Wooden Simple System Boehm Flute

Irish Flute
1

YUP! She only has 6 tone-holes and a parabolic tapered bore in the head! :party:

I guess I’ve been going through a cylinder flute phase since about Christmas. I’ve been trying a lot of bamboo and metal flutes with cylinder bores. I had been wondering about a wooden Boehm flute with simple system fingering, but didn’t know anyone making such a flute. Till Now! A new flute maker David Swindler ( http://swindlerflutes.com/# ) has just started making wooden simple system Boehm flutes and I must say I am very impressed! Especially when viewed in light of economics, the base price (mine is his basic flute) for a wooden Boehm flute from David is $350 and goes up from there for extras. David obtained the dimensions for the flute from Terry McGee, who said “I’ve done a few of these over the years, keyless and keyed.”

I acquired a bamboo D flute from David with a lip-plate attached and was very impressed. This led to my corresponding with him and discovering his intent to make the wooden Boehm. Pictured below is his first working wooden Boehm flute, braced by a pair of his bamboo flutes. The top one with the lip-plate is the easiest playing bamboo flute I’ve ever had (with excellent intonation). The bottom bamboo flute had a wonderful Baroquish embouchure and a Tipple-Type wedge, this flute was a very complex tone and is ultra responsive to play (Great Fun).

The wooden flute is made from a lovely orange cocobolo (but will continually darken with age till it is rather black). The flute is kept simple with only 2-pieces and is very light at only 5.6 oz. (160 g). The thinned head with a lip-plate makes the flute very well balanced (balance point is just about even with the leading edge of the first tone-hole). The ergonomic finger stretch is quite easy and familiar (ARHPA flute body in picture is for comparison). The flute is a very easy player and I can easily play up to A6 (I don’t know fingerings to go any higher). The tone is big and open and seems to average about 10 dB more than my large holed Rudall type flutes. The response is very good and notes sound with great clarity (even in fast passages), surprising to me given the large bore and holes. The embouchure is very nice and produces a full round, clear and rather pure tone, but can me made reedy. The small embouchure 10mm x 11mm is essential with this flute. If an improved modern (silver flute type) embouchure were employed, I think the power would certainly be increased, but tone flexibility would really suffer and kiss a reedy tone goodbye. Tuning is right on 440 for me with the joint fully shut. The intonation is excellent and the tone is very even (low E is a bit softer, but not as pronounced as on most conically bored flutes). The bottom D is about 5 cents flat, so it can be pushed a bit. To me the only detriment to tuning is the accidentals must be half holed (I usually prefer Baroque style cross fingerings), this includes the Cnat which can be fingered OXX XOX, but can still go sharp if I’m not careful. The second wooden Boehm flute that David made was a 10-hole flute. This option would alleviate the half-hole accidentals, true up the Cnat and should strengthen the bottom E.

(OK, here I go pigeon holing all wooden flutes into 2 groups) :smiley:
I strongly gravitate toward Rudall type flutes and prefer their tone and character. The only Pratten I ever really liked was a Hammy. That said I think of this flute as being very Prattenesque with a big open powerful tone, but it will sing if pushed hard.

I think of this wooden Boehm flute as a blank sheet of white paper. It is up to you to make it what you want. Where as, conically bored wooden flutes would equate to paper that is already tinted (must be green for Irish). I enjoy this flute particularly for playing other types of music than ITM.


All the Best!

Jordan

2

Jordon,

Doesn’t “Boehm” also mean that it has Boehm’s hole positioning and keywork (or a derivative of it)? Serious question - not a snark.

This sounds more like a wooden version of a Tipple (not a bad thing at all) rather than what I think of as a Boehm flute.

3

Hey DCrom,

While I’m certainly not a Boehmophile. I believe the confusion is over the use of the term BOEHM SYSTEM, which referrs to his method of keywork employing rods and levers.

Somebody more knowledgeable should probably clarify this.

The flute in my posting is a Boehm, because it has his barabolic tapering inside the flute head (though the body has a cylinder bore). This is what (Doug) Tipple is accomplishing to simular effect, by employing his wedge in his flutes. The taper inside the head serves to correct the intonation across the registers. It is for the same reason an “Irish flute” has a tapered bore (conical) in the body.

Hopes this helps to clarify things.

All the Best!

Jordan

4

To be sure.

Boehm’s “system” of rod axles and acoustically optimally placed toneholes he first applied to a cylinder head on a tapering conoid body - his 1832 model. He continued to refine the system of keys and linkages, and other flute and general woodwind designers took up his basic ideas using rod axles and clutches. He also continued to work on “improving” (according to his/his era’s aesthetic and practical considerations) the tone, volume, power and intonation of the instrument which ultimately led him to the “parabolic” head on a cylindrical body with large tone-holes in acoustically optimised positions covered by platter keys on rod axles. This 1847 model was essentially the modern orchestral instrument, though it has been tweaked at ever since.

The second half of the C19th saw a huge variety of alternative “improved” versions of the flute on both body forms. Early on people saw the power advantages of Boehm’s flute tube, but many didn’t like his key system for various reasons and adapted his technology in assorted ways. There are/have been a couple of examples (mis-labelled “Siccama”, I think) on eBay recently of Boehm head, cylinder body flutes with essentially “simple system” fingering, retaining the G# and Long F of the old 8-keyers, but with rod axle linkages for the bulk of the rest of the fingers/keys to allow better placed and larger tone-holes whilst basically retaining the 8-key fingering, e.g. current eBay Item number: 320128692233. That was pretty much a conservative trend, but there were more progressive variations such as Rockstro’s or the Carte 1867 or the Radcliffe - incidentally usually referred to as “systems”; mostly they used Boehm’s tube, maybe with his tone-holes, maybe not, and with varying key-systems, but ALL using his rod-axles…

Back then, of course, they weren’t interested in going retro and being key-less!!!, but there are plenty of precedents for Boehm’s tube without his keywork. Making a keyless one seems a perfectly sensible modern adaptation for ITM purposes and I’ve often wondered why it hasn’t been a more common approach… allowing that the acoustic compromises involved in making the tone-holes ergonomically usable are a major problem!

Meanwhile, as so often, we have a confusion of terminology arising from a conflation of concepts… in this case, general modern usage has “Boehm System” meaning most usually the complete 1847 flute, (save for the Briccialdi thumb levers which ousted Boehm’s own design for that part of the mechanism), tube and key-work. However, it can also (and perhaps should) mean just the key mechanism - and in that sense is used for some clarinets - which Boehm himself had no part in designing, but the actual designers were acknowledging his invention of the type of key-work and the principles for locating the tone holes. Adolf Sax also borrowed it and expanded it for his saxophones. Oboes, bassoons and other winds also borrowed and adapted, though so far as I know didn’t tend to use Boehm’s name. You can’t really call Boehm’s tube design a “system”, can you?

So we have three elements: Boehm’s tube, his tone-hole schema and his key-work for accessing and controlling the latter. Clearly the elements can be separated - e.g. a Boehm tube with different tone-hole schema (case in point), or significantly different key-work; or a different tube with his key-system, etc. Not much hope of consistently standardising the terminology usage, I fear. You pays your money… (literally in some cases!)

Sorry for going on at such length (a vice of mine???), but if a job’s worth doing… Hope this helps! Plenty more on the Net, e.g Terry’s site et al., or just read Boehm’s own Treatise - it’s fascinating.

I think that cocobolo keyless Boehm looks stunning - shame the colour’s going to go!

5

Jordan, what is the fingerspread on the flute:
top edge first tone hole to bottom edge third tone hole (left hand spread) and
top edge fourth tone hole to bottom edge sixth tone hole (right hand spread)?
Could you measure that in millimeters please?
You use piper’s grip on the right hand?
Just wonder how it may handle.

~Hans

6

Hey Hans,

The finger spreads are as follows:

LH = 88 mm

RH = 77.5 mm

These measurement were made with calipers from the outer edges of the toneholes. The line between tonehole edges is not along the axis of the flute, so these measurements are a little exagerated.

I use flat fingers with my tips covering the holes “IRISH GRIP”. :slight_smile:

All the Best!

Jordan

7

Lovely, wonderful post. Helpful too.

8

Very interesting, Jordan.

9

By way of comparison, the embouchure hole on my silver flute is a 11 x 12 mm rounded rectangle, and the ID of the flute body is 19 mm. The embouchure hole on my alto flute is a 11 x 13 mm rounded rectangle, and the ID of the flute body is 24 mm. The standard embouchure hole on my pvc low D flute is a 10 mm circle (optional 10 x 11 mm oval), and the ID of the flute body is 21 mm.

Based on the above information, I have a couple of questions. I notice that most modern wooden conical-bore flutes have larger embouchure holes than the 10 x 11 mm hole on the Swindler flute, and I don’t think that tone flexibility suffers because of this. I don’t know for sure, but I doubt that tone flexibility suffers on the larger rounded rectangle embouchure holes mentioned above for cylincrical-bore flutes, although they definately take more air to blow.

My questions are: Is there a relationship between hole size/shape and tone flexibility? Is there a loss of tone flexibility with larger embouchure holes? Are there different optimum hole sizes/shapes for cylindrical vs. conical bore flutes?

10

Wooden Simple System Boehm Flute? Hmm, that got my attention, but once it was said that the head joint is tapered and the body cylindrical, I could see the sense of it.

About your questions, I wish I could express my thoughts in a convenient form, such as a mathemetical equation, but I do have some feedback, anyway. There does seem to be a relationship between the size of the embouchure hole and the tone holes, that a larger embouchure hole needs to have larger tone holes in order to vent correctly, that more air in equals more air out, or something like that. As far as tonal flexibility goes, I think my flutes which have a larger embouchure hole tend to be more flexible. For instance, my smallest embouchure hole is on a one-key Baroque flute, and the flute does produce a fine sound, but seems quite limited in its ability to play louder and softer, while staying in tune. On the other hand, my largest embouchure hole is on a Boehm flute, and I can go from pppp to ffff, all while staying in tune, and, not only that, but the range of tonal colors available is much greater on the Boehm. In all, I am inclined to suggest that flutes with larger holes have a greater range of tonal potential. The one-key is sweet, but the Boehm rules!

Simple system Irish flutes have their place, too. Although they are tonally somewhat more limited than Boehm flutes, Irish flutes have a wickedly fast fingering system, no mechanism to get in the way!

11

Sorry to be so late in joining this discussion!

As Jem has very capably pointed out, there were lots of 8-key style flutes made using Boehm’s bore. And not only then - I’ve made quite a few over the years, with varying number of keys - here’s a 6-key:

You can read my thoughts on it at:

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/models.html

And here, from my collection, is a 19th century version:

See more at:

http://www.mcgee-flutes.com/collection.html#Cylindrical-bore

Terry

12

Terry, what is the story behind low C# and C keys on a Boehm type wooden flute and the Irish type?
What I mean is, how come the D and the C# vents are at 12 0’clock on the Boehm
but at 2 o’clock (or so) (taking the clock face from the embouchure end) on the Irish?

13

No acoustical significance, Talasiga. Just a question of where the holes end up on the different mechanisms. And to a lesser extent where your R4 wants the foot rotated to.

Terry

14

I didn’t mean acoustical issues.

terry, I am talking about
the type of flute I have which has body sections
as in the bottom flute in the picture and which
does not have a discrete “C foot”.

If, on any keyed flute with a “C foot”
one can rotate that foot to suit one’s grip,
and, having a rotation that aligns the tone holes to 12 o’clock is
one of the workable rotated positions,
what is the problem with post mounted keys on
flute like the one in question, where the tone hole alignment
is “fixed” at 12 o’clock?

15

There have been lots of flutes over the years that have the foot integral with the RH section, thus preventing you from rotating the foot keys for your convenience. I can think of Monzani, lots of German flutes, and Rudall Carte Boehm flutes for a start. I think it’s less of a problem on Boehm style feet, as R4 moves mostly along the flute, but more of a problem with 8-key style feet. Certainly I find it impossible to seal the C and C# on a lot of German flutes without losing coverage of R3.

Terry

16

Would that still be so if R3 was phalange rather than finger tip?

17

I can usually manage if I use the phalange, but surely that wasn’t intended by the manufacturers? I just figured I have the wrong ratio of lengths between my third and fourth fingers for German flutes. The difference in length with the hand straight is about 27mm.

Terry

18

What I am trying to work out is,
given that I apply a type of pipers’ grip
with my right hand,
whether low C# and C keys that cover
vents fixed at 12 o’clock would be
OK for my right pinkie.

A lot of makers have given me an opinion
that keys are only possible if there is a separate foot section
so that those vents can be rotated.

I am trying to work out what is the absolute issue here (if any).

19

I think that you’d probably get away with that. But, with a view to resale value, I’d still suggest a separate rotatable foot.

Terry

20

With my hand flat, my little finger end is exactly level with the knuckle creases viewed from the back of the hand, and about 2-3mm above the main crease on the palm side. In playing position with my orthodox hand position, the end of my little finger in a resting position is level with the base of the nail on my ring-finger.

Generally I have no major problems playing footjoint keys, though I do prefer a separate foot to be able to adjust the key positions to the best place for me - and it is amazing how much difference a millimetre or so can make. However, I have an Italian (Rampone) 12-keyer (see pics) in the Viennese style with an integral lower body/B foot, the fixed key positioning of which I find absolutely perfect - and it sounds well and easily right down to the low B. Funnily enough, since I’ve been buying flutes to do up, most of the German ones I’ve acquired have had separate foot joints, but there’s one in the pics below with the stereotypical integral foot - and the key positioning on that is not quite ideal for me - a little too far rolled out for my preference, but I can still reach it without too much difficulty or losing position/seal on RH3, yet without sliding forward into “pipers’ grip” or adopting a more claw-fingered hand posture.

Actually, I’ve come across quite a few old English flutes, including a R&R or two, where I have had problems with RH3/RH4 becuse the foot keys came too far up over the lower body and crowded the RH3 tone-hole. I have fairly broad (but not enormous), “spatulate” fingers-tips (useful on large holes/low whistles etc…), and on such flutes my ring-finger tends to clip or get caught on the C/C# keys when trying to close its hole, or to fail to seal it properly. That is a nuisance - and I suspect that it is one of the reasons (apart from knackered keys/pads) that many of the old guys in ITM (often farmers or fishermen with big, rough hands!) tended to turn the foot keys away on their old flutes: they just got in the way. It has now become some sort of Luddite fashion statement to do the same, regardless of whether one’s hands fit OK with the keys in playing position, enabling one to make their intended use of them!

On Talasiga’s point/query about hole positioning - just look at the variation on the pics below. It is of course possible to vary the design and adjustment of the key-work to bring the touches into suitable positions for any given hand, if one is dealing in the bespoke instruments world, at any rate!

The photo below is for interest’s sake, really. I set up all 5 instruments (where adjustable) to my best playing position. From the top, they are:
Rudall & Rose #4683 (my own, best flute)
Anonymous French 8-key (the one I sold here recently - it’s being collected by its new owner this week!)
Anonymous German 8-key with separate foot (now for sale, if anyone is interested - nice player…)
Bruno German 8-key with integral foot (awaiting restoration)
Rampone 12-key with integral B foot (my “other” flute)