Resuscitating sleeping flutes

[Terry McGee]

We've talked, in a few recent threads, about possible effects of oil on flute tuning, and possible effects of hydration on old flute tuning. Many 19th century flutes suffer from difficult-to-understand and difficult-to-deal-with tuning issues like flat foot, and the question raised there was "do they become easier to deal with after some playing back in?". These are matters I mean to put to the test, and I have a test candidate coming up, but it raises a conundrum.

The aim would be to take an old flute that hasn't been played for 100 years or so, measure it, replace pads and fix it up so it will work, weigh the parts, and take a measurement of its tuning. Then what?

If you oil it when dry, it will probably best soak up the oil. But when you attempt to rehydrate it, it will take up the water more slowly.

If you rehydrate it first, it will probably rehydrate quickly, but then be slower to take up oil, and take up less oil than it might have done in the earlier approach.

I'm inclined to oil first, to afford the flute maximum protection. Re-weigh the parts then to see what oil uptake there was, and then run another tuning check to see if we can detect any change. If changes are discerned, then check measurements to see if a change in physical dimensions is the agent.

Then try the effects of increased moisture content, in the same way, to see what that does.

Then finally try some humidity cycling, to see if cycling produces changes that a single cycle won't.

Everyone happy with that approach, or like to offer an alternative?

Terry

[an seanduine]

Terry I'd only add one small twist. I usually am not at all certain about the conditions the old flute I've received has been experiencing before I receive it. So, what I do is to hold the flute in a chamber at relatively high humidity levels for a period of days, up to a month, say R.H. of about 60 to 65% at room temperatures (I'm pointing at the human comfort zone 68 F to 72 F). This allows the wood to stabilise at a moderate rate before I do anything drastic like oiling or playing ( letting the bore experience hot, supersaturated air). I don't know if your holding closets are in controlled conditions or not, but whatever, this may give you a good 'zero point'.

Bob

[Terry McGee]

Heh heh, that's not a small twist, that's the alternative approach I outlined, re-humidify first. I leaned towards oil first, but not with a lot of passion.

So that's one-all so far. Who votes next?

Terry

[an seanduine]

Terry, for the purposes of testing. I"m not really dead set on re-humidifying first. . .although that is what I in fact do first. My point is more to establish a known 'zero' point for future reference. Preferably a known ambient condition of some stability before you start. A fixed condition of some time period with controlled temperature and R.H. , rather than the random 'Drunkard's Walk' of day to day variation.

Bob

[jemtheflute]

Not sure it advances the overall scientific probity/usefulness, but if you have a truly dry flute (long term disuse/storage in GB doesn't necessarily equate to dessication!) I'd look at oiling first to see if the wood really does take any in. I keep reading various restorers' accounts of their allegedly beneficial oil bath regimes, and I seriously have my doubts as to the value of such, at least with waxy tropical hardwoods. This is an opportunity to test that, but you'd have to ensure you used an oil which has absolutely no hydrous content! I don't know if I'm right about this (please correct/enlighten me!), but I suspect most vegetable oils have at least a small residual water content, and that may be what, if anything, is absorbed by the wood in such bath-soaks.

[apossibleworld]

Terry, since you're trying to figure out which approach is best, and also treating the whole matter very scientifically, why not do one of each? Start with two flutes of a similar age and in similar condition, measure their relative qualities, and do one of them with oil first, and the other with humidity first. There's no perfect scientific method for this, as the flutes won't be identical to start, but that's where the human element comes in. I bet you'll have a natural sense of what works best.

Another question for flutes that are completely un-broken-in... if you're oiling first (or humidifying first), almond oil or linseed oil? I know different people recommend one or the other, for certain reasons, but maybe that difference is heightened in this scenario. Or maybe the difference between the two would cause you to make an unusual choice based on their properties. A lot of variables!

[benhall.1]

My vote would be to:

1) Weight and measure the flute and test the tuning (having fixed the pads etc);
2) Oil it. Repeat Step 1; then
3) Humidity cycles plus re-testing at intervals.

I think the measurements have to be unusually detailed for this experiment. Because I have a feeling that the thing will change shape, I think it would be good if you could measure the bore at every conceivable point, and also every length and other dimension on the flute.

Well done for doing this one, Terry. I'll be very interested in how it turns out. Not just the tuning changes, but also the weight and dimensions changes as well.

[Sillydill]

Hey Terry,

I'm with you. When you receive a neglected old flute, there is a window of opportunity to get it to take in the maximum possible amount of oil. Plus since you will typically be stripping it of all the keys to clean and re-pad anyway, why not give it a good oiling.

[Denny]

I'd think it unavoidable for the flute not to acclimatize, to some extent, to your relative humidity while yer at the clean & adjust, etc stage.

Might as well oil it while it's in pieces.

[jemtheflute]

I'll reiterate - I have serious doubts that there is any real penetrative uptake of oils by cocus or grenadilla. What proper evidence is there that they do, rather than oil just being a surface treatment? I think there is evidence that softwoods do actually absorb suitable and suitably applied oils into their structure, but tropical hardwoods?

Of course, one possible approach with just one flute would be to treat different joints differently. Take the weights and measurements, then, say, oil bath the upper body and humidify (even water-bath?) the lower body and let the foot acclimatise to the (monitored) ambient as a control. (Ignore the head for this if it is metal-lined). Then make sure there is minimal surface residue of oil on the oil-bathed section, retake the measurements (which will comparable between sections when converted into percentages), then swap around sections/processes and see if the oil-soaked (not just surface wiped) section takes up the same or more or less water than the humidified section did and whether the humidified section takes up more or less oil than the oiled one did, etc. That would tell us quite a bit about the whole oiling and humidification issue and what effects they may have on each other. Mind, choosing an oil would be problematic..... or rather require multiple controlled experiments...... Oh dear!......

Of course, it would also be interesting to put the differently treated sections through drying-out periods between steps like Terry did in his tenon-wrapping experiments, though that might screw up judging the effects of sequential treatments with oil and water....... and altogether this kind of programme would militate against a useful set of observations of the flute as a whole being resuscitated and played in in the sense Ben is interested in - might be better to do that on a different instrument......

[Thalatta]

Hi Terry,
Off topic perhaps, but this is as much a suggestion as a question (because I am of course not an expert at all): so, what about considering the possiblity that the wood shrank in places or everywhere over the 100 or 150 years during which it might not have been played at all, and that this shrinkage or albeit minimal alteration in the wood (and therefore the dimensions of the bore) over time might be responsible for the odd tuning we sometimes encounter on old flutes.
Shane

[jemtheflute]

Hi Terry,
Off topic perhaps, but this is as much a suggestion as a question (because I am of course not an expert at all): so, what about considering the possiblity that the wood shrank in places or everywhere over the 100 or 150 years during which it might not have been played at all, and that this shrinkage or albeit minimal alteration in the wood (and therefore the dimensions of the bore) over time might be responsible for the odd tuning we sometimes encounter on old flutes.
Shane

Shane, that is pretty much a commonplace assumption with regard to antique woodwinds. Given the known general behaviour of organics like wood, ivory etc., it is a very fair assumption, but ultimately not a reliably testable one in specific instances.

If we find a C18th flute with to our standards stunningly good tuning, out of the box, out of the attic it has been lying unused in for 200 years, can we assume it has had its shapes and dimensions distorted and wouldn't originally have sounded/responded as it now does? We certainly usually make that assumption over instruments with seemingly dodgy tuning, if not blaming the maker for either incompetence or non-understood-by-us design objectives. This issue is much hashed over in the Period Performance world, for obvious reasons. In the end, we have to guess that antique woodwinds, whether in constant use since being made or having apparently never been used, are not in their workshop door, as new performing condition. Even ones that seem not to have been tampered with and which perform well to our best understanding of the aesthetics of their time are at best, if we wish to make copies/reconstructions of them (or musical performance reconstructions using them), guides, sources of data and behaviour which have to be interpreted.

[Peter Duggan]

In the end, we have to guess that antique woodwinds, whether in constant use since being made or having apparently never been used, are not in their workshop door, as new performing condition. Even ones that seem not to have been tampered with and which perform well to our best understanding of the aesthetics of their time are at best, if we wish to make copies/reconstructions of them (or musical performance reconstructions using them), guides, sources of data and behaviour which have to be interpreted.

See Julian Goodacre's article on copying the 'Iain Dall' chanter for a fascinating insight into some of the issues raised here.

[s1m0n]

Of course, one possible approach with just one flute would be to treat different joints differently. Take the weights and measurements, then, say, oil bath the upper body and humidify (even water-bath?) the lower body and let the foot acclimatise to the (monitored) ambient as a control. (Ignore the head for this if it is metal-lined). Then make sure there is minimal surface residue of oil on the oil-bathed section, retake the measurements (which will comparable between sections when converted into percentages), then swap around sections/processes and see if the oil-soaked (not just surface wiped) section takes up the same or more or less water than the humidified section did and whether the humidified section takes up more or less oil than the oiled one did, etc. That would tell us quite a bit about the whole oiling and humidification issue and what effects they may have on each other.

This sounds the most scientific.

[jemtheflute]

See Julian Goodacre's article on copying the 'Iain Dall' chanter for a fascinating insight into some of the issues raised here.

Relevant/useful, but a fascinating read in a wider sense in its own right. Thanks, Peter.