What is your favourite beginner flute? Has it been ousted?

[flutego12]

[quote="Silversorcerer"][quote="flutego12"]

Y'know,... I was crafting a reply to your comments above when I realised that perhaps I shouldn't really bother.
If your reply came from a desire to impart and share knowledge with respectful discussion, then it could have become a pleasurable exchange as I've largely experienced on this forum.
But if it comes from a different place, then I best leave you to your thoughts.

[fluteguy18]

SilverSorcerer-

I certainly see the argument you make for vintage instruments in your last post. It's well thought out and makes a lot of sense, but I do have some things to add so that the 'pro new instruments only' position is clearly defined.

For the beginning flutist I personally am in favor of buying a new instrument if it is in the budget. With Jupiter being one of the leading makers of student/intermediate models beginning with a price point of roughly $400, it is not unrealistic. My reasoning for this is thorough. 1. You get a full warranty from the manufacturer. 2. You know the history of the instrument. 3. It is made to modern standards and playing styles. Flute playing has changed over the past century and the instruments being made today reflect the changes made in playing techniques and modern innovations in craftsmanship. Modern student flutes are engineered get the beginner started easily.

My argument against used beginner instruments: If you can get a great deal, I'm sure they're worth the cost until repairs and labor exceed the replacement value of the instrument. In that case, like you I am all about pinching pennies and saving money. Who isn't?!

While older beginner instruments are abundant you don't know the history of the instrument you are purchasing. Unlike a car where you can get a CarFax, there is no such thing as a FluteFax. Was it rained on in marching band? Was it in the grass and dirt? Did the lip plate get knocked off when a younger sibling thought it made a great light saber? You don't know the history and what sort of repair problems might be lurking beneath the surface: rust, corrosion, deteriorating solder lines, mold spores, etc. Most of the time when a beginner flute has made it through middle school and some of high school, it's in very rough shape and should be repurposed into a lamp. While replacement parts seem abundant, it's actually difficult to find exact matches because each instrument is slightly different. You would think that two identical flutes would have interchangeable parts (same make and model even), but that's not always the case. The maker could have changed the steel diameters mid-year because their supplier went out of business rendering 'identical' parts entirely different. And older beginner flutes simply aren't as gratifying to play on most occasions. It's a combination of technical condition but also a matter of design and playing styles of the day. I have seen so many students come into a music store complaining that they hate the flute only to find out that the problem is that they were playing on mom/dad's old flute from 'back in the day.' Older student flutes simply don't compete with newer ones on most occasions.

But I do want to clarify that older vintage instruments certainly have their place in the world. If a new instrument isn't possible because of financial restrictions, then any instrument is better than none. There are countless individuals who can't afford an instrument and donations of older instruments are priceless gifts to these individuals (and music programs). I just don't think that older instruments are always a better deal financially once you take into account all of the expenses needed to get them to compete with newer instruments and maintain that same condition.

Note: this is focused on student level instruments, not 'professional' instruments(define that how you will Mr. Phineas ).

[Silversorcerer]

dis·cuss [dih-skuhs] verb (used with object)
1.
to consider or examine by argument, comment, etc.; talk over or write about, especially to explore solutions; debate: to discuss the proposed law on taxes.

I simply present an alternative point of view, which is probably relevant since this forum section includes flute history;- I included historic beginner instruments, most of which would be used instrument models that are no longer manufactured by now, but exist in multiple thousands of copies and are available at a considerable cost savings over newly manufactured instruments. Perhaps someone would think these are worth considering? Another old beginner instrument I've been enjoying that is a very easy player is a vintage F. E. Olds & Son Special. These sometimes have a silver head. This one I picked up inexpensively plays very well;- resonant and rich for a beginner flute. It's a slight upgrade from the Ambassador model. I expected to do a full overhaul, but it plays so well I think I'll just leave it alone for now.

Perhaps I overlooked something but the lowest internet price I could find on a new Jupiter beginner flute was well over $500. Is it really a $400 new flute? These are typically bringing in the neighborhood of $100 in play-tested excellent used condition, 1-2 years old. That is consistent with the ratio observed in the value loss of the KG ltd. intermediate flute from new to very gently used. That's a sizable value hit if a student quits band after just one year.

I would agree that it is always wise to play test an instrument or have someone who knows how to play test an instrument check it out before buying one, unless one is planning to take it to a shop for overhaul knowing it needs attention. A short approval period to let a teacher or director go over it shouldn't be hard to arrange. Usually one can see damage on an instrument from the outside. The insides of all my flutes are hollow with the mechanical parts all on the outside in plain view. For there to be issues with solder deterioration, that would only be on instruments with soldered chimneys and not drawn chimneys. You can't have internal solder failure where there is not commonly solder. Probably the pads are the only thing affected by rain on a field. Dents are self evident;- that is the visible history also. Bent keys don't move right and tend to stick when these are not working. It's pretty easy to tell.

Play testing by a teacher is a great idea;- even on new warranteed instruments. It might have been Cluff that said that. I think it was her or another teacher that posts on the web that recommended trying 5-6 different new flutes of the same beginner model because these were very inconsistent in manufacture. It sounds like picking out produce.

Another perspective on warranties is that those might be needed on new instruments more than on the ones that have had the kinks worked out over a couple of years and have settled in a bit. I have often heard that if there is a problem with a musical instrument's manufacture that it usually shows up earlier than later, but usually just after the warranty period is up.

If a warranty is a good reason to buy new, is it also a good reason to buy new every time a warranty expires? If not why not? If a warranty is protection one needs for a year, why is it not needed every year? My guess is that the warranties last mostly for one year. Should one be willing to lose that percentage on a beginner band instrument annually just to be covered by a warranty?

Or should one take the gamble of not having the warranty at some point when one comes to one's senses? Take the idea to its' logical conclusion. At the end of 4 years of band, the cost to maintain a warranteed instrument would be $1200, if that was a $400 new warranteed Jupiter flute. But if it was more like the $550-ish prices I found on beginner Jupiters, that would be a value loss of $1800. Is it plausible that one would need to spend $1800 in flute repairs over the course of 4 years on a flute bought in used playable condition? It seems like getting a working flute and buying accident insurance for it would be a more sound strategy.

These ideas like warranties, extended warranties, etc., all sound good at first, but when one actually works through the reasoning and puts observable numbers into equations, it becomes an idea that might be questioned. If a warranty is why one buys new, is one paying three times as much for the warranty as one pays for the new flute? It's a package deal. Do the math. The flute alleged $400 new flute with an expired warranty is $100. Therefore the warranty benefit of "new" is on the order of $300 minimum, but more like $450 in price if the research I did on the Jupiter is valid.

When off to music college & needing a better intermediate flute, that $1800 sure would be handy. One might get stuck having to buy a used intermediate flute to have a silver body open-hole inline B-foot flute. And whoops, now I have an expensive flute with no warranty. At some point only owning flutes that are covered by a warranty is going to become cost prohibitive. Sooner or later even most pros will own a used pro flute that is maintained, not replaced when the warranty expires, even if the only person who used it is the first buyer.

On the parts issue I really don't see it being any more likely that a part spec changed in the production age of past models than it is likely to happen in the production of present models. Assembly lines did make substitutions in the past. I have observed this in many models, but why does one not think this is current practice also? Can one be any more sure in the new case than in the used?

Modern standards? Interesting that one of the highest uses of the "modern standards" includes playing classical music, which includes styles of playing that are 200 years old at least. Why is it that to play 200 year old music that was written in the time of Ernst Chladni, we are moving the pitch standard from C=256 to A=444, when C was fixed at 256 Hz during the classical period? I think it is a valid question. And it has direct implications on the dimensioning of new instruments, and new student instruments. One thing that impressed me about the Gemeinhardt KG ltd. was that it was dimensioned the same as the 1961 M-1 in terms of the positions of the tone holes and the total length. It's still an A=440 flute, but Gemeinhardt was probably the last maker to switch, if indeed they have switched. Wikipedia on Gemeinhardt mentions that they did switch, but that would mean it was past the date of my flute's production, which would be in 2012 or 2013. This flute is so late that the serial is not on the look-up page. If Gemeinhardt waited so late to switch from A=440, why is that? DeFord changed between the first DeFord brand (1969) and the early Emerson line (80s? - with the monogram on the body). What about the Conn-Selmer brands? If one wants to play in 440, which flutes are left being made to 440? Can one get a new 440 flute without putting in a custom order?

Again, how is it that A=444 Hz is called a modern standard? In some disciplines, such as architecture, the modern era began around the 1930s, when A=440. It's just a new revised standard, sort of like daylight savings time. Why? What is the foundation for that change? Can anyone site a musical reason for it? Is there a good reason to change the pitch from the pitch the music was composed at? I am still looking for the reasoning behind changing the standard from A=435-432 to A=440. There is almost no definitive information on why this was done. Are we to systematically increase the standard until we are playing a full half step sharper than the pitch standard that the music was composed at? Then we can call the C flute a B natural flute? Carry it to the logical conclusion. Standardization is meaningless if the standard becomes a moving target. Imagine the confusion if the length of an inch changed every 50 years. And I am not the first one that finds this to be a confounding situation. Apparently the Italian composer Verdi noticed the sharpening of the pitch standard in his day and was equally vexed. Verdi favored the A=432 standard, which dominated orchestral music until about 1920 or so.

In any case if all of the new instruments are to be at A=444 and it is best to have a new instrument if one is a student, let's take a walk into the world that isn't an internet forum, where one walks into an ensemble situation fresh out of music academia:

Consider the present situation that could be the reality that a working professional musician on a working professional musician's income could live in. A musician showing up to play with an ensemble that includes a piano, guitar, some horns, etc. is going to tune to what standard pitch to blend well with other players? Perhaps this is at a church and it is an acoustic piano. The guitarist brought a simple electronic tuner or perhaps he has a tuning fork and both of these are at A=440. Perhaps one of the woodwind musicians in the ensemble was convinced to buy an A=444 new flute when he started and that's what his flute is built at. The clarinetist just laid out for a vintage R13 Buffet that he will not part with. Is the flautist in a compromised situation compared to the other musicians who have instruments that are A=440? How will he adapt? Does he need to own two instruments? Will the A=444 flute limit him or give him more freedom in range of notes that will sound in tune with a bunch of A=440 instruments?

Another situation. A musician is called to a recording session including a classical string ensemble to do solos. The backing tracks are recorded in advance. What will the best pitch standard be to tune the soloist's instrument to?

Simple questions to answer aren't they?

The sales pitch for "new" is always the same. But rarely are the claims made reasoned through or questioned. I suppose the purpose of my contribution to the discussion is to have discussion. It means presenting more than one point of view. Every one could have a different favorite beginner instrument that is still "a new flute".

My favorite beginner flute would be a used instrument in good condition that played well in A=440, and would be in tune with 90%+ of the instruments still in use;- whether it be a Jupiter, Yamaha, or something really nicely made from decades ago. The first new one I might buy would probably be a custom pro model by a maker whose clients aren't selling these used yet. I might be able to afford that one sooner because I was content with used instruments in the beginning;- instruments whose new warranteed value, which is largely IMAGINARY, was reality checked before I bought into them. These instruments will return at least 75% of the investment I made, in a few cases they might return a profit. If I had bought new, I might be lucky to get 25% back if it was one of those reputed to hold resale value somewhat better.

Someone who starts with good used instruments will see that new Verne Q. Powell custom flute much sooner, I'd think.

FYI my first band instrument was a factory refurbished 1961 Conn cornet that was ten years old when purchased in 1971. These are sought even from the 1950s now if they are in good playing shape and generally preferred to a Chinese Bach.

Are there still such animals as factory refurbished instruments? My '61 Director was still a very playable cornet (with some dents and scratches) when I gave it away to an aspiring student around 25 years later.

Currently my newest cornet is a 1966 silver plated Conn 15A;- pretty much the same model I learned on and it plays just as well. My pro trumpets and cornets are from the period of 1910 - 1928. These are all in great playing condition. If the music I really like to hear and play was originally recorded with such instruments, then I can most plausibly get the true sound of that style music with the same horns the early pro artists use. I do have some fancy (new when I bought them) custom bass guitars, but that is a different situation. There are rarely any used instruments by that maker available. If one wants to get one of those it is a get in line situation;- single maker, no factory, low numbers. That is the one situation where I favor buying new.

I know there are many who will always prefer new for whatever the reason, but some of the well made historic instruments I've seen have passed the time test and still play well. And there are many more of these that would play very well with minimal service, most just need new pads and adjustments. Here are a few vintage beginner instruments that I am trying out and I think would be interesting to compare with popular contemporary models:

Artley Symphony (pre-war model is really sweet), Artley 110, and Artley 105.

Gemeinhardt M1, M2, M3,

Armstrong early ribless (strapless) model, later strapless 104 model.

DeFord from 1969,

F. E. Olds & Son Special

It is by far not an exhaustive list because there are many good French and German makers also. These are just a few I decided to try when I could get them without risking a substantial investment.

These are all a bit different, so what is best for one person might not be the best for another. And as always, it is good to play test them or have them play tested before purchase.

[fluteguy18]

Perhaps I overlooked something but the lowest internet price I could find on a new Jupiter beginner flute was well over $500. Is it really a $400 new flute? Yes, there is a dealer in Texas that sells them for that (though they legally can't advertise this information), and FluteWorld sells them for $509. You have to call in to get the price. These are typically bringing in the neighborhood of $100 in play-tested excellent used condition, 1-2 years old. That is consistent with the ratio observed in the value loss of the KG ltd. intermediate flute from new to very gently used. That's a sizable value hit if a student quits band after just one year. That's the risk you sometimes take when you try something new. Any new hobby/past time requires a financial investment and financial risk.

I would agree that it is always wise to play test an instrument or have someone who knows how to play test an instrument check it out before buying one, unless one is planning to take it to a shop for overhaul knowing it needs attention. A short approval period to let a teacher or director go over it shouldn't be hard to arrange. Usually one can see damage on an instrument from the outside. The insides of all my flutes are hollow with the mechanical parts all on the outside in plain view. For there to be issues with solder deterioration, that would only be on instruments with soldered chimneys and not drawn chimneys. You can't have internal solder failure where there is not commonly solder. Toneholes are only the beginning of the amount of soldered and brazed parts on a flute. You have the riser, lip plate, barrel, rings, ribs, posts, key arms, spuds... Any one of those things can have deteriorating or damaged solder/braze joints. It has to be examined by an experienced tech to see if those are damaged. They may be damaged in unlikely places that you can't initially see. Probably the pads are the only thing affected by rain on a field. The hinge rods inside the mechanism are made of steel and they easily rust and corrode. Moisture can enter the mechanism at any seam between the keys. A rusting mechanism is a very common problem during a marching band season, and they don't always show up immediately. Sometimes it's MUCH MUCH later. Dents are self evident;- that is the visible history also. Bent keys don't move right and tend to stick when these are not working. It's pretty easy to tell. Both of these. Not always. Bent keys sometimes move perfectly but don't allow the pad to seal properly whereas it had been sealing before. If the player beforehand has a heavier finger technique, they might have been able to over compensate whereas a player with a lighter touch would not. And dents can be very minor but cause tremendous trouble. Like on the lip plate for example. The blowing edge side could be dented inward but yet it not visibly show if it's the entire edge of the plate.

Play testing by a teacher is a great idea;- even on new warranteed instruments. It might have been Cluff that said that. I think it was her or another teacher that posts on the web that recommended trying 5-6 different new flutes of the same beginner model because these were very inconsistent in manufacture. Absolutely. Even student flutes vary greatly. It sounds like picking out produce.

Another perspective on warranties is that those might be needed on new instruments more than on the ones that have had the kinks worked out over a couple of years and have settled in a bit. I have often heard that if there is a problem with a musical instrument's manufacture that it usually shows up earlier than later, but usually just after the warranty period is up. I had a warranty issue on my Miyazawa 2 years into owning it. Thankfully Miyazawa stood behind their instrument and fixed it anyway. So yes, while this is usually true, many companies are offering extended warranties on student instruments. Jupiter for example offers a 7 year warranty I think...

...

I don't understand your reasoning with your warranty math. One doesn't necessitate the other. It's like saying 'I have an umbrella so it must be raining.' I could have an umbrella for no reason whatsoever... Just because it expires doesn't mean that it needs replaced. It's like you're adding on insurance in case something does happen to go wrong. By itself the warranty isn't enough to validate a new purchase, but it certainly beats dropping $100 into a used flute only to find out it needs $700 of work two months into ownership when a new flute for $500 would do the trick.

On the parts issue I really don't see it being any more likely that a part spec changed in the production age of past models than it is likely to happen in the production of present models. Assembly lines did make substitutions in the past. I have observed this in many models, but why does one not think this is current practice also? Can one be any more sure in the new case than in the used?

I've seen it happen before. Two identical Armstrongs from the same year. Different steel rod diameters on the thumb key.

Modern standards? Interesting that one of the highest uses of the "modern standards" includes playing classical music, which includes styles of playing that are 200 years old at least. Why is it that to play 200 year old music that was written in the time of Ernst Chladni, we are moving the pitch standard from C=256 to A=444, when C was fixed at 256 Hz during the classical period? I think it is a valid question. And it has direct implications on the dimensioning of new instruments, and new student instruments. One thing that impressed me about the Gemeinhardt KG ltd. was that it was dimensioned the same as the 1961 M-1 in terms of the positions of the tone holes and the total length. It's still an A=440 flute, but Gemeinhardt was probably the last maker to switch, if indeed they have switched. Wikipedia on Gemeinhardt mentions that they did switch, but that would mean it was past the date of my flute's production, which would be in 2012 or 2013. This flute is so late that the serial is not on the look-up page. If Gemeinhardt waited so late to switch from A=440, why is that? DeFord changed between the first DeFord brand (1969) and the early Emerson line (80s? - with the monogram on the body). What about the Conn-Selmer brands? If one wants to play in 440, which flutes are left being made to 440? Can one get a new 440 flute without putting in a custom order?

Modern pitch standards were the least of the things I was alluding to. I'm referencing the design, engineering, and manufacturing techniques of the instrument in addition to the quality of materials being used. While the visual appearance of the flute hasn't changed much in the past century, manufacturing of the instrument has changed a lot.


Someone who starts with good used instruments will see that new Verne Q. Powell custom flute much sooner, I'd think. Mathematically speaking, you're correct.

Currently my newest cornet is a 1966 silver plated Conn 15A;- pretty much the same model I learned on and it plays just as well. My pro trumpets and cornets are from the period of 1910 - 1928. These are all in great playing condition. If the music I really like to hear and play was originally recorded with such instruments, then I can most plausibly get the true sound of that style music with the same horns the early pro artists use. I do have some fancy (new when I bought them) custom bass guitars, but that is a different situation. There are rarely any used instruments by that maker available. If one wants to get one of those it is a get in line situation;- single maker, no factory, low numbers. That is the one situation where I favor buying new. I don't know a darn thing about the trumpet. I'll start learning on Monday though!

I know there are many who will always prefer new for whatever the reason, but some of the well made historic instruments I've seen have passed the time test and still play well. Of course! We see that with Stradivari violins and Wurlitzer pedal harps. The gems of their kind but sadly out of production.

In the end though, people are going to buy what they're going to buy. There are risks on all sides of that equation. I know that as a flutist I would rather buy new simply because I KNOW it would be rock solid. If it wasn't, then I would have resources to have it fixed or replaced at little or no expense to myself. As a repairman in training I would definitely take the gamble on a used instrument because I would be able to get it in working order (I hope) unless it was an absolute disaster. I'm always up for a DIY project.

[pied_piper]

I agree with most of fluteguy18's comments but I'll add my 2 cents to some of these...

Usually one can see damage on an instrument from the outside. The insides of all my flutes are hollow with the mechanical parts all on the outside in plain view. For there to be issues with solder deterioration, that would only be on instruments with soldered chimneys and not drawn chimneys. You can't have internal solder failure where there is not commonly solder. Toneholes are only the beginning of the amount of soldered and brazed parts on a flute. You have the riser, lip plate, barrel, rings, ribs, posts, key arms, spuds... Any one of those things can have deteriorating or damaged solder/braze joints. It has to be examined by an experienced tech to see if those are damaged. They may be damaged in unlikely places that you can't initially see.
fg18 is correct about the solder joints, but in my experience, most issues with them are due to damage far more often than normal deterioration. Occasionally, a poor factory solder job is to blame. I had a Yamaha 4xx in for repair a while back where the owner dropped the flute a short distance to a carpeted floor. The only damage was the footjoint socket became unsoldered from the foot body. When I inspected the area, it was readily apparent that it had been originally soldered around only about 1/4 of the circumference.
...
Dents are self evident;- that is the visible history also. Bent keys don't move right and tend to stick when these are not working. It's pretty easy to tell. Both of these. Not always. Bent keys sometimes move perfectly but don't allow the pad to seal properly whereas it had been sealing before. If the player beforehand has a heavier finger technique, they might have been able to over compensate whereas a player with a lighter touch would not. And dents can be very minor but cause tremendous trouble. Like on the lip plate for example. The blowing edge side could be dented inward but yet it not visibly show if it's the entire edge of the plate.
A bent hinge rod or post could cause key binding, but as fg18 mentions, a key may be bent such that it still moves fine but no longer perfectly aligns with the plane of the tone hole surface. In such a case leaks occur, but the key may still move normally.
...

Another perspective on warranties is that those might be needed on new instruments more than on the ones that have had the kinks worked out over a couple of years and have settled in a bit. I have often heard that if there is a problem with a musical instrument's manufacture that it usually shows up earlier than later, but usually just after the warranty period is up. I had a warranty issue on my Miyazawa 2 years into owning it. Thankfully Miyazawa stood behind their instrument and fixed it anyway. So yes, while this is usually true, many companies are offering extended warranties on student instruments. Jupiter for example offers a 7 year warranty I think...
...

Modern standards? Interesting that one of the highest uses of the "modern standards" includes playing classical music, which includes styles of playing that are 200 years old at least. Why is it that to play 200 year old music that was written in the time of Ernst Chladni, we are moving the pitch standard from C=256 to A=444, when C was fixed at 256 Hz during the classical period? I think it is a valid question. And it has direct implications on the dimensioning of new instruments, and new student instruments. One thing that impressed me about the Gemeinhardt KG ltd. was that it was dimensioned the same as the 1961 M-1 in terms of the positions of the tone holes and the total length. It's still an A=440 flute, but Gemeinhardt was probably the last maker to switch, if indeed they have switched. Wikipedia on Gemeinhardt mentions that they did switch, but that would mean it was past the date of my flute's production, which would be in 2012 or 2013. This flute is so late that the serial is not on the look-up page. If Gemeinhardt waited so late to switch from A=440, why is that? DeFord changed between the first DeFord brand (1969) and the early Emerson line (80s? - with the monogram on the body). What about the Conn-Selmer brands? If one wants to play in 440, which flutes are left being made to 440? Can one get a new 440 flute without putting in a custom order?

Modern pitch standards were the least of the things I was alluding to. I'm referencing the design, engineering, and manufacturing techniques of the instrument in addition to the quality of materials being used. While the visual appearance of the flute hasn't changed much in the past century, manufacturing of the instrument has changed a lot.
Pitch standards and tuning are a complicated issue. In the history of music, the "standard" pitch has changed many times and often varied in different regions. So, in reality, it is only in modern times that a true international pitch standard has evolved. In 1955, the International Standards Organization adopted A=440 as standard pitch (ISO 16). Even now though, there is a tendency toward pitch inflation with some groups rising to A=442 or even A=444. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_pitch)
To understand more about flutes and tuning, I recommend reading Theobald Boehm's book "The Flute and Flute Playing" in which he wrote about the design for his modern flute. In it, he describes his schema for the layout of tone holes, both size and position. When he developed his design in the mid-1800's, the prevailing pitch was around A=435. Since that time, as noted above, pitch has risen to A=440 or higher. In the 1900's, manufacturers built flutes according to the Boehm schema. Since by then, the "standard" pitch had risen, the flute makers simply shortened the headjoints to allow the flute's A to tune to the higher A=440. What they neglected to do was to adjust the position and size of the tone holes so that the rest of the instrument was in tune with itself. It wasn't until around the 1970's that some flute builders started looking at correcting this design flaw. Albert Cooper was instrumental (no pun intended) in designing a new schema which more correctly placed and sized the tone holes to allow the flute to better play in tune with itself and other instruments. Others since then have further refined what became known as the "Cooper Scale" Regarding your question about why it took so long for the manufacturers to adopt a newer, more correct scale: It was either ignorance or economics. Some didn't realize there was a problem but when they did, there was a major cost to retool their factories, so they were slow to adopt a modern scale. Since many players didn't realize there was a problem, there was no demand (particularly at the lower end) and no cost benefit to retool. Now, good flutists know that they want a flute with a modern scale, so the manufacturers have changed to retain market share.
...

Currently my newest cornet is a 1966 silver plated Conn 15A;- pretty much the same model I learned on and it plays just as well. My pro trumpets and cornets are from the period of 1910 - 1928. These are all in great playing condition. If the music I really like to hear and play was originally recorded with such instruments, then I can most plausibly get the true sound of that style music with the same horns the early pro artists use. I do have some fancy (new when I bought them) custom bass guitars, but that is a different situation. There are rarely any used instruments by that maker available. If one wants to get one of those it is a get in line situation;- single maker, no factory, low numbers. That is the one situation where I favor buying new. I don't know a darn thing about the trumpet. I'll start learning on Monday though!

I don't want to turn our flute forum into a brass discussion, but for brass instruments, the tone quality is not really affected by age. What does have an effect are the bore size of the instrument, the taper of the bore (in the case of a cornet), and the mouthpiece (cup depth and throat size). Player (and listener) preferences have changed over the years. As a result, more modern brass instruments are designed with this in mind and therefore may play and sound a bit different from those made in the early to mid-1900s. For the manufacturers, its really about selling what people want to buy. If more people wanted instruments that sound like those of the early 1900s, they would probably make them. Likewise, if someone wants to sound like an 18th or 19th century trumpeter, they should buy a natural trumpet with no valves and play strictly on the overtone series. Some flutists today prefer to play on reproductions of wooden baroque flutes so that they can be "true" to the original period sound. Again though, it's not the age of the instrument, it is the design.

I know there are many who will always prefer new for whatever the reason, but some of the well made historic instruments I've seen have passed the time test and still play well. Of course! We see that with Stradivari violins and Wurlitzer pedal harps. The gems of their kind but sadly out of production.

In the end though, people are going to buy what they're going to buy. There are risks on all sides of that equation. I know that as a flutist I would rather buy new simply because I KNOW it would be rock solid. If it wasn't, then I would have resources to have it fixed or replaced at little or no expense to myself. As a repairman in training I would definitely take the gamble on a used instrument because I would be able to get it in working order (I hope) unless it was an absolute disaster. I'm always up for a DIY project.


For me, I don't care if a flute is new or used as long as it is in good condition and plays well. I've bought both new and used and for some of the used ones, a bit of work was needed for them to play their best. Fortunately, I can do any necessary repairs myself but certainly not everyone can do that.

[Silversorcerer]

"That's the risk you sometimes take when you try something new. Any new hobby/past time requires a financial investment and financial risk."

It seems more to be largely a matter of choice when choosing to buy 2nd hand in good condition avoiding the enormous loss in "showroom value" of a new item. It is not an inherent risk that one must take. I don't agree that any "new" pursuit requires buying anything "new" ;- just something that is a "new" experience. And if you don't like the used item the chances of losing most of the investment in a reselling situation are greatly reduced. Experimenting with flute for a year could be a loss of hundred$ or simply ten$. If you have it to lose, by all means be my guest. See how long you can sustain that note. I admit that the conservative point of view is often the least popular. It explains the cost and demand for new instruments and the low resale value of used all at once. But it falls short of making sense of it.

Rusting of the mechanisms must take a terribly long time. In all of my purchases of used beginner flutes (most were marching instruments if these were school instruments) I have yet to encounter a single case of substantial solder deterioration or rusting of moving parts. Maybe the old ones had better steel or something? Note that my only "new" flute was 1.5 years old and the next newest one is probably from the mid 1980s. Many are from the 40s and 50s and 60s. I suppose it does happen, but if;- like I said before, all of that is clearly visible on the outside of the flute and an inspection of the key movement should identify any problems. If something doesn't move, it's stuck. Pretty simple. If it leaks it won't play the scale below the leak. It's pretty easy to identify what kind of problem a flute has and where it is. If it plays a strong chromatic scale from top to bottom, it's working. Life should be so simple.

"I had a warranty issue on my Miyazawa 2 years into owning it. Thankfully Miyazawa stood behind their instrument and fixed it anyway. So yes, while this is usually true, many companies are offering extended warranties on student instruments. Jupiter for example offers a 7 year warranty I think…"

That is very thoughtful of Mr. Jupiter. This would undoubtedly result in paying more for a warranty than the value of the flute at any point beyond the 1st year;- insanity, IMO. It's the gift that keeps on giving, an extended warranty. If Mr. Jupiter's products hold up as well as most of the student flutes I've seen from the 1960s, it's a fair bet that he can pocket most of his warranty revenue as profit.

"I don't understand your reasoning with your warranty math…. By itself the warranty isn't enough to validate a new purchase,…"

The reasoning you don't understand is my analysis of your reasoning. If having an instrument under warranty protection is ever a good idea, why is it not always a good idea? Either it is a good idea or it's not. I think it is a good idea for a year or two if one must buy something new that is unproven by time. But musical instruments (thank heaven) aren't computers or smart phones. They have longevity in design and build, or at least they did in the past. A warranty was pointed out as an advantage of buying new, but warranties always run out, unless something has a lifetime warranty. If a warranty is an advantage, it can't be an advantage not to have one, and since they run out the advantage must be questioned. Now a lifetime warranty identifies a different product level and that certainly spells value. But that is atypical. If having a one year warranty somehow makes one feel better about a flute inevitably losing over 2/3 of it's value in a year, I would respond that one is paying dearly for a sense of security that is ephemeral.

"but it certainly beats dropping $100 into a used flute only to find out it needs $700 of work two months into ownership when a new flute for $500 would do the trick."

No, it doesn't. First, this is not a realistic cased that a flute in good working condition would deteriorate so quickly as to need a complete overhaul after only two months. Secondly, the maximum one can lose on a $100 investment is $100, unless one can't tell one is tossing good money after bad. If one indeed did find that the $100 flute needed replacing after two months one could replace it twice again each time losing $100 before the loss would equal the value loss of the $400 new (price that can't be published or substantiated because it is so low) flute in one year's use.

But in my experience of purchasing used flutes and used musical instruments in general, the situation described above has a very low statistical probability. Things that are working just don't break that thoroughly or that quickly. If it lands in your hands working and is 50 years old and you don't break it, it will most likely be working a couple of months later.

"Modern pitch standards were the least of the things I was alluding to. I'm referencing the design, engineering, and manufacturing techniques of the instrument in addition to the quality of materials being used. While the visual appearance of the flute hasn't changed much in the past century, manufacturing of the instrument has changed a lot."

And playing in tune in most situations doesn't matter? I think the pitch standard must be considered, as well as the pitch standard most played at. And what is that by observation in the real world?

You say that all these changes have been made, but can you substantiate that with actual observations and measurements? If so, please point out the source of these observations. I took a 1961 M-1 and placed it next to a 20011 KG Ltd. special B-foot jewel thingy and the dimensions are identical, except for the offset hole locations, which are offset. So what changed there? Just because something changed does not always mean it resulted in an improvement.

To me, being out of tune with most historical instruments that I will certainly encounter in real experience of playing would be worse than having an instrument that was out of warranty. Why does one assume materials are better now? Metal is metal. If anything the older alloys had better metal formulations.
I wouldn't mind at all if you explained how specific manufacturing changes have resulted in specific performance improvements. Are the pad surfaces still bladder on these new flutes? Is silver still the element Ag on the periodic chart? In the case of Gemeinhardt, the rumor (and it could simply be just a rumor) is that the keywork got weak just lately. But all the other makers are just fine? Except Yamaha might have shoddy partly soldered joints. Gee, either that just wasn't the way the old brands were made or the ones like that have all been fixed by now. Something must explain what is observed. We start with observations;- the rest is just imagination.

"fg18 is correct about the solder joints, but in my experience, most issues with them are due to damage far more often than normal deterioration. Occasionally, a poor factory solder job is to blame. I had a Yamaha 4xx in for repair a while back where the owner dropped the flute a short distance to a carpeted floor. The only damage was the footjoint socket became unsoldered from the foot body. When I inspected the area, it was readily apparent that it had been originally soldered around only about 1/4 of the circumference."

Dropping any instrument is certainly not recommended and no one would blame a maker for a failure after an instrument was dropped, but the story does not speak well of the manufacture of Yamahas, does it? Thanks for the warning.

"A bent hinge rod or post could cause key binding, but as fg18 mentions, a key may be bent such that it still moves fine but no longer perfectly aligns with the plane of the tone hole surface. In such a case leaks occur, but the key may still move normally."

And anyone that has played a plastic student recorder will know that a hole is not sealing if the notes will not play below that hole. It's as if I recommended "play testing" and now no one remembers what "play testing" is. It's something that some one does to locate the potential problems an instrument has. Are we discussing this with other flute players and teachers or people who've never picked up a tube with holes in it? If you play test an instrument, you will find the leaks. If you look at the key that is leaking, it will be pretty easy to know why, but why doesn't really matter. If it doesn't play test well, don't buy it. Remember, we are talking about used instruments that one tries before one buys, not pigs in a poke.

"To understand more about flutes and tuning, I recommend reading Theobald Boehm's book "The Flute and Flute Playing" in which he wrote about the design for his modern flute. In it, he describes his schema for the layout of tone holes, both size and position. When he developed his design in the mid-1800's, the prevailing pitch was around A=435. Since that time, as noted above, pitch has risen to A=440 or higher. In the 1900's, manufacturers built flutes according to the Boehm schema. Since by then, the "standard" pitch had risen, the flute makers simply shortened the headjoints to allow the flute's A to tune to the higher A=440."

That would be an excellent book. But he's been dead a while and I don't think he would be able to explain the rumors or truths in flute manufacture beyond that date. For the most part, this is kind of like an urban myth. It can not be substantiated by examining existing historical flutes. Look at some actual flutes like I have and measure them side by side. It is true that a circa 1920 Boston Wonder is a longer flute than any post WWII flute that I have measured, by just a few millimeters. It is enough to substantiate that the standard then was A=435 Hz or 432 Hz. The reason there were two standards for A depended on how one derived A from the C standard of C=256. One will find that an equal temperament derivation based on the twelfth root of two yields A= 430.5 Hz., while a harmonic derivation with C being valued as the minor third harmonic value of A (6:7 ratio) yields a value of A=438.8. Looking at those values, both of which are valid derivations from Chladni's standard of C=256 Hz. (derived by successive octaves from 1Hz.) the standard pitch placement at 432 or 435 is very well supported. And that's where is stops making sense.

But somehow, either by brute force of compulsory re-education where the harmonic series is never even discussed let alone explained on the first page of a method book (see Arban's method, circa 1900), or by entirely corporatizing the whole of musical instrument manufacture (Conn-Selmer /Steinway) the 440 standard was imposed. And I think imposed is a better word than adopted.

In any case my inspection of prewar and post war USA built flutes substantiates that all major makers were using the same tone hole placement for decades, and it was a more closely spaced placement on a shorter bodied flute than the A=435 Boston Wonder. It is not just a shortened head. All of the dimensions are shorter including the spaces between the tone holes. These are all A=440 flutes. And it is not a partial redesign, it is complete from top to bottom. I have inspected Artleys, Armstrongs, Gemeinhardts, F. E. Olds & Son, DeFord and all of these are built the same way in the scale department. The first manufacturer to shorten the A=440 design appears to have been Emerson. And here again the redesign is evident everywhere. It's very clearly an A=444 flute.

"What they neglected to do was to adjust the position and size of the tone holes so that the rest of the instrument was in tune with itself."

I was born in Missouri. You'll have to show me that. It is not what I have observed and measured on twenty or more historic A=440 flutes compared to a 1920 era A=435 flute. All the dimensions are proportionally shorter where they would be if the mathematics used in design was the same. It is not a 435 flute reduced to play a low C at 440.

"It wasn't until around the 1970's that some flute builders started looking at correcting this design flaw."

Nope. Not in the USA. I have many instruments from before 1970 and after that are all the same and all A=440. By my observation, the first change is Emerson and right at the beginning of the company they are building a shorter flute with more closely spaced tone holes.

"Albert Cooper was instrumental (no pun intended) in designing a new schema which more correctly placed and sized the tone holes to allow the flute to better play in tune with itself and other instruments."

Perhaps this is a refinement in calculating a flute scale, but it is not an attempt to correct A=440 flutes to a better rendition of A=440 due to some oversight in a previous design. The A=440 flutes are different everywhere from their first years of manufacture including tone hole spacing. They do not match the manufacture dimensions of the A=435 flutes anywhere.

"Regarding your question about why it took so long for the manufacturers to adopt a newer, more correct scale: It was either ignorance or economics. Some didn't realize there was a problem but when they did, there was a major cost to retool their factories, so they were slow to adopt a modern scale. Since many players didn't realize there was a problem, there was no demand (particularly at the lower end) and no cost benefit to retool. Now, good flutists know that they want a flute with a modern scale, so the manufacturers have changed to retain market share."

Loose use of this term "modern scale" is bothersome. It has no strictly applicable definition. It is vague. Please drop the elusive "modern" term and call it the "Cooper scale" or the A=444 scale. It is not modern. Modern is an old term and is not sufficiently exclusive in meaning.

I am particularly skeptical of the veracity of the above paragraph (bolded) because it simply does not stack up with the actual flutes that I have inspected. Nor does it make any sense that a maker would persist in a design that is mathematically incorrect. Changing the jigs for making instruments is a pretty simple thing to do also. After all, for a long period of time many instruments were built to two standards side by side in the same shops, the old LP and HP (military brass band) standards. It's not like none of the tools will do the job on a shorter instrument. The templates change. As I have said many times, the mathematics of intonation up a hollow tube is knowledge that pre-dates science. The pitch behavior was known before it was explained.

Whatever Cooper has to offer, if it comes at the expense of being stuck at A=444Hz., I think I'll pass and stick with a nice late model Gemeinhardt that has the same dimensioning as a Gemeinhardt in 1961. Why? Because it seems to me that someone at that company is just as skeptical as I am, maybe more so and with better reasons. At some point it is worth doing the research and trusting your own eyes and ears. That is why I am skeptical. What is being said is not substantiated by what I see when I look at historic examples of these instruments in significant numbers.

FYI, copies of Stradivaris are still in production. Any example is a sum of it's materials and dimensions. Match the materials and dimensions and expect similar performance. If you can measure a model, it can be duplicated if the materials are available. The big differences in violins are accommodations for steel strings. The necks are set differently and the fingerboards are longer and are now solid ebony instead of veneered. But otherwise, these are mostly dimensioned like a Strad.

I do understand that there are advantages to having repair skills. It can be substantial. Even so, there are great technicians out there and my strategy is to have more than one instrument in good repair rather than a warranty on one. That way there is always one available and for less cost. If one has to go into the shop, my guess is even if it is under warranty, they are not going to loan you an equivalent user flute while the work is being done. If you do anything professionally that requires a specific working piece of equipment, you will have two of those and not just one. What are you going to tell the client? My flute broke and is out being repaired under warranty. Please have the orchestra rest until it comes back? No. If you are pro, you are going to have two well maintained C flutes both with your choice of key type and foot and these will be as identical as possible. You might want the heads to be interchangeable. You will be able to afford them because you let some timid person take the hook line and sinker brand new package with an extended warranty and you bought their abandoned year old flute on the cheap, prehaps paid a good tech $100 to put it into adjustment if that was necessary. When one of the flutes has a problem you will take it to the shop for a repair not including rush charges and just play the other one instead.

In my specific case my best two flutes are quite similar in function and quality. One is an older (70s) Armstrong 80, open hole, B-foot, the other is the KGLtd. special /custom/ whatever with the same layout. Both are an alloy that is 90%+ silver from head to foot with plated keys. Total investment for the two is under $700 and both are in great working condition. That's pretty good redundancy for the price. I don't expect either one to require substantial repair within two months, but I'll keep you posted.

Maybe if you are really complete in being prepared you will also have a nice vintage (by now) Emerson that was built to 444 just in case you encounter an ensemble of fresh neophytes. But I can wait for that good deal to come along. It will be a long time before most of the musicians in a room full are tuned to A=444.

(I tried to preserve the font color coding but somehow this seems to have lost it. I just bolded the statements I responded to).

I can't decide whether I like this oddball VOSS (might be a Dorfler and Jorka?) better than this 70s Olds Special, or this 40s Artley Symphony for a favorite beginner. These are giving the DeFord a run for its' money;- and none of these is as much money risked as the Jupiter. If I add the price of all 4 of these together, I'm still a good couple of hundred$ under that unpublished $400 new flute by Mr. Jupiter. Decisions decisions. At the end of the day, I could take my pick and resell the other 3 for about what I paid for them.

[amoretto]

I have a Haynes Commercial flute with rust problems... Didn't appear until I owned the flute for a while then all of a sudden the right hand trill keys would bind open and not close due to the rust.

My old Gemeinhardt 3SB flute had backing out screws that could fall out if ignored. Needed to get well acquainted with nail polish for that one.

And my pawnshop Armstrong 104 did play, but was always leaky, had odd lumpy looking pads that were probably wet at some point.

Used flutes can be good if they were taken care of, but the way some people take care of things you better be careful.

Who hasn't seen a flute twirled like a baton?

[fluteguy18]

S-Sorcerer, I only got to the 'flutes must take a long time to rust' comment. I've seen them rust in less than a week once they were exposed to moisture (rain). And on that note, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of that nor indulge any future post on this thread. It's clear you have little understanding of many of the things you're 'discussing.' Many of us have dedicated our entire lives to this instrument.

If you want to study more deeply, I recommend starting here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_flute#Boehm_flute

and then read this:

http://www.fluteworld.com/index.php?act ... wart=48129

and then the past 30 years of these:

http://www.theinstrumentalist.com/magazine-flutetalk/

[pied_piper]

Like fg18, I won't waste my time trying to enlighten you any further on all your inaccurate statements, but I did pick a few choice ones and responded below.

You say that all these changes have been made, but can you substantiate that with actual observations and measurements?
Yes. See this link: http://www.trevorwye.com/cooper1.html
You have limited your comparisons to flutes that were not built to the Cooper scale or one of the other modern scales like Bennett or RS 2012. Your comparison is flawed because you did not include flutes which are KNOWN to use the Cooper scale. That's much like looking at 10 cars in the U.S. and concluding that the driver always sits in the left seat of vehicles. That too would be a flawed conclusion because it did not examine any cars in Great Britain or other countries where the driver sits on the right side of the vehicle.

I have inspected Artleys, Armstrongs, Gemeinhardts, F. E. Olds & Son, DeFord and all of these are built the same way in the scale department. The first manufacturer to shorten the A=440 design appears to have been Emerson. And here again the redesign is evident everywhere. It's very clearly an A=444 flute. A Cooper scale does not mean the flute is tuned to A=444. Your conclusion is erroneous. Again, your examples are incomplete and not representative of the best made flutes of today which were built with the Cooper or Bennett scale.

Perhaps this is a refinement in calculating a flute scale, but it is not an attempt to correct A=440 flutes to a better rendition of A=440 due to some oversight in a previous design. A better A=440? A flute is either capable of playing an A=440 or it isn't. You've missed the point. The problem is that flutes made in the early to mid 1900s do not produce the most accurate scale. Perhaps they are accurate enough for some (such as yourself), but serious students and professionals want something better...

I am particularly skeptical of the veracity of the above paragraph (bolded) because it simply does not stack up with the actual flutes that I have inspected(incomplete set). Nor does it make any sense that a maker would persist in a design that is mathematically incorrect(They didn't think there was a problem). Changing the jigs for making instruments is a pretty simple thing to do also(You really think that? ) . After all, for a long period of time many instruments were built to two standards side by side in the same shops, the old LP and HP (military brass band) standards. (So?)It's not like none of the tools will do the job on a shorter instrument. The templates change. (Exactly. But it's expensive!)As I have said many times, the mathematics of intonation up a hollow tube is knowledge that pre-dates science. (I won't even touch that one... )The pitch behavior was known before it was explained.

If you do anything professionally that requires a specific working piece of equipment, you will have two of those and not just one. What are you going to tell the client? My flute broke and is out being repaired under warranty. Please have the orchestra rest until it comes back? No. If you are pro, you are going to have two well maintained C flutes both with your choice of key type and foot and these will be as identical as possible. You might want the heads to be interchangeable. You will be able to afford them because you let some timid person take the hook line and sinker brand new package with an extended warranty and you bought their abandoned year old flute on the cheap, prehaps paid a good tech $100 to put it into adjustment if that was necessary. When one of the flutes has a problem you will take it to the shop for a repair not including rush charges and just play the other one instead.
Yes, many professional flutists have more than one flute. However, show me a professional symphony flutist, who while working, plays a $100 flute (or two) and I'll show you an unemployed musician!!!

[Silversorcerer]

S-Sorcerer, I only got to the 'flutes must take a long time to rust' comment. I've seen them rust in less than a week once they were exposed to moisture (rain). And on that note, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of that nor indulge any future post on this thread. It's clear you have little understanding of many of the things you're 'discussing.' Many of us have dedicated our entire lives to this instrument.

If a life dedicated to the flute is supposed to be impressive, then it should be a long one. Perhaps you might point out which brand it is that rusted in less than a week after exposure to moisture (rain) or moisture (internal condensation), or moisture (H20 of any origin), or H20 that just hovers in the near tropical temperatures of the southern US where marching season can include any weather condition. Let me point out that perhaps it is someone else who has little understanding of the things I am discussing. Metallurgy could be one of these things. Steel, which is not the same thing as iron, rusts much slower. It rusts extremely slowly when it is not exposed to oxygen, which is the element it must be exposed to in order to form oxides of iron. When a rod is inserted into a pipe, there is not much room for anything that has a large quantity of oxygen in it, air or water. If a steel mechanism is lubricated with an oil, for instance key oil like one uses for flutes, then water and air are both blocked from contact with the moving steel parts. Was this instrument never oiled? It's a serious question. I have flutes that are 100 years old with no rusty mechanism, and many that are older than half a century with no rusty mechanisms. Either the flute that rusted in a week was never oiled or the quality of steel in the mechanisms was extremely poor. In any case if a mechanism is stuck for any reason, that should be obvious. Perhaps it is just because I favor preventive measures that I oil the key mechanics of any flute that I receive, pretty much before I start playing it at all. It just seems like sensible maintenance for anything that has steel moving parts.

If you want to study more deeply, I recommend starting here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_flute#Boehm_flute

Why assume that I haven't read about Boehm already? Trust me, I've read more than two paragraphs about Boehm. What is said of Boehm here is so brief, that I think it can easily be quoted in its' entirety:

"Boehm flute[edit source | editbeta]
The dimensions and key system of the modern western concert flute and its close relatives are almost completely the work of the great flautist, composer, acoustician and silversmith, Theobald Boehm, who patented his system in 1847. It was immediately popular, and spread worldwide in just a few years. Minor additions to and variations on his key system are common but the acoustical structure of the tube remains almost exactly as he designed it. Major innovations were the change to metal instead of wood, large straight tube bore, "parabolic" tapered headjoint bore, very large tone holes covered by keys, and the linked key system which simplified fingering somewhat. The most substantial departures from Boehm's original description are the universal elimination of the "crutch" for the left hand, the almost universal adoption of Briccialdi's thumb key mechanism instead of Boehm's, and the almost universal adoption of a closed-standing G♯ key over an additional G♯ tone hole.[6] Boehm's key system, with minor variations, continues to be regarded as the most effective system of any modern woodwind, allowing trained players to perform with facility in all keys and with extraordinary velocity and brilliance. The modern flute has three octaves plus C7-C♯7-D7 in the fourth octave. Many modern composers used the high D♯7; while such extremes are not commonly used, the modern flute can perform up to an F♯7 in its fourth octave." -Wikipedia

"It was immediately popular, and spread worldwide in just a few years. Minor additions to and variations on his key system are common but the acoustical structure of the tube remains almost exactly as he designed it." - This particular sentence seems quite consistent with what I have found by observing several flutes built from circa 1915 to circa 2000.

And let's not forget this other paragraph:

"In the 1950s, Albert Cooper modified the Boehm Flute to make playing modern music easier. The flute was tuned to A440, and the embouchure hole was cut in a new way to change the timbre of the flute. These flutes became the most used flutes by professionals and by amateurs." And lest we not acknowledge the source of this information, Wikipedia sources this page:

http://www.larrykrantz.com/wyept2.htm#tune

- which is ironically one of the first web pages that I found when I was researching the history of the flute (some time ago). But ultimately, Larry Krantz reveals his source for this information: "(This is a summary of a talk given by Trevor Wye at International Summer School, Ramsgate in 1979 and revised in 1997, though it should be pointed out that this article is for the general reader who wishes to know why and how the flutes of the middle part of this century were not very well tuned)."

It might be true, but it is not accompanied by any evidence that would support the assertion. It does not mention what Cooper changed in order to improve on Boehm. Larry presents a summary of a talk. It is not accompanied by measurements or demonstrations.

and then read this:

http://www.fluteworld.com/index.php?act ... wart=48129

With all due respect to Nancy, I read this first: http://blog.oup.com/2012/08/flute-histo ... ancy-toff/
Nancy is a publishing professional who plays the flute since she was in the 5th grade, whenever that was. She is not employed as a professional flutist, nor does her biography mention that she has ever been involved in measuring by any scientific means the intonation qualities of various instruments that she writes about. My guess would be that her book would be quite informative, but not necessarily cover what we are discussing here.

and then the past 30 years of these:

http://www.theinstrumentalist.com/magazine-flutetalk/

If Nancy's book is "comprehensive", why not just read it? The problem with periodicals, is the required periodicity. It means that 30 years of periodicals might be 10X redundant. Ad space is sold on a more closely spaced period than new information is revealed. Larry Krantz's page or Nancy's book would be so much more concise I would hope;- even if these do not definitively address the details of the ideas of Trevor Wye.

[Silversorcerer]

Reply to pied piper:


"Yes. See this link: http://www.trevorwye.com/cooper1.html
You have limited your comparisons to flutes that were not built to the Cooper scale or one of the other modern scales like Bennett or RS 2012. Your comparison is flawed because you did not include flutes which are KNOWN to use the Cooper scale. That's much like looking at 10 cars in the U.S. and concluding that the driver always sits in the left seat of vehicles. That too would be a flawed conclusion because it did not examine any cars in Great Britain or other countries where the driver sits on the right side of the vehicle."

Did Cooper's innovations culminate in the 50s or the 70s? There seems to be some confusion about that. It seems that this was a continuous series of upgrades, even according to Cooper. I did not intentionally avoid Cooper scaled flutes, I just didn't find any post war flutes that varied substantially (with the exception of the early Emerson) from the 1961 Gemeinhardt M-1 scale, including the circa 2012 KGLtd. Special Custom with the J1 head and the B-foot, (open hole). If Cooper innovations were there in some way, it did not vary in degree over time. What is clear is that if any of these used the Cooper scale, all of them did. If one of them didn't use it, none of them did. They are all the same. And now the study group include two Artleys from the early 1950's and an Artley Symphony model from before the war;- all the same, Cooper or not.

My comparisons need not include any flutes which claim to be incorporating Coopers "innovations" in order to substantiate that the flutes in the comparison were all built with extremely similar dimensions that vary predictably when compared to a flute built to A=435. Leave Cooper out for the moment. This comparison did not address anything to do with Cooper's innovations, whatever effect these might have on flute playability. What my comparisons substantiate is that the principle makers of mass produced flutes in the USA (Bundy/Selmer, Gemeinhardt, Bettoney, Pedler, Artley, W.T. Armstrong, DeFord) did not simply shorten the length of the head joint of an A=435 flute to retune the low C of that flute to A= 440, which is what Trevor Wye implies happened. He certainly implies Powell and Haynes. Here is where he says that:

http://www.trevorwye.com/cooper1.html

"The placement of tone holes must follow a simple mathematical layout – but with certain allowances made for tone hole size, open/closed keys, key height, and a few more subtle compromises.  Up until the 1960s, the traditional high-quality flutes, such as those by the two famous US makers, and many European instruments too, were built to between A=435hz and A= 438hz, the performer being expected to play them at A=440hz or, in some countries 444hz. As the orchestral pitch became higher in the 1930s, makers seemed to have shortened the head joint, but also, as time passed, made alterations to the existing scale by moving a few holes. Perhaps the reason why a complete revision of the scale was thought unnecessary was that the rise in pitch was too small, or perhaps the knowledge of how to achieve this was wanting."

Wye is speculating without actually showing any evidence that a majority of flute makers actually did such a thing in practice. In that he dances around accusing flute makers without being specific is a clue that he probably doesn't really have a solid example of a maker who took an A=435 flute, shortened the head joint until the low C played in tune at A=440 and called it a correct A= 440 flute. By actually inspecting many post war USA flutes and few that are pre-war, this is not what anyone would find. It is not what I found, and I have these flutes and their serial numbers. In most cases the dates of manufacture can be deduced within a decade. I suppose I should post photographs and measurements taken with precise tools? Perhaps I will do that. Suffice it to say that mass produced USA flutes were redesigned to 440 completely by a method of mathematical dimension calculations that can be applied to an instrument built to any pitch standard. Because many manufacturers were repurposed during the war years, re-tooling was a necessary task post war. I know this happened at Conn, Ltd. as well as H. N. White. Just looking at several models over the post war decades, it is clear that many changes were made to the models. These do not include any changes in the scale dimensions. This has nothing to do with Cooper. It has to do with the difference between what is observed and what Wye claims to have been the approach to flute making. Rather than a hap-hazard adaptation to 440, it was a complete 440 redesign, and adopted throughout the industry in USA. Why? There are two roads in USA flutemaking, Boston and Elkhart. Bettoney, Haynes, Powell;- Boston. Elkhart is Pedler and Bundy/Gemeinhardt. I found two 440 scales, one that was consistent on all the Bettoneys beyond the Boston Wonder A435 (also an early Bettoney make), the other was consistent on all Gemeinhardts, Artleys, Armstrongs;- the Elkhardt scale. Two approaches to a true to Boehm, top to bottom A=440 scale, presumably with no contributions from Cooper, Bennett, etc. I don't have models to compare, but I would doubt that Bettoney was the only Boston maker that revised his entire scale when the standard moved to 440. Both the Boston and Elkhart flute scales are the same length from embouchure to end, with only slight variation in the top few tone holes.

I have many problems with Wye's claims, many of which are simply inconsistent with known music history. For instance his insistence on the lack of a standard orchestral pitch in the past. It was place at C= 256Hz(cps) a very long time ago. See here:

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/music/ ... _hist.html

"The first explicit reference to the tuning of middle C at 256 oscillations per second was probably made by a contemporary of J.S. Bach. It was at that time that precise technical methods developed making it possible to determine the exact pitch of a given note in cycles per second. The first person said to have accomplished this was Joseph Sauveur (1653-1716), called the father of musical acoustics. He measured the pitches of organ pipes and vibrating strings, and defined the ``ut'' (nowadays known as ``do'') of the musical scale at 256 cycles per second."

also: "In the late 1850's, the French government, under the influence of a committee of composers led by bel canto proponent Giacomo Rossini, called for the first standardization of the pitch in modern times. France consequently passed a law in 1859 establishing A at 435, the lowest of the ranges of pitches (from A=434 to A=456) then in common use in France, and the highest possible pitch at which the soprano register shifts may be maintained close to their disposition at C=256. It was this French A to which Verdi later referred, in objecting to higher tunings then prevalent in Italy, under which circumstance ``we call A in Rome, what is B-flat in Paris.''

So there was a pitch standard, and it was probably far more important to makers of instruments than those who might tune differently in practice. Pitch standard is a critical factor determining whether a woodwind instrument plays in tune. It must be built in tune. Despite what Wye claims, the pitch standard did not just wander upwards during the 1930's. Pitch standards changed at the end of major wars. Before WW1 there were two predominant pitch standards. One was the high pitch for brass bands and the other was orchestra or low pitch at A=435. And all of the woodwind instruments built during those times, both European and American are marked LP if they are low pitch A=435. At the end of WW1, high pitch instruments were no longer built. The switch to A=440 happened after WW2, or somewhat before in Europe and perhaps with a few makers in America. I point out that retooling after wars was generally necessary. If factories weren't destroyed in Europe, they were repurposed to produce armaments in the USA. After WWII, there was no pre-war tooling.

"A Cooper scale does not mean the flute is tuned to A=444. Your conclusion is erroneous. Again, your examples are incomplete and not representative of the best made flutes of today which were built with the Cooper or Bennett scale."

Here again, I am not discussing the merits of a Cooper flute scale, except as it applies to the attributes of a used flute which is neither a Cooper scale, nor A = 444, in general use as a beginner / student instrument. My point is that if "the best made flutes of today" include being built to A=444 as well as incorporating Cooper and Bennett, then the best made flute today might be one built more like yesterday when 440 was the standard;- with or without Cooper or Bennett. I have not ever played in an ensemble that tuned to A=444. My conclusion is correct. Cooper and Bennett flutes are late incorporations to flutes, just as A=444 is a late change in standard. In other words there are two different issues that affect newly made flutes, one is A=444, which I see as canceling any advantage to minor improvements in scale. At A=444 one starts with the entire instrument out of pitch, with an older 440 flute, one sacrifices the subtle intonation playing preferences of Cooper, Bennett, Wye, and a few others.

"A better A=440? A flute is either capable of playing an A=440 or it isn't. You've missed the point. The problem is that flutes made in the early to mid 1900s do not produce the most accurate scale. Perhaps they are accurate enough for some (such as yourself), but serious students and professionals want something better..."

Covered above. You've missed the point. Moving the pitch standard is a big deal concerning playing in tune. Even Wye admits it. As far as the Cooper scale according to Wye, it is of course now necessary to further revise the scale, because Cooper's improvements were inconsistently implemented and his scale revised over time. Whatever the Cooper scale seems to be, if it can be made to order on a 440 flute, maybe I'll give it a try some day.

"Yes, many professional flutists have more than one flute. However, show me a professional symphony flutist, who while working, plays a $100 flute (or two) and I'll show you an unemployed musician!!!"

Great point. I guess. But this thread is about favorite beginner flutes, not flutes that employed professional flutists use. Show me a beginner with a brand new VQP with the Powell II scale (A=442? ?) and I'll also show you an unemployed musician. So what? My point is that whatever instrument you depend on, having an equivalent back-up instrument is better than having a warranty.

Almost all of the arguments in favor of a new instrument have to do with the "latest" scale or some warranty value. There are plenty of those "last year" Cooper scale Buffets available used if one prefers a flute with Cooper stamped on it. I guess that's how to identify a "known" Cooper scaled flute. If that is significant to you, you can get it for about the same price as a vintage 60s Bundy in good condition. It's also a <$100 flute, Cooper notwithstanding.

My biggest reason for questioning the value of Cooper (I won't bother questioning A=444, it has no foundation other than bureaucracy) is that the primary endorsement of Cooper, even referenced in Wikipedia, is Trevor Wye. Send me to Wikipedia and it sends me to Larry Krantz, who is quoting Trevor Wye. Why ask Wye? I tend to question things when the sole source of the information, Trevor Wye, makes so many erroneous assertions. Perhaps the late Cooper scale, the 2012 one is the best yet, even better than the one that he was developing in the 1950s through the 1970s;- the one that I can see evidenced nowhere in mass produced student flutes made in the USA.

Perhaps this is the most telling statement about the Cooper scale:

As ‘the Scale’ developed and players offered their opinions, Cooper updated his figures and gave the latest revision to anyone who asked for it. Over time, he gave the latest scale to different makers. Just a few years ago, he said: ‘Cooper’s Scale? What’s that? There isn’t ‘a’  Scale. There is a constant revision taking place so that, at any one time, there is a set of figures which you can use to design your flute, but these will change in the light of experience. I altered the scale a little as the years went by, mostly according to certain criticisms levelled at it. I now feel that I have more or less reached the end of the road scale-wise.’

[pied_piper]

@Silversorcerer: Unfortunately, I can't take the time to address all your comments and observations, so instead, I'll just finalize my input to this topic with a few thoughts.

First, Artley and Armstrong flutes were the mainstay of thousands of beginner, intermediate, and even a few professionals. I, myself started on a used nickle plated plateau model Artley. I later moved to an Sterling silver Armstrong 80. I still have both, but I eventually got a professional level Muramatsu. Were those old Artleys and Armstrongs bad flutes? No. They were built like tanks and designed to work reliably for many, many years. Are they still OK to play today? Certainly, they are, PROVIDED they are maintained in good playing condition with good pads, adjustments etc. The main problem that I see with promoting these older model flutes here is that many of the readers of this forum are new to flute playing (or are their parents) and they come here looking for advice on purchasing a first flute. If they buy one of these older flutes locally from a reliable source that guarantees it, it can be a good, inexpensive way for them to start. On the other hand, if they buy one of these sight unseen (and untested) from eBay, they might get a bargain or they might get a piece of junk. For those people, it is probably safer if they pay a little more and buy from a local music store.

Now on the topic of flutes scales, let me clarify a bit. The older Artleys and Armstrongs did not have BAD scales. In the hands of an experienced player, they can be played in tune with other instruments when the pitch standard is A=440. At A=442 or higher, it becomes more of a challenge. My main point on scales (and one which you alluded to) is that as pitch standards have evolved, so have the flute scales. No flute has a perfect scale on every note. The player must adjust accordingly. Flute design is a compromise, but when the scale is more accurate on more notes, it becomes easier for the player to play in tune. My main point to this is I would prefer to play a more modern flute with an improved scale than an older one with a less accurate scale. Call me lazy, but I enjoy having to work LESS to play in tune. Also, most newer flutes have improved the headjoint design which also contributes to the ease of playing.

Finally, I'll end with this: The '57 Chevy is a classic car which I greatly admire and have enjoyed driving in the past. A return to a classic car can be an interesting diversion, however, it's not a car I would want to use for my daily commute. I prefer the comfort and reliability of a more modern car with power steering, power windows, 8-way power seats, automatic transmission, A/C, and air bags for safety. Similarly, I prefer to play a flute with all the conveniences and ease of playing in tune. Now, if you like playing older flutes, then by all means do so, but that is not necessarily best for everyone else.

[flutego12]

@Pied Piper

Your tact, diplomacy, skillful navigation and comprehensive address of this in a succinct wrap is truly admirable. Thank you.

[Phineas]

I leave for a while, and a post pops up like this...LOL Interesting....

[pied_piper]

Hey Phineas! Welcome back! We've missed your contributions. Hope you don't stay away for so long again.