Chapter One: Bach’s Terminology

The first way to differentiate between Bach’s recorder and traverso parts would be to look at the terminology. Although there is generally no doubt which instrument is meant by the composer, one term in particular poses a strong dilemma: the Fiauti d’Echo.

Recorder

Twenty-eight of J.S. Bach's compositions including the recorder have been preserved. These works date from Bach’s time in Mühlhausen, Weimar, Cöthen and Leipzig.

In the manuscripts of Bach’s compositions, many different names for the recorder have been used:1

In his correspondence with the Leipzig Town Council in 1730, Bach uses the term Flöten à bec, a mixture of both German and French names for the instrument.2 Compared to his German contemporaries, Bach’s nomenclature forms no exception. Terminology in the 18^th century was not as standardized as it is today. In a cantata by the German composer Michael Rohde (1681-1732), both Fleutdoux and Fluto are used. Georg Philipp Telemann (1681-1767) asked for the recorder as Dusflöte, to add to this rich variety.3

Traverso

Bach wrote a significantly larger number of works containing a traverso. Bach’s earliest compositions with traverso date from his time in Cöthen, making the recorder the instrument with a much longer period of origin.

With the traverso, a similar freedom in terminology can be found in the original sources:4

In the same correspondence with the Leipzig Town Council, Bach uses Flöten Traversieri for the instruments and Fleutenisten for the musicians.5 The term Querflöte, present in the works of contemporaries Johann Mattheson (1681-1764) and Joseph Majer (1689-1768), is not used by Bach.6 Other instruments from Bach’s orchestra also show similar signs of unstandardized spellings (Hautbois, Oboe, Obboe, Oboé).7

Flauto piccolo

The term piccolo, preceded by Flauto or Fiauto, is used by Bach in his cantatas BWV 8, 96 and 103. Even though ‘piccolo’ is nowadays strongly associated with a small transverse flute, the above section made evident that Bach always includes some form of the word Traversa when he asks for a transverse flute. Telemann does write for a smaller transverse flute in his Grillen-Symphonie (from 1719?) and uses the term Traversiere à l’Octave.8 Therefore, the flauto piccolo must be a recorder.

The title page of the original source of BWV 96, in a manuscript copy by Johann Christoph Altnickol (1719-1759), only says Traversiere.9 Given that Johann Andreas Kuhnau (1703-after 1745) writes Fiauto piccolo in the part for the first movement of BWV 96,10 Altnickol seems to have made a mistake. There are more ways to support this conclusion, as will be shown in the next chapter.

The three cantatas with flauto piccolo (BWV 8, 96 and 103) were all three first performed in either 1724 or 1725 in Leipzig. During this period, Bach must have had a great flauto piccolo player nearby. In later performances of these cantatas, the recorder part was given to a different instrument.

Fiauti d’Echo

The Fiauti d’Echo cannot be omitted when talking about Bach’s recorder terminology. In the Brandenburg Concerto No.4 BWV 1049, Bach asks for due Fiauti d’Echo. In the staff headings, he abbreviates this to Fiauto 1mo and Fiauto 2do.11 Later, Bach reworked this concerto into the harpsichord concerto in F major BWV 1057 with two Fiauti à bec.12

Bach’s single use of these Fiauti d’Echo has led to much speculation around the identity of these instruments. Although they might have been regular recorders, the term ‘echo’ could be a reference to the echo flute: “a pair of small recorders of different tonal and dynamic characteristics…and joined together at the head piece by a brass flange (anonymous, probably saxon, late eighteenth century; Grassi-Museum, Leipzig).”13 Reconstructions of the echo flute have been used in this recording of the second movement by Voices of Music.

Although some favor the use of echo flutes (“Der Wechsel der dynamischen Bezeichnungen zwischen f im tutti und p…erhält somit eine klanglich noch ausdrucksstärkere Wirkung”),14 I personally do not. As shown in the otherwise pleasing recording by Voices of Music, the quick alternations between the two recorders force the endings of phrases to be cut short, since Bach wrote no rests between the forte and piano sections. In addition, the dynamic difference resulting in the use of these echo flutes is only small. Skilled recorder players, like I trust Bach to have had in his orchestra, are able to make similar if not bigger dynamic differences on one recorder with the use of alternative fingerings. Also, in Brandenburg Concerto No.2, Bach asks for a Fiauto, making the use of normal recorders in No.4 more likely to me.

In this trailer by Concerto Köln, reconstructions of the so-called double recorder have been used. Such an instrument can be found in the bottom right corner of Der Pfeiffenmacher by German engraver Christoph Weigel (1654-1725). However, these reconstructions differ greatly from surviving historical originals, that are made to play in minor thirds and are thus not suited for BWV 1049.15 Although switching between the two sides of the instrument does not create such a gap as in the previous recording, the difference in volume is again only minimal.

Then, why d’Echo? The term could also refer to “an echo, literal (even spatial), figurative, or symbolic, as well as perhaps the secondary function of the Fiauti in relation to the violin.”16 In my opinion, Bach left us a musical clue on how to perform this music, rather than an indication of an entirely different instrument. Effectively, the way Bach wrote the second movement already creates an echo on its own.

Table of contents - Chapter Two