Ellis bamboo flutes

Irish Flute
1

I just wanted to post a quick follow-up / review regarding the recently announced bamboo flutes from Geoffrey Ellis:

https://www.ellisflutes.com/products/bamboo/

These have been in the works for at least a couple of years, during which time I have done some testing of prototypes,
so I thought I’d share my impressions. But before I go on, I’d like to point out that I have no financial interest in this
project. This is just my unsolicited opinion based on spending quite a bit of time evaluating several prototypes.

I own several Olwell bamboo flutes, which unsurprisingly are all excellent musical instruments with great tuning, fun
to play, etc. They are just what a lot of people want, but, alas, Pat stopped making those a long time ago. From my
perspective this has left a bit of a void, and that is where I see these new Ellis bamboo flutes fitting in.

When evaluating Geoffrey’s prototypes I have used my Olwell bamboo flutes as the benchmark to compare against,
and I can say that the last ones I played (key of D) were right in that zone. At least as good, I would say. The tuning and
response across 2+ octaves was excellent and the flutes had great resonance. There is something about a well-made bamboo
flute that makes it really lively in the hand. The embouchure cut and added chimney depth via the bamboo lip plate, made
for great responsiveness and ease of play.

So how is this possible? Aren’t cylindrical bore flutes supposed to be out of tune in the upper second octave? Well, the first thing
to realize is that these are not cylindrical bore flutes! Some pieces of bamboo have a natural taper. Each piece of bamboo
is carefully measured to ensure that the bore diameter, length, and naturally occurring taper in the head, falls within the tight
tolerances that would enable it to be made into a flute in a certain key. If it doesn’t meet these tolerances, it is discarded or
used for a different kind of flute or one in a different key. In other words, there is a lot of bamboo culling.

Basically, you have to find a piece of bamboo that naturally has something akin to a Boehm taper, and a suitable bore diameter,
and a suitable uninterrupted bore length at that diameter. Such pieces are rare, especially for lower key flutes! For those pieces that
fall within range, then the bore profile is further worked and refined before the process of determining embouchure and tone hole
locations and sizes, and tuning can begin.

In this sense, each of these bamboo flutes is a unique instrument. However, that does not mean that tuning and response are unpredictable.
Predictability of tuning and response can still be achieved via the definition of precise tolerances for bore profiles, wall depth etc,
and by strictly applying those tolerances in selecting materials. This is not an easy process, and it results in a lot of culled materials/flutes.
It wouldn’t surprise me if that is why Pat Olwell ultimately stopped making his bamboo flutes. Achieving that level of tuning predictability
over so many bamboo flutes must have been a real pain. There is definitely something appealing about the predictability of working with wood,
and the profit margin when working with bamboo is ridiculously low … unless you are simply burning holes and calling it good … which is
definitely not the case with these Ellis flutes!

Anyway, the point is just to say that these are high quality instruments with excellent tuning. And in my opinion, they represent great value
for money given the amount of work that goes into making them. It is also a great way to get into a flute in an alternate key.

2

“Very so”, and you are fortunate to have good makers flutes to compare with…I am still guessing how those I make are in relative terms. I think there are so few well made bamboo flutes around that not many have had the opportunity to try one. All the cane flutes I have tried have a different feel to wood, I think maple is maybe the closest. One thing I might not agree with you on is of if a taper is needed for tuning between octaves, but I am not (as in in capitals) going to argue that out here or anywhere else. A taper will definitely widen the possibilities for the rest of the layout though. It’s good to see someone making the effort with bamboo, it would be good to hear someone talented demonstrate what is possible on them. All the good bamboo flute players I know of seem to play only bamboo, the occasional recording by known Irish players is not the same…and so bamboo for Irish music doesn’t have much of an example yet.

3

I thought I’d offer some observations on tuning, not to get into a discussion necessarily (I know that you mentioned that it’s not a point you wish to argue, greenwood) but simply to share my experience.

I’ve made a lot of flutes that have cylindrical bores, and not just transverse flutes. Lots of end blown flutes as well. Hundreds of transverse and hundreds of end blown. These range from transverse flutes that are skewed toward playing something akin to ITM (narrower bore, smaller finger holes, more agile) to bansuri, which are larger bore, thin-walled flutes with large finger holes. Similar variety of types in the endblown world: xiao, quena, shakuhachi, etc..

I’ve made flutes with conical bores, tapered heads, etc..

So to answer the question of whether a taper is “needed” for good tuning between the octaves, one would have to define what they mean by “need”. A good player can compensate for a great deal of irregularity in tuning. My own goal when making any type of flute is to minimize the amount of work the player has to do in order to keep the flute in good tune. Perfect tuning of any wind instrument does not exist. They are not pianos, and there are far too many moving targets (flute design, environment, player embouchure and technique, etc.). That’s a given.

But I can state with what I’ll presume to call “authority” (born of a lot of experience), that transverse cylindrical bore flutes require vastly more compensation to play in tune than do flutes that have introduced a taper somewhere in the bore. That’s the reason why pre-Boehm concert flutes had conical bores. Simple.

There are flutes that have design characteristics that compensate for this and do so with such effectiveness that they don’t need a taper. But…these are endblown flutes for the most part. On transverse flutes with cylindrical bores, the second octave can be brought into better balance by moving the stopper closer to the embouchure hole. But as we all know, if you get it too close, you start to choke the tone in degree. The bansuri successfully avoids this by using a large bore, thinner walls and large finger holes. This opens up the flute in a way that allows the stopper to be pushed really close in without wrecking the tone. And larger finger holes do a better job of spanning the optimal hole locations for both the first and second octave notes. The result is a cylindrical bore flute that will play in good tune throughout the octaves with less player compensation. But that compensation is still required.

End blown flutes have the virtue that the players chin/embouchure act as the stopper. It is literally the equivalent of taking a transverse flute and pushing the stopper up until is is halfway across the embouchure hole. This has a distinct sharpening effect on the second octave. So if they have a cylindrical bore, it’s a very useful effect. Combine that with creative hole-shaping and undercutting, you can make a very balanced flute.

I made a bunch of simple transverse “folk” flutes that were skewed toward ITM style of play (the smaller bore, smaller finger hole types), all of which had cylindrical bores. Probably made a couple of hundred of these before I introduced a taper in the head of the flute. And I can tell you that if you wanted the second octave in good tune you had to really bend things at the top of that octave. Forget playing any third octave notes in tune.

So back to bamboo…

As paddler points out, the natural taper that one finds in bamboo lands them somewhere between a conical bore flute and a cylindrical bore flute. I find that they have a more open, free-blowing feel compared to a conical bore flute, but if the right piece is selected there is enough natural taper in there to really help the octaves line up better. Much less work for the player. But he is also right about the ruthlessness that is needed in the bamboo selection process. And also the maker has to let go of a lot of their fastidiousness about making each flute fit a preconceived standard in terms of it’s voice and feel. No two of these flutes are going to be alike, so one has to walk a line between making them all meet a quality standard without insisting that they are all the same. Tricky.

4

I wouldn’t argue because it just is not possible to, firstly because any flute will have the tuning it has, secondly because online there is no way to tell how accurate measurements are and how embouchure is being used to adjust tuning, and thirdly there is not a way to say any embouchure (or style of) is better than another, including those that adjust for tone.

Beyond that there is the question of how much variation between octaves is acceptable. Even further is the tuning preference of the player, who might not mind or even come to prefer a certain note of a certain octave out of tune .


I don’t adjust the cork on my flutes, it is left standard. On my first flute it is TH5 that is out of tune slightly for both octaves, but top notes are good . It is cylindrical as far as made and measurable, I don’t notice any extra effort but then it is the flute I learned on. My experience of later flutes along similar lines is that I am able to tune them to about 15 cents variation without embouchure effort, I leave them at that. Then I start playing them for a week or four, tuning actually improves, then often I put them down for a few months. When I go back to them I am already playing with a different embouchure and placement that I prefer with any other flute I have been playing. When I first try the earlier one again, it is out of tune and not how I remembered it, but usually it takes me about two minutes to refind the original placement and embouchure I had been playing it with, and all fits into place. Perfectly in tune I don’t claim but plenty good enough for not to affect playing.

I’m not saying this is the way to make or play flutes, nor that there are’t advantages to conical or taper, just that it works and doesn’t need great (or any) effort to play in tune. I will hear a string 5 cents out as part of a chord on a guitar, but for flutes notes are played sequentially so perceptions are different, and more room for error to be unnoticed exist, but still I would hear it if it was very dissonant somehow.

There is room to shape octaves by undercutting, spacing, and dimensions of other toneholes, but obviously to free up any restriction in layout that might impose, a tapered bore would be an advantage. Also, the tapered Boehm flutes I have made play better in tune across octaves no matter embouchure style and placement.

All of that relates in some way to your own finding a standard where the flutes are not identical. Eventually it is the player who must adapt and choose how much they agree with any particular flute . Someone just starting might well make full use of every nuance available and be very happy with the flute over time, where someone experienced might just expect it to play their way, and so reject it even though a very good and playable flute. Well, I don’t know how you decide on a standard there beyond making sure the flute is in tune and that a good tone can be found through two octaves. Obviously this is one reason why the better makers work with their clients after sale on high end flutes, because finer tuning to suit the particular demand and style of any player cannot be worked out beforehand. For the rest of us though we just have to adapt, and knowing that a flute is capable enough to be played well is all that is needed, is all that should be expected. From there a player can later go on to find own preferences in design from the various kinds of flutes available. There isn’t even need to stay with one kind of flute. I have my main flute, then the one besides that I’m playing most at any moment for whatever reason, and then others that I only play when they fit with a music or a mood or similar.

5

For conical bores I am not sure tuning was the priority, at least in the sense that until 1800 or so use of larger toneholes for octave tuning was not common. Conical allowed closer spacing of otherwise widely spaced small toneholes, as well as helping with octave tuning of small toneholes.

https://www.flute-a-bec.com/evolutionpercegb.html

Flutes followed after those ideas I think, but I haven’t checked dates. Boehm took a technical approach to design, and there tonehole sizes and spacing were wanted even, hence tonehole adjustment could not be used for octave tuning, hence taper.

6

Again, it all comes down to how we define “need”. I agree with everything you said about how different players might have different preferences, embouchure, etc.. So in the big picture, I think there is room for just about every type of flute, regardless of tuning, and that even the idea of being “in tune” can be thrown out the window in many instances.

But from the perspective of a professional maker who has to create flutes for a wide variety of players, I adhere as closely as I can to certain standards, just so that my work is somewhat predictable. As I mentioned, the primary goal is to balance the flute in such a way that the player has to do the minimum amount of compensation. And of course, everything I’m describing is relative. Meaning, I described there being a “vast” difference between how easily one can play in tune with a taper bore instrument versus cylindrical. The word “vast” might be a bit of hyperbole since it is a relative difference–it’s not an unbridgeable gap. I know a fair few professional players, and some of them have owned my earlier cylindrical bore transverse flutes, and they were able to play them in tune. But they had to consciously compensate, at least up to the point where it became unconscious habit. They didn’t pull a muscle or anything, and they were perfectly able to make it work. But in each case, when the same player was provided with a version that had some tapering in the bore (or head), they unanimously said, “This is way better–I don’t have to bend those top notes”. The point being that there was nothing wrong with the earlier flutes, but players who wanted to use them with other instruments or for recordings would rather have a flute that was (even marginally) easier to play in tune through both octaves. And in many cases, when a player has to compensate beyond a certain point with their embouchure or the flute position in order to nudge a note into tune, it can also change the tone color, which is not always desirable.

None of these irregularities is necessarily “bad”, and many players embrace the limitations of each individual flute (so long as it’s reasonably playable). Baroque flutes were known for having some weak notes that were not consistent with the rest of the flute and I’m told that some composers worked around them. Some irregularity is unavoidable (and maybe even desirable), but as someone who is making the flutes I strive to attenuate that as much as possible. Plenty of opportunity for irregularity coming from other sources, such as individual players :slight_smile:.

7

Definitely, and I should have included consistency and ease of playing as standards, along with tuning and tone.

I had just played the various cylindrical flutes after writing the previous, none require any special embouchure or activity to play to the octave differences they were tuned at (0 to 15 cents if I remember), and tone is good (in general I find the compromise more between bass notes and second octave high notes) . The difference is this though, the ones not tapered have to be placed correctly and at correct angle (which I find automatically from experience) . If I roll them in , second octave pitch lowers but first octave stays nearly the same, for the top notes. On the Boehm flutes pitches change together. Apart that any is as easy to play as the other for me, though obviously the range of sounds differ for each - the Boehm has greater range in terms of differences possible, but the Renaissance has as great a range through other subtlety. Just different types of flute.

If I play Renaissance before Boehm, the tone on Boehm is played better , if I play Boehm before Renaissance, it takes more time to find good Renaissance tone. For whatever reason…probably because on Renaissance embouchure it is more focused.

For the last several weeks it is the tapered flutes I have been playing mostly, much enjoying them. The Renaissance flutes are the sound I am closest to though.

[When I say Boehm here, I mean simple system flute on Boehm bore shape]

8

It is not just a matter of being fortunate. I make an effort to get my hands on flutes from the best makers, past and present, so that I can
actually study the best work out there and do side-by-side comparisons. That way I can ensure that the information in my posts is grounded
in first-hand experience and that it is meaningful for others. If I were still guessing I wouldn’t post until I knew what I was talking about!

One reason I started this new thread is because I thought it was unfair that Geoffrey’s original CP about his bamboo flutes was immediately
hijacked and flooded with extensive discussion of issues unrelated to his bamboo flutes. So, I thought I’d start a new thread so that people who
wanted to learn more about Geoffrey’s bamboo flutes could easily access that information and follow a discussion about them.

Of course, this does depend on your tolerance for what constitutes acceptable tuning, but you’d have to stoop pretty low in terms of tuning acceptability, or accept a flute
design and playing style that is very much outside of the norms for the genre’s we typically discuss here, for a cylindrical bore with no corrections to be anywhere near acceptable.
Sure Renaissance flutes had cylindrical bores and no taper, but they also used different fingerings for the different octaves and had a very high aspect ratio and tiny
tone holes to enable that approach. This would be an example of a flute design and playing style that is widely regarded as unacceptable in ITM. And of course, there are
others, but that isn’t the topic of this thread.

And yet you do anyway!

Yes, and some will be so far out of tune as to be unacceptable. One of the main points of my post was to let people know that these flutes have much tighter tuning than
you will find in a flute with no taper, and that they are quite comparable to the Olwell bamboo flutes I own. There is a world of difference between that and what you
would typically find in an inexpensive bamboo flute or a cylindrical bore flute with no correction.

The main subject of this thread was my first hand experience with the tuning and playing characteristics of Geoffrey’s bamboo flutes. Are you really saying that doesn’t mean anything?
If you really believe that useful information regarding flute tuning and playing characteristics can not be exchanged online, why post so much to a forum like this?

9

Thanks everyone. Interesting discussion.

10

“It is not just a matter of being fortunate. I make an effort to get my hands on flutes from the best makers, past and present, so that I can”

Not everyone is able to, so that makes you fortunate.


“That way I can ensure that the information in my posts is grounded in first-hand experience and that it is meaningful for others. If I were still guessing I wouldn’t post until I knew what I was talking about!”

Guessing by unmakeable comparisons is different from stating how a flute plays to best of knowledge. For either the same caveats apply to the reader, not because of purposefully false or exagerated claims but simply because player variables are so great.

Clearly, maybe three quarters of flutes sold nowadays are standard Boehm with little noticeable difference between better and beginner to a beginner. Reliability counts, but is not an only choice.


“You’d have to stoop pretty low in terms of tuning acceptability, or accept a flute design and playing style that is very much outside of the norms for the genre’s we typically discuss here, for a cylindrical bore with no corrections to be anywhere near acceptable.”

I disagree. Though I haven’t tried wide bore cylindrical yet to find if the tuning without taper can be good, if it is and is comparable in tone to tapered, then the tone range is very good. For narrow bore cylindrical tuning is good, tone is nice, bass lacks some resonance, range of speed of playing and embellishment is good, sound is not so loud, learning of embouchure is harder because you are going straight to high standard of embouchure to find the whole two octaves well. I still have to post up the tuning values of the Tuaregs, will post a tune or two that suits them also as demonstration. On those it is tunes like Bluebells in the Glen , Road to Glountain, Galway Bay and similar I like playing. Kiss the maid , Wise Maid , The Blackbird and others I prefer on tapered wide because of depth and action possible, even though I learned those on cylindrical.


“And yet you do anyway!”

I don’t think so, I haven’t disqualified anything Geoffrey has said as far as I remember. I say cylindrical is able to be made in tune, and I don’t remember Geoffrey saying that wasn’t possible.

“Yes, and some will be so far out of tune as to be unacceptable. One of the main points of my post was to let people know that these flutes have much tighter tuning than
you will find in a flute with no taper, and that they are quite comparable to the Olwell bamboo flutes I own. There is a world of difference between that and what you
would typically find in an inexpensive bamboo flute or a cylindrical bore flute with no correction.”

I don’t doubt that at all.


“The main subject of this thread was my first hand experience with the tuning and playing characteristics of Geoffrey’s bamboo flutes. Are you really saying that doesn’t mean anything? If you really believe that useful information regarding flute tuning and playing characteristics can not be exchanged online, why post so much to a forum like this?”

There is a difference between subjective and empirical. We all exchange our views here and that is good. However we are just not going to prove one point or another definitively. How would that work … general agreement, some kind of concensus ? Those act as guide, as they should, but are not proof. If someone is clearly out by the opinion of another then we end up with argument, but usually not a very objective one either.

11

Greenwood, you have now posted 5 times to this thread, a full 50% of the posts, but what have you actually contributed that is in any way related to the topic of the thread, namely Geoffrey Ellis’s bamboo flutes?

As far as I can tell you have never played, or even seen, one of these flutes. And in all these posts you haven’t even asked any questions about these flutes. So what is the point of all your posts?
From my perspective it just looks like the worst kind of thread hijacking. And it is not the first time you’ve done it. This is the second attempt to start a thread about Geoffrey’s bamboo flutes, because you
already hijacked the first one!

If you want to post about your own home made flutes, or your half-baked theories about flute design and tuning, or your opinions on the utility of comparing or reviewing flutes, then please, just start your own thread
rather than bombing other people’s threads. I think we all share some responsibility, and have a role to play, in maintaining a decent signal to noise ratio on this forum.

12

Paddler,
Thank you for the original post about Geoffrey’s bamboo flutes and the relevant comparison to Patrick’s bamboo flutes, of which I have played quite a few and never played one that wasn’t truly special.

Olwell’s bamboo flutes have a recognizability in our community as to their inherent quality and also the circumstances and historical context of their making. In any conversation in this community there is a great value in referring to something much spoken about, valued and easily researched on this site as a way to measure quality, compare and contrast another maker’s endeavor of a similar flute. Thanks to you and Geoffrey for your insights, observations and reasoning behind these Geoffrey Ellis bamboo flutes. The original intention of this thread reminds me more of the type of maker releases and discussions around them that used to take place regularly here on this site.

Also,
Paddler, thank you for calling attention to the thread highjacking that happened here and has been going on ever more frequently, almost with an increased urgency, this past year. I just had to call it out on my most recent thread as well.

Hopefully every member can respect the decorum that has made C&F a treasured resource and a dear community to all of us over the years.
All the best, Jd

13

Well forum means just that and I am not here to be set upon for commenting. I usually make one comment and reply to comments that address mine, so better not to even.

I don’t see what JDs comment has to do about flutes, but leave you all to it.

When I walk I don’t return, at all.

Bye.

14

Thank you Paddler for sharing your actual knowledge and experience

15

Paddler, I read and re-read your original post. Very helpful insight and review. Thank you for taking the time to share.

16

Paddler,

I too am grateful for the thorough review of Geoffrey’s bamboo flutes: I’ve enjoyed reading Geoffrey’s blog notes on his website about his encounter/experiments with bamboo flutes, so it’s very interesting to learn more about how these flutes are made, and the stringent selection process that goes into making these deceptively simple flutes.

I actually have a question: from what I understand, these flutes come with a lip plate. Could either of you (paddler and/or Geoffrey) elaborate on the benefits that the increased chimney height brings? Does it improve tone, power, responsiveness, ease of playing? Do Geoffrey’s flutes always come with a lip plate, or do some bamboo pieces have walls that are thick enough that they don’t need one?

17

Hi Flutern,

As for lip plates, the increased chimney height improves the ease of tone production in the first octave as well making it more robust. You don’t want it too deep, because beyond a certain point it makes the second octave less responsive. But there is a pretty flexible zone in there were it’s a great benefit. Some pieces of bamboo absolutely don’t need the extra depth (depending upon the species). In fact, some of the timber bamboos have wall thicknesses that would be far too much. But the bamboo that I use for these transverse flutes is bambusa multiplex silverstripe. It is a fabulous material (this is the same species that Patrick Olwell used for his flutes), but the walls are usually just a bit too thin at the location of the embouchure hole to be optimal, so by adding the lip plate I can fine-tune the chimney depth. Theobald Boehm said of his flute that the optimal chimney depth was 4.2mm, and my experience has been that he is right on the money. On this type of bamboo flute you can go deeper without any ill effects (some of mine are as much as 5mm or a hair over), but I try to stay between 4mm and 5mm.

So on this style of flute I always add a lip plate, and at this point it is the only species of bamboo that I use for this style of flute. There are others that work admirably. I know Barna Gabos uses Temple Bamboo (semi-arundinaria faustosa) which has many of the characteristics of the silverstripe and I’m sure it makes a great flute. I did harvest some Temple Bamboo at one point, but it was not large enough–probably because the climate it grew in was not optimal. Bamboo is a very hardy plant, and something like the bambusa multiplex silverstripe will grow where I live in Northern California, but it won’t ever get full size like it does in the tropics, so it wouldn’t be useful for flutes. I have to explore whether this is ultimately true of the Temple bamboo, or if I just harvested some spindly stalks :slight_smile:.

18

Thanks, Geoffrey, for explaining the role of the lip plate on your flutes. IIRC, I read somewhere that Charles Nicholson’s own flute had a very short chimney, which made it powerful(?) but very difficult to play for anyone but him. I’m writing this from memory, I might have made it up completely. :smiley:

19

When I was working on my own line of head joints for Boehm flutes, I got to do an extensive survey of head joints from many of the big makers (Powell, Haynes, Brannen, Cooper, Arista, Chu, Altus, Sankyo, etc.). Even though Theobald Boehm had recommended the 4.2mm depth, modern makers almost universally opted for greater depth, most of them being close to 5mm or a bit over. The exception was David Chu (I got to examine a boxwood head joint that he made). He was closer to that 4.2mm mark, and in the opinion of my partner on that project (Ron Korb), it was the best of the lot. But the versions with deeper chimneys did have a more powerful tone in the first octave (and to some extent in the second). The versions with the 4.2mm chimney (including my own) had better tuning balance stretching into the third octave. A lot of players commented on it. But it’s a trade-off. For a lot of silver flute players, that big sound that the deeper chimney supports is more important.

On bamboo I can really notice the difference. I’ve made a few where I left them “au natural” (no lip plate) and the chimney depth was around 3mm. No question but that tone development was not as easy. An extra millimeter can make a substantial improvement.

20

Thanks, Geoffrey, it’s fascinating to read how such small differences make such a big difference :slight_smile: