conical vs cylindrical flutes: that irish sound ??

Berti66 · Post by **Berti66** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:18 pm

OK this is going to sound a bit silly but I am really curious.
Going to make a fool of myself here

What are the exact differences between playing conical/ cylindrical flutes and esp the differences in sound, and using these in trad music.
I of course am still a newbie and have been playing two months now, on a dixon polymer and a tallgrass.

I have found, despite my teacher wanting me to practice on my tallgrass I strongly prefer the conical dixon because I find the music fits on this one much better, esp since I mostly like to play slow airs.....there is something in the sound of this dixon that I cannot explain which the tallgrass doesn't have...
For the faster tunes, I feel they fit well on both, where the tallgrass adds a nice touch because it is more responsive...

Would like to hear your experiences....agree, disagree and why
Berti

okay now you can have a laughing fit......

Onager · Post by **Onager** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:53 am

Not a dumb question. The biggest practical difference between the two is that a conical bore's octaves are more in tune with each other than with the cylindrical. I think the differences in tone might have more to do with the heads of the two flutes (as well as the materials), rather than the bores.

Jayhawk · Post by **Jayhawk** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:05 am

To complicate matters, bamboo is usually not truly cylindrical since bamboo has a natural, usually slight conicality.

Is your teacher wanting you to play the bamboo simply because he/she feels it is more responsive? I had a dixon conical, and I thought it quite responsive...

Eric

sturob · Post by **sturob** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:05 am

I think there are a ton of variables here, Berti, and I agree with my democratic friend Onager that it may not just be bores.

Your teacher wants you to work on the Tallgrass, you prefer the Dixon. The first thing that comes to mind is that you need to remember that the flute you're playing sounds very different to you than it does to your teacher. Meaning, what we're playing sounds one way to us, and more or less VERY different to an audience. That's just the nature of playing an instrument (or singing), but you might want to give some thought as to why your teacher might say that.

Conical vs. cylindrical bores in flutes, in my opinion, have much less to do with the timbre of the sound than they do with the tuning. It's not like in bagpipes, wherein a cylindrically-bored chanter (SSP, Northumbrians) sound very different from a conically-bored chanter (uilleann, GHB). The main questions become those of tuning, and it's harder to have a purely-cylindrical bore sound in tune for more than an octave or two. This is why there tend to be a lot of tuning issues in bamboo flutes and (low) whistles.

Modern silver flutes ("Böhm" flutes) aren't just cylindrical flutes; in the Böhm design, the taper is restricted to the headjoint. In our simple-system flutes, generally the headjoint is cylindrical and the body tapers. There are even simple-system designs that are more or less purely cylindrical (cf. Metzler's cylindrical, a copy of which may still be made by Terry McGee).

People do make comments about conical vs. cylindrical tone in that some think that conical tone may be a little more "complex," as in the tone of something like a Copeland whistle vs. an Abell. I for one am more of the opinion that the more design, for whistles and flutes, has a much bigger effect of the tuning than the tone, but that's just me. And, I also find your comment about responsiveness interesting: I'd tend to think that conical designs are more responsive than cylindrical ones, but that's a sweeping generalization. I like playing bamboo flutes when I want the chiff-clunk of an octave shift . . . oh, well!

Stuart