Cork wrote:jim stone wrote:...Stand by what I,
Cocus, Pat Olwell, David Levine, Dave Copley and many others
have said. I don't think any of us have a 'tin ear'
or have 'talked ourselves into hearing what we want.'
We all agree that the player makes the
principal contribution to the sound, but it's obvious
that bore size, hole size, differences in construction, etc.
can make a difference to the flute's sound, one significant
enough to be worth taking into account in choosing
a flute. That's one of the chief reasons makers
make and sell different model flutes. It's
silly to deny it.
Basically, I'm going to stand with Loren, in that, for the most part, a good player can tame a flute to their will, provided that we are speaking of better flutes.
A few years ago I had an Olwell all-wood boxwood Nicholson,
lovely flute. Also had an Olwell pratten with a lined head.
I was playing with a hammered dulcimer group, four dulcimers
and me.
The all-wood flute sounded good but I found it didn't 'cut through'
the dulcimers. It got swallowed up in the sound.
The lined Pratten projected a good deal better. People on the
board, e.g. R03B, were saying the lined Olwells 'cut through'
better in noisy situations. I called Patrick Olwell and asked
him about it. He said the same thing--he added that he
uses the unlined flutes 'in the studio,' the lined flutes 'in
sessions.'
It matters what we want to do with the flute. If one is wanting
to be heard in noisy sessions, the lined Olwells are better
suited to do that, according to the maker. If we're going
to play at home or 'in the studio' or the parlor, it may not
much matter.
Suppose somebody says to us: 'I love the loud, open honking sound
I hear on some Irish flutes. That's what I want. Also where
I live there are some big noisy sessions and I want to be heard.
Now I have choice. I can buy an all-wood boxwood Olwell
Rudall or one of his lined Prattens. Which would be better for me?'
Obviously Patrick would advise the lined Pratten. Alternatively we could say the following: 'Doesn't matter which you buy. They're both
good flutes. Any flute will have the right sound after you develop
your sound.' I take it to be plain which advice is better.
Also Patrick is a good flutist. Apparently he has some difficulty
'taming these flutes to his will.' He takes the lined, not the unlined
flutes to sessions. The lined ones better serve his needs
in that venue, he says. So I'm not convinced a good flutist can tame
a flute to his/ her will, though maybe it's true.
Of course we can say that somebody who can't tame any good flute
to his will isn't a 'good' flutist, but then the claim that
a good flutist can do that becomes a tautology.
If there are such flutists, it's unlikely that most of us will attain
that stature. Before one becomes one of the greats, it seems
reasonable to buy a flute that will suit one's purposes. The fact
is that there may be good flutes that don't do that.
Finally and more controversially, I think the tonal differences between
good flutes are beautiful. Flutes aren't some sort of raw material
we are to bend ultimately into some homogeneous sound,
taming them to our will. The tonal differences are there
for a reason, different flutes can have different strengths
and be expressive in different ways. It seems to me
one of the marks of the best players is that they will
be able to exploit those tonal differences, not obliterate
them. Michael Flately is doing that, IMO, shifting tween
Rudalls and Prattens, depending on the music.
Emphatically the player makes the most difference to
the instrument's sound, and our first responsibility
is to improve as musicians. But it isn't a choice tween
hanging in there with the Olwell all-wood rudall while
one waits fifteen years until one can make it heard
in the noisy session, on the one hand, and flitting from
flute to flute instead of practicing. That's a false dichotomy.
One can sensibly count the tonal differences between
lined Olwell Prattens and all-wood Olwell Rudalls
and practice, practice, practice too.
