Murray's flutes - what are they like?

[claudine]

Everybody is talking about Sam Murray's flutes. But who has actually played one? What are they like, how do they compare to ... a Hamilton or a Seery?

[Harry]

I play them, they are my preferred flute. They can hold their own favorably against any flute IMO. They respond to any way you want to play then (i.e. loud, soft, sweet/ rougher tone...) as a good flute should.

Sam gets something in the cutting of his embouchures that sets him apart from other makers.

His flutes have a very unique sound and response. I suggest you try one, I'll spare the board the usual descriptors ('dark tone', 'powerful', 'resonant' etc etc etc...)

Regards,

Harry.

[michael c]

Ditto

[claudine]

Harry, is this a flute for strong players like yourself? Or can it also be played comfortably by intermediate players, both musically and physically less strong?
Trying one will hardly be possible for me. Unfortunately my place is a cultural desert for irish flutes.

[Romulo]

how do they compare to ... a Hamilton or a Seery?

I'd like to know exactly the same. A Hamilton and a Seery are the only simple system flutes I've played and though it seems obvious how it would compare to a Seery, it'd be nice to see comparisons with a Hamilton from players who've played both.

[Gordon]

Murrays are great flutes. Kinda that simple. They compare favorably to many other quality flutes, and are better than a lot of them.

I just gotta say, though, that outside of the Pratten style, Hamiltons and Seerys are very different flutes made by very different makers, and (most commonly) made from a very different substance. Putting them in the same sentence as compared to a third is not doing comparisons a fair turn. Personally, I think that Murrays and Hamiltons are in a similar league, but it is really up to the player to decide which he/she prefers, as they are very, very different flutes.

Gordon

[Romulo]

they are very, very different flutes.

Can you elaborate on what do you think are the differences? (Hamilton X Murray)

[planxtydt]

ok, having played a Hamilton for 3 years and then moved to a Murray quite recently, here are the main differences i encountered.

The body of the Murray is thinner than the Hamilton. I found this easier to hold and play. My Murray with 3 keys feels lighter than the keyless Hamilton.

I found it easier to get a good strong low D on the Murray, however the E isn't as strong as the Hamilton "work that one out"

I found the Murray takes a change in embouchure technique, ie it needs to be more focused to get the best out of it (tighter).

I like both flutes although I sold the Hamilton as I didn't need 2 flutes. I have since played a keyless Hamilton and it was great, actually better than I remembered i t.

These are just my views, other people may have different opinions. If you are wondering "is a Sammy flute a good purchase" the answer is yes. (and so is a Hammy flute).

[Harry]

Allow me to offer my 2 cents on this:

The Hamilton is a Pratten type design: Larger bore and bigger tone holes.

The Murray is more of a modified Rudall type design: smaller bore and smaller tone holes.

To me, the Pratten design generally gives a more even response across the scale, and generally has advantages like a stronger bottom E, great, true response in the high notes and third octave etc..

The Murray design, by comparison, I would say has more 'character' and variation: it has more natural, integral timbre variation from note to note, it has a 'chirpy' response when you push it due to a bit more resistance from the smaller bore, smaller tone holes... I like this. But there are some very good players who prefer the Pratten type, and I can see why.

Claudine, re. strength: like I said, a good flute should respond to a wide variety of pressures... both Sam's and Hammy's, being very good flutes, would be the same in this respect.

Regards,

Harry.

[Gordon]

they are very, very different flutes.

Can you elaborate on what do you think are the differences? (Hamilton X Murray)

Not really... All these flutes are handmade, with very individual embouchure cuts. Both maker's are reasonably consistent, so there are not huge quality differences between individual flutes made by either maker during particular time periods. Harry's comment on Murray's embouchure is spot on (the Murray has a wonderful sound), but I think the same can be said for a Hamilton -- each flute by these particular makers has a specific "voice," and both are quite appealing to individual players. That these players may - no, will - have a preference for one or the other flute (or a third, fourth or more flutes by makers not yet included in this coke/pepsi contest) only tells you that tastes vary.

I should mention that I own and play a Hamilton. I should also mention that I've played a few Murrays over the years, and would be thrilled to own one. Which flute might become my main flute, if I had that option, I couldn't honestly tell you without, well, having that option. There is the comfort of an old, familiar friend, and then there is the grass-is-always-greener take on a great flute you are less familiar with, but that impresses you immediately.

Of course, in a perfect, or well-financed, world, there are a handful of other makers' flutes I'd also like to have at my disposal, some that I've tried, and some I've only heard - literally and figuratively - from afar. I can't honestly tell you which would rise to the "main flute" top status in my imaginary collection. What I can tell you is that both Hamilton and Murray are great flutes, worthy of being almost anyone's main flute, at any level of play.

Oh -- forgot the Rudall(Murray)/Pratten(Hamilton) thing.. . seemed a bit obvious to me to mention... oops!

Best,
Gordon

[BMFW]

I have owned and played Hamilton, Seery & Murray. I don't really think that the Seery is quite in the same league as the other two.

I played the Hammy for a few years but I got a bit bored with the tone, finding it a bit one-dimensional. (I listen to Paul McGrattan & think this is probably more down to my playing). The Murray just seems to have more depth & complexity and I find it a more rewarding flute to play. It defies the common misconception that says "Pratten loud, Rudall quiet" - I find it capable of more power than the Hammy.

This discussion shows how much geography plays a part. "Everybody is talking about Sam Murray's flutes". Here in Scotland they've been talked about as long as I can remember & the place is awash with them. (well not quite but they are one of the most common flutes that you'll come across here.) People are talking about them, I guess, because they are superb flutes.

[Wormdiet]

On the consistency issue. . .

A good friend has had a Murray for something like 12 years. I got one last October, chosen based on my experience with hers.

They are both great, and very similar. The embouchure requirements are different, but only subtly so. Hers actually looks newer because it's absorbed more oil for an almost "plastic" sheen, whereas the grain is more apparent on mine.

It's fun to compare them side by side. The working dimensions (length, embouchure size, toneholes, etc) are the same, as far as I can tell with the naked eye. The only exception is that the bore on the footjoint is just a hair narrower on mine.

I like mine a lot more than my old M & E (which was a good flute in its own right.) As Harry said, it's definitely "chirpy" and barks on command.

[greenspiderweb]

Hi Claudine,

Well, being that I'm probably the newest on a Murray here, only having mine a week, I can't give an in depth review, but I can say a few things about it that might help you a little-my impressions so far.

Yes, it's on the slim side, it's light in the hands, and when I first tried it out, I was able to run right to the top of the second octave without trying hard at all. It is the easiest flute that I've played, aside from the Copley I had a while back, but I still think this is easier to play. I don't find the embouchure difficult at all, or that I need to focus it to any extreme to get a nice tone or play it in tune. Of course, that varies with your lips and your flute. This should help my playing, not having to concentrate on hitting certain notes, just playing them as I need them. I'll be able to focus more on the music than playing the flute-and I like that!

It is very responsive also, and probably the most expressive flute in tone that I've played yet, most likely because it is from a top maker (as mentioned before-embouchure cutting), and also it is Rudall based, with smaller bore and holes. I haven't played many of them yet (Rudalls), since most of mine had been Pratten based flutes so far. But it still has more of an open tone than some I've heard, which reminds me more of a Pratten, and probably one reason why I like it this much. It doesn't sound stuffy (or nasally) to me like some.

One other subjective observation-there is a certain quality to the tone that really does it for me, and which I find very hard to describe, other than to tell you when I was playing an air the other day, it just sounded right to my ears-it had a melancholy tone to it, that I never had experienced before on another flute, playing the same piece. I just thought to myself, wow! I didn't know a flute could sound like that!

Maybe I was just ready for it, I don't know. I'm sure there is more to be discovered about its qualities, especially as I develop as a player, and I'm looking forward to that-but I'm in no hurry-I like it now!

[claudine]

thank you all. that was very interesting.

[Sylvester]

Harry, did you say 'chirpy'?

I find Murray's terribly difficult to play when I've spent a whole week with no playing. Never happened to me with Hamilton, Seery or even Olwell. Mainly because I'd never had one...

Just a bad joke, sorry.