jemtheflute wrote:Just to pin it down (in safety, of course), surely we need Terry in this thread?
Ahh yes, the Right Rev. Terry - a man of the cloth.
Rob
jemtheflute wrote:Just to pin it down (in safety, of course), surely we need Terry in this thread?
He certainly dissaproved if that's what you mean. But you are in other respects factually mistaken.Mr.Gumby wrote:He most certainly didn't.Peter Laban once wrote describing alterations someone had
made to the Byrne to strengthen the D.
He did write against people who are at best beginners having alterations done on flutes by other people than the original maker especially when done to rectify perceived problems that are more likely related to the skill of the player than they are to the flute.
Like you having a quarter of an inch chopped off a Murray because you couldn't play bottom D in tune. This thread, with you describing how you can 't handle a bottom D on some flutes, only once again makes his case. I hope you see that.
Hi Jim,jim stone wrote:Thank you. It's because the flute is in all other respects VERY beautiful and I am convinced it can be done right
in a way it was meant to be by the maker. I once actually asked Bryan face to face if he would alter the flute
to strengthen the low D. He refused. The look on his face....
I would like to to go look for a quote there Jim. I assume you are thinking of this thread.Peter in fact DID describe alterations made to a Byrne
Peter Laban wrote:I didn't want to make this particular to the Byrne, or any other flute mentioned on present thread. I mentioned the two threads because the practice seems to be getting all the more common.
I seem to remember you did quote tuning issues of the bottom note as a reason for chopping it.Jim Stone wrote:I had no problem playing the low D on the Murray in tune. Nor was I a beginner.
I can explain my own position if you don't mind:keithsandra wrote:Mr Gumby, or whoever you are, your credibility is shot when you say:
"I did note the fact that very recently someone mentioned the special approach needed to make the lower end of a Rudall (type) speak properly."
This was in fact Jim.
And when you say:
"You jumped at it to ask what it was,"
In fact it was me who "jumped in". Any objections?
And when you say
"Only a few days ago you were already giving advice about the same issue."
That was in fact Jim kindly answering my query.
Mr Gumby, if you make such a cockup of quoting someone you evidently regard with libellous enmity and contempt, surely you can't expect anything you say, in whatever guise, to be taken seriously?
You would be well advised to have a lawyer explain your position, in the past and now ... Be warned.
That is what I referred to when I said:on 12 sept 2010, Jim Stone wrote: What's the different approach Rudalls require?
Mr. Gumby wrote:I did note the fact that very recently someone mentioned the special approach needed to make the lower end of a Rudall (type) speak properly. You jumped at it to ask what it was, it seemed this thought hadn't occurred to you.
Which was covered by my:Jim Stone wrote:My understanding is that many Rudalls have to be rolled out when playing the bottom,
and a focused air stream directed into the flute. Many modern rudall copies
have been tweaked to eliminate the need, but not all. I am still locked
in combat with the Byrne. Sometimes the D is there, sometime less so.
Otherwise I think it is the most beautiful flute I know.
Mr Gumby wrote: Only a few days ago you were already giving advice about the same issue. It seemed you're quick learner. And now you're back on the same issue as a stumbling block.