Are R&R's really that great?

[Akiba]

With all the posts about Rudall and Roses being up for auction, it has me wondering "what's the big deal?" I'm sure there are some old flutes that are great, and it's cool to own a piece of history, but to me it seems the interest in them is overblown. Very few top players still play the old instruments (C McEvoy still plays her R&R I think). The wood is not meant to last more than a number of decades. Thus why spend a bunch on an old flute when it seems a new flute from a modern maker is in most cases a better flute in terms of projection, tone and intonation. Moreover, it seems that the best old flutes have been significantly overhauled by the top flute makers, e.g. Olwell, so why not just get an Olwell? I've tried one R&R in boxwood, don't know the number, but it seemed woefully out of tune (just my one anecdote, not any sort of scientific opinion).

[bradhurley]

Yes, they really can be that great. I've played only six or seven original Rudalls over the years, but a few of them stand out as the finest flutes I've ever played. Once you learn how to play a R&R the tuning issues basically go away, but I agree that they can be challenging flutes at first. I played Chris Wilkes's own Rudall once and had a hard time getting anything out of it; he took it from me and practically knocked me off my seat with his powerful, gorgeous tone, and played it in tune right up into some of the highest notes in the third octave.

Catherine McEvoy still does play her Rudall but she has some Grinter flutes as well that she plays; I think for her D flute she's still mostly using the Rudall, last time I heard, although she does have a Grinter in D. I'm pretty sure Jimmy Noonan also plays an old Rudall as his main flute; over the years I've encountered quite a few great flute players who were using original Rudall & Rose or Rudall Carte flutes. And there are a couple of Wylde flutes that stand out in my memory as incredibly great flutes as well -- Pat Casey in New York has a Wylde that has been played by many of the world's great Irish flute players (Molloy, Tansey, etc. etc.), all of whom were very impressed with it.

[ImNotIrish]

I have to agree with Brad... it takes some getting use to, but once you figure out the nuances, the reward is immeasurable.
I have owned several modern makers flutes including Murray, Le Hart, Quinn, and Copeland (played several more: Olwell,
Grinter, Ward, Copley, McGee), but have settled on the originals. Something about the sound that I think is not readily available with the modern flutes. For example, my original Hudson Pratten will take as much as I can put into it, and then some, yet at lower air volume maintains the warmth and presence just as well. I know, this topic has been discussed at length. Just my 2 cents.
Arbo

[jemtheflute]

Simple answer, "Yes".

Of course, there is variety in the output - over 70+ years, multiple craftsmen, changes of design and fashion, provision of different quality/price versions etc, they are not uniform. Some are better than others, some may even be poor; some have aged without deteriorating, others have warped and cracked even if not ill-treated, and both those categories may or not have been or have needed to be re-worked...... Indubitably other contemporary makers made flutes as good. But R&R acquired their reputation in their own time for good reason and their more recent reputation is not a mere uncritical repetition of those sources but also the genuine opinion of many modern players and experts well informed to judge. That is not to say that many of those same modern players and experts may not choose/prefer to play flutes by modern makers, some of whose art in the last 15 or so years has certainly come to rival the great originals and whose products may well be better adapted to modern performance criteria. Before that was the case, the top players played period instruments - the best they could get.

I have more experience with antique flutes than top end modern ones, though that experience is as yet chiefly in the middle to lower end of the range of original quality. All of the original R&R's I have had the opportunity to play have stood out above anything else for tone colour and response, even with my limited skills, both to me as player and to listeners who have made objective, discerning comments as well as to me listening to others playing them. Since I have been doing up old flutes these last couple of years I have had several pretty decent ones, yet none that came anywhere near my own R&R. I've had goes on quite a lot of modern makers' flutes, including many of the top names, many (but not all) of which have been very impressive, but very few of them would replace or rival my own R&R for me, and there are better ones than mine around (my view is not merely proprietorialy or sentimentally prejudiced!).

[Jonathan]

I can't really think of a better sound than that which Tom McElvogue brings out of his R&R.

[jim stone]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsh6TNqnCJo

[bradhurley]

In Michael Flatley's case, it's hard to tell which is greater: the R&R or the mascara.

[BrendanB]

You're right Brad. It just puts us back in the age old debate about tone - is it the flute or the flute player's makeup?

[RudallRose]

the answer to your question lies in yet another query:
"If the originals aren't so good, why are all the modern makers copying them?"

This alone says volumes.

[radcliff]

I will not exchange my R&R for another "new" flute.

[BullFighter]

I think it's about tradition. The ITM flutists have always played simple system flutes mainly because back in the days, just after the day orchestras switched the symple system for the Boehm, there were an incredible amount of wooden flutes collecting dust. and they could get one for a couple of pennies.


today, i still can buy one of the old ones for a fraction of an Olwell cost. not a R&R, of course.

[jim stone]

In Michael Flatley's case, it's hard to tell which is greater: the R&R or the mascara.

Bracketing a host of issues that doubtless arise for many of us, consider the sound and the
responsiveness of that flute. I believe Flatley bought it from someone on this board.
No accident that he's playing it on that tune and not his Olwell.

As for the man himself, along with a number of doubtful personae in evidence in this video,
I hope folks can see there is also a delighted child.

[Jon C.]

I have had a few nice R&R flutes in my shop, I must say most of them would be keepers in my book!
I still like playing my copy of the R&R, so both are fun to play.
Brad is right about learning to play them in tune, it you don't know the trick, it will seem way out of tune.
As far as the wood not able to withstand the years of playing, I would say that is totally false for true Cocuswood, as you can see so many 170 year old flutes still session ready.

[s1m0n]

They're the only high-end flutes that aren't being made any longer. The modern makers are still working, so their flutes are getting less rare all the time.

Also, you don't see it so much in the wooden flute scene, but in some other instrument markets - mandolins, for instance - modern luthiers go in and out of fashion. For a few years, luthier X is the genius and everyone who can't afford a $160,000 (really) 1924 Loar has gotta have an X. A few years later, the new hotshot kid plays a Y, not an X, and the people who fancy they could sound like him if they had an axe like his start bidding up the price of a Y. The value of Xes decline. The folks who drastically overpaid for an X, thinking "it's an investment - $30k a lot of money, but it'll hold it's value. I'll get my 30k and more back when I sell..." learn an uncomfortable lesson.

[daveogden]

There's a certain complexity of tone that the antiques have that I haven't found in newly made instruments. I can hear it in Chris Norman's earlier tone that he got with his boxwood Rudall compared with his current blackwood Cameron. Catherine McEvoy brought both her Grinter and her antique Rudall to the last Friday Harbor camp, but only played her Rudall, saying the Grinter was nice but the Rudall sounded better. Of course she's got a rare unlined Rudall head with no tuning slide, which speaks to the previous point about how many different types of Rudalls there are in this world! There's also something superior about cocuswood I think, it's a finer grained wood than blackwood and the resonance is livelier. The intonation on antiques is predicated on the stiff lip English school of playing, ala Nicholson. When you get the hang of it, they play in tune just fine. Modern flutes (i.e. Olwell) are often made with embouchures that work for people who haven't developed the stiffer embouchure, but frankly once you've got the hang of the stiff embouchure you'll get lots more tone complexity from an antique flute than a modern one and you won't need as much air to blow the instrument either. It can be hard to find an antique flute that's got a nice crisp original embouchure, though. A modern head on an antique body can be a great way to go, I've been really happy with my Peter Noy head on an antique Rudall-type body. By the way, I've got a very nice Rudall on ebay at the moment that has a nice original head and a Chris Wilkes head as well, which for some might be the best of both worlds. It's priced at what I paid to another list member a few years ago, before I had Jon C. replace the pads:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 0513520633