Peter Duggan wrote:
Nobody's criticising Casey (for instance) for saying that he finds Wilkes flutes difficult, unresponsive or not for him. What is quite reasonably being questioned is what he's implying about cutting better embouchures etc. because he's getting/had more practice, and IMHO he deserves to be picked up on that. It's not attack or shaming; he's stuck his neck out, said contentious things, and people have disagreed.
Absolutely. I read all this thread. To sum up: Casey Burns, himself a flutemaker, doesn't like the Chris Wilkes' flutes:
Casey Burns wrote:
my response to the playability of his flutes has been similarly disappointed.
Casey Burns wrote:
The bottom line is that every Wilkes flute I've tried has seemed stuffy, unforgiving and such. Sorry but that is the way it is for me.
Casey Burns wrote:
I find his flutes difficult to play.
He's got the right to think and to tell that. Problem comes from the reasons he give to explain why he doesn't like the Wilke's flute. It's not a simple matter of taste but, according to Casey, because of a lack of practice from CW:
Casey Burns wrote:
Chris's production is small in terms of the number of flutes a year he produces. (...) Unfortunately, this means he or makers with similarly slow production rates get much less practice at the necessary craft of tuning and voicing the flute.
Casey Burns wrote:
there is an apparent direct relationship between how many flutes one produces and how well it plays. I think this is attributable to how much practice we get in the acoustical aspects of the flutes, i.e., the careful tuning and voicing, which includes minutae of bore modifications, wall thickness, undercutting shapes, especially the dimensions and angles of the embouchure which are always an exploration to me in terms of what works best.
Casey Burns wrote:
I am making the point and sticking my head out that his flutes are hard to dial in because he gets much less practice in the tuning and voicing aspects. No question about it!
So, considering voicing and crafting an embouchure is the basis to make a good flute, Casey means that Chris Wilkes, who doesn't make a lot of flutes, isn't a top maker, except maybe on the aesthetical side of things:
Casey Burns wrote:
Those of us who skip the really fancy aesthetics and instead produce lots of flutes instead get much more practice tuning and voicing
Casey Burns wrote:
All the bling or romance, engravings, spectacular cuts of wood, etc. really have no bearing compared to the finessing of these acoustical shapes.
Isn't it a bit contemptuous? More, considering CB makes more flutes than Chris Wilkes, CB assumes that his flutes are not only easier to play but sound better:
Casey Burns wrote:
thus these flutes are commonly more forgiving for the flute player and are easier to play and often sound better.
So if I've well read, CW makes beautiful objects but no so great flutes.
joshuaZ wrote:
Casey Burns wrote:
...
I am simply claiming that to my chops, his flutes simply do not play as well as mine and seem stuffy and unresponsive. ...
But that's not all you are claiming - you have also attributed your dislike of Wilkes flute to Chris (supposedly) getting "less practice at the necessary craft of tuning and voicing the flute".
Abslolutely, with his perfectly logical reasoning, CB thinks that Chris Wilkes is an overrated maker. Maybe he is, I don't know, but:
Casey Burns wrote:
I know I am close to the edge here in terms of what is appropriate
Some of us think so. Maybe you should be a bit more modest?