Wilkes Pratten or?

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 12:47 pm

nicely done, JK.

People forget what often happens when somebody
expresses an opinion that can be construed
negatively. It isn't enough to disgree with him/her,
there must be something the matter
with the expressor (word?) or with expressing
the opinion at all. That's a step too far, I think. Best

Nicolas-France · Post by **Nicolas-France** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:00 pm

Dear JessieK, about logic I wont argue with you, what I said is
that you've wrote a few times that Wilkes flute are hard to play
just because YOU cannot get a low D, whatever the reason might
be (...) Then you say a Pratten by W. is easier to blow, to which
I replied not the case point taken?
Now that you are a semi pro player in whatever instrument is your
buisness and regards only you (and who ever pays to listen to you)
But again it is you and only you who stated many times that you could
not blow a low D (or any other note) on a Rudall by Wilkes, so the only
point I wish to say to you is that when people discuss Wilkes flute, well
maybe your point of view is not of much intrest to some one who whises
to know whether to buy a Prattens or a Rudall. Let those who CAN blow
from these flutes express their preferences.

On these merry words good day

JessieK · Post by **JessieK** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:44 pm

I never said I couldn't blow a Low D....I said it was more difficult on that flute (Wilkes Rudall) than other, larger bore flutes. Yes, it was my opinion. And what you write is your opinion. I do understand your position that you think that because I have expressed difficulty with Wilkes flutes, you think my opinion is superfluous, but I'd played a Wilkes Pratten that someone else had (in Ireland, a year before I ordered any) and found it quite lovely and easy to play. When I (later) ordered flutes from Chris, he did not mention making Pratten models, so I assumed that he made only one model. When I got them (2), I figured the one I'd played (that belonged to someone else) was a fluke. When I saw this post, I saw that it wasn't a fluke...it was a different model. My comments in previous threads were about the Rudalls, not the other one. So I saw here that he offered more than one model and I thought I'd offer some advice, as people tend to do in this forum, and mention that the Pratten was far easier (for me, as should be assumed) to play than the Rudall.

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 2:50 pm

Maknig one of those sweeping generalizations, i think large holed flutes are generally easier to play and more in tune, due in part to better venting. While some people prefer small holed flutes because they afford a greater variety of tone colors (due in part to more imperfect venting!).

That's the sweeping generalization, but of course any flute is hard to play when we don't know it well and it becomes easier to play as we get more acquainted with it.

g

eilam · Post by **eilam** » Fri Aug 29, 2003 5:00 pm

g wrote:
Maknig one of those sweeping generalizations, i think large holed flutes are generally easier to play and more in tune, due in part to better venting. While some people prefer small holed flutes because they afford a greater variety of tone colors (due in part to more imperfect venting!).

That's the sweeping generalization, but of course any flute is hard to play when we don't know it well and it becomes easier to play as we get more acquainted with it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are more deference's between the two models then just the tone hole sizes.
Pratten would have a larger embouchure hole, thinner head which would produce a thinner chimney.

Michel · Post by **Michel** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 6:34 am

Steampocket, I would go with the R&R model,especially if you don't
want to part with your Dave Williams flute. Personally I found a little
confusing playing both R&R and Prattens type flutes, as they require
a slighty different embouchure and they have a different scale.
michel

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 7:03 am

eilam wrote:There are more deference's between the two models then just the tone hole sizes. Pratten would have a larger embouchure hole, thinner head which would produce a thinner chimney.

These are important things to remember. These days we tend to call a flute a Pratten if it has large holes and Rudall otherwise, but each flute is its own beast. Most flute makers don't copy the original models exactly when making Irish flutes, but adapt them to their own purposes. A change in the chimney height should change the sound noticeably, for example.

eilam · Post by **eilam** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 8:52 am

Yes, glauber. McGee makes a Rudall inspired modal and a Pratten, but the heads and embouchure cuts are the same. Noy make the same body, but you can choose a Rudall, Pratten or modern head. Both are great makers with two deferent approaches.
I have not seen Wilkes Pratten model but I would think it will be closer to the original judging on his Rudall model, and his aim to stay close to the source.

Nicolas-France · Post by **Nicolas-France** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 3:27 pm

The Wilkes Prattens has a different head than a Rudall the end cap is not
placed at the same place as on Rudall, as far as embouchure, not much
difference there, it has a much larger bore, and as said previously larger tone holes.
As far as resemblance to an original Prattens, I have never seen an original Prattens that played well, which is somehow surprising compared to Rudalls, so I cannot compare it to the originals. But that beeing said, if you measured the bore of any flute made by (good) modern makers, you'll find that they have considerably changed the flutes from the models they inspire them selves with.

Nicolas

Gordon · Post by **Gordon** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:41 pm

Nicolas-France wrote:The Wilkes Prattens has a different head than a Rudall the end cap is not
placed at the same place as on Rudall, as far as embouchure, not much
difference there, it has a much larger bore, and as said previously larger tone holes.
As far as resemblance to an original Prattens, I have never seen an original Prattens that played well, which is somehow surprising compared to Rudalls, so I cannot compare it to the originals. But that beeing said, if you measured the bore of any flute made by (good) modern makers, you'll find that they have considerably changed the flutes from the models they inspire them selves with.

Nicolas

Dave Migoya plays an original Pratten, reputed to be the oldest in existence, that is a superb instrument and plays remarkably well. It does not, however, play like most so-called Prattens newly made for Irish music, but does play easily and in solid tune. Most modern "Irish" flutes, called Pratten or Rudall, bear little similarity to their namesakes, as they are tweaked for whistle fingering and modern tuning, and come in all varieties of embouchures designed to accomodate modern players. David's Pratten plays more like a modern flute, for what that's worth, than the original Rudalls I've played, but I think he's still after adding a tweak or two from Pat Olwell on it's embouchure...
Gordon

BigTex · Post by **BigTex** » Sat Aug 30, 2003 11:59 pm

I've got no beef in this. Although, from the picture, Jessie looks mighty cute, and I bet her embouchure is just right. Jessie, if you are ever in Bandera, you have an evening of dinner and dancing, no strings attached, on me.

For what its worth, I've got two superb wooden flutes made from two outstanding craftsmen. One is a Rudall model made by Vermont maker Bryan Byrne, and the other is a Pratten style made by Pat Olwell. The low D on the Byrne requires a bit more focus, but the power is comparable. Is one better or easier over the other? No. Both take a hell of a lot of practice, and both are outstanding. The only reason I have the two models is I kept asking myself if it was me or the flute. The answer, clearly, is it's you! Stop worrying and keep practing.

Tex

Steampacket · Post by **Steampacket** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 6:14 am

I find all the replies here very interesting and educating. The R&R copy/replica I own by Dave Williams does not a large embouchure hole and I've noticed that more often than not that have the people that try it out for a few minutes have a hard time, and often wonder if the flute is leaking through the keys. However I'm used to the embouchure hole, and can get the bottom and other notes well enough, the instrument I prioritise is the uilleann pipes, but I find the Williams to be fast and responsive once you get to know it. This is probably true of many flutes as someone has mentioned. Again Jessica, and everyone thanks for your comments.

I've decided to go for a Rudall model by Chris Wilkes, as from what I understand he does prefer to make these, and as Michel mentioned, prehaps better to get used to one embouchure. I've contacted Chris and received the information that the waiting list is long, 7-8 years now

RudallRose · Post by **RudallRose** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:09 pm

I love it when the Rudall-vs-Pratten thing starts up....again and again.
Gordon, you make a good analysis of my Hudson-Pratten. (Yes, folks, Gordon has heard it and played it when I was in NYC a few months ago.)
Funny, though, the Pratten has its good days and its great days. That day, Gordon, was good. Such is the nature of old wood. (sigh)
Not like the Olwell, which I leave on its stand assembled for pick-up at any time. Boom. Loud, strong, even. Again, I'm convinced it's more the head/embouchure of Pat's work than the body (and the foot, which really makes a huge difference).
That aside, I've not played a Wilkes Pratten. Remarkably, Pratten's 8-key designs varied littled from when they were first made by Hudson and later by Hudson at Boosey. So if Chris is modeling after a Boosey (which it seems most makers do since so few Hudson-Prattens are out there for measuring) it should be a terrific sound. Chris does magnificent work, so I doubt he's going to make and sell a Pratten model without doing his research.
A few things to note, though, in this thread that I believe people forget. Pratten flutes are fairly large-holed (and in some cases massive). Rudalls vary from small, to medium, to quite large (as big as some Prattens). I have one Rudall whose upper bore at the top tenon is bigger than my Pratten.
Nicholson flutes are usually large-holed (10mm+ at the F#) although I have seen some "C.Nicholson Improved" models with medium holes. Odd, of course, since C.Nicholson (JR....they always forget that!) espoused the large-holed model that Boehm realized was necessary.
The value of a good embouchure cannot be understated....both on the player and on the instrument. So many decent or good flutes were tossed onto piles likely because the embouchure affected it as bad. If you have more than one flute, and can flip parts from one to another and they'll fit (don't force them for tight....but some masking tape or painter's tape can be a good temp fix for a loose one) you'll see/hear the difference of a good embouchure on what you thought was a bad body.
Ergo, why I'm looking to Patrick to "tweek" the embouchure of my Pratten. It plays well, but that little extra will really make a difference, I think....and hope.

Funny....I have a Dave Williams 5-key flute for sale (it was Dave Copley's) that feels great on the hands. Very similar to the Pratten.
It doesn't play the same.....because the embouchure is cut differently. It's smaller with a different undercut angle.
Here's another example....I put the headpiece from my Olwell-Pratten (the loudest flute I've ever heard next to Greg Collins' Olwell-PRatten) and put it onto my large-holed Rudall (#6208) and it was a stunning sound.

Anyway....it's all academic, really. Find the flute you like and blow the heck out of it. It's all about fun, isn't it? If we all got paid for this, we'd not be talking about it.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:36 pm

This business about tweaking embouchure holes
intrigues me. Let me ask. I have a flute out
of which I cannot get a consistent sound,
and I've worked on it--though when it sounds
good it sounds quite good. I'm playing
pretty well by now on other flutes considered
demanding. Is it possible to give
it to a flute maker and have it improved,
supposing the original maker isn't available?

Also, I have another flute which isn't in tune.
The second octave D is flat. Can that be
fixed, tweaked, so that it's in tune?
Again the maker isn't available.
(t isn't the cork which has been adjusted
ad infinitum.) Best

BillG · Post by **BillG** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:44 pm

Dave M. said,

"A few things to note, though, in this thread that I believe people forget. Pratten flutes are fairly large-holed (and in some cases massive). Rudalls vary from small, to medium, to quite large (as big as some Prattens). I have one Rudall whose upper bore at the top tenon is bigger than my Pratten."

When this thread began I went to the sites of the flutes I own (Copley, Healy, Ormiston in wood, Seery and M&E plastic) to see if they were one or the other and found they are all in between. "Based on the R&R with . . .". Someone else mentioned that it was very difficult to tell today since most modern makers try to be somewhere in between the two and to add their personal touch to produce the best sound possible from their make.

I would be hard pressed to know if I preferred a truley Pratton or a truley R&R. Based on my reading and list watching, I suspect Hammy is one of the modern flutes to be closest to a "pure" (if this is possible) Pratton.

So, How DOES one know which one he/she prefers?

BillG