Ruminating on my Byrne and Gallagher flutes

Irish Flute
1

Hmmmm. I’ve decided that of all the flutes I’ve tried, I simply love the focused, sweet, clear, clarion (there’s a few adjectives) tone of my medium-holed Byrne keyless and my Gallagher 6-key Rudall flutes. The Byrne took me quite some time to get the the true “sweet spot” to sound in tune on the low D and low F#. But, after playing a Polak traverso with an even smaller embouchure hole, the Byrne became easier and in tune. I feel I’ve gotten to know my Gallagher much better over the last few years, too. It’s very similar, I feel, to the Byrne in its tone and responsiveness, but was easier for me to play in tune from the get-go.

I guess my conclusion is that I’m very happy with these flutes after trying quite a few and always looking for the “perfect” flute. The longer you play one (or two!) flutes, the better.
So, what are your thoughts on your favorite flutes?

2

Is that a John Gallagher (of Elkins, WV)? I’ve been to his shop a couple of times and chatted with him a lot… Great guy and superb flutes - just wish I could afford one!

My current love is an antique Wm Hall and Son - small holes and sounds gorgeous (well, as gorgeous as I can make it!).

3

The Byrne is lovely. I agree with the adjectives.

4

I’ve gone through a lot of flutes, and have covered basically every major maker in my quest for the perfect flute. Ultimately it is the player that decides what they like best. With that said, the best flute I have ever played, and luckily own is a John Gallagher dogwood, 8 key Pratten. I would not part with it for the world, it’s perfect. It has two headjoints, both fully lined, the difference is that one has a deeper chimney height than the other. I am most excited about the fact I can get “my sound” on it, and the tuning and keywork is perfect.
I also play a boxwood Rudall original, but for completely different reasons. It’s out of tune(not horribly though, just requires a bit of venting), quiet, but it’s very charming, and the tone is very magical. I find it’s nice to play both flutes, it makes my embouchure stronger, and more flexible. In the case of both flutes, a good headjoint makes all the difference.

5

For a small holed flute, I agree, if a flute can be perfect, Gallagher’s Rudall is sweet.

6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok77Z3e-1Hw

7

Grrrr! Ted, you should know better! A flute which was designed to be played with vented fingerings is NOT “out of tune” if it needs to be played with said fingerings!!! It will be “out of tune” when played without them…yes, 'cos that wasn’t how it was built to be played. Excuse the rant, but we bump into this nonsense/misapprehension all the time, even from the likes of Terry McGee. Sure, these antique flutes may still have tuning discrepancies (in other aspects) even when played with the design-expected fingerings, but having flat F#s and C#s and Es when the appropriate keys aren’t vented doesn’t mean they are “out of tune” on those notes, but that you have to play them correctly to be in tune. If one wishes to play a flute with straight-off, unvented whistle fingerings, get a flute designed for that. The antique 8-keyers are not so designed. Don’t blame them for that!

Ted, I know you understand that and my rant was triggered by rather than aimed at you personally, but your choice of words was one that leads to perpetuation of the misunderstanding - and many readers of this forum with little (opportunity for) experience of good antique flutes really don’t need to acquire it!

8

good thing ya don’t want to be a magician with that kind of attitude :smiley:

9

Careful, Jem, you’re getting flecks of foam on your Anorak…




R

10

Flecks? Floods! :tantrum: :blush: :laughing:

11

Have you ate them, then?

12

I think, to be able to run this argument, you need to be able to prove beyond question that the old flutes were intended to be played with what we call “vented fingerings”. Just showing that it helps them isn’t enough - it doesn’t prove that they were the design goal. I don’t think anyone has so far presented the full analysis of the old fingering charts and writings available to us that would be needed to clarify that claim.

Certainly some period writers have noted that opening additional keys can help with flat notes when particularly exposed (eg in long notes), but they still show and advocate the simpler fingerings for normal use. When they go on to show better alternatives, they often have surprises. Eg, we all know that C# tends flat when played ooo ooo, and can be assisted by playing o,oo ooo (where the comma implies opening the c key). But a more popular improved C# was oxx xxx xo - ie play the harmonic of low C#.

Interestingly, when Pratten started including a thumb C key on his flutes, his fingering chart showed its use to sharpen C#. It seems that the R1 c-key might have been previously considered too clumsy to routinely assist c#, but the new-fangled thumb key wasn’t.

We can be sure from the old charts that Eb was generally to be left open, but that is more a physical convenience thing, rather than an exercise in improved venting. Unnecessarily lifting and lowering R4 is not good for flute stability, so leave it down whenever possible. It doesn’t significantly affect most notes, but does of course have a big impact on the adjacent undersized and poorly located E. Yet, you find flutes where E tends unacceptably sharp in one or both octaves if you open Eb.

So, until proven otherwise, I’ll continue to expect flutes to try their best to fit in with our traditional expectations on c# and f#. I am happy to be flexible on E, assuming the right fingering is the one that produces the best result.

Terry

13

Well said Terry, you just saved me a lot of typing.

14

I like my Aebi Pratten a lot. It’s a strong flute with strong tone. Demanding, but rewarding as well. Has a certain ‘oomph’ to it not every Pratten has to offer…

I now have a keyless Rudall as well that I like big time, I actually use the headjoint on my Pratten at the moment. Sound is still big, but contains a lot more harmonics, even on the Pratten body. And the ‘e’ is great and stable. Lovely thing…

15

With due respect to Terry, who I well know knows far more about this than I do, I have never quite bought that particular argument. Setting aside the aspects of mid-C19th (English) flute design that were to do with providing a wide tuning range and limiting consideration to those flutes where any lingering attempts to preserve the old forked F natural fingering had been effectively abandoned, I think makers like R&R’s craftsmen, Prowse and a good many others were quite capable of making flutes whose open C# and even more so F# didn’t need venting, just as those modern makers who think similarly to Terry have done/tried to do, but they did not, for the most part, Why not?

Most of the period charts I have seen/treatises I have read do specify venting for those particular notes, though I’m sure Terry has seen more and evaluated them more assiduously than I have. Empirically, most of these flutes do play those notes in tune with the keys vented. I quite accept it doesn’t fit in with ITM common practice, but I still think it is perverse to insist those notes are “out of tune” if you won’t vent them. Likewise, to insist on evaluating period flutes’ intonation while ignoring the (to my mind at least) clearly enough expected “standard” fingerings which demonstrably bring said notes very close into tune on most instruments seems strange to me (yes, I understand Terry’s arguments for doing so, but disagree).

I do accept entirely what Terry wrote about the Eb key, however.

16

Sorry Jem, got to go with Terry on this one. To draw such a strong, definitive conclusion from what one supposes, from the vantage-point of 150+ years later, were the maker’s intentions, without the kind of proof that Terry alludes to, amounts to special pleading. I don’t think Terry’s claiming to know the definitive answer, but that’s a position I can respect. To claim certitude without real evidence is just shouting from the proverbial hilltop. Cheers,

Rob

17

Don’t ya just love it when the flute boyz fight?

18

Well, if I may try to shift the perspective, the question is not a matter of proving things, as we can’t given our information here, but trying to figure out what might have been in the minds of the designers of these flutes.

‘I think makers like R&R’s craftsmen, Prowse and a good many others were quite capable of making flutes whose open C# and even more so F# didn’t need venting, just as those modern makers who think similarly to Terry have done/tried to do, but they did not, for the most part, Why not?’

This seems to be a pretty good question. Supposing they were capable of making flutes that didn’t need venting to play in tune, why didn’t they? That is, does the tuning that requires venting by keys to lift flat notes buy us something good?
If this tuning has some real advantage, this makes it at least somewhat more plausible that the flutes were designed to be played vented, so as to actualize an advantage that would be lost on a ‘more in tune’ flute.

19

I think the answer is pretty clear - it isn’t possible to put these remaining few notes in tune with the hoped for fingerings, at least not without unacceptable losses elsewhere. Not surprising, as I’ve mentioned before, the flute is simply too long for our puny hands.

If we look at the right hand, we see three fairly equally spaced holes, which is fine, as we have three fairly equally spaced fingers. But, and it’s a big but, they cover 4 semitones, not 3. Carte, writing in 1851, attempts to draw our attention to the problems with a drawing in which he showed all the holes (finger and key) as if they were all fingerholes running along the top of the flute:

Look at the right hand section. The first and third hole in that section (giving G & F) are well placed but the 2nd hole (gives F#) should move up-flute (and be smaller), and the 4th hole (gives E) should move downflute a fair way (and be much bigger). We make the holes bigger and smaller to try to get around their wrong positions, but we can only go so far. It’s the limitations on human stretch that give us flat F# and weak E, not any intention by the maker that we should use more complex fingerings. We can improve the flat F# by opening Fnat and Eb, but the fingering charts of the era show that that they preferred the simpler fingerings wherever possible.

(The whole pamphlet is at http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/CarteSketch.htm)

Subtly different problems prevent us getting c# up to pitch. The top hole has to work for c#, c nat and as a vent for middle D. It’s location is also limited by available stretch, but we can’t just make it bigger (like we did with F#). Once it’s more than about 8mm, the middle D vent starts to look more like a B hole! Try blowing the softest middle D you can, and you might just hear the phantom B, or the multiphonic B/D. And the c becomes unbearably sharp, even if played “maximally flat” by using oxx xxo. So again, the laws of physics combined with our puny stretch are the reasons behind flat c#. And again, the c key can help, but was not at the top of the preferred fingerings, but typically around no 3, after the second harmonic of low C# option.

I think it’s pretty clear that the players and makers were well aware of the issues and solutions, and the makers were well aware of the physical limitations and possible mechanical solutions. Mechanical solutions put forward at the time included thumb C key (Boehm & later Pratten), use of keys to relocate holes (Siccama), Brille (Siccama and some others), but these generally didn’t seem to find favour. I think this is very interesting stuff - it seems to be telling us that the players back then, like us, valued simplicity very highly, even at the cost of accuracy. I could easily put some extra keys on to my flute to be able to play perfectly in tune, but I’d rather play adequately in tune without the klutsyness of additional keys, or more complex fingerings involving keys.

Terry

20

Thanks for responding to Jim’s question Terry - you are doing all the hard work here! My “Why not?” question was somewhat rhetorical because I’m well enough aware of the things you have just explained. Still, quite a few modern makers of keyless flutes (and even of keyed ones in some cases) are inclined to claim (and owners/others claim on their behalf) that their instruments are “perfectly in tune” or that they have “corrected” the errors of the C19th originals or have “improved” upon them… when those technical limitations mean they cannot entirely solve the issues! (Just like their Victorian forebears!) I have played some flutes, chiefly of the larger-holed variety, both antique and modern, whose F#s were pretty close to in tune without venting, but none whose open C# wasn’t noticeably flat unvented, the latter being a particular problem on many keyless flutes, as is a weak &/or flat low E.

I can’t give specific citations, but such C19th writings about playing simple system flutes as I have read, including and especially Rockstro (whose text and charts I have in fact just checked), seem in my memory to have advocated venting with keys on a “should preferably/routinely be done where-ever possible” basis, admitting that in certain contexts it wouldn’t be possible and inferior short-cuts/fudges would have to be employed, but not adopting an “it’s awkward so don’t bother unless its really glaringly bad without” approach such as Terry is saying he reads in them.

Edit: OK, I’ve been going through the period charts on Rick Wilson’s website: C19th - Monzani, Lindsay, Dressler all give the F#s vented in low and middle octaves though not the C#s; early C20th - Schwedler, Koehler and Burose (admittedly all aimed at late German 12+ key small/medium-holed flutes) all give the vented fingerings for F# in both octaves and C# in the 1st, but oxx xoo, is preferred by most for the upper C# (Koehler & Burose do give the open, vented fingering as well for that). Rick himself in his conglomerate summary chart says of both F#s, “keep an F key open whenever possible!”