Is the embouchure hole 90% of the flute?

[Lar]

Terry said, "It's my routine experience that a 19th century flute usually benefits dramatically from being fitted with a new head."

Just before I read this thread, I posted a new thread about how much my Boosey Pratten's Perfected improved when I replaced the original head joint with my Olwell head joint. Maybe another example, Terry. I suppose it must be the cut of the embouchure, since they are similar heads in other regards.

90% ? Who knows? All I know is that it has transformed a real chore (filling the Pratten's and getting enough breath to play a full phrase) to a pure pleasure. I can now play 8 to 12 bars with each breath, versus 3 or 4 with the original head joint.

[s1m0n]

Terry said, "It's my routine experience that a 19th century flute usually benefits dramatically from being fitted with a new head."

Does the 'routine' mean 'all such', or merely 'all which end up under a flute-surgeon's care for any non-specific malaise'? Is suppose this means, are there a stack of 19th century flutes that you might see only to measure, which no one would consider mucking with the head joint that you include, regardless? Or is it the set of all flutes that provoke the jaundiced look of non-specific dissatisfaction that you mean?

[s1m0n]

So, can I say that 90% of the flute is actually the player?

Or more, by weight.

[Terry McGee]

Terry said, "It's my routine experience that a 19th century flute usually benefits dramatically from being fitted with a new head."

Just before I read this thread, I posted a new thread about how much my Boosey Pratten's Perfected improved when I replaced the original head joint with my Olwell head joint. Maybe another example, Terry. I suppose it must be the cut of the embouchure, since they are similar heads in other regards.

That's what bothers me, Lars. Sometimes it's really obvious what the difference is - the original has been hacked, or its edge is really rounded, or is not undercut at all, or something equally obvious. But often, the differences in performance are massive, but the difference in physical appearance is little. The discrepancy is enough that I think it warrants investigation, and I've listed it in the Picklist of Potential Investigations. The investigation might just point up how unobservant I am, but even that would be more comforting than wondering!

90% ? Who knows? All I know is that it has transformed a real chore (filling the Pratten's and getting enough breath to play a full phrase) to a pure pleasure. I can now play 8 to 12 bars with each breath, versus 3 or 4 with the original head joint.

I'm glad others (and not just makers!) are finding the same thing. It would be well within the psychology of reasonable self-delusion for makers to think their heads were better than the old masters'! The probability is that there is a mix of reasons, which is the usual thing with flutes.

Terry

[Terry McGee]

Terry said, "It's my routine experience that a 19th century flute usually benefits dramatically from being fitted with a new head."

Does the 'routine' mean 'all such', or merely 'all which end up under a flute-surgeon's care for any non-specific malaise'? Is suppose this means, are there a stack of 19th century flutes that you might see only to measure, which no one would consider mucking with the head joint that you include, regardless? Or is it the set of all flutes that provoke the jaundiced look of non-specific dissatisfaction that you mean?

Closer to "all such", but I'd have to jump in and say that's unscientific, as I haven't consistently tested all comers. (Which is more than a bit slack, given how easy it now is. I made up a special test barrel which enables me to fit my heads to almost all comers.)

Of course, I can't be sure that if I found one of my heads better than the original, then the customer would too. But I've certainly made lots of new heads and had very positive feedback from the customers.

One factor that may be significant is that most of my heads are the "eccentric bore" type, which gives a deeper chimney with the usual outside diameter. So immediately we can't be sure if that's an issue in identifying reason for difference. Couple that with the usual day-to-day variability of a human player and you are much at sea. I hope that when I get to making the artificial flute blower, we might get the repeatability needed to determine these things.

Terry

[Denny]

So, can I say that 90% of the flute is actually the player?

of course you can....


Don't let it stop you from buying a new to you flute in the next two months though.


kinkda like that, eh

[Gordon]

Terry -
Starting with the assumption that the old head is not faulty - a leak, or a ruined embouchure, inner degradation, etc. (the earlier post about the new head improving the player's ability to fill the flute seems less a matter of a new embouchure cut than something else) - isn't it likely that the actual 'improvement' in sound is as much a matter of the player's expectation, a modern player hearing the sound they want or expect to hear from an old flute with a replacement head?

Modern players come to expect certain tones (Irish?) from their flutes, accustomed to a certain responsiveness - in fact, this whole thread is, in many ways, similar to the tuning threads we've had before. A new head alters the sound from the original, adjusts the responsiveness - changes an old flute into an essentially new flute. The appreciation of the flute's qualities are then given to the new head, as if it's fixed some problem, when it has in fact merely changed an old flute into something more comfortably modern. Again, this is assuming the old head isn't in some way compromised and clearly needs to be replaced in order to make the body sound properly.

Now, I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on in this, myself, actually - I'm not taking the old-is-good, don't-mess-with-it argument, although I do think there are plenty of high quality antiques around that certainly don't benefit from a replacement head. Still, in general, is it not often more just a matter of bringing an old flute closer to our comfort zone?
Thoughts?

[I.D.10-t]

I kind of wonder what the Baroque crowd thinks/does.

[tin tin]

I think Gordon makes a good point. Assuming the flute is in good shape, would the original owner from 1850 like the original or modified flute better? (Probably no way to find a conclusive answer to that.)
I think I.D.10-t's on to something: as far as I know, most newly made Baroque/Classical flutes are reproductions/replicas, whereas many (most?) Irish flutes aren't.
Perhaps that's partially because a Baroque flute will be used to play the music of its time, so the two are a good fit as is, whereas 19th c. English makers didn't make flutes for Irish traditional music--they made it for English Romantic music (or whatever the classical music of the day was).
Many makers are now making flutes specifically for Irish music, so a case can be made for certain deviations from the historical instruments. (Although some trad players will argue reproductions/replicas are superior to new models.)

[s1m0n]

Terry -
Starting with the assumption that the old head is not faulty - a leak, or a ruined embouchure, inner degradation, etc. (the earlier post about the new head improving the player's ability to fill the flute seems less a matter of a new embouchure cut than something else) - isn't it likely that the actual 'improvement' in sound is as much a matter of the player's expectation, a modern player hearing the sound they want or expect to hear from an old flute with a replacement head?

Modern players come to expect certain tones (Irish?) from their flutes, accustomed to a certain responsiveness - in fact, this whole thread is, in many ways, similar to the tuning threads we've had before. A new head alters the sound from the original, adjusts the responsiveness - changes an old flute into an essentially new flute. The appreciation of the flute's qualities are then given to the new head, as if it's fixed some problem, when it has in fact merely changed an old flute into something more comfortably modern. Again, this is assuming the old head isn't in some way compromised and clearly needs to be replaced in order to make the body sound properly.

Now, I'm not sure which side of the fence I'm on in this, myself, actually - I'm not taking the old-is-good, don't-mess-with-it argument, although I do think there are plenty of high quality antiques around that certainly don't benefit from a replacement head. Still, in general, is it not often more just a matter of bringing an old flute closer to our comfort zone?
Thoughts?

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[flutefry]

To muddy the waters, in the thread that Lar started on improving a Pratten, I reported a switch between an Olwell head to another modern maker's flute. My perception is that both the playability and the sound changed. Player is the same, body is the same, it's not an issue of old vs new. I'd cheerfully say that the head can make a difference.

For amusement, I put the original R+R head on the modern flute, and it too greatly changed the sound (sweeter but less blatt).

So I'd say sure the head can change the sound. Still I can't help noticing that when I record myself on different flutes, the changes in sound aren't so dramatic that I could identify the flutes in the sound tracks without knowing that the cat miaowed when I was playing the Watson, and that I messed up the turn when playing the R+R. As much as anything, it's how the flute feels to me that matters.

Cheers,
Hugh

[talasiga]

.......
Modern players come to expect certain tones (Irish?) from their flutes, accustomed to a certain responsiveness -
.......

I play several different types of flutes and I know too well that playing an "Irish flute" does not automatically give you an "Irish tone". Thats something that I need to do (embouchure angle and other factors) and which I have only recently started doing because I now understand that what people call "reedy" is what I would describe as "nasal".

Incidentally the same approach on a bansuri (very shallow chimney) gives me a chinesy result which is not a result I like in bansuri. In contrast, I find that all flutes with liplates or deep chimneys are amenable to successful "nasal" as well as "rounded" articulation and such tonal contrast is, for me, one of the joys of playing such flutes.

[Gordon]

.......
Modern players come to expect certain tones (Irish?) from their flutes, accustomed to a certain responsiveness -
.......

I play several different types of flutes and I know too well that playing an "Irish flute" does not automatically give you an "Irish tone". .

I didn't say that a player naturally, or easily, attains an Irish tone from a flute directly; don't take me out of context. But many modern makers (master of alliteration today) making conical flutes do focus attention on their flutes achieving a particular tone, which tends to favor Irish playing. This would be a distinctly different goal from, say, the goal of a 19th C. maker and the original flute. So, back in context, changing the head of an old flute for a new one whose maker and/or client favor an Irish tone are not so much improving the old flute - assuming the old head was not otherwise faulty - than adapting it for modern play. 'Twas all I was saying.

[talasiga]

Gordon, that looked to me like the pot calling the kettle black.
Whilst I honed in on one portion of your post as an epigraph to my post
the thrust of my post addressed your thrust because I discussed the reedy outcome on other flutes as well including flutes with lip plates.

That an olden flute head filled a particular need well does not mean that it cannot be surpassed by a modern head which fills an alleged new need providing that the modern head can also fulfil the alleged olden need as well.

[Denny]

ow, I'm gettin' dizi....