When I first started out as a recorder maker, the most essential reference source for measurements was the Zen-On publication of the drawings of the recorders in the Brüggen collection made by Fred Morgan. These wonderful A3 prints made easy access to a wide selection of baroque recorders that the aspiring recorder maker could only dream about encountering in the flesh [or the wood!]
The largest was the Stanesby Junior tenor fourth flute in B flat, which, together with the Hotteterre tenor, were my first two exercises in making big recorders. The tenor I never sold, and the Fourth flute extended to a run of 6 over the years with many variations in hole and key configuration to suit the customer's needs.
I had always assumed that there could never be two of the Stanesby, so when I received the Bate newsletter with the announcement of the purchase of a 'tenor Stanesby fourth flute', I immediately assumed it was the one from the Bruggen collection, as I had heard rumours that it had been dispersed. As I was at the time building up a collection of exact copies rather then 415 compromises, I set too to make an instrument following the Morgan drawing, thinking that I could turn up at the Bate to make a comparison and finish off the finer details of voicing and tuning with the original in front of me.
When I got the Bate, to be greeted by Andy with the new fourth flute, I received quite a shock, as this fourth flute and my copy were obviously different instruments, and a couple of 'phone calls that I should have made earlier confirmed that there were, indeed, two Stanesby tenor fourth flutes in existence. As I had a commission to make a copy of at least one of them, I thought it would be useful to compare the Bate example with the Brüggen example, [hereafter referred to as the 'Brüggen' and the 'Bate'] even though I only had the Morgan drawing to go on for the latter.
It is immediately obvious that, in many ways, the instruments are identical and from the same hand. The small details of the turning are very similar, very English, and of a pattern common to all Stanesby and Bressan recorders. The bore, assuming some differences in measuring techniques, follows the same shape, if a few fractions of a millimetre apart. There is obvious use of separate reamers for final tuning, and the only divergence is in the beak where the Brüggen has a tapered socket, and the Bate does not, with the result that the block was distinctly reluctant to emerge. With the block extracted, some differences in voicing are apparent. The Brüggen has a wider windway [18.5 to 14.8 at the window] compared to 17.5 to 14.1 in the Bate. In the Morgan drawing, a cut is observed leaving the windway and curving into the bore. Morgan suggested that this might have been deliberate to help drain water, but it is not seen in the Bate. In both, the windway is concave, and the under labium is short and steep with a thin edge, a characteristic of all Bressans and Stanesbys. The sounding length of the head joint is approx 3 mm shorter in the Brüggen than in the Bate. The block is of interest as it is damaged. A number of ring shaped indentations in the flat end indicate a previous attempt to remove it with a length of piping! and the top surface looks as though it has been re-finished with a blunt chisel. There is no discernible bottom chamfer, and this has presumably been chiselled away.
The centre joints are very similar, with identical hole patterns and direction of undercut, but the length of the Brüggen is 3 mm shorter that the Bate.
It is on the foot joint that the biggest difference is seen. On the Bate, the central key support is a complete ring, while on the Brüggen the ring has been carved away to leave a central boss. The foot is also slimmer in the Brüggen, and 1.5 mm shorter. Overall, the Brüggen is approx 7.5 mm shorter than the Bate.
From this evidence I would say that it was unlikely that these recorders were made at the same time as a pair, but, as in my own experience, made some time apart when measurements had perhaps been retained, but memory was dim. The decider for me being that in the Brüggen the figure 4 is placed below the name Stanesby Iunior, and the logo above, whereas in the Bate the position is reversed. Unless this was done deliberately to distinguish between two instruments at the workshop at the same time, I think we can safely assume that Stanesby had forgotten which way round he had placed them when he had made the first as he came to make the second.
They are both beautiful instruments to play, to go by my experience of the Bate, and the description of the Bruggen, with gentle low notes, but a remarkably easy and well tuned upper register. Both have a slightly wide octave F [note 5], and the copy I made also shows this, although the notes can be blown in tune. A comparison of the absolute pitch shows that they are both set between A405 when cold and A410 when warmed up, although this is very difficult to define exactly, and one would expect the Bruggen to be sharper than the Bate due to its shorter sounding length.
It was altogether a great privilege to be able to handle and play the Bate instrument, and a challenge to make a third example. I have deposited a drawing of the Bate at the collection where it will be available to anyone who is interested in doing the same.
© Copyright 2007, Tim Cranmore
Webmaster: Nicholas S.
Lander