What's that sound?

[tin tin]

Flute hopping, to find the flute that helps you best express yourself, is a completely different and valid affair, once you've mastered the instrument, don't you think?

Sure...to a degree. Even when one has mastered the instrument, it still takes time to get to know/get the most out of one particular flute, so too much hopping would slow that process. (Was it Cat who mentioned that John Skelton said he finally felt like he knew his Olwell after something like one or two years?)
But you're right--once one knows what one's doing, one is equipped to find the flute that's the best fit.

In the meantime, maybe CSNY was referring to flutes (or perhaps tennis raquets): "And if you can't have the one you love, honey, love the one you're with...do do do do do do dee dee..."

[AaronMalcomb]

Flute hopping, to find the flute that helps you best express yourself, is a completely different and valid affair, once you've mastered the instrument, don't you think?

I agree but that statement is just far too nuanced, don't you think?

[jim stone]

Warning: Gravitas ahead.

We may be well past the point of any attempts at serious dialog in this thread, but I'll try anyway.

From page 1:

...this is the myth of the "Pratten vs R&R". People, particularly here on the message board, have come to associate a flute player's sound, with the instrument he/she plays - If one thinks of Kevin Crawford, they say "Ah, that lovely, complex R&R sound", and when they think of Seamus Egan, they say to themselves "Oh yes, that's the dry, Honking Pratten sound" But this is really not so at all. Let me illustrate:

[Loren goes on to discuss the wide range of colors and sounds a certain Big Name flute player can achieve on one instrument.]

To further complicate matters (and support the "It's the player, not the instrument" addage), on (at least) one of this certain flutist's albums, he plays both Rudall and Pratten model flutes. There's perhaps some difference in tone color, but then, he's a very colorful player regardless of the flute. Without reading what he plays in the liner notes, I'd never think "Oh, he must have switched to a different model Wilkes for this tune." Regardless of the model (or even maker, as he plays flutes by a couple different ones), in the end, he sounds like himself, not the flute.

And that's really the end goal--to sound like oneself. The players I most admire are the ones who sound most like themselves--they've spent the time and effort to get to know themselves and have learned how to express who they are in music. (The flute is simply the tool--important, but just a tool.) Players I don't admire are the ones who have loads of technique, but it's not put in the service of true self-expression. And then there's Milli Vanilli. I don't admire them, either.

This is well put and, to be clear, I believe all the participants of
this discussion agree about this much.
Everybody agrees the player is the major determinant of how
a flute sounds, we agree that tonal differences between flutes
diminish and even disappear as one improves, and
we agree that we ought to do what we can to improve; no
flute is going to be a magic bullet. The flute is indeed a tool,
the goal to sound like oneself (nicely put), and, i will add, doing justice to
the music one plays matters even more, IMO.

The differences we've had
were about other matters. Some of us think (a) there
are signficant tonal differences between some sorts of well-made flutes in the hands of fair amateurs, others deny it. Some of us think (b)those differences can be significant
enough to be worth counting in deciding which flute to buy and
in choosing among flutes one owns as to which to play when
performing in this or that venue. (So, for example, Brad Hurley
once posted that he bought a Byrne Rudall because
he wanted a flute that sounds different from the typical
Irish flutes being played.) Others
deny it. RO3B says that his lined Olwell
is more responsive, and tends to 'cut through' better,
than his unlined Olwell, and Patrick O. told me
he plays his lined flute in sessions because
of the added volume. Others deny it.

Arguing against (a) and (b) by pointing out that the flautist
is the principal determinant of the sound, and saying all the
other good things you and others have been saying, is fallacious,
because the good and true things you've said don't entail
that (a) and (b) are untrue. Responding to somebody who
asserts (a) and (b) as if he is denying the good and true
things you said is attacking a straw man (attacking a plausible view
by substituting a different view, a silly one, and attacking that instead),
because asserting (a) and (b) isn't asserting that the flute, not the player,
is the principal determinant of the sound. It isn't
denying anything you said. Similarly asserting a and b
isn't asserting that if I play Harry B's Murray I will
sound like Harry B, nor is it asserting that Harry B sounds like Harry
B because he plays a Murray, or any other such silliness.

(a) and (b) may be false, but those who wish to deny them
need a better argument, since the good and true things you've
said are consistent with (a) and (b).

I don't mean that you are giving these bad arguments. By all
means, say these things--I mean only you are preaching to the choir,
at least as far as the disagreement we've had here goes.
But there's nothing the matter with that and you certainly
are putting it well.

I hope that, if we can get clear on all this, we can all of us
agree about the fundamentals. If somebody says that delrin flutes
tend to sound different from wooden flutes, that Rudalls
tend to have a sweet second octave, that boxwood tends
to have a buttery sound, blackwood a darker sound,
lined flutes tend to cut through better, accepting these
claims doesn't deny the good and true things you've
said. Therefore we can discuss these
claims on their merits. I think such discussions are part of
fluteboard's purpose.

Maybe sometimes we might wish to say these again, just
to put things in the right perspective. If, everytime somebody asks
such a question we will try to 'save them from themselves'
by rehearsing all these good and true things, rather
than addressing straightforwardly their innocent question, well, it's
going to be a long winter.

[Doug_Tipple]

Arguing against (a) and (b) by pointing out that the flautist
is the principal determinant of the sound, and saying all the
other good things you and others have been saying, is fallacious,
because the good and true things you've said don't entail
that (a) and (b) are untrue. Responding to somebody who
asserts (a) and (b) as if he is denying the good and true
things you said is attacking a straw man (attacking a plausible view
by substituting a different view, a silly one, and attacking that instead),
because asserting (a) and (b) isn't asserting that the flute, not the player,
is the principal determinant of the sound. It isn't
denying anything you said. Similarly asserting a and b
isn't asserting that if I play Harry B's Murray I will
sound like Harry B, nor is it asserting that Harry B sounds like Harry
B because he plays a Murray, or any other such silliness.

Clap. Clap. I agree with your premise, Jim.
The paragraph reminds me, however, of why I did poorly in philosophy.

[Cathy Wilde]

Holy moses. I'm going back to the snooker tournament on TG4. I thought the time zone stuff had me confused ...

[treeshark]

The differences we've had
were about other matters. Some of us think (a) there
are signficant tonal differences between some sorts of well-made flutes in the hands of fair amateurs, others deny it. Some of us think (b)those differences can be significant
enough to be worth counting in deciding which flute to buy and
in choosing among flutes one owns as to which to play when
performing in this or that venue. (So, for example, Brad Hurley
once posted that he bought a Byrne Rudall because
he wanted a flute that sounds different from the typical
Irish flutes being played.) Others
deny it. RO3B says that his lined Olwell
is more responsive, and tends to 'cut through' better,
than his unlined Olwell, and Patrick O. told me
he plays his lined flute in sessions because
of the added volume. Others deny it.

Arguing against (a) and (b) by pointing out that the flautist
is the principal determinant of the sound, and saying all the
other good things you and others have been saying, is fallacious,
because the good and true things you've said don't entail
that (a) and (b) are untrue. Responding to somebody who
asserts (a) and (b) as if he is denying the good and true
things you said is attacking a straw man (attacking a plausible view
by substituting a different view, a silly one, and attacking that instead),
because asserting (a) and (b) isn't asserting that the flute, not the player,
is the principal determinant of the sound. It isn't
denying anything you said. Similarly asserting a and b
isn't asserting that if I play Harry B's Murray I will
sound like Harry B, nor is it asserting that Harry B sounds like Harry
B because he plays a Murray, or any other such silliness.

(a) and (b) may be false, but those who wish to deny them
need a better argument, since the good and true things you've
said are consistent with (a) and (b).

I don't mean that you are giving these bad arguments. By all
means, say these things--I mean only you are preaching to the choir,
at least as far as the disagreement we've had here goes.
But there's nothing the matter with that and you certainly
are putting it well.

I hope that, if we can get clear on all this, we can all of us
agree about the fundamentals. If somebody says that delrin flutes
tend to sound different from wooden flutes, that Rudalls
tend to have a sweet second octave, that boxwood tends
to have a buttery sound, blackwood a darker sound,
lined flutes tend to cut through better, accepting these
claims doesn't deny the good and true things you've
said. Therefore we can discuss these
claims on their merits. I think such discussions are part of
fluteboard's purpose.

Maybe sometimes we might wish to say these again, just
to put things in the right perspective. If, everytime somebody asks
such a question we will try to 'save them from themselves'
by rehearsing all these good and true things, rather
than addressing straightforwardly their innocent question, well, it's
going to be a long winter.

Whew I'm glad that's all sorted out then!

[Loren]

This is well put and, to be clear, I believe all the participants of
this discussion agree about this much.
Everybody agrees the player is the major determinant of how
a flute sounds, we agree that tonal differences between flutes
diminish and even disappear as one improves, and
we agree that we ought to do what we can to improve; no
flute is going to be a magic bullet. The flute is indeed a tool,
the goal to sound like oneself (nicely put), and, i will add, doing justice to
the music one plays matters even more, IMO.

The differences we've had
were about other matters. Some of us think (a) there
are signficant tonal differences between some sorts of well-made flutes in the hands of fair amateurs, others deny it. Some of us think (b)those differences can be significant
enough to be worth counting in deciding which flute to buy and
in choosing among flutes one owns as to which to play when
performing in this or that venue. (So, for example, Brad Hurley
once posted that he bought a Byrne Rudall because
he wanted a flute that sounds different from the typical
Irish flutes being played.) Others
deny it. RO3B says that his lined Olwell
is more responsive, and tends to 'cut through' better,
than his unlined Olwell, and Patrick O. told me
he plays his lined flute in sessions because
of the added volume. Others deny it.

Arguing against (a) and (b) by pointing out that the flautist
is the principal determinant of the sound, and saying all the
other good things you and others have been saying, is fallacious,
because the good and true things you've said don't entail
that (a) and (b) are untrue. Responding to somebody who
asserts (a) and (b) as if he is denying the good and true
things you said is attacking a straw man (attacking a plausible view
by substituting a different view, a silly one, and attacking that instead),
because asserting (a) and (b) isn't asserting that the flute, not the player,
is the principal determinant of the sound. It isn't
denying anything you said. Similarly asserting a and b
isn't asserting that if I play Harry B's Murray I will
sound like Harry B, nor is it asserting that Harry B sounds like Harry
B because he plays a Murray, or any other such silliness.

(a) and (b) may be false, but those who wish to deny them
need a better argument, since the good and true things you've
said are consistent with (a) and (b).

I don't mean that you are giving these bad arguments. By all
means, say these things--I mean only you are preaching to the choir,
at least as far as the disagreement we've had here goes.
But there's nothing the matter with that and you certainly
are putting it well.

I hope that, if we can get clear on all this, we can all of us
agree about the fundamentals. If somebody says that delrin flutes
tend to sound different from wooden flutes, that Rudalls
tend to have a sweet second octave, that boxwood tends
to have a buttery sound, blackwood a darker sound,
lined flutes tend to cut through better, accepting these
claims doesn't deny the good and true things you've
said. Therefore we can discuss these
claims on their merits. I think such discussions are part of
fluteboard's purpose.

Maybe sometimes we might wish to say these again, just
to put things in the right perspective. If, everytime somebody asks
such a question we will try to 'save them from themselves'
by rehearsing all these good and true things, rather
than addressing straightforwardly their innocent question, well, it's
going to be a long winter.

Hooo wee, good thing I've packed away my soap box, because it's clear from this post that you still didn't get what I was saying (I won't attempt to speak for others), but that's cool dude, to each his own.



Loren

[GaryKelly]

Jim, your entire monologue could've been written simply as "I don't believe it."

Moreover, your convoluted reasoning is mutton dressed as lamb, deliberately so in my opinion, merely to express the nub of your argument ("I don't believe it") in such a way as to ascribe some kind of "logical" weight to it.

Arguing against (a) and (b)... is fallacious,
because the good and true things you've said don't entail
that (a) and (b) are untrue.

Of course the good and true things "we've" said entail that (a) and (b) are untrue. You just don't want to believe it.

Everybody agrees the player is the major determinant of how
a flute sounds, we agree that tonal differences between flutes
diminish and even disappear as one improves...

(my bold)

Oh wait, you do believe it. Huzzah!! So the 'true things' aren't untrue and fallacious then?

(a) and (b) may be false, but those who wish to deny them
need a better argument, since the good and true things you've
said are consistent with (a) and (b).

What a load of chud. Let's remind ourselves what your (a) and (b) are again:

(a) there are signficant tonal differences between some sorts of well-made flutes in the hands of fair amateurs
(b) those differences can be significant enough to be worth counting in deciding which flute to buy and in choosing among flutes one owns as to which to play when performing in this or that venue.

A and B are indeed false, as you yourself acknowledge ("Everybody agrees...tonal differences disappear"). We need a better argument because you're in denial? All the physics counts for nothing then eh, in spite of the fact that "Everybody agrees..."

And that last clause quoted above "....all the...true things you've said are consistent with (a) and (b)" is patently not true and you know it ("Everybody agrees", remember?). All the 'good and true things' said contradict your (a) and (b) entirely.

And claiming that all the science and experiment (presented to contradict your own deeply held belief) is nothing more than a "straw man" is a blatant attempt to high-brow beat the evidence into submission, particularly given all the foregoing, and never mind the fancy schmoozy window-dressing ('oh you're all putting it so well, such good and true words...')

Chud.

If you don't believe it, fine. If you don't accept that "Everybody agrees", ok. But don't be trying to flim-flam others with pseudo-logical nonsense.

But wait, I forgot your appeal to support the others ("some of us think" you said, or was that the royal 'we'?)

If somebody says that delrin flutes
tend to sound different from wooden flutes, that Rudalls
tend to have a sweet second octave, that boxwood tends
to have a buttery sound, blackwood a darker sound,
lined flutes tend to cut through better, accepting these
claims doesn't deny the good and true things you've
said. Therefore we can discuss these
claims on their merits.

So blind acceptance is the order of the day eh? Even though "Everybody agrees" that it's the player, not the flute, we have to accept that 'boxwood tends to have a buttery sound' (WETF *that's* supposed to mean!) or that 'Rudalls tend to have a sweet second octave' (yeah right).

If, everytime somebody asks
such a question we will try to 'save them from themselves'
by rehearsing all these good and true things, rather
than addressing straightforwardly their innocent question, well, it's
going to be a long winter.

Only in your opinion, which appears to be "forget the good and the truth, must...buy...another...flute."

[Jens_Hoppe]

For what it's worth, I'm mainly with Jim on this. And primarily because I think his opposition is deliberately trying to over-simplify things with the "Conal O'Grada can blast the socks off people at 30 feet when playing the Maids of Mount Cisco on an elderberry branch, therefore all flutes are the same" argumentation (hereafter refered to as the "elderberry branch argument").

I also think his opposition is at this point - probably out of frustration of feeling that the same arguments have been repeated ad nauseam - deliberately trying to stay in disagreement with Jim. Unlike Gary, I don't feel that

Jim, your entire monologue could've been written simply as "I don't believe it."

simply because he so patently agrees with much of what you've been saying. This, for instance sounds quite reasonable, and in line with much of the stuff you've been saying all along (so if you feel this is not at all what you're saying, well then Jim is not the only one to whom you have difficulty getting across):

Everybody agrees the player is the major determinant of how
a flute sounds, we agree that tonal differences between flutes
diminish and even disappear as one improves, and
we agree that we ought to do what we can to improve; no
flute is going to be a magic bullet. The flute is indeed a tool,
the goal to sound like oneself (nicely put)

If Jim disagrees with the elderberry branch argument, I can't blame him for so do I. To lesser mortals such as myself different flutes certainly feel different in how they "play" and being of different physical dimensions, why should they not? The player and the instrument are in a symbiosis to produce the sound, neither being able to do so without the other. Changing the player will change the resulting sound, so why shouldn't changing the instrument have the potential to do so too?

In fact it does, of course. Change the dimensions of a flute by enough, and the sound will be different, even for top players. Change the dimensions a lot, and the sound will change by a lot*. Isn't it then reasonable to, if not assume, then at least voice the question of whether small changes of dimensions (such as those seen between various models of flutes) won't have the potential to change sound by a little bit?

(*: give me time and access to a workshop and I promise I will make a flute that neither O'Grada nor any of the Molloys can get a proper toot out of!)

Another issue which seems to have been overlooked so far is the idea that even if a player is able to make two dissimilar flutes sound the same way, is it easier for him to do so on one flute than on another? That certainly applies to me (consistently) and how can the different physical dimensions of the various flutes not be the cause of this, even if only because they make me blow differently?

As a counter-example to the top player anecdotes heard so far, I heard Desi Wilkinson play some years back. Among other instruments he also played an all-wooden (unlined) Martin Doyle flute made of yew and he certainly sounded different on that flute than on his other flutes. Difference in flutes, or did Desi deliberately change his blowing to try to get a different sound from it?


(The text of the elderberry branch argument inspired by a similar phrase by pixyy)

[GaryKelly]

Everybody agrees the player is the major determinant of how
a flute sounds, we agree that tonal differences between flutes
diminish and even disappear as one improves, and
we agree that we ought to do what we can to improve;

That's the whole point, Jens.

And we're not talking about the differences between a McChud, knocked up from an old bicycle pump in the shed, and a Wilkes. The whole debate was started by an assertion that a quality flute by a quality maker is 'louder' than another quality flute by another quality maker, both makers being arguably among the top 5 in the world. A subjective assertion was made that a Hamilton is 'louder' than an Olwell and would therefore be better for busking in the open air. And in spite of physics and experiments published in a respected scientific journal, and in spite of a wealth of other (admittedly anecdotal) evidence, the 'debate' continued. Just as the arguments opposing JW Coltman's experiment demonstrating the acoustic irrelevance of body material continue (with statements such as Jim's "boxwood tends to have a buttery sound, blackwood a darker sound").

Since the whole thrust of Jim's argument is that unaccomplished players and beginners believe there are real tonal and volume differences between quality instruments which "disappear as one improves" I can't understand why he can't simply accept that, self-evidently, there are no tonal or volume differences between quality instruments, only tonal and volume differences between players, and leave it that.

For in the quote above, he openly does accept it, but then seeks to perpetuate the argument by claiming the suggestion itself is fallacious and that we may be in for a "long winter" if we disagree with him.

[Wormdiet]

Since the whole thrust of Jim's argument is that unaccomplished players and beginners believe there are real tonal and volume differences between quality instruments which "disappear as one improves" I can't understand why he can't simply accept that, self-evidently, there are no tonal or volume differences between quality instruments, only tonal and volume differences between players, and leave it that.

Well, there ARE sigificant differences between high level flutes. But don't take my word for it.

For the record, Kevin C. told us up at Swannanoa why he switched from one "top level flute" to another. He emphatically testified that high-end flutes DO significantly vary between makers. In addition to being a great anecdote, his story demolishes the following notion:

"there are real tonal and volume differences between quality instruments which "disappear as one improves"

[The emhasis there isn't mine but it could be. ]

Are those differences discernible to neophytes like most of us (as listeners)? Probably not. But if they matter to the player, then isn't that enough?

[jmccain]

OK, let me see if this is what folks are basically saying.

Makes/types of flutes have unique tone qualities. Players can produce distinctive tone qualities. The better a player becomes, her/his distinctive timbre and control overrides the tone qualities of the flute.

Is that about it?

Best, John

[Loren]

For what it's worth, I'm mainly with Jim on this.

That's okay Jens, we won't hold it against you

And primarily because I think his opposition is deliberately trying to over-simplify things with the "Conal O'Grada can blast the socks off people at 30 feet when playing the Maids of Mount Cisco on an elderberry branch, therefore all flutes are the same" argumentation (hereafter refered to as the "elderberry branch argument").

That's not an argument, but rather an illustration in point of fact that focusing on one's playing, and not one's instrument, makes the player and the tone, and the volume. The same could be said of any number of unknown, but really fine players that one might run into in a session, although they will choose not to play at top volume becuase that's often not apropriate. We simply use well known player "A" as a common point of reference.

I also think his opposition is at this point - probably out of frustration of feeling that the same arguments have been repeated ad nauseam - deliberately trying to stay in disagreement with Jim. Unlike Gary

No, we have been deliberately trying to get a point across, which is either being avoided or missed by Jim. And partially in response to his, and others, constant asking of the same questions, ad nauseum, about really minor differences between instruments, differences that would be obliterated from one's tone were one to simply take a half dozen lessons from a good instructor and then practice for about 40 hours.

Jim, your entire monologue could've been written simply as "I don't believe it."

simply because he so patently agrees with much of what you've been saying.

Actually, he doesn't, or he thinks he does but still doesn't fully understand.

This, for instance sounds quite reasonable, and in line with much of the stuff you've been saying all along (so if you feel this is not at all what you're saying, well then Jim is not the only one to whom you have difficulty getting across):

This may be. For my part I've tried to be as clear as possible, however I can accept that I may very well have failed in making my point clear enough for some. I am beginning to suspect that some people simply must have certain experiences in order to truly "get it", which is fine.

If Jim disagrees with the elderberry branch argument, I can't blame him for so do I. To lesser mortals such as myself different flutes certainly feel different in how they "play" and being of different physical dimensions, why should they not?

Sure they do, when you have different embouchure cuts and sizes, different tone and bore sizes, and you go flute hopping you can't find the freakin' sweet spot on anything new (particularly if you haven't really maximized your embouchure and breath support on at least one flute), then you start to screw up your ability on you "main" flute. So what happens is that different instruments "sound" and "Feel" different because you aren't able to play them as they were intended to be played.

A tennis player who switches racquests is always missing the sweet spot, and different racquets feel very different from one another when you hit off-center with them, however it's amazing how similar well made racquets play when you can nail the sweet spot on all of them while comparing - all of a sudden the racquet doesn't matter. Knowing this, does it make any sense to say "Well, I'm not good enough to hit the sweet spot on every racquet yet, so there are differences in racquets, and trying a bunch of different ones is therefore beneficial to me at my level? No, because the differences arise DUE of your lack of ability to consistently hit the ball in the sweetspot of ANY racquet, which negates your abiltity to properly use ANY OF THEM! The best plan of action is to stick to one racquet, master it, then work on your game and develop a
"Style" and THEN start looking for flute.....er, "racquet" that is best suited for the style you have developed.

The player and the instrument are in a symbiosis to produce the sound, neither being able to do so without the other. Changing the player will change the resulting sound, so why shouldn't changing the instrument have the potential to do so too?

If you give Andre Agassi, Martina Navratolova's racquet, will his game or shots change significantly? Nope. Changing the tool will not change the outcome of the work significantly, unless the person utilizing the tool lacks the skill to use it properly, and any solid craftsman will tell you; constantly trying to do the same job with a variety of different tools, in an effort to find the one that you like best, is essentially a waste of time, when all the tools you have are essentially of the same quality and have only minor differences. Best to pick up one tool, and master the craft, rather than constantly dicking around trying a bunch of different tools to get the same job done.

In fact it does, of course. Change the dimensions of a flute by enough, and the sound will be different, even for top players. Change the dimensions a lot, and the sound will change by a lot*.

Nope, you're wrong, mostly what it changes, with regards to flutes, is what it takes to get the best out of the instrument, in terms of quantitiy and direction of airflow. The Maximum performance of most well made flutes (extremes aside) is so close as to be negligible. That is to say, ultimately, with the exception of very small holed small bore flutes, and perhaps a few unusually large bore, large hole flutes, the vast majority of the flute that you and I are likely to have access to essentially have the same potential.

Isn't it then reasonable to, if not assume, then at least voice the question of whether small changes of dimensions (such as those seen between various models of flutes) won't have the potential to change sound by a little bit?

A little bit? Yes, but again, one can't really judge this accurately until one can hit the sweet spot - I mean it's not fair, or even useful, to judge the thing by off-center hits, now is it? And what good does it do the player if he hasn't yet mastered hitting the sweetspot on his current flute, with power, control and proper intonation?

Another issue which seems to have been overlooked so far is the idea that even if a player is able to make two dissimilar flutes sound the same way, is it easier for him to do so on one flute than on another? That certainly applies to me (consistently) and how can the different physical dimensions of the various flutes not be the cause of this, even if only because they make me blow differently?

I've explained this above - they do have different embouchures and air requirements. An underdeveloped embouchure and way of blowing is going to work better initially with some flutes than with others, because you're still trying to develop proper embouchure and breath support. Now, If one quits trying to play a bunch of different flutes well, one then stops "confusing" one's brain and muscle memory, and with time (given proper practice) one can then make much quicker overall progress with regards to embouchure and breath support, which would then allow one to play more flutes, more easily, and with less "difference" between them.

As a counter-example to the top player anecdotes heard so far, I heard Desi Wilkinson play some years back. Among other instruments he also played an all-wooden (unlined) Martin Doyle flute made of yew and he certainly sounded different on that flute than on his other flutes. Difference in flutes, or did Desi deliberately change his blowing to try to get a different sound from it?

I don't know, why don't you ask Desi? Was it even in the same Key as the other flute?



Loren

[Loren]

Well, there ARE sigificant differences between high level flutes. But don't take my word for it.

For the record, Kevin C. told us up at Swannanoa why he switched from one "top level flute" to another. He emphatically testified that high-end flutes DO significantly vary between makers. In addition to being a great anecdote, his story demolishes the following notion:

"there are real tonal and volume differences between quality instruments which "disappear as one improves"

[The emhasis there isn't mine but it could be. ]

Well, we can't judge what Kevin deems significant because you haven't related the anecdote, so this is hardly helpful.

That said, of course top players feel there are differences, and there are, but the differences they experience are still relatively subtle by "our standards", except in the case of a poorly made flute or an extreme design.

In addition the important thing is that only when one has good embouchure and breath support can one truly evaluate a flute's strengths and weaknesses. And then what happens is it boils down to preferences based on playing style - otherwise everyone would be playing just one maker's flute - but first one has to develop a style, and before that must come embouchure, breath support, intonation, phrashing, rhythm, etc. All of this is best developed on ONE flute, ANY good flute will do. Worrying about minor differences, which could be significant differences to a professional player at the highest lever, when you can barely knock out yankee doodle dandy, makes no sense.


Loren

[Loren]

Whoops, I fell onto my soap box again, sorry gang, I've climbed back off now.

Loren