good basis of experience on flutes in general.

For anyone reading this, I would like to point out that I have heard more positive comments about both the M&E and the Seery than I have heard negative ones.

Also anyone considering a Seery should listen to the recordings Danu did using a Seery flute. Pretty nicely done stuff.

Maybe the music lives more in the player than in the flute?

--James
http://www.flutesite.com

Loren · Post by **Loren** » Sat Apr 13, 2002 10:16 pm

James wrote:

"Well, not having tried any of the "big maker" Irish flutes I don't have much ground for comparison perhaps."

True, so why argue the point?

"For anyone reading this, I would like to point out that I have heard more positive comments about both the M&E and the Seery than I have heard negative ones."

You seem to feel the need to defend these flutes, even though no one is attacking them.

"Also anyone considering a Seery should listen to the recordings Danu did using a Seery flute. Pretty nicely done stuff."

Anything can be made to sound good in the studio. Besides, unless I'm mistaken, Danu's flute player recently switched from his Seery to an Olwell, why would he do that if his Seery was so fabulous? Come to think of it, I can't recall ever hearing of anyone switching from an Olwell (or Grinter, or .....) to an M&E or Seery.

"Maybe the music lives more in the player than in the flute?"

Without a doubt, but musicians rarely try to find the most mediocre instruemnts to play. Seery and M&E flutes are very good instruments _for the money_ however, IMO there's still plenty of room for improvement in the polymer flute world, and I'd love to have a polymer that's up there with the best woodenflutes.

I'm glad you're happy with your Seery and M&E James, I'm just not sure why my desire for a better synthetic flute should bother you.

Loren

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Sat Apr 13, 2002 10:27 pm

Doesn't bother me a bit! Sorry if I sounded like it did.

Perhaps we seek different things in flutes, and that may be a reflection of our differing backgrounds.

--James
http://www.flutesite.com

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 1:43 am

Anything can be made to sound good in the studio.

Easy now! I know James said to listen to Danu's CDs, but I can attest that Tom Doorley certainly sounds fantastic playing live as well - and no, there was no amplification at the incident I am thinking of.

Personally, flute players whose opinion I respect - and the people I am referring to are all professional players - have been very positive about Desi Seery's flutes. As a matter of fact, I can only think of one person on this board with any kind of experience (we probably all know who that is) who didn't like Seery flutes. And to be frank, that person is not one whose opinions I generally agree with.

So there!

Jens

Loren · Post by **Loren** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 7:04 am

Hmm, I don't think you were paying attention Jens

Once again: I didn't say Seerys (or M&E's) were bad, far from it.

Sure people have positive comments - the polymer flutes are good and fairly inexpensive. Most folks who haven't tried one expect these flute to suck, so they usually pleasantly surprised to find out they actually play and sound pretty good. Still, you don't see people chucking their Olwells, and Grinters for M&E and Seery flutes, do you?

Perhaps you only know one person who didn't like A Seery or M&E Jens, I've spoken to quite a few. I owned an M&E, it was good, but not great. The workmanship, especially around and including the tone and embouchure holes was dissapointing, quite rough in comparison to any woodenflute I've seen. The tone and playability were good, but not fantastic. Honestly, a $100 Olwell bamboo flute sounds (and looks) better to me. Not so durable though

As for Tom D.'s playing; I said "anything" can be made to sound good in the studio, not "anyone". So where's your beef with my comment? You saw him in person, umiked, playing a Seery and it sounded good? No surprise at all - it's a good flute and he's a good player. However, you didn't have the chance to hear him play the Seery, and then his new Olwell, one after the other, did you? That would have been the test. But you really didn't need to then because he's dumped the Seery in favor of the Olwell, which in and of itself tells you exactly what I've been saying: Seery and M&E good, Top quality Woodenflute, significantly better.

Look, I had a polymer flute at the same time I owned Healy Ironwood and Copley Blackwood flutes. During this time I also had access to a Grinter and a Hoza. I know what I'm talking about here, even the Hoza was better than the M&E.

So far it seems the folks who are are writing to disagree with me either A) Haven't had the opportunity to directly compare top woodenflutes to the current polymers, and/or B) They aren't listening to what I'm saying....."Hello, McFly!"

Loren

[ This Message was edited by: Loren on 2002-04-15 09:07 ]

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 8:06 am

Hmm, I don't think you were paying attention Jens

Sorry, what was that?

Loren, a couple of comments and questions:

First, my other post was only about the Seery. Do pay attention.

I have never seen or tried an M&E, so I don't know who likes them, or whether they are good, great, or just sucky. That means that when I say "I only know one person on this board with any kind of experience who didn't like Seery flutes", that's exactly what I mean! How many or how few say they like or dislike M&Es is not up to discussion by me. Loren, your comments seem directed more at the M&E, and you obviously have experience with M&Es. Have you also tried a Seery (just wondering)?

"Anything can be made to sound good in a studio" said as a reply to the statement that the flute playing on Danú's CDs sounded good, certainly implies to me that you mean studio techniques are (one of) the reasons Danú / Tom Doorley / Seery flutes sound good. However, I probably just misunderstood, and would love to know what you did mean.

We are told that Doorley plays a keyed Olwell these days (although you used the term "dumped the Seery"). I can't speak on his behalf as to why, but presumably he likes the Olwell better than the Seery? If so, good luck to him - I'd love to have an Olwell flute too. Perhaps Doorley was even on the Olwell waiting list like the rest of the world and was only using the Seery as a temporary stand-in? But why choose a Seery for that with several high-end wooden flutes presumably available on short notice?

Loren, are we in fact disagreeing? My first post merely showed some reasons why I think Seery flutes are very good flutes. Are Olwell flutes better? Heck ya, personally I wouldn't know, but players who are much better than I will ever be seem to think so, and I trust their judgement.

Cheers,
Jens

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 8:34 am

Loren,

You sound like you're trolling about for a good argument?

If you are an experienced flutist, you know that every flute is different, even flutes by the same maker. This is because these flutes are handmade, and no two are identical.

This impacts what you are saying in two ways.

The first is that it is possible that out of a batch of ten flutes by any maker in any material, there may be a few that don't play well for any given player.

However, another player might find in those flutes some quality for which they have long sought.

That brings us to the second point. An experienced flutist will be able to find some outstanding feature in almost any well-made flute, and leverage that feature to his advantage.

What those things are will be different from maker to maker and even from flute to flute in the same maker and model.

Also, Mark Hoza is a newer maker than some, but the reputation of his flutes is by no means second rate. So when you say "even a Hoza played better..." you are telling me a lot about what your goals in these posts actually are.

Perhaps if polymer flutes haven't played well for you, the difference is you knowing that they are polymer (and thus, must be inferior when compared to wood).

My main point of disagreement is whether or not you actually have the background to be able to make such comparisons. And that's easily settled: put your playing where your mouth is, borrow some flutes, and post some tunes on different flutes showing your comparisons.

--James
http://www.flutesite.com

Loren · Post by **Loren** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 8:44 am

Fer cryin' out loud......

Look, M&E and Seery flutes, by most accounts (here, on the woodenflute list, with players I've spoken with who have tried both) are on the same level of playability and tone - not identical mind you, but about as good, just different. (Perhaps there are differences in how well they are made, but that's not my main area of contention here) So, where A equals Seery, B equals M&E, and C equals Olwell, Grinter, Hamilton and the like, if A=B and B<C then A<C. Are we clear now?

Any instrument, crappy or great, can be made to sound good in the studio. Recorded instrument sounds are not an accurate representation of how an instrument sounds in person, regardless of the player. I know damn well you understood that, you're just being argumentative now Jens, aren't you?

I'm going back to practicing, there's no point to this. Somebody call me when the polymer flutes improve. In the mean time, I've got an Olwell to prepare for; will today be the day I get the call from Patrick? The suspense is killing me!!!

Loren

Hmm, edited due to the fact that that half my equation shows up in the message box, but dissapears when posted. Let's see if it works better when I simplify...

[ This Message was edited by: Loren on 2002-04-15 10:55 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Loren on 2002-04-15 10:57 ]

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 1:27 am

No need to get your wind up, Loren.

I believe my questions were relevant enough and not merely argumentative. Referring to your equations, I think the part I am questioning is the "A=B" part, for which I have seen little "proof".

Good luck with that Olwell!

Jens

Loren · Post by **Loren** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 6:09 am

BTW, my previous post was written in response to Jens message. I didn't even seen Mr. P's last post until now, and it doesn't deserve a response - you're obviously the one who's trolling.

Loren

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Tue Apr 16, 2002 9:29 am

Loren,

First, my apologies if I seem argumentative. I have no personal feelings one way or the other in regard to how you view the flutes made by Desi Seery, Michael Cronnolly, or any other maker.

My concern is that your comments may discourage new players, who may not be able to justify or afford the prices of the very best wooden flutes, from perfectly good and acceptable inexpensive polymer instruments.

You keep stating that these makers provide inferior instruments, but you have yet to substantiate you claim. Stating it as an equation doesn't substantiate anything.

For all I or anyone else know, you may simply have bad feelings toward one or both of these makers, or toward polymer flutes in general, or toward inexpensive flutes in general.

If you don't want me (and other readers) to draw that conclusion, then it's up to you to provide verifiable substantiation of some form for your claim.

--start edit--
On thought and reflection, this will be my last post on this topic. I do not argue for the sake of argument, and I believe that is what Loren intends, and intended from his first post on this topic. I will discuss with you all day long, but I won't participate in an argument or a flame war. Such things work to the detriment of us all.
--end edit--

--James
http://www.flutesite.com

[ This Message was edited by: peeplj on 2002-04-16 22:24 ]