Talk:Flute

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Musical Instruments (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Ocarina is not a flute?[edit]

Can Ocarina be considered a flute? I think there must be at least a reference to ocarina. I saw an Ocarina and i didn't know that it was called "ocarina". I tried to find it in this article initially. i went to other online sources and fond the name and then i had to search for article on Ocarina. I have now added it in 'see also' section for people like me. I still think this needs to be mentioned in the article. --B. Srinivasa Sasidhar 00:56, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bssasidhar (talkcontribs)

Flute Metals[edit]

I don't agree with the statement that changing the metal of the flute makes no impact on the sound. I haven't got any specific references but the piece 'Density 21.5' was written for a platinum flute and tried to make full use of the bright, harsh tone that platinum gave. The sound is very different to a standard flute. Can anyone find a good ref for this? Rocket71048576 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Flautists know this: In theory if two flutes are identical but made of different metals, and played the same way, by the same flautist, they should sound the same. However flautists know better than that. Gold, Sliver, Platinum, German Silver all sound different. It is subtle, to the listener it sounds different, to the player, it feels different. HuskyMoon 07:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Nancy Toff starts her section on materials with "Almost nothing can start an argument among flutists faster than a discussion of the relative merits of various materials". She also mentions participating in a blind trial of gold vs silver, where experts listening could not reliably tell which was being played. The whole issue is worth a section, either here, if written to apply to all flutes, or at Western concert flute if addressing the specifics of that instrument. Stan 15:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a great subject of argumentation. The Toff test was flawed because it does not take into account the fact that each flutist's style impacts tone and articulations more than the actual flute, but that a flutist who plays 6 hours a day on a given instrument is also influenced. Put that flutist to use a different metal for a blind test and naturally that flutist will "push" the instrument to sound like what she/he uses for 6 hours a day. Now switch flutes on that player for a month and then listen... Things changed. HuskyMoon 16:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Got a published source for that? Stan 18:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Stan, one is "The Simple Flute" by Michel Debost. I was published in 2002 by Oxford University Press. Michel Debost was the professor who succeeded the great Jean-Pierre Rampal at the Paris National Conservatory. Debost is one of the great teachers and players of our time. From page 82 to page 86 he discusses what makes a great flute and describes what most professional flutists know: Unlike what physicists and theoreticians say, the material that a flute is made of is very important. The argumentation here that a gold flute is better built than a brass flute is misleading. You see the major makers of professional instruments hand make those exact same instruments in Silver, 14K gold, 18K gold, platinum, platinum clad metal. There is a reason for that. They wouldn't if they all sounded the same. I would recommend revising this section. HuskyMoon 20:10, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The article should then say "Toff says this, Debost says that" - WP:NPOV says that it's not our place to promote one side of the debate over the other, we just report that there is a debate and who says what. What manufacturers do is worth nothing, but not a compelling argument either way; they just sell what customers ask for, irrespective of the reason. Stan 20:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, these are not factories, but people who hand-make instruments. It takes months to make a single instrument and they don't do it to push "customers". This is a relationship between professional musicians and highly skilled craftspeople. It is a symbiotic relationship. They is no pushing. Rather working on making the best possible instrument for each player and the type of music played. There are major differences. Toff did a great dis-service with her book in many ways. She is not a musician of the caliber of Jean-Pierre Rampal, Debost, Pahud, Gallway, Gallois. If you had a chance to talk to these players they would all unanimously tell you that there is a big difference and each one had his preference: Type of silver, type of gold, platinum and mixes of the above in the parts. These players can play exactly what they want. Each one picks differently. Wonder why?. Having physicists tell real artists that there is no difference is like having someone who knows Latin, but doesn't know mathematics comment on Newton's Principles of Mathematics.... HuskyMoon 03:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me make sure that I communicate clearly: Nancy Toff did a great job in her book. But she is a book editor for Oxford University Press, not a world-class flutist or a musicologist. Her book fills a gap. But it should not be seen as Gospel.

She may not be a world-class flutist, but she is way more than just a book editor. she does play flute quite well I understand. Her book is demonstrable proof she is a musicologist. --Blouis79 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you think about resolving this by writing something such a: "There are opposite points of view: Some believe that two identical flutes made of silver and gold will play differently (Michel Debost) and others that there is no noticeable difference (Nancy Toff). I think that this way we would cover it all an give a chance to the reader to make up their own mind.... I look forward to your thoughts. HuskyMoon 10:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a right way to phrase this, let me give it a try. I'd have to buy Debost's book to reference it in detail, although I was able to look at a sample at Amazon. (I didn't find him very convincing, not going any deeper than the "everybody knows" level.) From the scientific point of view, it would be hard to change the instrument being played without the player knowing about it, so you have a problem with Subject-expectancy effect, not to mention if the instruments being tested are all handmade, you have many individual variations aside from the metal being used. Stan 15:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I look forward to reading you. HuskyMoon 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Flute embouchure hole design seems most critical - small variations can make big difference in timbre with identical materials. Any flute player can demonstrate this with different supposedly identical models of flutes. Any study of different metals must have an identical hole design. Studies do not clearly demonstrate a difference, probably confounded by embouchure design. [1] Controlled tone tests show that the tube mass does make a difference and therefore tube density and wall thickness will make a difference. [2] --Blouis79 14:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is similar to the debate in the Saxophone community about the effect of the material the mouthpiece is made from. If 2 mouthpieces of identical design were made, one in ebonite (hard rod rubber) and one in metal, the ebonite one would play 'darker', because the softer material absorbs more of the higher partials, while the metal one would play 'brighter', due to the reflection and non-absorbtion of the higher partials. But Design plays a great part. Creating an internal constriction (a 'baffle') in a shape that mimics an aeroplane's wing sets up an 'aerofoil' effect, where air-speed in increased without any extra effort from the player. Hence a 'Jumbo Java' mouthpiece in ebonite with a pronounced 'baffle' will play far 'brighter' than an Otto Link mouthpiece in metal without a 'baffle'. The material certainly contributes, but the effect is swamped by Design. Also, the sound in the particular player's head has an enormous influence. It is possible for an expert Baroque Flautist accustomed to a wooden Flute to produce an amazingly close imitation of a wooden Flute sound on a modern metal Flute. Saxstudio (talk) 22:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If someone says two flutes made of different metals sound differently, then that is the case, because no one can deny our personal experience. That doesn't stop a physicist making measurements which prove the contrary. The confusion arises when the word 'sound' is used indiscriminately to mean a personal experience or a physical wave. Imagine someone says 'hello' to John. John hears a sound inside, privately, no one else shares it. On the other hand, someone with a microphone can record the sound waves passing through the air, and the waves can be displayed on a screen without anyone hearing the word 'hello'.

The real disagreement comes when a person says, without physical evidence, that two otherwise identical flutes made of different metals, make observably different waveforms appear on a computer screen. To my knowledge such differences haven't been verified by observation, and there are no known physical principles which would account for such a difference. There are physical reasons why a flute made of jelly would sound differently though. There is well established repeatable evidence that the shape of the flute relates directly to the observed sound, as measured. These differences can usually be heard as well.

Many flute players agree that the metal used to make the flute affects the sound, many scientists agree the opposite; but few seem to agree about what they are actually talking about, and confusion arises when the word 'sound' is used for two absolutely, utterly, and completely different things.

I hope this helps a bit with the debate about what to write in the article. Exactly how does the shape of the bore determine the character of the flute? A.H. Benade explains quite a lot in his beautiful book titled 'Fundamentals of Musical Acoustics.' 124.171.60.135 (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I am in the process of researching sources for this, but would like to point out a claim I have heard often, in case anyone else would also look into it. My professor of flute did her thesis on this topic, and found that the type of metal does NOT make a difference, but the purity of the metal makes a difference. I will post with sources as soon as they are found! Acronin3 (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening Illustration[edit]

I think that the graphic "An illustration of a Western concert flute" which appears at the top of the article is unfortunately chosen. At this position in the article, surely we should show an example of a standard Western concert flute. The chosen graphic shows what appears to be a wooden instrument with antique keywork. We should, I think, show a plain vanilla metal Boehm instrument, the dominant western flute. I am not arguing that wooden Boehm flutes do not exist; indeed, their use is increasing after 100 or more years of decrease. But they are rare. This illustration would give an unknowledgable reader a wrong impression of what the vast majority of western concern flutes look like. Rcneville 05:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to this, I have switched the drawing and the photo of the Western flutes around. Hope this is an improvement - I think it is certainly less misleading. Rocket71048576 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I find it somewhat bothersome that a demonstrably untrue statement like "In non-fipple flutes, especially the concert flute and piccolo, the player must form and direct the stream with his lips, which is called an embouchure. This makes the transverse flute's pitch and timbre more instantly expressive than any other instrument." has survived for four years. Absolutes always set off warning bells in my head, especially considering the wide variety of instruments where the airflow creating the sound is shaped by the lips.

The pictures were switched back at some point, I have used "Flute.jpg" which is a picture of a modern concert flute. JagDragon♫ (talk) 04:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to be too overly nit picky but the picture of the flute is an adapted student model (offset keys and missing a key on the foot joint). Perhaps a more professional model would increase the awesomeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.61.31 (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


Edit: In non-fipple flutes, especially the concert flute and piccolo, the player must form and direct the stream with his lips. This makes the transverse flute's pitch and timbre more instantly expressive than any other instrument. However, it also makes the transverse flute immensely more difficult [start of edit:] for a beginner to get a full sound out of [end of edit:] than the recorder.

Previous text was "more difficult to play than the recorder." As a professional flutist who has also performed a bit on the recorder, I believe that while it is much easier for an advanced beginner to play a recorder at a reasonably acceptable level, it is much harder to really master the recorder than the flute. Be that as it may, I fail to see that it's _immensely easier_ to master the recorder!

Michael

Nickel-silver and brass are different materials, guys. User:Ray Van De Walker


There is some dispute over whether the the head is really a hyperbola; I think the article means the inside of the head. Can anyone state definitively? I don't have a flute lying around. I erased the contradiction "(Surely not...)" from the subject page, since it seems kind of silly to say, "It's this (no it isn't)." -- Merphant

I've taken out the hyperbola part. It's probably parabolic. -- Merphant

I'd suggest tapered, since Boehm describes "parabolic" but depends a bit on origin - some were apparently conical.--Blouis79 12:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The caption under the first photo is also wrong. The photo showns only Japanese and western flutes. Definitely not from "around the world" as it claims. Where are all the others, Asian, African American, European etc? Either the picture or the caption should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.82.179.36 (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

German flute[edit]

Is there a reason that "german flute" does not even appear in this article? I added "formerly known as the German flute". I would suggest changing the redirect for "german flute" from "flute" to "Western concert flute".

I don't changing the redirect a good idea. "German flute," as far as I know, typically referred to a simple system, conical bore flute, not a key-only (no keyless holes), cylindrical bore flute like Boehm flutes. I don't think Wikipedia has an article on 19th century-style "German" flutes, but it probably should. There is Irish flute, but that's a bit of a misnomer. --Craig Stuntz 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with changing the redirect. "German flute" is a term that actually refers to Theobald Boehm's model of the flute, in other words, the modern 'Western concert flute'. The correct term for simple system, conical bore flutes is arguable. The term 'Irish flute' can refer to keyless or keyed flutes and generally refers to the Irish version. I think the term 'Baroque flute' would be better in this instance. --Rockerflutist1 19:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No. The Baroque flutes were different than the 19th century flutes, both in terms of bore and keying. They're a different instrument, and the so-called "Irish flutes" are more similar to the 19th century models than to the Baroque flutes; in fact, they're frequently identical. (I play Irish music on a keyless flute.) As for "German flute" = Boehm, that's not how I see the term being used, although I doubt it has a formal definition.

The transverse flute, the flute that is most commonly used in Western music, was known to have existed in China about 900 BCE. The flute reached Europe during the 12th century where it became most used as a military instrument in German speaking areas. This led to its formal name, the German flute.

http://library.thinkquest.org/15413/instruments/woodwinds.htm

Wedgwood lists German Flute as a synonym for Flauto Traverso, but says...

http://www.organstops.org/g/GermanFlute.html

...and others. My sense is that the term was pretty much obsolete by Boehm's heyday. --Craig Stuntz 16:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Typically the "German Flute" is thought of as the flute that Quantz made an played. It was a baroque flute. Note that the French like Hotteterre made one-key flutes that were very different. Then the paradox comes from the fact that Boehm "reinvented" the flute, but that his invention was perfected in Paris by Clair Godefroy, Louis Lot and Bonneville in particular. We are probably lacking some of that history in this article. HuskyMoon 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


"A flute is usually an open-ended reedless tube with circular holes, which produce higher or lower sounds when opened or closed with the fingers."

Are the sounds really produced by the holes? Or should it rather read:

"A flute is usually an open-ended reedless tube with circular holes, which produces higher or lower sounds depending on which holes are opened or closed with the fingers."?

S.

Well.. that's a tough one. I suppose it depends on your usage of the word "produce"... in the balance though, I would argue that your interpretation has a better sound to it. I suggest altering the article. --Dante Alighieri


Somebody inserted the following paragraph into sheet music. It has nothing to do with sheet music, but I thought I'd put it here in case it was of any use to anybody. --Camembert

many advances have been made in the region of the instruments, as well as the music, since their humble beginnings. For example, the flute that we see today has come very far since its beginnings, possibly in early Japan or China. Then, the flute was a simple tube with anywhere from six to ten finger-holes and smoe form of mouthpeice. Today, the modern flute, whose keywork was created by the German istrument-maker Theobald Boehme, has some 16 keys, far more than the old open-hold flutes. Most of theses are also covered by pads that only need to be opened by a single pad, thus enabling the flautist to have the full range of scales and accidental notess without having to change octaves or fingering systems.

Archive

"Flautist"[edit]

I reverted some speculation about the etymology of "flautist" becuase it's wrong according to multiple dictionaries, and even if the speculation was true having an odd etymology doesn't make a word "not a word." --Craig Stuntz 19:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought so too! Strongly agree with "not a word" remark. --Pathlessdesert 4 February 2006
Not to mention I covered the matter better at flautist anyway. Don't people ever follow links? Stan 05:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Stan, what you wrote there agrees with the references I checked. --Craig Stuntz 14:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

So what was the upshot of the discussion as regards whether "flautist" or "flutist" is the preferred form for the article text? Currently both spellings appear at one point in the same sentence! 84.69.241.142 16:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think flute player is also used and given the divided opinion amongst flautist vs flutist, the more neutral and also historically correct flute player is an OK use as well. --Blouis79 12:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I myself am a flute player, but i much rathe be called a Flautist. It is more professional and gives more a status in a the public eye.

James Galway once said: "I am a flute player not a flautist. I don't have a flaut and I've never flauted." Saxstudio (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what James Galway said, or what any one person prefers to be called. There's also no such thing as "historically correct", just historical prevalence in usage. As article editors, we decide on a style to use consistently in the article, and we stick with it. Of course, historical, modern, and contemporary usage should inform that decision, and I happen to agree that flute player is probably the best style to use here (although I do like the word flautist). /ninly(talk) 15:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

flute also has a meaning in machine engineering[edit]

Hi, I understand that "flute" has a meaning in machine engineering. I believe it means the grooves in the side of a drill bit or endmill. Here is a use, from End_mill

Endmills are used in milling applications such as profile milling, tracer milling, face milling, and the like. Depending on the material being milled, different tool types and geometry may be used. For instance, when milling a material like aluminum, it may be adventageous to use a tool with a very shallow flute depth, and a pre-dulled (but polished) cutting edge.


Yes, the word 'flute' does have another definition. It's actually called fluting. Grooves down the side of a drill bit are called 'flutes', as you said. Also, in Roman architecture especially, the grooves going down a column are called flutes. Also 'flute' can mean a kind of wine glass. I think the latter may appear in an article eslwhere, however there should be an article on 'fluting' as discussed above. Anyone willing to work on that? --Caleb Mitchum 19:12, 9 September 2006

There is actually a current usage in which the engineering meaning is also at work in the flute making world. London flute maker Robert Bigio makes what he calls 'fluted' headjoints. These are wooden headjoints which have numerous 'flutes' or narrow grooves handcarved the length of the headjoint. The object, I believe, is to reduce the mass of the headjoint and perhaps also for visual effect. Rcneville 04:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

The section on the western concert flute should be shortened and the content merged with the article on western concert flute. Generally, this article should gibe a general definition, overview of different flute types and links to special articles on special instruments. It is on the right way (better in this respect than some other articles on musical instruments) but can be improved. Nannus 17:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, though I think it's an organization issue rather than a POV issue. --Craig Stuntz 17:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the problem of this article (and others) can be solved by reorganizing it. But in my oppinion, it is a NPOV-problem. The problem is in the eurocentric selection of material. A counterexample to this is the very balanced article on writing systems. Nannus 18:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think "flute" is the term that applies in common usage to what is in the article "western concert flute". But people who play flute call it a "flute". Historical "flutes" and flutes from other cultures have different names - articles on them can be linked. I think it's an organisation issue and a language issue. This page is in English and presumably people all round the world who play the "flute" first think of the modern western type flute. There are many modern innovations that have historical versions - and we illustrate them with what is commonly accepted in the present. --Blouis79 13:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant Replies Removed[edit]

I just removed two irrelevant replies from this discussion, they offered nothing of substance to the discussion. Rookie Rover 21:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Rookie Rover

You informing us of that wasn't particuarly relevant either.

Author??[edit]

Who wrote this article (introduction)? They can't spell 'pitch' and the grammar is pretty bad. It seems like it was written by an amateur flautist, definitely not a professional. Someone please, rewrite the beginning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.165.119 (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Edit: It was deleted while I was writing this. Thank you.

Trivia[edit]

Much as I enjoyed the cute humor and interesting stories of the trivia section, such is not appropriate for Wikipedia. This section should be cleaned up or deleted.


Flute History[edit]

I was very disappointed to find that the more modern techniques of flute playing had been removed from this site, as I found them to be most insightful into the 20th Century styles of playing being currently pioneered by the newer composers. I, myself, have participated in a workshop where creating a slide-whistle effect was used in a modern piece, and was glad to read about this effective technique being used widely, especially among the younger players, who afterall are the future of music. I find it disgraceful that this generation of flautists are being ignored as they obviously have some very innovative ideas, and when they wish to share them with other talented musicians, are shunned into silence. I will not be using this website again. Shame on you all.

Cite some sources, and it can come back - otherwise no way to tell what is real, and what is some lamer's idea of a joke. Stan 23:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, why knock down the future of flute playing? One day those inquisitive students may be first flute in the BBC Symphony Orchestra, testing those very techniques on the big screen. Shame on you all x 2. Love Sexy Flute Player (Anon.) p.s Cite Schmite, it's a free world...

The problem underlying is the emphasis of this article on the flute history and multicultural flute family, when to most people the "flute" is the flute they play, which Wipedia calls "Western concert Flute". I think we should fix the whole thing properly starting with proper disambiguation. --Blouis79 21:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox[edit]

So, while the article purports to be a an overview of flutes worldwide, the infobox is "western concert flute". If the infoboxes are now the in-thing, then we need to strip out anything that is not true of all types of flutes. Stan 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree --Blouis79 14:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

<!-- Why are there sarcastic- and snarky-sounding comments all over the first few sections of the article? Shouldn't someone (preferably someone who knows more about flutes than I do, but I could help) actually start improving the said sections instead of complaining about them? —  $PЯINGrαgђ  15:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC) -->

:Well, yes. But isn't it better to put "sarcastic- and snarky-sounding comments" in the hope that "someone who knows more about flutes than I do" improves it, rather than just delete the stuff saying "unsubstantiated opinion", or leave the unsubstantiated opinion in there unchallenged? I'm not looking for a fight here - I agree with what you've said, but I don't think such crap should be allowed to stay there unchallenged, and I don't see any benefit in simply deleting this person's efforts. I'm happy to fall in line with whatever you suggest. Pdfpdf 15:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC) I would say definately not delete it, but we very much need refs. However, I'm at a loss as to how to find them. —  $PЯINGrαgђ  15:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Me too. So I think we agree? (Yes?)
So do I leave the snarky comments in, or do I soften them, or do I remove them? (However, I'm loath to remove them, just like I'm loath to remove the unsubstantiated contributions.)
Or, from the point of a non-expert, do I try to improve it myself?
Or with your help?
Or do we both wait for an expert to come along?
Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
-----
Is that any better? Pdfpdf 18:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to call attention to the paragraph on Jazz flute. Looking at it, I think it's only the editors opinion, presented as facts. I think it should be edited - musicians who play jazz on the flute produce clean, smooth tones just as often as the harsher, "dirtier" ones. --Sorcerer of words 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I asked Saxstudio for sources, but got no response. Anything unciteable needs to go. Stan 23:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Would it be rude to remove a large section like that? I'm new here, so I'm not sure how much of an affront that'd be, but when I first read it, I wanted to edit the page to take it off, but thought it'd be better to bring it up here, first.--Sorcerer of words 03:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, yes, that kind of thing can result in heated tempers, but integrity of the encyclopedia is more important. Leave another note on Saxstudio's page saying what you're going to do, then do it. It can always be undone later if a good reason surfaces. Stan 13:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
All right, thanks for the advice, it's all been done. --Sorcerer of words 15:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bright"[edit]

A "bright" pitch is one that is purer with less harmonics - ie closer to a clear tone sine wave. The reason a flute sound different to a violin whilst playing a note of the same pitch is that each instrument adds its own overtones. If someone else has time to turn this into a readable explaination in the article I would appreciate it. Sophia 20:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Usually, when people talk about a "bright" tone, they mean the opposite to what you've described above. Pathless 21:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please elaborate as I'm not an expert but my understanding was that brass instruments produce brighter sounds because there were less complex harmonics. I could be totally wrong on this as I guess I'm approaching it from a physic point of view (a tube being a more simple resonator than say a violin sound box). Actually this is begining to sound like OR so I'll check some sources and post later :o) Sophia 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep I take it all back - it seems the brightness is caused by boosting the upper harmonics of an instrument (something a tube will do easier than a sound box - hence my confusion). A sawtooth wave would be very bright which is a very complex combination of sine waves. These make interesting reading [3][4] but I don't think I dare add to the article in case I still don't understand it properly!! Sophia 10:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
At the minute, it isn't a very good article, and it is packed with original research. You can only improve it by adding verifiable material. I'm sure that you understand it well enough, and I think that you should go ahead and edit! Pathless 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)''Italic text'

Categories?[edit]

The paragraphs directly under this heading make sense in this context, but then The Western concert flutes/The Indian Bamboo Flute/Dvoyanka (Double Flute)/Pinkillo are arbitrary examples of flutes, not categories. 67.131.237.93 21:14, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Overwhelming common usage is to call the modern instrument "flute". "Flute Family" seems more appropriate to capture the range of flute-like instruments, which have their own distinguishing names. "Flute history" could be a separate article or contained within "Flute". As mentioned in the talk page elsewhere, there is good interest in capturing modern innovations in flute-playing of the modern instrument, which some editor deleted - deletion of useful content is surely poor form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blouis79 (talkcontribs) 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're thinking of the woodwind or Western concert flute families. Flute Family would have to be renamed Flute family anyways. --Merovingian (T, C) 13:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

IMSLP link[edit]

As the IMSLP is temporarily down, I am adding the missing info here. When it goes back up, it should be put back into the article:

*[http://imslp.org/wiki/User:Clark_Kimberling/Historical_Notes_1 Access to IMSLP 12 collections of 1000 free downloadable flute/recorder solos,] with historical notes

♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Changing sound impact[edit]

I am a professional flute player, and I saw that someone had written that she/he thinks that changing the metal on the flute has an no imapct on the sound. However, I think that it does. I think that the following also have an impact on the sound: - The metal - The longness/shortness - The thinckness of the metal - The amount of oxygen in and around the flute - The shortness/quickness of breaths - The deepness/highness voice that the flautist has. Please take these into consideration If you agree, please say so, if not, please say so and WHY. That is no good to have an answer you don't have an explanation for.


Thank you for reading this information.

Name Age Comment
YOUR NAME HERE YOUR AGE HERE [OPTIONAL] YOUR COMMENT HERE

Please can you copy this into your comment and fill it in. This way I know how to address you. Thank you: [Do not wish to be named] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.139.147 (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

"radiuses"[edit]

"...and radiuses or curvature of the ends of the chimney."

Um, the plural of "radius" is "radii".

Strange ringing flute probably native American[edit]

I've been searching the web on several ocasions for it. It's frustrating that I can't find it. I know the sound, but whatever I input for internet search I end up with something else. What is that flute? Can any of you answer please? I prety much described it in the title here -- strange ringing flute probably native American. I've heard it on several occasions: once in some show on TV when they were showing some desert in US, and also I've heard it being used once somwhere in Rammstein's song "Amerika" ('Rammstein - Amerika' ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY ) - that's the only reliable source I can point to you in order for you to dechyper this mystery). So -- flute people -- what do you say?

Yeah, what's that flute? Can anyone answer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.189.215.114 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
It's used in that Rammstein song at 1:51 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w9EksAo5hY . Obviously it's some wind-blown instrument but I don't know what it is - can someone help here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.143.68 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Are they ignoring it or they really don't have a ****ing clue? Maybe it is not a flute... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.143.68 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
+++ ANSWER THIS, ANYONE +++ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.101.143.68 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is totally just a guitar effect.24.182.72.91 (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Electric flute[edit]

I came here to find out exactly what an electric flute is and how it works. I've heard of it, but I don't have any idea what it looks like or sounds like. If anyone has a source, can they add it in? Briefplan (talk) 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure it's what you're looking for, but you might find some useful information in the Wind Controller FAQ. /Ninly (talk) 19:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Or try looking at the article wind controller if that external link is broken. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection from Anonymous Edits[edit]

Could this article maybe get protected from anonymous edits??

Some fool comes and vandalises it on a regular basis - seems a shame for others to be spending their time reverting fatuous comments and idiot changes all the time. --Ndaisley (talk) 06:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The average response time to vandalism seems to be almost two hours. Not good at all. Especially given how my edits are reverted the next minute, even when I cite a thousand sources relevant to the topic. Perhaps if I edited this article I could cause it to get protected. It would be out of prejudice towards me, but the result would be the same: it would get protected from that vandal. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sound sample?[edit]

Would it be possible to add a sound sample? Bartholomewklick (talk) 21:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

acoustics[edit]

I'm an active flutemaker and ex sound laboratory person. If anyone cares to read the most up to date accounts of flute acoustics they will find that Bernoulli is out of date and wrong in connection with embouchure hole physics. Read Fletcher and Rossing's 'The Physics of Musical Instruments', for example. A.H. Benade's book 'The Physics of Musical Instruments' also provides much verifiable insight. The difference is that more modern accounts address the interaction of air column and embouchure hole, the article seems to promote the false idea that random disturbances in the air jet from the player's lips somehow sustain the oscillation of the air column. So I think it would be more correct to say that disturbances in the air column interact with the player's air jet to co-operate in a sustained oscillation, that is, a tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regrif (talkcontribs) 09:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the diffrent types of flutes[edit]

WHEN I STARTED IN INTREST OF THE FLUTE I JUST THOUGHT THERE WERE ONLY ONE TYPE OF A FLUTE BUT NOW WHEN I AM A LITTEL BIT IN IT I RELISE THAT THERE IS MORE TYPES OF FLUTES LIKE THE C FLUTE BASSE FLUTE AND ALL THE OTHER FLUTES. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.30.41 (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology[edit]

Fluit appears to me to be Dutch, rather than Danish. The word for flute, at least in modern Danish, seems to be fløjte. Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Correct. That was more or less what I said in my edit summary, when I reverted the change from "Danish" to "Dutch", which was contrary to the cited source, which claims fluit was once the Danish spelling. That source is the OED, which of course has been shown to be wrong in the past. Do you have a source to refute this source?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have a complete OED at hand. Can you replicate that section here? I certainly have seen errors in many other sources, confusing Danish and Dutch, especially where (sometimes nonstandard) short forms are used. The diphthong "ui" is very common in Dutch, but I can find no mention of it whatsoever in sources concerned with Danish orthography. (See e.g. http://www.pronunciationguide.info/Danish.html#diphthongs) A Wiktionary search for "fluit" clearly shows that it is a Dutch word: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fluit Heavenlyblue (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I shall take your word for it. I have some acquaintance with Dutch, none at all with Danish. On Wikipedia, however, everything depends on so-called reliable sources. The OED etymology (third edition) reads:
Etymology: Middle English < Old French fleüte, flaüte, flahute (also written flahuste), modern French flûte = Provençal flauta (feminine), of unknown origin; the Spanish flauta, Italian flauto are probably adopted < French or Provençal From French are Middle High German floite (modern German flöte), Danish fluit (whence possibly the Middle English forms).
I hope this helps.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I have been in personal communication with the editor for the pertinent section of the OED, and "Danish fluit" has been changed in the official database to "Dutch fluit". If you have access to the full online OED, you should see the change immediately. I leave it to you to verify and make the change if you wish. Heavenlyblue (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I do have access to the full OED online but, as of 26 October at 21:45 UTC, it still says "Danish". Perhaps it will take a day or two for the change to appear (especially considering we are in the midst of a weekend). I shall keep a weather eye out for this, however, and as soon as the change appears on OED, I shall change the reading in this article. Thanks for your efforts.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)