Philosophical Q: Playability vs. Character

[Cathy Wilde]

Hi, all --

Don't know if this is even worth a topic, and I guess I'll find out soon enough if it dies with no replies, eh?

Anyway, I started to rush to Eddie's side to augment his McGee note with some thoughts of my own about the McGee I played a few weeks ago .... but then I found myself wandering back into this philosophical no-man's land I've been inhabiting lately, and started wondering what y'all might think. Anyway, basically, here it is ....

Over the last few years, I've had the chance to play some new flutes and some old flutes -- not nearly long enough to know any of them, but enough to form a quick impression of each individual. I've played quite a variety, from top-end Olwells to the Burns folk flute on the new side; a Hall, a Chappell, a Metzler, a Hawkes, plus some real "Gan Aimns" the old side. And then, of course, I've logged countless hours on my own Ormiston & Hamilton (& the DEFINITELY unimproved Pakistani flute which I still rather like for some odd reason).

But there's one commonality that keeps striking me every time I play one of the "improved" flutes (McGees, Olwells, Healys, Copleys, Sweets, Burnses, Ormiston) -- they are ALL so easy to play it's stunning. But then, after a while, EVEN WHEN HEARING SOMEONE ELSE PLAY THEM, they seem to sound kind of -- well, er, similar. And almost too perfect.

Almost ...... ..... Boehmlike.

(Note I did not list the Hamilton up there. It seems an entirely different animal.) (Which is why, heaven help me, I love it so.)

So. Here at last is the question: does anyone else perceive/wonder about whether we're seeing some sacrifice of tonal character for this flexibility and resonance and ease of playing we all love so much these days? I mean, the lined headjoints, the ergonomic fingerholes, the kinder embouchure shapes, the gentler chimney depths, the hybridization of Pratten/Rudall, etc., etc., etc. -- are these all contributing to much more playable, flexible, and responsive flutes that are SO very rewarding at first blush -- but then somehow rather "too good to sound right?"

Are these improved flutes almost too easy? I know this sounds weird, but I wonder if there's a point where you risk sacrificing a bit of tonal character/authenticity? Or if you just never really develop that awesome low D because your flute doesn't make you -- it gives you a good enough low D right out of the box that you never really feel the need to mess with the color?

What kind of sound are we looking for? What kind of sound are makers trying to achieve? Where do we meet? Or is it different for everyone?

Are improvements killing the pure thing? Or does it evolve? Or does it even matter?

And the adjunct question: is not some of Irish music's authenticity the result of people OVERCOMING or learning to play around their less-than-responsive flutes (c.f. Jack Coen)?

And the final question: does this even matter? Or do I just like to suffer because I was brought up Catholic? Or am I actually a Fluddite? Or worse, a Fluteistine?

Anyway, like I said, I'm curious about what you think. Please note that I'm NOT slamming anyone or any maker, because ultimately (as with all of us, alas) my opinion means zip.

Wishing You and Yours All the Best While Scratching Her Head in the Hinterlands,
cat.

P.S BTW, to satisfy David's request .... I've been playing flute for 30 years (getting paid for it for about 25) but Irish for only about 8 or 9, and some of that on a Boehm. Irish wooden flute for about 6, I guess. I play in a working Irish band (local), I attend sessions fairly regularly, I generally play about 10 hours a week, and I take lessons (average once a month I'd guess) from John Skelton when I'm lucky enough to. I go to the occasional clinic and school, but have really only gotten into that in the last year or so.

[peeplj]

Wow...nice post. Covered a lot of ground, and I find myself nodding my head and agreeing with you again and again.

As to the questions you ask, I think the answers, and the tradeoffs, are different for every flutist.

For some poeple, accuracy of intonation and ease of play are "it"--that is what they are looking for, and if a flute has it then it's a good flute by their measure--they are looking for a very "transparent" flute that doesn't "get in the way" when they are trying to play.

For myself, I feel one of the best things about playing wooden flute is its "personality"--the thick, rich feel of the tone, the way it rings, the way each tone on the flute has a bit of its own personality, in fact even the way the flutes are a bit out of tune compared to the modern scale--all of these things are why I spend more time playing wooden flute than Boehm these days.

It's not for ease of ornamentation, at least not for me. I don't find it all that hard to ornament on the Boehm system flute. It's that the sound, and the character, of the instrument is quite different.

Perhaps it's that difference, the quality of the path less trodden, that I find so enchanting.

--James

[jim stone]

Great post; great questions. I wish I had played more
good flutes and more old flutes. I've been playing
my CB Bflat a lot lately; wow, that's opening up,
it has much more power than I was able to
realize a couple of weeks ago. That's plenty
demanding. As to the others, the Copleys and
Olwells et al, I suspect that if
you love music and love to play flutes, you
will go to the end, never become complacent,
always be a bit dissatisfied as well as thrilled,
and, at the end of the day, the music will
matter to you more than the instrument
on which you play it. Best

[Nanohedron]

Cathy, I've only been a student of the flute (trad only, simple system) for about 10 to 12 years now, so I'm just a humble guttersnipe who quails in your shadow (is there a brown-nosing emoticon? ).

I'm interested in your assesment (if I didn't miss anything) about the made-for-trad high-end flutes. The dogwood Olwell that I'm having a ball with certainly ain't no one trick pony when it comes to nuance. It'll go from pure to hairy to crackly, although the purer low notes are rather blah sounding to me. Still, there is a particular timbre that is signature to it, a furry simmer, if you don't mind me mixing up metaphors. The odd thing is that I found it easier to play at the start, and as I go on, am finding it actually somewhat demanding at times. I'm starting to appreciate what Chris Laughlin told me about it taking him 2 years to really get the hang of his own Olwell. I don't think that my stick is all that "automatic" in playability or timbre response; a fellow -who hasn't got the hang of the "nyaaah" factor, yet- tried it out, and he sounded just like he does on his Hammy, except for some difference due to make and material.

Your thoughts?

[chas]

Some great points, Cat. I knew you were unusually perceptive just from your avatar.

I do wonder if most/all of the flutes you've tried have been blackwood and/or had lined heads? I'm struck by the difference in sound between my Copley (blackwood, lined head) and the other flutes I play regularly. These are a Bleazey in boxwood and Schultz in cocobolo (both with slides but unlined heads) and a nameless antique boxwood and an antique Mollenhauer boxwood, both without slides. I would say that the difference in sound or character between the Copley and the other modern flutes is much greater than that between the other modern flutes and the antiques.

The Copley has a sound that's more focused and probably carries better than the other flutes. Boxwood has a warmth and mellowness that I just don't find in blackwood. OTOH, I do find the modern flutes all more powerful than the antiques.

We also have an old Nach Meyer with a lined head that I've just fixed. I think it has the focused sound, too, but it's too early to tell.

Edited to add: novice fluter; a few years of noodling, one year of serious playing; have played a dozen or so different wooden flutes; the only times I've been paid for playing it's been the dulcimer.

[glauber]

Anyway, like I said, I'm curious about what you think.

I'm thinking you'll be playing Baroque flute soon.
That's what happened to me...

But yes, when i had the McGee flute with me, i kept comparing it with the Cotter, and though the McGee won every time in playability and in cutting through session noise like butter, the Cotter has tons more "personality".

But you really should try the tiny blowholes and tiny fingerholes of the baroque flute, where each note has its own unique color and "personality."

Oh sorry, almost forgot! 25 years of flute, 3 years of Irish, 2 years of Baroque. Being paid from time to time and always less than i wanted!

[Dana]

H'mmm, interesting topic.

One person's "character" is another person's "flaw"...

A different person's "improved" is someone else's "boring".

Dana
______________

...Somewhere between character and boring.
...or flawed and improved.

[Hiro Ringo]

This next topic should be "where to locate 'flaws' to make your flute in mind perfect".

[sturob]

Mmm, a favorite topic of mine.

I think that you've got to put the modern "improved" flutes into context. Olwell et al. have tweaked their designs for Irish traditional music. So they do kind of approach a kind of ideal asymptote. Some of these flutes are better than others, but by and large, they're being tweaked to sound a certain way. At first blush, as you suggest, it's true that a lot of them are quite forgiving and responsive . . . it's really easy to get that stereotypical sound from them. But I suggest that many of them can be versatile in the hands of an experienced player who knows the instrument.

Are they too easy? No, I don't think so. You just need to ask yourself the question: do I want to overcome the idiosyncrasies of an original Rudall to play IrTrad, or do I want to play a Cotter or a Byrne? Flutes aren't like the pipes: pipes are designed to play this stuff. Rudalls are not, so you kind of have to work them to make them sound "right." Olwells are more like the pipes in that they're made for this stuff.

In my own opinion.



Stuart

[nopaul]

I would say picking a certain sound and playing style is purely a personal choice. We all have different likes and will do our best to capture that. We listen to others play, find something we like, and try to mimic that sound. If we're good, then others will try to mimic us. There's no right or wrong, there are just differences. Personally I like tighter, more articulate playing (more whistle like I suppose) than the really breathy/raspy/slurred sound of some flutists. I've played flute for 31 years, mostly Boehm, a Mopane Bleazy for the past two years, and even paid several times over the past year.

[eilam]

cat, great topic, I'm sure glad you took my advice and posted my email
Yes - that's why I have the McGee Pratten - to blast thru the noise.
But that's never the flute I pick to play here, when you can really focus on color and tone. I don't think this trend started with McGee and other of today's makers.
My Nicholson has a thinner head (shallower chimney), and big embouchure. even some of the later Rudall's are like that, and I think this is all for a more clear, open, round, quick tone - on account of color and character.
Typical Baroque head was 29mm round and chimney around 5mm, I think the Nicholson is around 26mm and the chimney around 3+, and that it reflects the color and tone.
I don't think any of this has to do with the tuning thought.
The Hammy and Olwell flutes have a deeper chimney then some other makers make.
I hope there aren't too many holes in what I wrote, if there are, it's all cat's fault, she brought this up.
I've been playing flute for 30 years, but it does not mean I know what I'm saying!

[andrew]

I thaught we went all through this last week .Big hole flutes for the US market . loud superficial sound , lack of depth/colour ?
I am sorry but I only have one modern flute to compare with 30 something 19thC ones , and am afraid that you lot don't seem very interested in traditional flutes .
I hope this doesn't upset any new readers ,OR that weird Chris ( Is that a he or a she ?)

[pixyy]

I suppose the flute making process is one of compromises.
Improve one thing at the cost of another, and all that...

I have tried quite a few flutes, mostly new, some old, and did find that the ones that were very easy to play had a projective sound (experienced as high volume). As a consequence I did not find their range of tonal expression so wide.

The most notable example was the McGee Rudall Improved. I had it for a week when it was roving through Europe. Very easy to produce a full sound. The Rectangualr embouchure made me think of a whistle window. It would kick ass in a session though...

The purer the tone the further it projects (think of a pure whistle). With all the demand for LOUD session flutes there is bound to be some compromise in tone.
Personally I would find it a shame if a session is so loud that you need to get ever louder instruments, it starts to sound like a battle to me.
I would sit at the bar or leave. The best settings I find is where you can hear the character of each instrument and I love the flute for its tonal complexity and dark, reedy low end.

TTFN,
Jeroen

PS: Andrew, I find you to be so mild and considerate of late. Isn't it time you post a black and white opinion or something?

[chas]

I am sorry but I only have one modern flute to compare with 30 something 19thC ones , and am afraid that you lot don't seem very interested in traditional flutes .

I may be in the minority, but I'm very interested. I love the dulcet sound that some of mine have and I rue the day that boxwood was no longer the de facto standard flute timber. I'd love to hear you discuss the different characteristics of some of yours.

[eilam]

Andrew,
I don't think it's quite the: American = vain = large (on everything),
it's just that some of us actually play the instruments, and there are benefits for flutes like the ones McGee makes.
I think that if one plays in deferent environments, there is a call for deferent tools.
A session does not have to be that loud, for my Nicholson to "mostly disappear", a few
mandolins, add a Banjo, and some guitars.
But I'm right there with every one that says that there is something lost when we over focus in one direction, like loudness.