Terry has just the best website, with exhaustive detail on all aspects of Irish flute, including how he arrived at his own innovations. Does anyone here feel qualified to comment on how his 8-key flutes compare to the originals he copied and supposedly improved? Did he really succeed in building a better mousetrap?
Terry's flutes have good tuning, a choice of embouchures, and everyone I've heard likes his functional, effective, non-fussy keys. The latter point matters because lots of folks have issues with keys bending, getting out of alignment, poor ergonomics, developing leaks. His service is very good, he holds to his delivery dates, he answers e-mails quickly, and very willing to discuss how what you as a player want can be delivered. Many report that his flutes are "easy to play" which usually means a forgiving embouchure. I've heard more people rave about his Grey Larsen preferred model than any other model, and some hike the sheer volume of his Pratten.
Not many recorded artists play his flutes (see Wooden Flute Obsession web site which lists artists and what they play-very illuminating). Some say the tone on his flutes isn't as complex as other flutes, and have wondered if forgiving embouchures account for this. Enthusiasm seems more muted for his Rudall models.
I ordered a Rudall refined from him-workmanship (care in finishing bore, finesse of fingerholes, fitting of joints, fitting of rings) was in the middle of the 5 flutes I've owned. I had the modern embouchure, and if I was doing it again, would certainly get the "improved elliptical". I don't own this flute any more. It was my first flute. I chose it because of the fantastic web-site, and his science-based approach, which appealed to me. My sense is that McGees are fine flute to begin with, solid, and reliable, but there's flutes out there that appeal to me more.
Thanks, Hugh, for your detailed and thorough answer. Odd to hear that the GLP is so favored, given the smaller holes and reduced number of keys (I really like having the lower keys for trad songs I play that benefit from them).
I am aware of the fact that his flutes are not favored by recording artists. You may have seen my thread about Sam Murray flutes being so favored on the WFO CDs.
Based on your comments, I coming to appreciate my luck in getting the flute I have, and having it properly restored. Thanks again for your answer.
Interesting to hear your thoughts Hugh, My first flute was also a McGee Rudall.
It was fairly easy to get a sound out of, but I had real problems with the tuning. I actually found that when i moved on to a 'proper' flute i had developed a number of bad technique habits to compensate, and it took me a good year or so to 'unlearn' these.
In this way i am very luke warm over McGee's as begginner flutes, esp. when there are a number of good alternitives for the price. BUT it is true that his website is a wonderful resource.
i have to jump in here. i've had two keyless mcgees, two different rudall models, the refined is easier to play in tune, probably as much because it has the smaller eliptical embochure as anything. both are loud. i've settled on one of his six key prattens which, to my ear, sounds as good as any iv'e encountered of any maker, it's a few years old and has been back to him for tuning and tweaking intonation, it rocks, i can't imagine finding one that i would like better, although i'm sure there are a few. terry is great to deal with and has an incredible amount of knowledge about the flutes we play, historic and modern. all that said, i started on a seery delrin, it's taken several years to sort out what flute really suits.
I guess i should say that i did get my McGee a long time ago (nearly ten years ago) and I have heard some reports that his instruments have improved of late (though none of the more recent one's of his i've played really back this up), but I'd still guide my student's to other (usually overseas) makers due to my experiences stated above... Which breaks my heart because I'd love the Aussie flute crew to all be playing Aussie instruments... but the simple fact is that McGees are below par and Grinters are just too fr'ckin expensive!
I have to say, I have a McGee GLP with the improved elliptical embouchure and 6 keys. And I am very happy with it. Mine is about 1 year old, so I don't know if SirNose's experience is typical, but I and everyone who has played my flute has liked it. I can also confirm that Terry is great to deal with and very helpful.
Any difference in embouchure can make a huge change in the flute's sound and takes a lot of getting used to. Terry offers a lot of embouchure options, so maybe people have problems relating to a wooden flute with what can, in the case of the rounded rectangles embouchure, amount to a modern Boehm Embouchure. And these tend to be played in a very different style to the traditional wooden flute embouchures (smaller, rounder, e.t.c.). However his improved elliptical embouchure is very close to the traditional.
(If I want to got lower than D then I get my Boehm out (B-foot) or an even lower A wooden flute...)
Ailin here - Thank you all for your responses. This has been a great discussion, so far. One of the reasons I started this thread was because, in any endeavor that becomes a passion, we, the obsessed, tend to go in search of the Holy Grail. In the Boehm world, you can invest many thousands of dollars on a head joint, alone. And in stereo equipment, you can buy solid copper speaker wire at $100 a foot. I tend to think that at some point you reach a point of diminishing returns.
In the case of Terry's flutes, it seems he has put the most effort into trying to not only replicate, but improve the 19th Century designs for flute. And yet, by the responses I've gotten, it appears that, at best, he makes a decent flute. When it comes to embouchure, I can't imagine that you could make an intelligent choice without first trying the flute, which with most makers isn't very practical. Regarding the overall design, isn't it funny that the GLP is getting good reviews, when on the face of it, it doesn't sound to me like what an Irish player would want. Why the devil would one opt for a instrument with the smallest of tone holes unless you had tried one first?
Even though I have been playing for a long time, I tend to be very insecure about my abilities, and what to blame my shortcomings on (me or the instrument). Fortunately, there's a lot more information out there now than there was when I started, and I'm finding that many of the problems players complain about are due to issues that don't exist on my flute. the two things that account for a lot of improvement I'm experiencing right now is better attention to my embouchure and realizing that the more I play, the better I get (duh!).
I would guess that others reading this thread may (or perhaps, should) come away with the notion that you can't go by maker or design - you have to get out there and play every flute you can get your hands on until you find that one that speaks to your soul.
There is endless debate on the Chiff and Fipple flute forum about flutes, and the contribution of the flute vs the player. The consensus is that it's mostly the player, because the same player gets very similar sounds out of different flutes. Nevertheless, people do have different preferences. I think that while one can get pretty much any sound out of any well-made flute, some sounds are easier to get out of some flutes than others. This isn't universal, but player specific, given that we each bring our own jaws, teeth, and lips to the embouchure. Same with ergonomics. Small differences in weight, balance, hole placement can make a big difference to how one reacts to a flute. At some point, it is worth playing every flute you can get your hands on to see which one sings for you for whatever reason.
So I have certainly been guilty of flute-rollling. I've had the McGee, a Bryan Bryne, my present Aebi, and a Jon C (Cochrane) delrin flute in Rudallesque flutes, and Paddy Ward Hawkes in a Prattenesque flutes in less than two years.
There isn't a magic flute. As I get better, so do the flutes. Any of them would have been more than good enough to learn on. It would have been sensible to have played for a couple years, and then tried a bunch of flutes once I had a stable embouchure. This would have saved time and money. Time because it takes a while to get used to any flute, whereas if I had stuck with one, the same time could have been used to improve. Regardless of sensibleness, I am improving anyway, and having fun. I've learned a lot about what matters to me, and what doesn't. As only the McGee and Aebi were bought new, and used flutes hold their value well, it hasn't cost me a great deal to get a lot of experience.
Hmmmm, Sir Nose's assessment is probably the best-informed of all those above. I know him and his playing, and terry's flutes.
BUT .... Although I play a Grinter which I'll probably die with, and is superb, I have to stick up for Terry's flutes. He made a huge quantum leap in the late 90s and his previous easily played models suddenly became world-class.
It surprised me. I had waited 15 years or more for this to happen, after buying my first flute, a McGee Rudall, in 1981. Now I like what he does, and i don't think the tuning problems are that bad, Sir Nose. Maybe you just got a lot better when you went to a Grinter from an old-generation McGee ( which is exectly what happened to me).
Now when i hop on a McGee it just soars. So yes, i can recommend terry's flutes for beginners.
I look forward to trying his newer models. I bare no ill-will towards Terry, in fact his playing had a huge influence on me when i was first starting - and it was indeed Mr Dan Gordon playing a flute solo on one of terry's flutes at a gig that first turned me towards the Dark Paths of Tune...
(but i can confirm that, upon going back to my first flute after this discussion came up, that the flute is as unevenly out-of-tune as i remembered, and the cork-lined joints had swelled to a point where it was almost impossible to put together - does he still do this? I think in a climate as variable as Oz the flexibility of string joints is a huge advantage)
Let me reiterate the purpose of this thread. I am not in the market for a flute, so I am not looking for an assessment of Terry's flutes, per se. I want to know if anyone claiming to have improved upon the 19th Century designs have truly succeeded. A good flute is a good flute, but has anyone come up with a modification that has resulted in an improvement that, for example, means that so-and-so's headjoint would always be superior to the inherent design of the 19th Century version?
I think your question raises an interesting point about flute design.
The basic truth is that the original 19th century models had their quirks, esp. tuning wise (flat Ds, slightly sharp As and Bs, massive tonal difference between notes eg. F# to E etc) - but it seems that Irish flute playing as a style has evolved to actually make these quirks into an intergral part of the sound (-eg the extra support needed to get the low Ds in tune give you the classic hard D sound).
Now, as i've said, I've owned both a Grinter and a McGee, and i think they are both prime examples of two opposed schools of thought. Grinter has an obsessional attention to detail to make intruments that in every way emulate the classic flutes of the 19th (which involved a large amount of research to find the right "classic" flutes to model from) and McGee has struck out on his own and tried to "correct" the failings of the older instruments.
This has meant that Terry makes flutes (in my experience) that play very well for someone who has not really played before. My McGee actually plays beautifully in tune if you put almost no air through it, but this ensures a whistly, breathy tone with zero body. As soon as you put even the slightest amount of air through it (and long before you are applying anything close to diaphramic support) the whole thing goes out of tune, overblows up the octave constantely and gets quite an excessive breathe hiss. I found this overblowing problem to actually be worse in one of his more recent flutes that i tried early last year.
I guess this is why I am hesitent to suggest his flutes to students. They DO play nicely in tune when you are first starting out, but this over-responsiveness tends to act as a disincentive to work towards the tone, volume and support needed to get an "irish" sound.
I think a lot of what you have said relative to the old flutes says more about the quality of the flutemaking than the technology of the times. My flute was made in 1882, and exhibits none of the deficiencies you cite whether played in classical style or Irish. From this, I conclude that a well-made 19th Century flute can be everything a flute should be. However, that does not mean it can't be louder (if that's what you want) or easier to play, if someone can find the means to make those improvements. That's what Boehm set out to do, except he acccomplished his goal by redesigning instrument from the ground - up. I think it may be possible to design a better key configuration (playing b-flat on the eight-key is really awkward), or a better embouchure (has anyone ever considered an embouchure plate? I find it lots easier to stay "centered" on my Boehm than on a wooden). I just don't know if anyone has made a better flute; and by better, I mean an improved design, not a "fix" for poor intonation or tone production.
how else would you define design? lip plates? (terry does do a carved wooden lip-plate model which plays well) key placement? - almost every maker, 19th century and today, has differnt key placement, it really is a case of what you are used to ( my flute has a left thumb Bb key which i find easy enough to use, yet a good friend of mine has a early 19th Century German flute with the Bb key brought down to the right thumb - I can't use the thing but she loves it). But what is the point of redisgning a flute if not to effect it's playability and tone?
and on the point of intonation, a lot of players, both classical and irish, and a heck of a lot better than me have commented on the tuning tendencies of 19C flutes - and i do mean tendencies, the flutes are not 'out of tune' - they just require more embrouchure adjustment on every note. I assume you arn't arguing that there is no tunal difference between pre-Boehm/Boehm flutes...
What Boehm did is an engineering miracle. The idea that you can have a thumb key that can be continously depressed to make the "b" flat wthout affecting any other note on the instrument (the only such key on the instrument, I believe), is worth the price of admission by itself. I don't need to make any adjustments to get good intonation on my flute, although I have played plenty of flutes that required that, so I know what you are talking about. Even the Boehm flute requires some "lipping," however, because of the affect dynamics have on intonation.
The "standard" eight-key flute configuration is like yours, although you are correct in saying there are variations. I'm not arguing for or against anything here. As I said at the outset, I am just curious as to whether anyone feels that a modern flutemaker (whether Terry McGee or someone else) has built a better mousetrap. Has anyone taken the 19th Century design to the next level? The examples I gave were for illustration only (although the lip-plate idea does kind of appeal to me). I understand that some makers in the 19th Century actually altered the bore size along the conical shape to improve intonation. It seems that this concept could be taken forward by electronic means if there were value in that approach. Possibly the best analogy I can give you is with the bodhran. Tunable drums are now commonplace, and I would guess that just about every player values the ability to have a means by which to adjust head tension. This is an improvement that would affect my choice of drums. On the other hand, I can't get excited about delrin flutes (although the choice of that material is probably more about cost than function, but you get the idea). Anyway, I thought it would make for an interesting discussion.
It is interesting that an instrument like the Bodhran continues to evolve (taped edges, double skins, single/double ended playing) Whereas the flute, on one level, has been 'fixed'... but then again, so has the fiddle.
From personal experience I've tried Terry's G-sharp key style, but felt i was too used to my placement...
I think the work Grinter's done on the interchangable Eb-D-C bodies for the same head/foot joints is bloody amazing, no tuning issues and It still feels like the same instrument no matter which body you use. I'm no instrument maker but i know the physics took him years to ensure even tuning across the different bodies... oh how i wish my older Grinter D was compatible with these!! - but apparently he's had to completely re-design the head and foot joints to make this work so i'll have to admire from afar (or buy a house to mortage against to afford a whole new setup )
And in terms of keys, I once had a go of Niall Keegan's flute, I've got no idea who made it etc, but he had a very interesting key setup, all mounted on pins, that had actual (curly) springs, which meant the action of the keys was quite light yet still sealed quite well. This was years ago, but i seem to remember the flute had quite a straight bore as well...
Returning to Ailin's original question, I think that flute makers in the baroque flute (which I've played a lot), and the Irish flute (which I've played for just short of two years) worlds originally copied originals as faithfully as they could manage. With more research, discoveries of flutes hidden away and unmeasured, this has resulted in improvements as better originals have been found. We tend to forget that the orginal makers were tweaking their designs as they went along, and that some were better than others. Other old flutes are better preserved, less warped, etc. and give a better indication of what the maker was aiming for. So there have been improvements simply from finding better originals.
I am not trying to imply that "faithful copiers" aren't improving their flutes. Naturally they get better with practice like anyone else. Even those who started out being known for their close copies (Wilkes, Grinter, Byrne, eg) have been adapting their flutes in the past few years for more volume or projection while retaining a complex tone in response to consumer demand.
Other makers have set out to improve the flute. Some are copying existing originals, and then tweaking (usually) the bore size, hole size, and hole placement for tuning or ergonomic reasons. Aebi is an example. Others are making flutes that combine aspects of Rudall and Pratten flutes (eg Copley), or that are only loosely based on originals (some Olwell models), or that are based on a combination of original and modern flutes (Watson eg). Simon Polak has an interesting discussion on his website about copying vs improving baroque flutes.
I bet that all long established makers are making flutes that are different than they used to make, and that most people would find newer flutes as improvements over ones made 15 years ago. For sessions, give me a modern copy with tweaked tuning. While I love my baroque flute, going back to it and having to tune nearly every note after playing my Aebi which has great tuning is a shock.
Perhaps it's a finer distinction than I thought. I think there is a difference between trying to make a better flute as opposed to taking an inherent flaw and finding a way to work around it, which is why I picked Terry McGee as the example. He has set out to take something he saw as a flaw, rather than a lack of craftsmanship, and find a way to temper the flaw so the flute would be fundamentally better, not just better made.
Regarding Baroque vs. early Rudall & Rose vs. Pratten, etc. my opinion is that late 19th Century flutes probably represent the best of what an Irish flute should be, both because of a century's worth of tweaking, and because the instruments are generally louder due to the Pratten and Boehm influence. I am mystified over the popularity the McGee GLP flute is enjoying. Is it because it is easier for a beginner? It seems to be the antithesis of a Pratten flute, which I would think would be the Gold Standard of Irish flutes, no?
Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Terry has just the best website, with exhaustive detail on all aspects of Irish flute, including how he arrived at his own innovations. Does anyone here feel qualified to comment on how his 8-key flutes compare to the originals he copied and supposedly improved? Did he really succeed in building a better mousetrap?
# Posted on March 1st 2007 by Ailin
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Terry's flutes have good tuning, a choice of embouchures, and everyone I've heard likes his functional, effective, non-fussy keys. The latter point matters because lots of folks have issues with keys bending, getting out of alignment, poor ergonomics, developing leaks. His service is very good, he holds to his delivery dates, he answers e-mails quickly, and very willing to discuss how what you as a player want can be delivered. Many report that his flutes are "easy to play" which usually means a forgiving embouchure. I've heard more people rave about his Grey Larsen preferred model than any other model, and some hike the sheer volume of his Pratten.
Not many recorded artists play his flutes (see Wooden Flute Obsession web site which lists artists and what they play-very illuminating). Some say the tone on his flutes isn't as complex as other flutes, and have wondered if forgiving embouchures account for this. Enthusiasm seems more muted for his Rudall models.
I ordered a Rudall refined from him-workmanship (care in finishing bore, finesse of fingerholes, fitting of joints, fitting of rings) was in the middle of the 5 flutes I've owned. I had the modern embouchure, and if I was doing it again, would certainly get the "improved elliptical". I don't own this flute any more. It was my first flute. I chose it because of the fantastic web-site, and his science-based approach, which appealed to me. My sense is that McGees are fine flute to begin with, solid, and reliable, but there's flutes out there that appeal to me more.
Hugh
# Posted on March 1st 2007 by flutefry
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Thanks, Hugh, for your detailed and thorough answer. Odd to hear that the GLP is so favored, given the smaller holes and reduced number of keys (I really like having the lower keys for trad songs I play that benefit from them).
I am aware of the fact that his flutes are not favored by recording artists. You may have seen my thread about Sam Murray flutes being so favored on the WFO CDs.
Based on your comments, I coming to appreciate my luck in getting the flute I have, and having it properly restored. Thanks again for your answer.
# Posted on March 1st 2007 by Ailin
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Interesting to hear your thoughts Hugh, My first flute was also a McGee Rudall.
It was fairly easy to get a sound out of, but I had real problems with the tuning. I actually found that when i moved on to a 'proper' flute i had developed a number of bad technique habits to compensate, and it took me a good year or so to 'unlearn' these.
In this way i am very luke warm over McGee's as begginner flutes, esp. when there are a number of good alternitives for the price. BUT it is true that his website is a wonderful resource.
# Posted on March 2nd 2007 by SirNose
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
i have to jump in here. i've had two keyless mcgees, two different rudall models, the refined is easier to play in tune, probably as much because it has the smaller eliptical embochure as anything. both are loud. i've settled on one of his six key prattens which, to my ear, sounds as good as any iv'e encountered of any maker, it's a few years old and has been back to him for tuning and tweaking intonation, it rocks, i can't imagine finding one that i would like better, although i'm sure there are a few. terry is great to deal with and has an incredible amount of knowledge about the flutes we play, historic and modern. all that said, i started on a seery delrin, it's taken several years to sort out what flute really suits.
# Posted on March 2nd 2007 by Dont
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
I guess i should say that i did get my McGee a long time ago (nearly ten years ago) and I have heard some reports that his instruments have improved of late (though none of the more recent one's of his i've played really back this up), but I'd still guide my student's to other (usually overseas) makers due to my experiences stated above... Which breaks my heart because I'd love the Aussie flute crew to all be playing Aussie instruments... but the simple fact is that McGees are below par and Grinters are just too fr'ckin expensive!
# Posted on March 2nd 2007 by SirNose
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
I have to say, I have a McGee GLP with the improved elliptical embouchure and 6 keys. And I am very happy with it. Mine is about 1 year old, so I don't know if SirNose's experience is typical, but I and everyone who has played my flute has liked it. I can also confirm that Terry is great to deal with and very helpful.
Any difference in embouchure can make a huge change in the flute's sound and takes a lot of getting used to. Terry offers a lot of embouchure options, so maybe people have problems relating to a wooden flute with what can, in the case of the rounded rectangles embouchure, amount to a modern Boehm Embouchure. And these tend to be played in a very different style to the traditional wooden flute embouchures (smaller, rounder, e.t.c.). However his improved elliptical embouchure is very close to the traditional.
(If I want to got lower than D then I get my Boehm out (B-foot) or an even lower A wooden flute...)
# Posted on March 2nd 2007 by Crackpot
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Ailin here - Thank you all for your responses. This has been a great discussion, so far. One of the reasons I started this thread was because, in any endeavor that becomes a passion, we, the obsessed, tend to go in search of the Holy Grail. In the Boehm world, you can invest many thousands of dollars on a head joint, alone. And in stereo equipment, you can buy solid copper speaker wire at $100 a foot. I tend to think that at some point you reach a point of diminishing returns.
In the case of Terry's flutes, it seems he has put the most effort into trying to not only replicate, but improve the 19th Century designs for flute. And yet, by the responses I've gotten, it appears that, at best, he makes a decent flute. When it comes to embouchure, I can't imagine that you could make an intelligent choice without first trying the flute, which with most makers isn't very practical. Regarding the overall design, isn't it funny that the GLP is getting good reviews, when on the face of it, it doesn't sound to me like what an Irish player would want. Why the devil would one opt for a instrument with the smallest of tone holes unless you had tried one first?
Even though I have been playing for a long time, I tend to be very insecure about my abilities, and what to blame my shortcomings on (me or the instrument). Fortunately, there's a lot more information out there now than there was when I started, and I'm finding that many of the problems players complain about are due to issues that don't exist on my flute. the two things that account for a lot of improvement I'm experiencing right now is better attention to my embouchure and realizing that the more I play, the better I get (duh!).
I would guess that others reading this thread may (or perhaps, should) come away with the notion that you can't go by maker or design - you have to get out there and play every flute you can get your hands on until you find that one that speaks to your soul.
Cheers.
# Posted on March 2nd 2007 by Ailin
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
There is endless debate on the Chiff and Fipple flute forum about flutes, and the contribution of the flute vs the player. The consensus is that it's mostly the player, because the same player gets very similar sounds out of different flutes. Nevertheless, people do have different preferences. I think that while one can get pretty much any sound out of any well-made flute, some sounds are easier to get out of some flutes than others. This isn't universal, but player specific, given that we each bring our own jaws, teeth, and lips to the embouchure. Same with ergonomics. Small differences in weight, balance, hole placement can make a big difference to how one reacts to a flute. At some point, it is worth playing every flute you can get your hands on to see which one sings for you for whatever reason.
So I have certainly been guilty of flute-rollling. I've had the McGee, a Bryan Bryne, my present Aebi, and a Jon C (Cochrane) delrin flute in Rudallesque flutes, and Paddy Ward Hawkes in a Prattenesque flutes in less than two years.
There isn't a magic flute. As I get better, so do the flutes. Any of them would have been more than good enough to learn on. It would have been sensible to have played for a couple years, and then tried a bunch of flutes once I had a stable embouchure. This would have saved time and money. Time because it takes a while to get used to any flute, whereas if I had stuck with one, the same time could have been used to improve. Regardless of sensibleness, I am improving anyway, and having fun. I've learned a lot about what matters to me, and what doesn't. As only the McGee and Aebi were bought new, and used flutes hold their value well, it hasn't cost me a great deal to get a lot of experience.
Hugh
# Posted on March 2nd 2007 by flutefry
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Hmmmm, Sir Nose's assessment is probably the best-informed of all those above. I know him and his playing, and terry's flutes.
BUT .... Although I play a Grinter which I'll probably die with, and is superb, I have to stick up for Terry's flutes. He made a huge quantum leap in the late 90s and his previous easily played models suddenly became world-class.
It surprised me. I had waited 15 years or more for this to happen, after buying my first flute, a McGee Rudall, in 1981. Now I like what he does, and i don't think the tuning problems are that bad, Sir Nose. Maybe you just got a lot better when you went to a Grinter from an old-generation McGee ( which is exectly what happened to me).
Now when i hop on a McGee it just soars. So yes, i can recommend terry's flutes for beginners.
# Posted on March 4th 2007 by Fliúiteadóir
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
I look forward to trying his newer models. I bare no ill-will towards Terry, in fact his playing had a huge influence on me when i was first starting - and it was indeed Mr Dan Gordon playing a flute solo on one of terry's flutes at a gig that first turned me towards the Dark Paths of Tune...
(but i can confirm that, upon going back to my first flute after this discussion came up, that the flute is as unevenly out-of-tune as i remembered, and the cork-lined joints had swelled to a point where it was almost impossible to put together - does he still do this? I think in a climate as variable as Oz the flexibility of string joints is a huge advantage)
# Posted on March 5th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Let me reiterate the purpose of this thread. I am not in the market for a flute, so I am not looking for an assessment of Terry's flutes, per se. I want to know if anyone claiming to have improved upon the 19th Century designs have truly succeeded. A good flute is a good flute, but has anyone come up with a modification that has resulted in an improvement that, for example, means that so-and-so's headjoint would always be superior to the inherent design of the 19th Century version?
# Posted on March 5th 2007 by Ailin
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
right - sorry, got lost in a world of nostalgia!
I think your question raises an interesting point about flute design.
The basic truth is that the original 19th century models had their quirks, esp. tuning wise (flat Ds, slightly sharp As and Bs, massive tonal difference between notes eg. F# to E etc) - but it seems that Irish flute playing as a style has evolved to actually make these quirks into an intergral part of the sound (-eg the extra support needed to get the low Ds in tune give you the classic hard D sound).
Now, as i've said, I've owned both a Grinter and a McGee, and i think they are both prime examples of two opposed schools of thought. Grinter has an obsessional attention to detail to make intruments that in every way emulate the classic flutes of the 19th (which involved a large amount of research to find the right "classic" flutes to model from) and McGee has struck out on his own and tried to "correct" the failings of the older instruments.
This has meant that Terry makes flutes (in my experience) that play very well for someone who has not really played before. My McGee actually plays beautifully in tune if you put almost no air through it, but this ensures a whistly, breathy tone with zero body. As soon as you put even the slightest amount of air through it (and long before you are applying anything close to diaphramic support) the whole thing goes out of tune, overblows up the octave constantely and gets quite an excessive breathe hiss. I found this overblowing problem to actually be worse in one of his more recent flutes that i tried early last year.
I guess this is why I am hesitent to suggest his flutes to students. They DO play nicely in tune when you are first starting out, but this over-responsiveness tends to act as a disincentive to work towards the tone, volume and support needed to get an "irish" sound.
# Posted on March 6th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
I think a lot of what you have said relative to the old flutes says more about the quality of the flutemaking than the technology of the times. My flute was made in 1882, and exhibits none of the deficiencies you cite whether played in classical style or Irish. From this, I conclude that a well-made 19th Century flute can be everything a flute should be. However, that does not mean it can't be louder (if that's what you want) or easier to play, if someone can find the means to make those improvements. That's what Boehm set out to do, except he acccomplished his goal by redesigning instrument from the ground - up. I think it may be possible to design a better key configuration (playing b-flat on the eight-key is really awkward), or a better embouchure (has anyone ever considered an embouchure plate? I find it lots easier to stay "centered" on my Boehm than on a wooden). I just don't know if anyone has made a better flute; and by better, I mean an improved design, not a "fix" for poor intonation or tone production.
# Posted on March 6th 2007 by Ailin
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
how else would you define design? lip plates? (terry does do a carved wooden lip-plate model which plays well) key placement? - almost every maker, 19th century and today, has differnt key placement, it really is a case of what you are used to ( my flute has a left thumb Bb key which i find easy enough to use, yet a good friend of mine has a early 19th Century German flute with the Bb key brought down to the right thumb - I can't use the thing but she loves it). But what is the point of redisgning a flute if not to effect it's playability and tone?
and on the point of intonation, a lot of players, both classical and irish, and a heck of a lot better than me have commented on the tuning tendencies of 19C flutes - and i do mean tendencies, the flutes are not 'out of tune' - they just require more embrouchure adjustment on every note. I assume you arn't arguing that there is no tunal difference between pre-Boehm/Boehm flutes...
# Posted on March 6th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
What Boehm did is an engineering miracle. The idea that you can have a thumb key that can be continously depressed to make the "b" flat wthout affecting any other note on the instrument (the only such key on the instrument, I believe), is worth the price of admission by itself. I don't need to make any adjustments to get good intonation on my flute, although I have played plenty of flutes that required that, so I know what you are talking about. Even the Boehm flute requires some "lipping," however, because of the affect dynamics have on intonation.
The "standard" eight-key flute configuration is like yours, although you are correct in saying there are variations. I'm not arguing for or against anything here. As I said at the outset, I am just curious as to whether anyone feels that a modern flutemaker (whether Terry McGee or someone else) has built a better mousetrap. Has anyone taken the 19th Century design to the next level? The examples I gave were for illustration only (although the lip-plate idea does kind of appeal to me). I understand that some makers in the 19th Century actually altered the bore size along the conical shape to improve intonation. It seems that this concept could be taken forward by electronic means if there were value in that approach. Possibly the best analogy I can give you is with the bodhran. Tunable drums are now commonplace, and I would guess that just about every player values the ability to have a means by which to adjust head tension. This is an improvement that would affect my choice of drums. On the other hand, I can't get excited about delrin flutes (although the choice of that material is probably more about cost than function, but you get the idea). Anyway, I thought it would make for an interesting discussion.
# Posted on March 6th 2007 by Ailin
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
ha ha, tha tickled me that. In a discussion about flutes, someone says, "Possibly the best analogy I can give you is with the bodhran." Ho ho
# Posted on March 6th 2007 by llig leahcim
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
It is interesting that an instrument like the Bodhran continues to evolve (taped edges, double skins, single/double ended playing) Whereas the flute, on one level, has been 'fixed'... but then again, so has the fiddle.
From personal experience I've tried Terry's G-sharp key style, but felt i was too used to my placement...
I think the work Grinter's done on the interchangable Eb-D-C bodies for the same head/foot joints is bloody amazing, no tuning issues and It still feels like the same instrument no matter which body you use. I'm no instrument maker but i know the physics took him years to ensure even tuning across the different bodies... oh how i wish my older Grinter D was compatible with these!! - but apparently he's had to completely re-design the head and foot joints to make this work so i'll have to admire from afar (or buy a house to mortage against to afford a whole new setup
)
And in terms of keys, I once had a go of Niall Keegan's flute, I've got no idea who made it etc, but he had a very interesting key setup, all mounted on pins, that had actual (curly) springs, which meant the action of the keys was quite light yet still sealed quite well. This was years ago, but i seem to remember the flute had quite a straight bore as well...
# Posted on March 6th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Returning to Ailin's original question, I think that flute makers in the baroque flute (which I've played a lot), and the Irish flute (which I've played for just short of two years) worlds originally copied originals as faithfully as they could manage. With more research, discoveries of flutes hidden away and unmeasured, this has resulted in improvements as better originals have been found. We tend to forget that the orginal makers were tweaking their designs as they went along, and that some were better than others. Other old flutes are better preserved, less warped, etc. and give a better indication of what the maker was aiming for. So there have been improvements simply from finding better originals.
I am not trying to imply that "faithful copiers" aren't improving their flutes. Naturally they get better with practice like anyone else. Even those who started out being known for their close copies (Wilkes, Grinter, Byrne, eg) have been adapting their flutes in the past few years for more volume or projection while retaining a complex tone in response to consumer demand.
Other makers have set out to improve the flute. Some are copying existing originals, and then tweaking (usually) the bore size, hole size, and hole placement for tuning or ergonomic reasons. Aebi is an example. Others are making flutes that combine aspects of Rudall and Pratten flutes (eg Copley), or that are only loosely based on originals (some Olwell models), or that are based on a combination of original and modern flutes (Watson eg). Simon Polak has an interesting discussion on his website about copying vs improving baroque flutes.
I bet that all long established makers are making flutes that are different than they used to make, and that most people would find newer flutes as improvements over ones made 15 years ago. For sessions, give me a modern copy with tweaked tuning. While I love my baroque flute, going back to it and having to tune nearly every note after playing my Aebi which has great tuning is a shock.
My two cents.
Hugh
# Posted on March 6th 2007 by flutefry
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
but flutefry, Ailin said this discussion is *not* about "fixing" tuning or tone
# Posted on March 7th 2007 by SirNose
Re: Terry McGee - Flutemaker
Perhaps it's a finer distinction than I thought. I think there is a difference between trying to make a better flute as opposed to taking an inherent flaw and finding a way to work around it, which is why I picked Terry McGee as the example. He has set out to take something he saw as a flaw, rather than a lack of craftsmanship, and find a way to temper the flaw so the flute would be fundamentally better, not just better made.
Regarding Baroque vs. early Rudall & Rose vs. Pratten, etc. my opinion is that late 19th Century flutes probably represent the best of what an Irish flute should be, both because of a century's worth of tweaking, and because the instruments are generally louder due to the Pratten and Boehm influence. I am mystified over the popularity the McGee GLP flute is enjoying. Is it because it is easier for a beginner? It seems to be the antithesis of a Pratten flute, which I would think would be the Gold Standard of Irish flutes, no?
# Posted on March 7th 2007 by Ailin