4 keys or 6?

[dcopley]

Another thing to consider if you are planning on a flute with block-mounted keys is to have the blocks built in for any additional keys (up to eight keys total). Then you can start out with four keys on the flute and have the others added later if you find that you need them.

Dave Copley
Loveland Ohio

[uillmann]

I'm with those that don't think going down below the D is all that important, if you're playing ITM.

But then, I'm still not convinced keys in general are all that important for ITM.

I would agree that going down below the D isn't important, and for the most part I'd say that most run-of-the-mill old session standards don't require keys either. However, these days, many fiddlers and box players regularly start tunes that call for keys, so I'd say they are useful if you think you might want to play the expanded repertoire. Patrick Olwell told me recently that nobody ever uses the low C's, they always just rotate them out of the way.

[crookedtune]

Being brand new to playing on keys, I can say that the first four became useful almost immediately. The long F and C natural are winning me over slowly. Below low D, not so much yet, but never say never.

I'll hate myself in the morning, but I'm very seriously considering a six-key body for my Copley. That's what I'd recommend, at a minimum.

[NicoMoreno]

I use all 8, but the (high) Cnat is the rarest, and I only use it as a way to vary the fingering.

And in response to Julia: Paddy Carty, Billy Clifford, Paddy Taylor all needed more than 8...

[Gordon]

However, these days, many fiddlers and box players regularly start tunes that call for keys, so I'd say they are useful if you think you might want to play the expanded repertoire. Patrick Olwell told me recently that nobody ever uses the low C's, they always just rotate them out of the way.

When did we start letting those buggers run things?

As for expanded repertoire, I've been at this just shy of 15 years, have forgotten more tunes than I remember, and I'm not even close to running out of learning new tunes that don't use keys...

Still, that all said, given a choice (or 2 grand, whichever came first...) I'd recommend a six key (or maybe the aforementioned 5) - need to keep the fiddlers on their toes, I suppose. Anyway, I like to see the look on their faces when playing a tune when they finally thought they'd gotten rid of me...

[Julia Delaney]

Dear Nico: None of the people you mentioned played simple system flutes, which is what we are discussing. Referring to them adds nothing to this thread. Paddy Taylor, like Billy Clifford, played a Boehm system flute. Paddy Carty played a Radcliffe system flute. The question of four, eight, or any keys at all has nothing to do with the kinds of flute they played.
The next question, which smells like a dead horse full of worms, might be: "Is a Boehm or Radcliff system flute ideal for playing traditional Irish music?" It certainly makes playing in some keys easier. But I can play in C and A, and in D and G minor, on the six-key simple system flute with no problem. Well, not as easily as in D or G, but good enough for most tunes in those less frequented keys.
I've never (twenty years on) felt the need for more than six keys. As Olwell said, most eight key flute players turn their foot joints so that the lower keys (including the Eb, which I do use frequently) are out of the way. My impression is that the low C and C# notes seldom respond with the strength and clarity (i.e., the honk) of the low D. Lately I've been taking a four piece four-key flute (packs easier than the six-key Pratten) to sessions. I prefer six keys but I can make do with four.

[NicoMoreno]

Well, duh, of course they don't play the simple system flute. That was the joke!

Sheesh.

I have (in far less than 20 years!) felt the need for more than 6 keys. 7, to be precise. I could do away with the high Cnat, and be quite happy. But I use all the rest, and wouldn't be happy if I wasn't able to play the low notes.

[I.D.10-t]

Any reason other than price not to get 6? I would think that it is better to have and not need than the other way around. In think it has been mentioned in the past that resale of flutes with less than 6 keys is not proportional to the number of keys.

Then again, if 2 keys (D# and Eb) are good enough for Quantz...

[Nanohedron]

Patrick Olwell told me recently that nobody ever uses the low C's, they always just rotate them out of the way.

If Pat makes an informally colloquial and sweeping generalisation based on the majority, that's all it is, and it doesn't make such words any truer because he's the one who said them. So don't make that mistake. And in my locale rotating them out of the way is an uncommon practice among those who have the keys, so there goes that.

As said, I use them, but if using them makes me a "nobody" as spoken of, then I guess I have to live with that. Sigh. I am so not being invited to the Prom. But anyway, as for tunes I use the low C keys on, just off the top of my head there's the Galway Hornpipe, The Home Ruler, The Ebb Tide, various D minorish polkas, I like to play Slieve Russel in D minor, the list goes on.

[Cubitt]

I play a lot of ballads that benefit from having the low C and C# keys. Never use them for session material, but I'd hate to be without them.

Keep in mind that keyless flutes are a relatively recent phenomenon (1970s). To me, having less than eight keys is like having a piano with fewer than 88 keys. Obviously, there are electronic keyboards that have less, but if you are a serious player, wouldn't you want a complete instrument? If this is a passion, I'd save the extra money and do it right. Just my opinion, though.

[Julia Delaney]

Sorry Nick, it occurred to me afterward that you were probably joking.

A similar discussion goes on amongst concertina players regarding the standard 30 button or the 34 or 38 button boxes. Most players who do have the more numerous buttons are quick to admit they don't use the extra buttons very often, if at all.

Sure, Olwell's generalization is only that and not a scientific observation. But I've seen the same thing. Aside from airs and the occasional hornpipe, where the lower notes would be nice to have, I doubt that the response from the lower keys would do the job on fast reels at session tempo. But I don't know that to be true. What do ye all think?

[Nanohedron]

I doubt that the response from the lower keys would do the job on fast reels at session tempo. But I don't know that to be true. What do ye all think?

I'm inclined to agree. Or, at least it's true in my case. That's why I stick mainly to hornpipes, airs, and jigs in using them. I tell myself that with enough work at it, it could be done with fast reels - occasionally I try - but I'm not on a mission about it except so far as it's all just "what happens if I do this?" exercises in checking on the current status of my flutemanship, such as it is. I think that the reason polkas are more workable than reels is that, even played fast, with polkas there are a fair number of comparatively longer notes and that helps in nailing the low Cnat response. C# has always been quick, strong, and never really tricky though, for some reason.

The quest for the ready-and-bulletproof low Cnat is something that I have found extends to my better understanding of how I control tone. While that as a learning tactic isn't essential in the slightest and better fluters have no need to waste their time so, I am still enjoying seeing what happens in the course of the pursuit.

[uillmann]

Thank god no one in the uilleann pipe world has considered reinstating the c foot on the chanter. We know where to stop.

[Nanohedron]

Thank god no one in the uilleann pipe world has considered reinstating the c foot on the chanter. We know where to stop.

Not so fast there, you with your lofty airs!

I recall there actually was some idle speculation over at the UP Forum a while back; someone had the idea of some sort of removable C foot option made of an elbow-joint tube with valves and doohickies and springs and toggles and vent holes, all this just to be able to close off your bottom D. The proposed idea was almost like a Rube Goldberg invention. As I recall this must've been too thingy and complicated - not to mention ugly - even for the pipers, because discussion on how to make it work didn't last long at all. Like they don't have enough to give them trouble already.

I did a search to revisit the topic but came up with bupkes, however, so it might've gotten purged as some older topics have (and just as well, too). I guess you'll have to trust me on this one if you have it in you.

[Maihcol]

I think I may be leaning toward a 6er. But keep the comments coming.

There's the issue of a loss of power in the D, due to those additional foot keys.
Some say they can't hear any difference in the D when they take the keys off but my guess is that they aren't hearing a difference which is significant to them. There should be some loss - otherwise you could just keep going down to G without loss of power.
However, footjoints are odd...not properly understood - to some extent longer footjoints can actually increase the power/focus on some flutes for some players, while reducing it for others - though the bore of the foot seems to matter as well. I'm thinking here of the Foster extensions for Boehm flute foot-joints and also previous discussions on this board in relation to longer/shorter footjoints on the conical flutes, my own experience included.

Another issue is the linkage in the key-touches between the C#/Cnat keys and the articulation in the shanks. If that goes out of regulation, the Cnat will be weaker or won't sound at all. In that sense, the first 6 keys are more robust as a system.

Overall, I'd say you'd want to be very sure you wanted them and knew what you were going to use them for.

Garry