What's The Loudest D Flute?

[Loren]

But guys, it is the player. It is the embouchure. And that's really all.

That's what I should have written originally, and saved us all a bunch of time!

Says it all, really.



Loren

[dow]

When Louise Mulcahy plays, windows and crystal wine glasses shatter for approximately a quarter mile in every direction (okay, I'm exaggerating there, but only slightly).

He speaks the truth. And what's even more stunning is, she plays EASILY. Almost effortlessly. And before you ask "what's she play?" I'll tell you this -- I heard her take my cracked and leaky Murray and about shatter windows across the campus -- 3 times the volume I feel like I've ever been able to get out of it, and I'm considered a fairly loudish (loutish? ) player myself -- WITHOUT EVEN TRYING. She just picked up this flute she didn't even know and boom. Off she went

While I didn't hear this first hand, I did hear Cathy's tape of it, and Louise sounded absolutely incredible on that flute. I, on the other hand, sounded markedly different. More like I was playing a sponge or something

Cat, did John give you and estimate of when that boxwood Murray would be done? I'd love to have another crack at it down the road sometime.

[Dereelium]

Just to chime in with some personal experience ..

You got yourself a wonderful Olwellian Pratten cocoswood D-honker - and the advice from the master (Patrick O. that is ..): now learn how to play that thing softly and clearly ... and he's right. That's the challenge, and that is exactly what Louise Mulcahy has mastered - on any flute. Imho ..

And: the polite compliments one might receive in Ennis or Doolin - "Dear, you're gettin' a lovely tone out of that flute" .. can just as well mean: unfortunately, you can't play ..

[Doug_Tipple]

But guys, it is the player. It is the embouchure. And that's really all.

That's what I should have written originally, and saved us all a bunch of time!

Says it all, really.



Loren

I am not questioning the importance of experience and skill in flute or any other musical performance. However, I do think that it is wise not to over-generalize. Surely it is obvious that the responsiveness of the instrument has something to do with the total equation of musical performance. I think that good musicians like to play responsive instruments, even though the instruments may be old and beat-up. They can play instruments that are less responsive, but they usually don't do so. To say that embouchure is all that is important is like saying that a talented race car driver can win a race with a really slow car, if you will permit the analogy. And, race fans, we know that that isn't going to happen. It is more likely that the rookie driver with the fast car will win the race. OK, so the analogy isn't rock-solid, but since I am moving close to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, it seems relevant to me.

[Loren]

I am not questioning the importance of experience and skill in flute or any other musical performance. However, I do think that it is wise not to over-generalize. Surely it is obvious that the responsiveness of the instrument has something to do with the total equation of musical performance. I think that good musicians like to play responsive instruments, even though the instruments may be old and beat-up. They can play instruments that are less responsive, but they usually don't do so. To say that embouchure is all that is important is like saying that a talented race car driver can win a race with a really slow car, if you will permit the analogy. And, race fans, we know that that isn't going to happen. It is more likely that the rookie driver with the fast car will win the race. OK, so the analogy isn't rock-solid, but since I am moving close to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, it seems relevant to me.

Okay, you have a lot to learn before moving to Indy:

1) "Rookie" drivers are not rookies in the sense that you are comparing them to novice flute players: "Rookie" race car drivers in Indy car, Cart, F1, NASCAR etc., are experts very near the top of their field, with many years of profession racing already under their belts. Put one of these guys in a modern Corvette, and give your average guy on the street, who maybe has a couple of years of autocross racing under his belt, the much faster Indy car, and the "Rookie" professional in the slower car, will whip the pants off the non-pro in the much faster Indy car, every time. Go to any road racing school, and this will become immediately clear, before you even finish your first day.

2) Most of the flutes people are playing and talking about here, are so close in terms of performance, that the differences between instruments are negligible, when compared to the differences in abilities between players, and that's the point. You can put a lousy driver in a Formula One car and, aside from the fact that he's most likely going to kill himself within a minute, the car itself will help him far less than some good instruction and lots of practice in the vehicle he already owns.

Hey, I, as much as anyone posting here, can appreciate the value of a well made instrument, however when it comes to the VAST majority of people posting on this list, you and I included Doug, little differences between one flute and another, with regards to performance, are absolutely insignificant when compared to the increases in performance possible by improving one's playing/embouchure. That's just the way it is, period. This is EXACTLY why people end up hopping from one flute to another, becuause there is no quick fix to better playabilty, tone and volume, it's in YOU, or not.

For really fine players, sure, there is a reason why JMV plays a Wilkes as opposed to and Olwell, and why Molloy plays his Olwell instead of a Seery, , and so on, and so forth. But for the rest of us, the Seery is as good as anything else, it has the capability to be played at a higher level than most of us will ever reach. This is not an over simplification or generalization it is simply one of the unbreakable truths of playing this instrument.


Loren

[jim stone]

But guys, it is the player. It is the embouchure. And that's really all.

That's what I should have written originally, and saved us all a bunch of time!

Says it all, really.



Loren

I am not questioning the importance of experience and skill in flute or any other musical performance. However, I do think that it is wise not to over-generalize. Surely it is obvious that the responsiveness of the instrument has something to do with the total equation of musical performance. I think that good musicians like to play responsive instruments, even though the instruments may be old and beat-up. They can play instruments that are less responsive, but they usually don't do so. To say that embouchure is all that is important is like saying that a talented race car driver can win a race with a really slow car, if you will permit the analogy. And, race fans, we know that that isn't going to happen. It is more likely that the rookie driver with the fast car will win the race. OK, so the analogy isn't rock-solid, but since I am moving close to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, it seems relevant to me.

Right, people seem to be in the grip of a theory, one that
contains considerable truth, no question, but is being over-
generalized.

The theory, when taken to extremes, is belied by what those
best in a position to know actually say. So Patrick Olwell
tells me that his lined flutes tend to be more audible
in sessions than his unlined flutes. For this reason, he plays his unlined flutes 'in the studio' and his lined flutes in sessions. Patrick
knows a good deal about how Olwells perform.

The player and the embouchure are important, no question,
but no, they're not everything.

Just like with the Freudian theory that everything we do is
motivated by sexual craving. Not so. In my own case the
truth is that MOST everything I do is motivated by sexual
craving. Sometimes I'm just motivated by the will to
power.

[Loren]

The player and the embouchure are important, no question,
but no, they're not everything.

You are of course correct, the player and his/her embouchure and blowing technique only account for 99% of tone and volume production.



Loren

[chas]

Just to chime in with some personal experience ..

You got yourself a wonderful Olwellian Pratten cocoswood D-honker - and the advice from the master (Patrick O. that is ..): now learn how to play that thing softly and clearly ... and he's right. That's the challenge, and that is exactly what Louise Mulcahy has mastered - on any flute. Imho ..

Yeah, it's kind of like "the best defense is a good offense." The best way to get good louds is to get good softs. When you're actually playing a tune, it doesn't matter how loud you can play if that's the only volume you can play. OTOH, even if you're not a particularly loud player, if you can play your fortes 10 times as loud as your pianos, they'll sound good.

[jim stone]

I am not questioning the importance of experience and skill in flute or any other musical performance. However, I do think that it is wise not to over-generalize. Surely it is obvious that the responsiveness of the instrument has something to do with the total equation of musical performance. I think that good musicians like to play responsive instruments, even though the instruments may be old and beat-up. They can play instruments that are less responsive, but they usually don't do so. To say that embouchure is all that is important is like saying that a talented race car driver can win a race with a really slow car, if you will permit the analogy. And, race fans, we know that that isn't going to happen. It is more likely that the rookie driver with the fast car will win the race. OK, so the analogy isn't rock-solid, but since I am moving close to the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, it seems relevant to me.

Okay, you have a lot to learn before moving to Indy:

1) "Rookie" drivers are not rookies in the sense that you are comparing them to novice flute players: "Rookie" race car drivers in Indy car, Cart, F1, NASCAR etc., are experts very near the top of their field, with many years of profession racing already under their belts. Put one of these guys in a modern Corvette, and give your average guy on the street, who maybe has a couple of years of autocross racing under his belt, the much faster Indy car, and the "Rookie" professional in the slower car, will whip the pants off the non-pro in the much faster Indy car, every time. Go to any road racing school, and this will become immediately clear, before you even finish your first day.

2) Most of the flutes people are playing and talking about here, are so close in terms of performance, that the differences between instruments are negligible, when compared to the differences in abilities between players, and that's the point. You can put a lousy driver in a Formula One car and, aside from the fact that he's most likely going to kill himself within a minute, the car itself will help him far less than some good instruction and lots of practice in the vehicle he already owns.

Hey, I, as much as anyone posting here, can appreciate the value of a well made instrument, however when it comes to the VAST majority of people posting on this list, you and I included Doug, little differences between one flute and another, with regards to performance, are absolutely insignificant when compared to the increases in performance possible by improving one's playing/embouchure. That's just the way it is, period. This is EXACTLY why people end up hopping from one flute to another, becuause there is no quick fix to better playabilty, tone and volume, it's in YOU, or not.

For really fine players, sure, there is a reason why JMV plays a Wilkes as opposed to and Olwell, and why Molloy plays his Olwell instead of a Seery, , and so on, and so forth. But for the rest of us, the Seery is as good as anything else, it has the capability to be played at a higher level than most of us will ever reach. This is not an over simplification or generalization it is simply one of the unbreakable truths of playing this instrument.


Loren

So, the force of this, if I understand you, is that it's false that
the player and the embouchure are all. Rather they make a far
greater difference to how we sound than any other factor.
That seems reasonable.

Also you feel that the tonal differences between flutes are
relatively small and are absolutely insignificant when
compared to the improvement in performance that can
be achieved by improving one's embouchure.
That is, you can improve your sound a whole lot more
by improving your embouchure than you can by
reaching for another flute. That's also true, it seems
to me.

What doesn't follow, though, is that the tonal differences
between flutes cannot make a significant difference
in how well we perform, us ordinary hard-practicing
amateurs who have been at it for several years,
in the venues in which we are playing.

So Patrick says his lined flutes are more audible in
sessions, he thinks they cut through better. I think he's
right. I was playing an unlined D Olwell in a hammered
dulcimer group and it didn't cut through; when I
reached for a lined flute, a Copley, in fact, it
worked a lot better. So, as a matter of sheer practicality,
I use a lined flute in that venue. The tonal differences
between these flutes makes a significant difference
in that circumstance. If I was performing with that group
I would use a lined flute, and if somebody said it doesn't
matter what flute I use, the embouchure and the player
are all, the flute can't make a real difference, well,
that's false.

Again, on the street, the Olwell Pratten is going to serve me
better than my 1830s rudall copy--Dave M told me when
I bought it that it isn't a loud flute. The Olwell is a good
deal more audible.

There's a mistake I think is being made--it's a flute board,
we're going to ask questions about differences between
flutes, that's part of what it's for. Often the questions
will be out of curiousity. The fact is that flutes aint' vanilla,
there are actually differences in sound. What's happening
is that people who ask about those differences here,
as naturally they will, are answered as though they
have an agenda other than getting info--it's that they
are flitting from flute to flute, trying to solve their problems
by getting yet another flute, not by improving their
performance and practicing and getting instruction.
Now that agenda is foolish, I agree, but the problem is
that people are being given this talking-to routinely
who don't have the agenda. There is a tendency to
jump to the conclusion that anybody who asks about
a tonal difference tween instruments has it, or who
asserts that there are tonal differences tween
flutes has it, and then
we explain again that looking for the FLUTE is a mistake...
and so on.

Maybe we could have a moratorium? I think what you're
saying is mostly true and important, but the fact remains
that the tonal differences between flutes can make
a substantial difference in how we perform in various
venues--even if we can improve our performance more
by improving our embouchure than by shifting flutes.

Also maybe we could set aside awhile the idea that the
person who thinks that, say, the Olwell Pratten is a louder
flute than the 19th century Rudall, ceteris paribus, and sowill do better in this venue than flute B has revealed that he isnt' practicing like the devil
to improve his embouchure. Again that's jumping to
a conclusion.

And also, it might be helpful if we set aside the idea that
anybody who asks about a tonal difference between
flutes is considering buying another flute.

Again, the point that our ability as flautists is probably the
chief determinant of our sound is a good one, it's been
made several times, and we agree, I think, most of us know
it. It is consistent with it that there are differences between
flutes that it's reasonable even for us to take into account, that some
of them will do better than others in various circumstances in
which we play, that they have different strengths and
weaknesses, and that asking and answering questions
about all this can give us practically helpful info.

[Doug_Tipple]

The player and the embouchure are important, no question,
but no, they're not everything.

You are of course correct, the player and his/her embouchure and blowing technique only account for 99% of tone and volume production.



Loren

Loren, I am guessing (I don't know this for a fact, though) that the 99% of tone and volume that you attribute to embouchure and blowing technique best describes the ratio of Jim's sexual craving to his need for power, as he suggests. Or did I get that backwards?

[Loren]

Well, I simply can't agree with you Jim. I have now had the opportunity to spend time around some really, really fine players, and I don't mean sitting in a crowded and noisy class somewhere for a weekend or whatever.

The difference in the sound they produce, relative to what the likes of you and I can do, is so vastly different, and is so repeatable FROM ONE INSTRUMENT TO ANOTHER, that it simply lays your theories to waste. You may have missed it in a previous post, because I left it out of my last telling, but one of the things I've mentioned before, is that when I heard Peter Molloy play these different flutes (which my friends and I had been comparing, with regards tonal differences and such) they all sounded virtually IDENTICAL, they all sounded like Peter Molloy blasting on his Olwell Pratten, regardless of the flute.

So you can talk till you're blue in the face about subtle differences, I'm not saying they don't exist, but focusing on subtle differences between flutes, when one is a mediocre player at best, as most of us are, is putting the cart so far ahead of the horse, that you might as well be travelling backwards.

I'm not being critical of anyone's approach, it is clear that many people choose to live in denial, rather than simply bucking up and doing the hard work. The choice is, obviously, yours to make.


Loren

[jim stone]

Well, I simply can't agree with you Jim. I have now had the opportunity to spend time around some really, really fine players, and I don't mean sitting in a crowded and noisy class somewhere for a weekend or whatever.

The difference in the sound they produce, relative to what the likes of you and I can do, is so vastly different, and is so repeatable FROM ONE INSTRUMENT TO ANOTHER, that it simply lays your theories to waste. You may have missed it in a previous post, because I left it out of my last telling, but one of the things I've mentioned before, is that when I heard Peter Molloy play these different flutes (which my friends and I had been comparing, with regards tonal differences and such) they all sounded virtually IDENTICAL, they all sounded like Peter Molloy blasting on his Olwell Pratten, regardless of the flute.

So you can talk till you're blue in the face about subtle differences, I'm not saying they don't exist, but focusing on subtle differences between flutes, when one is a mediocre player at best, as most of us are, is putting the cart so far ahead of the horse, that you might as well be travelling backwards.

I'm not being critical of anyone's approach, it is clear that many people choose to live in denial, rather than simply bucking up and doing the hard work. The choice is, obviously, yours to make.


Loren

See, Loren, the point is that I agree with you about Molloy--I remember
you're saying this awhile ago. I took it seriously, I believed and
believe you.

And I agree with you that, in learning the flute, it's important
to concentrate on learning the flute and not trying to find
a short-cut by looking for another flute.

What I disagree with is the inference I think you're drawing.

When I play on the street it's STILL a good idea to take
the Olwell Pratten, not the Atwill 1832 Rudall. Nothing you
say entails it isn't.

And if somebody says--I want to busk and be heard. Which
is better, the Olwell Pratten or the ATwill Rudall? I will
tell him the Pratten is better. Nothing you say entails
it isn't.

And if I wish to be heard in the hammered dulcimer group
it's STILL a good idea to play a lined flute, just
as Patrick advises. Nothing you say entails it isn't.

What's happening is that you are inferring from your
true premisses about Molloy and the folly of trying
to learn flute by shifting about looking for the flute
that will solve your problems, that questions like 'Do Olwell Prattens
tend to be louder that Atwill Rudalls?' and 'Do lined
Olwells tend to cut through noise better than
unlined Olwells?' are somehow frivolous or reveal
the person is looking for THE FLUTE.

It just doesn't follow.

[Loren]

What's happening is that you are inferring from your
true premisses about Molloy and the folly of trying
to learn flute by shifting about looking for the flute
that will solve your problems, that questions like 'Do Olwell Prattens
tend to be louder that Atwill Rudalls?' and 'Do lined
Olwells tend to cut through noise better than
unlined Olwells?' are somehow frivolous or reveal
the person is looking for THE FLUTE.

It just doesn't follow.

No, Jim, you are making incorrect assumptions about what I infer, which is why, I imagine, you are missing my point. I am earnestly attempting to be helpful, so I'll attempt again, to make the point which I am trying to get across:

To wit: For those who have not yet fully developed their embouchure, breath support, and all the things that go along with that, any minor differences between flutes is a moot point, because when you have inferior tone, and a weak embouchure, you can't get the best out of any flute, and so any comparisons are woefully flawed and doomed to failure.

You see, I don't automatically assume that everyone who asks the questions about how one flute compares to another is looking for a new flute, although in your case I do, because you've gone from flute, to flute, to flute, but I digress........ I typically don't assume either way, what I do assume is that the person asking hasn't developed a good embouchure yet, otherwise they wouldn't be asking the question - we're not likely to see Harry posting here asking these questions, for example. Now, having made that single assumption, I need make no others - if you don't really have a well developed embouchure and all that goes along with it, even thinking about differences between flutes is a useless exercise, because A) You don't yet have the ability to bring out the best in the flute, B) Because improving your embouchure will improve your tone and volume on the flute you currently have, far more than switching to another flute and, C) If you aren't thinking of buying a different flute, and you are simply interested in the cerebral exercise of learning about the differences in flutes by asking, you've come to the wrong place, because most people who post here are not good enough players themselves to be able to answer the question.

So really, the whole exercise of asking seems to become one of nothing more than mental masturbation of a sort, if you'll forgive my vulgarity.

A really fine player can play an unlined HJ Olwell of any variety with a very Penetrating tone that cuts like a knife, and just as easily play a lined HJ Cocus Olwell Pratten with such a sweet, soft, tone that you'll swear you're hearing an old, small bore, small tone hole boxwood Baroque flute. So, once again, it's in the player, not the flute. Time spent on figuring out how to get the sounds you want out of the flute you have pays FAR higher dividends than time spent searching for info on other flutes, and teaches you more by direct experience, than you could possibly hope to get by asking others, even experts.

So, that being the case, what is the point in asking all the questions? They lead nowhere! Neither the answers given by others, nor the flutes they may recommend, will get you any closer to knowing about, or achieving better tone.

This is classic Zen right here Jim, the monkey mind, hard at play, swinging joyfully through the synapses in your mind. It is not about analyzing data, or acquiring, it is simply about doing. Through practice we achieve what we seek. Seeking for the answers outside of practice is not the way, it is the monkey's playground.


Loren

[johnkerr]

I was playing an unlined D Olwell in a hammered
dulcimer group and it didn't cut through; when I
reached for a lined flute, a Copley, in fact, it
worked a lot better.

By whose perception, yours or the audience's, did it work a lot better? I'd be willing to bet that the audience noticed no difference between the two flutes. Maybe you got a better-sounding, less harsh tone with one over the other, but from a hearability standpointthey were no doubt the same. Also, keep in mind that the percieved differences in the sound you hear yourself making with the two flutes are going to be magnified a thousand times more than the differences the audience will hear. That's the nature of flute playing.

So, as a matter of sheer practicality,
I use a lined flute in that venue. The tonal differences
between these flutes makes a significant difference
in that circumstance. If I was performing with that group
I would use a lined flute, and if somebody said it doesn't
matter what flute I use, the embouchure and the player
are all, the flute can't make a real difference, well,
that's false..

No, it's true. Assuming one of the flutes isn't a leaking piece of crap, a good flute player will get the same or very similar sound out of both of them. If you don't, then that means that you as a player have not yet reached the point where you get the same sound (YOUR sound) out of every flute. If you'll forgive me for saying it, this means that you are not good enough yet. Don't feel bad - it can take years to get to this point. Also, keep in mind that just because you hear differences from one flute to the next when you play, that doesn't mean a listener will. To them, both flutes will sound exactly the same. I bet if you asked Peter Molloy if he heard differences when he played the two flutes for Loren, he would say that he did. But the differences he would cite would be subtle things, not the gross genearlizations you're using, i.e. "this flute cuts through better than that one." No, your playing of this flute may appear (to you) to cut through better than your playing of that flute. But that says everything about your playing, and nothing about the relative qualities of the two flutes.

Again, on the street, the Olwell Pratten is going to serve me better than my 1830s rudall copy--Dave M told me when
I bought it that it isn't a loud flute. The Olwell is a good
deal more audible.

No, the Olwell is a good deal easier for you to play more audibly.

There's a mistake I think is being made--it's a flute board,
we're going to ask questions about differences between
flutes, that's part of what it's for. Often the questions
will be out of curiousity. The fact is that flutes aint' vanilla,
there are actually differences in sound. What's happening
is that people who ask about those differences here,
as naturally they will, are answered as though they
have an agenda other than getting info--it's that they
are flitting from flute to flute, trying to solve their problems
by getting yet another flute, not by improving their
performance and practicing and getting instruction.
Now that agenda is foolish, I agree, but the problem is
that people are being given this talking-to routinely
who don't have the agenda. There is a tendency to
jump to the conclusion that anybody who asks about
a tonal difference tween instruments has it, or who
asserts that there are tonal differences tween
flutes has it, and then
we explain again that looking for the FLUTE is a mistake...
and so on.

Maybe we could have a moratorium? I think what you're
saying is mostly true and important, but the fact remains
that the tonal differences between flutes can make
a substantial difference in how we perform in various
venues--even if we can improve our performance more
by improving our embouchure than by shifting flutes.

Also maybe we could set aside awhile the idea that the
person who thinks that, say, the Olwell Pratten is a louder
flute than the 19th century Rudall, ceteris paribus, and sowill do better in this venue than flute B has revealed that he isnt' practicing like the devil
to improve his embouchure. Again that's jumping to
a conclusion.

And also, it might be helpful if we set aside the idea that
anybody who asks about a tonal difference between
flutes is considering buying another flute.

But Jim, didn't you start this thread by asking if there was a flute that would be louder than your Olwell Pratten, even though you now say that the Olwell does the job for you? Aren't you contradicting yourself now?

Again, the point that our ability as flautists is probably the
chief determinant of our sound is a good one, it's been
made several times, and we agree, I think, most of us know
it. It is consistent with it that there are differences between
flutes that it's reasonable even for us to take into account, that some
of them will do better than others in various circumstances in
which we play, that they have different strengths and
weaknesses, and that asking and answering questions
about all this can give us practically helpful info..

No. When the only differences you can cite between two flutes is "this one is louder than that one" or "this one cuts through better than that one", that's not "practically helpful info" (whatever that means). It's nothing but useless broad generalizations that just reveal the speaker's own limitations as a player. Unless you're now playing a total piece of crap, 99.9% of the people on this board (myself included) would be much better off practicing and learning to play the flutes we have, rather than wasting energy looking for another flute. JMHO.

[Loren]

I bet if you asked Peter Molloy if he heard differences when he played the two flutes for Loren, he would say that he did. But the differences he would cite would be subtle things, not the gross genearlizations you're using, i.e. "this flute cuts through better than that one.

This is, in fact, exactly what happened.

No, your playing of this flute may appear (to you) to cut through better than your playing of that flute. But that says everything about your playing, and nothing about the relative qualities of the two flutes.

One of the things I was getting at, but failed to express well.


Loren