Geoffrey Ellis "Selkie" vertically held flute

I’m starting this thread to try to avoid thread hijacking the “Recorder with a flute embouchure” thread, but there is a lot of overlap.

This could be of interest either to flute players who are curious about vertically held flutes, perhaps for ergonomic reasons, or to low whistle players who are curious about a whistle with a flute embouchure, perhaps to give more control over volume balance across octaves and the improved expressiveness that comes with an embouchure controlled vs fipple-based instrument.

So what is this “Selkie” flute?

Well, it is a kind of hybrid flute that has a cylindrical body and a tone hole lattice like an Irish low whistle, but instead of having a fipple head, it has a flute embouchure based on that of a Chinese xiao flute.

The xiao has a notch, kind of like a quena, but the end of the xiao is mostly closed off, whereas on the quena you need to use your lower lip and chin to mostly close off the end (see pictures below).

The xiao embouchure is more similar to the embouchure of a transverse Irish flute, but still different enough to require some adaptation. But ultimately, it gives you the same kind of control over volume, tonal and pitch control that you are used to as a flute player.
This means that, in contrast to a low whistle, for example, you can play both sweet, quiet high notes and loud, in tune, low notes. Basically you have control over pitch and volume across the range, once your embouchure is developed.

Geoffrey has prototypes of this design in both low D and low F right now. My experience, pictures, sound samples, etc are all with the low F.
And I should probably have added in the beginning, that I have no financial involvement in this. I’m just a willing participant, guinea pig, etc.

OK, so here are some pictures:

This one is made from maple wood, I believe, although I’m not 100% sure. Maybe pear. I’m also not sure if this wood was stabilized or not.

It is a prototype, but it is beautifully turned and finished. It is very thin walled, and incredibly light in the hand. It only weighs 43 grams, or about 1.5 oz! So you don’t have to grip it very tightly to stop it slipping from your grasp!
Suffice to say, Geoffrey, who makes world class xiao flutes used by some professional players, really knows what he is doing with this kind of flute.

How does it play/sound? Well, in terms of power and volume it is surprisingly loud and powerful. It easily rivals any transverse flute I own for volume, if you want to play it loud. It can be played much louder than any of my whistles, but it can also be played much quieter, which is especially nice in the higher notes of the range. That is really just a benefit of having direct control over the embouchure.

Its tone holes are large enough to enable half holing for accidentals, more easily than can be done on a transverse flute, but also small enough to support Irish ornaments. In the slow air sound sample below I play a tune that has quite a few Eb notes (or what would be Eb on a D flute), and I am trying to play these by half holing the last tone hole, which is very hard to make work well on most keyless Irish flutes. Also cross fingering Cnat, and trying to linger on some high notes, and linger on various notes a bit longer than would be ideal, but the idea is to explore the sound and response of the instrument.

In the other sound sample I’m basically just experimenting with how the thing responds to a faster paced tune and some ornamentation. It is a bit repetitive because I was literally learning how to play this instrument in real time.
Both these sound samples were recorded the same evening that I received the flute, so I had less than 1 hours experience with it. And I’m not a xiao player either, but I do have some experience playing around with different rim blown flutes, so the adaptation wasn’t too hard for me.

Anyway, I include these sound samples just to give you an idea of the kind of potential this design has in terms of tone and response. They were not really captured with the intent of sharing with anyone other than Geoffrey, so there is a lot of room for improvement in the playing, for sure.
The samples were just recorded in my living room on a portable Sony sound recorder, with no sound effects/processing added. The room itself is quite a live/reflective space though, so nice to play in, but not ideal to record in.

I maintained a constant distance from the mic, so you can get a good idea of volume balance between low and high notes, which range from low D to high B (D flute terminology).

Sound sample 1: slow air

Sound sample 2: reel

Now, one thing that I will say that needs some adaptation from the player is the ergonomics, not so much in terms of stretch, which is basically just like a low whistle of the same key, but in terms of keeping hold of the instrument, and keeping it steady. Specifically, keeping the position of the flute head against the lower lip stable. You can probably hear this in the recordings. I found that I didn’t dare fully relax my hands, because if I did I experienced some variability in lip pressure and embouchure control, which affects the tone, pitch and volume. And of course, if I didn’t fully relax my hands then my rhythm and timing was off. So you’ll probably hear both of these flaws. The wavering is partially me experiencing and exploring those aspects in real time.

I think the ergonomics is something that will take adaptation from the player. A thumb rest, perhaps an adjustable one, might help. Or it might not be necessary once you get used to it. Part of the issue is that movements of the hands vertically translate to movement of the embouchure in a way that seems more sensitive than with a horizontally held flute, and definitely more sensitive than with a whistle.

I will say, though, that it is a lot of fun exploring something a bit different like this, which is both familiar in some ways, but new and challenging in others.

Enjoy!

Thanks for sharing this, paddler–I was following the recorder thread and was about to make a post over there but this is a more appropriate venue I think.

Terry, if you have wandered over here, I wanted to respond to your thoughts about the xiao embouchure (I’ll quote you for the sake of anyone who is not familiar with that thread):

I experimented with making one of those Giorgi head joints, and I have to agree–they did not feel very efficient. At least the one that I made didn’t behave well nor resemble a normal transverse flute. It worked after a fashion, but not well. That might just have been me because I didn’t really work the prototyping process very tenaciously.

But xiao making is something I do a lot of, and to a lesser extent I also make quena. I would say that the quena fits the bill in terms of what you say about efficiency, at least until a player gets very expert with them. The traditional designs don’t have a lot of nuance in my view since they all seem to be designed to play really loud! I think expert players can manage a decent dynamic range, but I’ve never heard one played as delicately an Irish flute. Nor can the same ornaments be executed, at least not convincingly.

The xiao, on the other hand, can do remarkable things in the hands of someone who really knows how to play them. They have amazing dynamic range, and in terms of tonal range they are certainly the equal of the Irish flute, even if there are small differences. This depends on some of the design characteristics of the xiao itself–not every maker is the same. But I have a friend who is an expert xiao player but who has also had a reasonable amount of experience with ITM, and he demonstrated playing ITM on a xiao and it was utterly convincing. Mind you, the fingering is different, since the xiao (the versions that I make) are eight hole instruments, so an ITM player would have to adapt. This is the reason for my experiments with the Selkie. In essence, I wanted to know if I could create a modified xiao that would be familiar to ITM players. I know that a fair few folks around here play both flute and whistle, so the Selkie (if I ultimately make it available) partakes of both disciplines: flute embouchure and vertical whistle position.

As paddler points out, the biggest hurdle for anyone trying them out would be learning how to stabilize it during play, since (unlike a whistle) you can’t hold the beak between your lips to maintain contact.

Blayne Chastain (of Irish Flute Store fame) also did a test drive of the Selkie prototype and he sent me a sound sample. This is a first-impressions-unboxing sample, made in the moments when he first pulled the prototype out of the shipping tube. So it might be a bit rough, but it is another example of how the flute sounds and what can be done.

https://soundcloud.com/geoffrey-ellis-flutes/selkie-soundings/s-kZQB2dsrjh5?si=dd1f213650bd4aefb73b9c539c9343e4&utm_source=clipboard&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing

That sounds fascinating. I really wanted to learn flute, but due to a shoulder injury I knew I was going to struggle with the posture and hold of a side blown instrument. Please do update us going forward!

Geoffrey this sounds exactly what I’ve been looking for since shoulder, wrist, and hand pain forced me to give up transverse flute around 20 years ago.

I went down the Low D Whistle rabbit-hole, and found that they as a species suffer from serious limitations for somebody accustomed to flute.

I used to play Kena quite a bit, got pretty good at that embouchure, and I experimented using a Kenakena (Quenacho) in D as a flute replacement, but it didn’t really fill the bill.

I had no idea what the Xiao mouthpiece was like. It looks much more transverse-friendly than the Kena.

And the fact that it’s lightweight is a huge plus for me- anything that lessens strain on the hands helps.

I want one!

Hard to tell, does your “Selkie” produce an in-tune C Natural in the Low Octave using

OXX|OOO

(or)

OXX|OOX

(with anchor finger)?

That’s a must for me, and I happily accept the slightly flat C# that goes with it.

Your response is most encouraging! It is 99% certain that I’ll be putting these flutes into my catalog–just a few more tweaks on my prototypes most likely.

Yes, for a D Selkie the fingering would be as you describe. Just like on the keyless transverse flutes, striking the balance between the C# and Cnat is a thing (very much the same issue on the xiao itself). The C# will definitely be flat if you want your Cnat in tune with those fingerings. How flat? That’s the question. On my xiao I try to split the difference by making the C# slightly flat and the Cnat slightly sharp (and this is a bit different than a traditional xiao). In both cases a skilled player is going to lip it one direction or another. If a player wants that Cnat in tune with minimal compensation in technique (relying just on the fingering), then the C# is going to be pretty flat–maybe as much as 30+ cents, though hopefully a trifle less. This will require lipping on that note, obviously. I think flute players are used to this, however.

I can’t tell you how many hours, months, years I’ve spent tinkering around with the task of trying to balance the C# and Cnat notes on these types of flutes, hoping I could find some way to make them both work! On a flute that is targeted for equal temperament, it is quite impossible. You get one note or the other, and you’ll never have both unless you make a flute with keys. But if the target temperament is just intonation (for example) they can both be in tune (according to a tuner). All that to say that I sometimes tweak the tuning balance to suit a player’s needs. I have a friend who is a professional winds player in Hollywood, and she does all kinds of session work. For her, she needs her flutes to be slightly friendlier in an equal temperament setting because there is almost always a piano involved (fixed, equal temper tuning). So when I make flutes for her, that C# is a bit less flat, and the Cnat is a bit sharp. Again, neither of them are in perfect tune, but she wants me to split the difference more. Whereas a traditional xiao player would want the Cnat in good tune and they would expect a much flatter C#.

And even with a keyed flute, some of us prefer the “Piper’s C” or “C Supernatural” and use cross fingering instead of the Cnat key.

Personal preference of course, and also who you play music with. If I’m playing with a Uilleann piper or Scottish smallpiper at a session, their Cnats are going to be sharp, and I’ve noticed the fiddlers instinctively sharping their Cnats to follow them.

Took me a while to figure out when I was playing mandolin melody, and wondering why my Cnats were a little sour. They were 12TET when most of the other instruments – whistle, pipes, fiddlers – were playing “C Supernaturals.” Now that I’m mostly on flute, I fit right in with cross-fingered Cnats. I never use the Cnat key on my flute except for a few rare occasions to hit the high C above B note in a tune.

To be clear all my flutes (when I played flutes) and all my current whistles play a perfectly in-tune C natural with normal blowing using

OXX|OOX (or) OXX|OOO

and I accept the flat C# as being normal.

For me the text of a well-in-tune instrument is being able to go “over the break”

xoo|oox B
oxx|oox Cnat
oxx|xxx d
xxx|xxo e

on an even breath and all being needle-straight-up.

My c1830 Rudall & Rose and my c1860 Pratten were both like that.

About uilleann pipes, my uilleann chanter plays both C natural and C sharp perfectly in tune to Equal Temperament using only a difference in fingering, no special blowing required.

I made my living for a couple years as a Hollywood studio musician and perfect intonation to ET was a must, and my uilleann chanter does it.

The only note that requires special care is E. Like many Concert Pitch chanters mine has around a quartertone split between the octaves, Low Octave E being sharper than 2nd Octave E.

I shoot sort of down the middle, so 2nd Octave E requires a bit of a boost in pressure and I have to back off a bit on Low Octave E. Additionally I “shade” Low Octave E with both the raised fingers, something which has become habit.

Just answering your question with regard to this specific prototype I have here (and was playing in the samples), since Geoffrey already provided a generic answer.

On this specific flute, in the bottom octave the C# seems to be about 15 cents flat and the Cnat seems to be about 15 cents sharp. So, in terms of a tuning balance, it seems that he kind of split the difference on this one

A lot depends on how you blow the notes though. You have a lot of control over bending these notes. Or stated negatively, you could just say that it is sensitive to how you blow these notes. This makes it difficult to be really precise about any of this.

In the second octave the C# is close to being spot on, using a lower right hand finger to stabilize. Specifically, ooo oox is in tune, ooo oxo is 5 cents or so flat, ooo xoo is a lot flatter (20 cents), but interestingly ooo xxx brings it back up again to about 10 cents flat.
Whereas second octave Cnat, fingered oxo xxx is sharp, by about 15 cents. So here it seems like an in-tune C# was favored over an in tune Cnat.

But again, a lot depends on how you blow the notes. Given time with one of these flutes I think you would quickly learn to play it in tune quite intuitively, as you do with any transverse flute that has decent tuning (i.e., is tuned by the maker such that the adaptations that you as a player have to make are the ones you are used to making, and eventually stop thinking about altogether).

Personally, I also favor tuning that gets the Cnat in line with the other notes and sacrifices the C#.

This is puzzling to me. My uilleann chanter’s C natural is perfectly in tune to ET with normal blowing.

About the Scottish Smallpipes, which I play, do you mean pipes in A or in D?

The usual Scottish Smallpipes are in A, and can’t do a crossfingered C natural. I’ve seen chanters with a lower thumb-hole for C natural but there’s no reason that hole can’t be drilled in the proper location to make an in-tune C natural.

If you’re talking D Scottish Smallpipes, they have a C natural built into the scale, it’s not a crossfingered note. The flat 7th is generally tuned 31 cents flat of Equal Temperament on Scottish pipes (of any kind) because that’s where it blends with the drones, though for sure Scottish Smallpipe makers could drill that hole to be ET or however they wanted the 7th to be.

Just cross posted with you.

I just tried replicating your exact test on this particular prototype and found that the tuning for Cnat came out 15-20 cents sharp. And that was for the first octave.
So basically, more or less in line with what I said about the second octave in my previous post. I think this particular prototype was tuned to favor C# tuning over Cnat.
So a tweak of the C# to Cnat balance would be required to optimize it for your preferences … and mine.

Edit: I also just looked up the email I sent to Geoffrey back when I first got the flute and made those recordings, and it said that I deliberately used half-holing to play the Cnat notes in those tunes. So its not surprising that it is hard to tell what the tuning of the Cnat is. I probably have it wandering all over the place for reasons of embouchure and half-holing inaccuracy.

You’re welcome to send a prototype my direction “for evaluation” :thumbsup:

I didn’t mention that when I’m talking fingerings and tunings of C natural and C sharp I’m talking the Low Octave.

I’ve done my time on Baroque flute! No more 3rd register for me, ever.

High C fingerings are of no concern to me. In the trad music I play High C Natural doesn’t happen often, and when it does it’s generally approached from B, so I just crack open the C finger a bit.

High C sharp maybe never?

This is all great input.

paddler has one of the first prototypes (might be the first, in fact), and it sounds like I tuned that one the way I tune a xiao (splitting the difference on the C# and Cnat). For the Selkie, since it is geared to ITM players, I’d likely flatten that C# a bit more to bring the Cnat where it belongs. On one of the prototypes in my shop I did this very thing.

Once I have refined the tuning for both keys, I’ll subject them to some more tire-kicking, possibly recruiting some volunteers.

And I think that prototype that paddler has is cherry wood :slight_smile:

Please let me volunteer!

I’ve never played Xiao so it will be a learning curve.

I got along fine with Kena and also played Bulgarian Kaval for several years in one of those “international folk dance” bands.

(Cool thing about knowing Kaval is that you can do the party trick of taking the headjoint off and play the headless flute body.)

I actually tried to make my own “Irish Kena” out of PVC pipe, doing my best to copy the cut of my great-playing Kenakena and drilling holes like a Low D Whistle.

It sort of worked, it was better than just a Kenakena, but the voicing was off somehow.

If you have background with Andean flutes (quena, quenacho) you might also be intrigued by something I created recently that I called a Quimera. It’s a hybrid flute in the same vein as the Selkie, but it’s a combination of a quenacho and a xiao. I sent one to my friend Connor who is rather expert on the xiao but who also has background with quena and he was over the moon. So much so that he offered to make a video about the flute. He’s great at this because he is really articulate as well as being an excellent player.

I would say these flutes have similar potential as a vertically played substitute for Irish flutes with the exception that they have the eight-hole xiao scale. This will be a deal-breaker for many players because it involved learning different fingerings, so all of that ITM muscle memory would have to be amended, which of course is why the Selkie was created. Unlike the Selkie these are open ended and have a slightly different blowing notch. But you can do a lot with them. For ITM players who also dabble with other type of world flutes, these might be attractive.

Here is the video for anyone interested:

https://vimeo.com/1051919071

So, each of these hybrid flutes (the Selkie and the Quimera) combines the mouthpiece of one existing flute with the tone hole lattice of another. In the case of the Selkie, it is the xiao mouthpiece and the Irish flute/whistle tone hole lattice, and in the case of the Quimera it is the quena mouthpiece and the xiao tone hole lattice. So of the four possible ways to combine these two dimensions, it seems that one has been missed, since the xiao mouthpiece combined with the xiao tone hole lattice would be, well, a xiao.

Did you consider combining a quena mouthpiece with the Irish flute/whistle tone hole lattice? Or making the choice of xiao or quena mouthpiece an option for the customer to specify on the Selkie? It wouldn’t just be a quena, since the tone hole sizes and tuning, and absence of a thumb hole do make it quite distinct.

I’ve been meaning to ask you this for a while, having played both the Quimera (in D) and Selkie (in F) prototypes that you sent. I found it easy to adapt to the mouthpiece of either flute and I like the sound of both of them. The mouthpieces are somewhat similar to play, but definitely not exactly the same, either in sound or the feedback and range of expression they offer to the player. Or in ergonomics, actually. For me I have to hold the flute at a slightly different angle with each of them. But both mouthpieces definitely work well.

The tone hole lattice is, for me, much harder to adapt to. It is clear that the xiao tone hole lattice of the Quimera is much more ergonomic, and supports a (close to) fully chromatic scale. So in that sense, it is much more powerful. It might even be a necessity when going to a large flute in a very low key, because it greatly simplifies the reach challenges. But it is completely new to me and I have been struggling to internalize the fingering system. So even after a few weeks of having the flute, I still can’t just pick it up and play tunes like I could with the Selkie after less than a minute.

For me, it is simply a matter of having difficulty reprogramming my fingers, whereas with the various mouthpieces I can adapt and reprogram my embouchure in minutes. Seconds even. I’m sure other people may have the opposite challenge though, and find it easier to reprogram their fingers than their embouchure.

So, given that you are going in this direction, it may make some sense to decouple the choice of mouthpiece from the choice of tone hole lattice, at least from a purely logical perspective.

And related to this is the question of whether to have a replaceable mouthpiece and a tunable joint. All of that would obviously complicate construction significantly, and take the flute to a very different price-point though.

I’ve been reading this thread with a good deal of interest. I, like Geoffrey, have been interested in a variety of different world flutes for a long time, quena and xiao in particular. I also have been an amateur flutemaker, working mostly in PVC, for some 15 years now. And as I’ve read through this thread, and read the descriptions of the Selkie and the Quimera on Geoffrey’s website, I’ve been amazed at how similar our conclusions have been.

For the last two or three years, my main instrument for ITM has been a PVC flute of my own design–and that design is nearly the same as that of Geoffrey’s Quimera. I use a modified quenacho mouthpiece shape, a tone hole layout almost identical to the xiao, and a bore diameter that’s somewhere in between the two. I find that the quenacho mouthpiece and medium bore (about 21mm for a D4 flute) gives me an open, resonant tone with good dynamic range, and access to the kind of bark that is characteristic of ITM flute-playing. The xiao fingering system, combined with the vertical hold, makes for an extremely ergonomic instrument. (I had to give up transverse flute due to neck pain, and I’ve had to modify my grip on low D whistle because of wrist pain. Ergonomics is important!) Plus, now that I have easy access to that Fnat and Bb, I’m never going back. What’s more, I find that this Quimera-type instrument I play is surprisingly well-suited to just about any genre or tradition of flute music I try playing on it. I can play xiao and shakuhachi music on it, and it cooperates with me. I can play ITM, and it cooperates with me. I can play music for quena or NAF, and it cooperates with me.

Now, I’m not saying this to try to hijack the thread or take attention away from Geoffrey’s innovations here–quite the opposite! I’m posting this to give testimonial to the fact that this design, in the hands of someone willing to get used to it, is a real winner, and well suited for playing ITM–Selkie and Quimera both! Thanks for your work, Geoffrey.

Not only did I consider it, I have some prototypes of this very thing in the shop! In just about every respect this would be a quenacho with slightly smaller finger holes (and no thumb hole). The traditional quenacho (all of those that I have encountered) have quite large finger holes. Connor spoke about it in that video, remarking on the challenges those can create. But downsizing them slightly would make ITM style play much more accessible (crisp ornaments and such). Plus if the walls are thin enough, the holes don’t need to be huge to give a robust voice and improved intonation. The prototypes that I have were part of the Selkie process–I tried a variety of mouthpiece styles on it. I ended up settling on the xiao-style mouthpiece because it gave a strong, reedy tone, but I also thought that for players not accustomed to vertical flutes, it might feel a bit easier to manage with the cap at the end. That was just a hunch, and given what the Quimera is capable of I can’t swear that I’m right about that.

But the Quimera also favors a larger bore diameter than a xiao in the same key, and the Selkie bore is somewhere between a Quimera and xiao.

As to whether I’d offer it as an option…not sure :slight_smile:

Yes, that xiao fingering is going to be foreign to most ITM players, and adapting to it might take some time. I think that for a player who is willing to retrain their muscle memory, the xiao scale is superior. I’m saying this strictly in the sense that it offers more options to the player–it greatly increases the musical flexibility of the flute.

Regarding slides and mouthpiece options: I had a couple of metal xiao from a company in China and they have a system where the mouthpiece on the flute acts as a tuning slide with the added ability to remove it and fit it onto another flute body. Same concept as having a head joint that fits a D and C body. They riffed on that concept and the result was pretty cool. I riffed on their riff and created a similar feature that I have used on some of my xiao, but it can be made to work with any vertical flute. I designed mine to have a different aesthetic, and it requires that I use different materials. I make the mouthpiece from ebonite, providing a metal tenon, and this fits into the female part of the slide that is made from Delrin with an internal o-ring. Makes for a very stable slide that can travel about 8mm in either direction. So you can’t make radical pitch adjustments, but for most ordinary playing circumstances it should be enough. But I have to use either stabilized wood for the flute body or ebonite, otherwise I’d be worried about the dissimilar materials creating shrinkage around the slide. And yes, it makes for a substantially more expensive flute. But it would also create the possibility of more than one mouthpiece for a flute, but that might be cost prohibitive for many (making that mouthpiece/slide is quite involved). Here are a couple of photos of it:

Thanks very much! Very cool that you’ve explored the hybrid concepts, and I have to agree that they offer tremendous range and versatility. I learned the xiao scale before I became familiar with the six hole diatonic major scale, so for me it is very comfortable (no retraining of the hands). But if someone is used to keyless flutes and whistles, learning the xiao scale doesn’t seem like it would be much more difficult than adapting to a keyed flute? Maybe? I’ve never played a keyed flute beyond just picking one up and trying it out, and it seemed like it would involve a learning curve.

So when I said I use a tone-hole layout that’s “almost” that of the xiao, here’s what I mean: I put the C# hole on the front, for the top index finger. This causes the other top-hand fingers to shift holes: pinkie opens for A, ring opens for Bb, middle opens for B. For playing ITM, I feel like this has two main advantages.

One, it allows me to continue cutting top-hand notes with my index finger on the C# hole. I’ve messed around with playing ITM on my actual xiao, and trying to cut B with my thumb is the thing that always has me giving up in the end.

Two, it allows for an (optional) Cnat thumb hole. The thumb hole makes slurs to and from Cnat easier, especially in the second octave–and it gives the added bonus of giving C# some extra venting. With the thumb hole closed, I get a C# that’s maybe 15 cents flat of ET, and when I open the thumb hole, it comes right up to ET pitch, no lipping required.