Re: [earlyflute] Flute drawings list
- -----Message d'origine-----
De : Jean-Francois Beaudin <jfbeaudin@...>
À : firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>
Cc : woodenflute@... <woodenflute@...>
Date : vendredi 30 novembre 2001 21:09
Objet : [earlyflute] Flute drawings list
1.. Rottenburgh G.A. *415, 410Hz, boxwood, (very good sound and tuning).
Coll, B. Kuijken.
Thanks again to remind us the great amount of work you have done for the
baroque flute makers. Even if I have taken measurements myself, I like to
work with your plans so precisely drawn.
With your objective data, your are writing here a subjective commentary
about the famous Rottenburgh owned by Bart Kuijken, which is the most copied
XVIIIth century flute.
So let me add my own commentary, after having played and copied this flute
several times (and given up)
"Pretty tiny rococo sound, tuning unbearable"
The embouchure is quite nice and allows many colours of tone, but the rather
narrow bore, the position and narrowness of holes, the shrinkage of some
parts of the flute doesn't make a "very good sound", specially in the first
octave where e, f and gsharp are too weak.
The tuning : the first octave is too sharp compared to the second, specially
on A and B, where the octaves are too short. That's the contrary of what
Quantz expects on a flute . The keyhole is too big, giving an Eflat but no
Dsharp. The E hole is very small, giving a very weak note. The other holes
are very much undercutted, so the fork fingerings are too sharp, specially F
natural and G sharp, and in a lesser way Bflat and Cnatural.
In the second octave, G tends to be sharp, A and B are very flat.
High Eflat and E are much too high, high F bad and low, which is not what
someone would expect on a rococo, almost classical, flute.
This was my contribution to the recent debate about the tuning of the flute,
which I consider from a psychological rather than a
technical-tuning-machine point of view.