Need advice from Olwell owners

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:31 am

I'm not sure of the options.

I had a nicholson all wood flute Pat made.
It seemed loud enough but it didn't project or 'cut through'
as well as my metal lined flutes.
Also there was trouble tuning it--it
wouldn't go sharp and sometimes I need to
go sharp, especially when it was cold.

I asked Pat about this--he said he plays with a lined
headjoint in sessions and an unlined one 'in the studio.'
The former 'cuts through' better, he said.

Certainly I, personally, would get a nicholson
with a tuning slide. If there is a slided flute
with an otherwise unlined headjoint, I would get the lined
headjoint--for my purposes, anyhow.
I have recently played one of these
in blackwood. Sounds extraordinarily good;
like, magnificent.

cocusflute · Post by **cocusflute** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:14 am

I agree with Jim. I have PO flutes with both unlined head and lined. The sound with the unlined head is richer, more complex in overtones, sonorous. The lined head is clearer and brighter.
If you can afford to, get both. You can always sell one or the other for what you paid. But I bet you'll want to keep both.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:09 am

Rob Sharer wrote:Olwell boxwood Rudall model with very small holes and no tuning slide on which he's producing a much bigger sound than he ever did on the Pratten. It just suits him better, being easier to fill. Cheers,

Rob

Lately, I've been wondering about Patrick's Rudall model. How's it's volume compared to his Nickolson and Pratten models? What's the tone like? I don't think I've ever heard one, not even on a recording. Is the tone more similar to a Grinter or Murray, or is it just an easier to fill version of his other two, being similar acoutically otherwise?

Jay

malanstevenson · Post by **malanstevenson** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:57 am

cocusflute wrote

I agree with Jim. I have PO flutes with both unlined head and lined. The sound with the unlined head is richer, more complex in overtones, sonorous. The lined head is clearer and brighter.
If you can afford to, get both. You can always sell one or the other for what you paid. But I bet you'll want to keep both.

Oh, NOW you've done it. P'rhaps I'll need to revise my budget upwards. I was also planning on adding a C body for the flute, which I'm guessing would overall be better suited to the unlined treatment, but with two headjoints I'd basically be buying two flutes anyway.

Thanks all for the input,
Mark

cocusflute · Post by **cocusflute** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:37 am

I love to play the C flute with the unlined rather than the lined HJ. The C flute is a bit quieter in any case and the sound is so rich with the unlined HJ that you wish all sessions were in C.
I haven't played the PO Rudalls ( with smaller holes) enough to make any kind of informed judgment. I do remember that the one time I did play one I thought it was a gorgeous flute with a surprisingly forward sound, and I wanted one. It was a boxwood flute already promised. I still don't have one. Anybody want to sell me one? Or... trade...?

chas · Post by **chas** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:48 am

Jay wrote:
Rob Sharer wrote:Olwell boxwood Rudall model with very small holes and no tuning slide on which he's producing a much bigger sound than he ever did on the Pratten. It just suits him better, being easier to fill. Cheers,

Rob
Lately, I've been wondering about Patrick's Rudall model. How's it's volume compared to his Nickolson and Pratten models? What's the tone like? I don't think I've ever heard one, not even on a recording. Is the tone more similar to a Grinter or Murray, or is it just an easier to fill version of his other two, being similar acoutically otherwise?

I think the lined headjoint makes more difference to the volume/projection than which Olwell model the flute is. I have an old Nicholson model and a newer Rudall model, and I find they play quite similarly. I've had spins on a few of Patrick's Pratten models and find they play differently. Sound-wise they're all Olwells. I think one of his Prattens has more sound in common with his other models than it does with a Hammy, and his Rudall more in common with his other models than with a Grinter.

I do think the Nicholson model has a broader tone palette than his other models. It's a remarkably dynamic flute.

Rob Sharer · Post by **Rob Sharer** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:48 am

I've got a boxwood Olwell Rudall which is currently out on extended loan. It's super easy to play, with great tonal rewards from a tiny investment in wind. Perfectly capable of holding its own in a session. Interestingly, it was originally made with a short footjoint; with it, the D is perfectly in tune when you blow the flute like a beginner. Lean on it, and the D is wickedly sharp. Patrick made it this way on purpose, as some folks who started out on his Rudalls with a longer footjoint had complained of the D being flat - not really the car's fault if the driver isn't mashing on the gas, now, is it? But Paddy's an understanding man.

I went back and got the longer foot as an accessory, and the whole thing came alive. The tighter bore of the new foot made the wind really stack up, richening the tone up and down. And, the D is bang on at any pressure. Something to think about for anyone who orders an Olwell Rudall. Cheers,

Rob

daiv · Post by **daiv** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:52 pm

Loren wrote:Blackwood, Boxwood, then Rosewood (of those you mentioned) in that order of "loudness", but really, it's much more the player. I'd say you'd be best off to improve you own power and projection, so that playing "louder" requires less effort on your part. The side benefit to this approach (which is basically improving your breathing, embouchure focus, and efficiency) is that your tone will likely improve significantly in the process.

Loren

i agree! here is a link to some ideas i typed up for someone else on increasing your "volume."

http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php ... c&start=15
(it's the second to last on the page)

the problem is resonance... if the air column is not resonating properly in the flute and in your mouth, then you will have to work much harder to get a good volume while having a good tone. when a flute resonates properly, you'll find that a loud, harmonic-rich tone is just about effortless.

work on all the steps... in the post, i say that after a while that step 3 is the only one you need, but i guess i would disagree with that now. i would assert they are all important.

malanstevenson · Post by **malanstevenson** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:49 pm

I love to play the C flute with the unlined rather than the lined HJ. The C flute is a bit quieter in any case and the sound is so rich with the unlined HJ that you wish all sessions were in C.

Cocus, out of curiosity, how does the C sound with the lined head (or have you not tried it out that way)? I've played an unlined C flute in a few C sessions before, and it is easily overpowered.

Thanks,
Mark

springrobin · Post by **springrobin** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:38 am

FWIW, I've had both a boxwood & a rosewood Olwell. I couldn't tell you what "model" either was but both had unlined heads. I feel the rosewood is capable of greater volume and warmth than the boxwood was but that's a comparison of two individual flutes and not two classes of flute. The rosewood was also lighter in weiight. Before I acquired the rosewood JonC replaced the thread-wrapping of a previous repair with faux ivory rings. The contrast is really striking. Maybe I'm a just rosewood person at heart but I could see keeping this one forever.

cocusflute · Post by **cocusflute** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:33 am

...how does the C sound with the lined head...

Sounds great with either head.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:14 pm

chas wrote: I do think the Nicholson model has a broader tone palette than his other models. It's a remarkably dynamic flute.

Chas,

That's an interesting assessment of his Nickolson model. Patrick's really too humble when he describes his different models. He sort of paints the Pratten as the preferred flute (for ITM) and offers the Nickolson and Rudall models for those who can't handle the hole size or air requirements of his Pratten. However, I keep stumbling on posts that regard his other models as very desirable flutes for their slightly more complex or at least different tonal charactaristics. I am also enjoying this thread for describing how Olwell flutes are able to cut through in a session. Certainly volume alone would not make a flute great. I'm really looking for a tone that can cut through and enhance/harmonize with the group rather than having an instrument that simply plays loudly.

Jay

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:13 pm

The pratten is powerful but it also blends well,
especially the bottom octave. I can't
compare with a nicholson, not having
played one enough.

Jay · Post by **Jay** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 8:22 pm

jim stone wrote:The pratten is powerful but it also blends well,
especially the bottom octave. I can't
compare with a nicholson, not having
played one enough.

Yes, I've heard the Pratten. Phenomenal instrument. I hope my previous post wasn't taken as criticism on the Pratten. I just never considered his other models until recently. I'm learning they're not necessarily his lessor flutes- some players truly prefer them. I'm sure it will come down to personal preference, and with that, I hope I at least get a listen to them before I have decide which one (I'm on the six year wait).

Jay

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 9:15 pm

I think I mentioned you can get a keyless flute
relatively soon and then retrofit for keys.

I would hardly be surprised if the Nicholson is
at least the equal of the Pratten. A very
desireable flute.

If you want to hear what a Pratten can do
in the hands of an expert, John Skelton's
Barndance, I believe it's on WFO 1.
Last piece.

Chiff and Fipple Forums

Need advice from Olwell owners

Get both