The Limits of Traverso;

Exploring the sound possibilities of traverso through contemporary music

Photo credits: Martina Zuzana Šimkovičová

Presentation: 27th March 2020, 9:00 a.m., Studio 3, Royal Conservatoire The Hague


My journey with the traverso ΄sound΄ has begun few years ago. At its very beginning, there was me falling in love with the special sonority of this instrument. The ΄sound΄ became my very first motivation to explore and to learn to play the traverso.

To prevent any confusion or misunderstanding of terms, in this work I will refer to ΄sound΄ as a term embracing timbre and tone colour, but also dynamic variation and volume capacity of the instrument. Under terms ΄traverso΄ and ΄one-keyed flute΄ I refer to the same instrument: an instrument with a wooden conically shaped body in four parts[1] and six finger-holes.

The instrument I am using to “experiment on” is a replica by Simon Polak, made after the original instrument of a Dutch instrument builder Willem Beukers from around 1735. The instrument is made from boxwood, which has an influence on the tone colour and general volume of the instrument. Its tuning is a´=415 Hz.

Besides my fascination with the ΄sound΄ of the one-keyed flute, another reason why I have chosen this topic is that I feel that in ‘early music’ performance today ΄sound΄, as such, does not get as much attention as other expressive devices (such as ornamentation, harmony, rhetoric and its influence on the interpretation), even though the ΄sound΄ was an inseparable part of the expression in music performance in 18th century. Here, we need another clarification of terms.

Under the term ‘early music’ performance we would usually understand a performance of pre-Romantic music repertoire[2], which is usually related to ‘historically informed practice’ (in short known as HIP). HIP is tightly bounded up with the subject of “authenticity” – a practice attempting to come as close as possible to a faithful interpretation of 18th century music (and music of earlier or later epochs).

However, in modern-day understanding, HIP can involve repertoire of any epoch, when studied in its historical context. Studying repertoires of younger historical epochs, namely Romantic, late Romantic or music from the turn of the centuries, in context of HIP, is nowadays becoming quite a common practice within the ΄early music΄. Therefore also the term ΄early music΄ is changing its original meaning, and nowadays can refer to a study of a wider spectrum of repertoires.

I will refer to the ΄early music΄ performance (or study or practice) as a term including any repertoire that is studied in the HIP context. What HIP includes, and what is its historical background we will briefly examine in the first chapter.

In order to understand the ΄sound΄ of the traverso, its established and its unexplored sound possibilities as well as the various perceptions of the traverso ΄sound΄, we need to first look at its ΄sound ideal΄. This we will explore in the first chapter. In the second chapter, we will look into perceived “limitations” of the instrument.

Further, this research attempts to explore the traverso and its expressive sound possibilities when replaced from its usual context of traditional repertoire into the field of contemporary music. It considers what have been seen as the instrument´s “limitations” and sometimes “imperfections”, asking how they could be positively exploited in contemporary music.

The third chapter will explore the possible ΄sounds of the traverso΄ in contemporary music through an examination of so-called ΄extended techniques΄ which are a part of musical language of contemporary music for woodwind instruments. This way I am hoping to find new textures and tone colours, and expand my perception of dynamic possibilities of this instrument.

My first encounter with contemporary music for traverso was few years ago with a piece JMF for DM for traverso solo, that will be examined in the fourth chapter together with another piece for traverso solo Anspielungen by Hans-Martin Linde. Despite the fact, that the ΄traverso in contemporary music΄ is still fairly unexplored, there are a number of new compositions written for traverso in different settings. My research is placed into the context of work and discoveries by pioneers in this field, such as traverso players Matteo Gemolo and Maja Miró.

At the same time, through the exploration of traverso sound possibilities in contemporary music I hope to gain a different perspective on expressive possibilities of the techniques used in the traditional (18th century) traverso repertoire. In this context, what ΄extended techniques΄ on the one-keyed are, might be questioned. This question will be a subject of the last chapter.

Through this work I am also hoping to expand my own expressivity and question my own perspective of what an “ideal” traverso sound means. The research hopes to bring some new inspirations for traverso players as well as other ΄early music΄ performers, and to clarify the distinctive role of ΄sound΄ as an expressive device in early instruments. It also hopes to inspire composers to write more music using the specific sonority of this instrument.


In this chapter I will look closely at the problems of the baroque flute ΄sound ideal΄ from two perspectives: an 18th century perspective, and a modern – 20th and 21st century perspectives.

We cannot separate the ΄sound ideal΄ from the characteristics of the musical epoch, nor can we separate the ΄sound ideal΄ from developments in music instruments and music aesthetic of a particular musical epoch. This thought and my reasons to compare the traverso ΄sound ideal΄ in 18th century and in 20th and 21st century are well summarized in the following quote by N. Harnoncourt:

“Delineating the distinct phases of development during each particular historical period requires comprehensive technical knowledge, whose consistent application is reflected in formal and structural aspects of performance. However, it is the sound itself (tone color, character, loudness of the instruments, etc.) which allows this distinction to be clearly and immediately perceived. For just as the interpretation of notation or the practice of improvisation underwent constant modification in keeping with the Zeitgeist, changes were also taking place in concepts of sound and in what constituted an ideal sound, and thus also in the instruments themselves, the way in which they were played, and even in vocal techniques.”[3]

As we will see in the following findings of this chapter, Harnoncourt´s thought on the distinctive role of a music instrument´s ΄sound΄ in forming the ΄sound ideal΄ and the performance style of a particular historical period has a great relevance.

1.1 18th century perspectives

I shall begin by laying out some of the key opinions on a ΄sound ideal΄ in this time period by looking at several key texts written in this period.

One of the treatises I will be referring to is the Essay of a method for playing the flute traversiere[4] by J. J. Quantz[5], the first complex and detailed treatise on flute playing and performance practice within a broad musical context[6]. Therefore, it is a seminal text and of great use in our understanding of the aesthetic of ΄sound ideals΄ for traverso at this time.

From Quantz’ writing, we can see that sound was seen as a complex term, referring to tone colour, as well as dynamic variation and volume (force vs. weakness): “No less must good execution be varied. Light and shadow must be constantly maintained. No listener will be particularly moved by someone who always produces the notes with the same force or weakness and, so to speak, plays always in the same colour, or by someone who does not know how to raise or moderate the tone at the proper time.”[7]

Thus, apart from the expected variety in all the aspects of the sound, an essential element of the performance was the performer´s ability to move the listener. This would happen through the expression of passions[8] through the musical performance. Quantz refers to the combination of all these elements as a “good execution”: "…Execution is poor, if the intonation is untrue and the tone is forced,… Execution is poor, if everything is sung or played on the same level, with no alteration of Piano and Forte; if you contradict the passions that should be expressed, or in general execute everything without feeling, without sentiment, and without being moved yourself,…"[9]

These two quotes complete each other: moving the listener through the passions depended upon the “good execution” by the performer – who himself should be moved[10]. It is therefore my belief that the ΄sound΄ of the flute has played a key role in executing the passions.

Charles De Lusse[11] compares the necessity of dynamic variation for expression of melody to the variety in declamation by the voice: "Both (piano and forte, note: author) are very necessary for expressing the intention of the melody; that is to say that they produce the same effect in music as produced in declamation, the sweetness and the brightness of the voice; that which is in opposition to the monotone into which one would undoubtedly otherwise fall. We usually mark these with P and F, and when these letters are doubled, this augments the power, or the sweetness by half."[12] Similarly to Quantz, De Lusse suggests here the complexity of understanding the sound: sound embraces volume, dynamic variation and tone colour (“sweetness”, “power”), and these elements are interdependent of each other.

In the 18th century the relation between the sound of music instruments and the colour of human voice was appearing constantly. De Lusse links the shape of the melody produced by an instrument to the shape of declamation produced by the human voice (see his quote above). Quantz links vocal technique and ‘colour’ to the sound of the flute: "In general the most pleasing tone quality (sonus) on the flute is that which more nearly resembles a contralto than a soprano, or which imitates the chest tones of the human voice.[13]

Similarly, J. G. Tromlitz[14] in his A detailed and thorough instruction on playing the flute[15] says that the “only model” for instrumentalist´s ΄sound΄ should be a “beautiful voice” (see last part of the quote):

“Since all people do not like the same kind of tone, but have different tastes, a tone quality which can be recognized as beautiful by everyone cannot be established. One will like a full, strong tone, not bright and ringing, another will like a strong and crying sound; still another will prefer a thin, pointed, and biting sound; a fourth will like a thin, faint tone, etc. … This demonstrates that tone quality is a matter of taste. I have often found that a tone held to be quite beautiful by one, cannot be tolerated by another. Therefore it is difficult, if not impossible, to define a beautiful sound for everyone exactly. I say that the only model upon which an instrumentalist must build his tone is a beautiful singing voice, and in my opinion, a beautiful voice is one which is bright, full, and ringing - intense, but not shrill, gentle, but not stuffy - in short, the voice that is beautiful to me is full, singing, smooth, and supple.” [16]

The first part of the quote includes another key view on this period´s aesthetic of the sound: the sound was a matter of taste. For Tromlitz, a beautiful sound was such that is full, intense, bright, ringing. Interestingly, Quantz describes a very similar preference for a traverso sound: "You must strive as much as possible to acquire the tone quality of those flute players who know how to produce a clear, penetrating, thick, round, masculine, and withal pleasing sound from the instrument."[17]

Both Quantz and Tromlitz agree that much of performer´s tone quality depends a lot on the flute itself, and that sound is individual: every person has a different sound and tone quality, even if they play on the very same instrument. Quantz compares the quality of the flute to the natural quality of the voice – "no singer can make a poor natural voice beautiful."[18] Tromlitz complements Quantz´s quotation when he writes: "… If the instrumentalist has a bad tone, however, he is to blame, for a good sound is dependent primarily upon his skill, however much depends also on the instrument. A bad instrument cannot produce a good sound."[19]

Here we can see that despite the importance of a good quality instrument, the “good sound” depended primarily upon the performer´s skills. At the beginning of the century, Hotteterre[20] puts the same opinion in other words: "… some people have a natural ability for playing this instrument; and for them only the knowledge of the principles is lacking."[21]

What is important to note now, is that the ΄sound ideal΄ of the traverso had been changing already throughout the 18th century. This had to do a lot with the changes in the flute´s construction which comes hand in hand with the changing performance style, just like Harnoncourt´s quote tells us at the beginning of this chapter.

A treatise by Hotteterre from the beginning of the century (1707) is in comparison to the treatises by Quantz (1752) and Tromlitz (1791) fairly short, and does not say anything specific about the traverso ΄sound΄. The treatise includes detailed descriptions of fingerings and technical executions of each tone. In my understanding, the author explains these in such details due to the importance of forming an individual tone colour of each tone on the one-keyed flute. This notion is also mentioned in the edition´s introduction by David Lasocki: “… (speaking about the “new” Hotteterre flute model) the intonation was much better, if still difficult, and that the tone was more colourful. … the cross-fingered notes have a different tone quality from others… This gives most passages a completely different “shape” to that given by them by a modern Böhm flute.[22]

Until the middle of the century, this approach emphasizing the individuality of different colours of single tones continued (Quantz, De Lusse). By the end of the century, as is obvious from the writings of Tromlitz´s treatise (1791), many of the principles of the sound and performance style remained the same. However, the traverso ΄sound ideal΄ had taken on few changes. What is now seen as a marker of quality in the flute sound is the evenness of the tone throughout all registers. Tromlitz writes this evenness was not easy to achieve: "He who has a bright full sound throughout the whole instrument has many advantages over the others who do not have it, but many do not have such a sound."[23]

At the time of Tromlitz´s treatise, more and more keys were being added to the flute facilitating this greater evenness. The sound ideal of the evenness of the tone has its root in this constructional change. J. D. Boland summarizes it like this: "By the end of the eighteenth century the concept of a consistent colour throughout the chromatic range was taking hold. Flute construction minimized the differences between the notes, and cross-fingered notes came under harsh criticism. This criticism seems to have occurred about the same time as keys were being added to the flute, which eliminated the distinctive sounds produced by cross-fingered notes."[24]

In summary, from the writings we have in the 18th century we can make the following assumptions about a ΄traverso sound ideal΄ present during this period. Firstly that ΄sound΄ was used as an expression of the passions; secondly that this was highly linked with the colour and expressivity of the human voice; thirdly that the ΄sound ideal΄ was both highly subjective (Tromlitz: “sound is a matter of taste”) and changing throughout this period; and lastly that it seems the sound that was preferred was one that is round/full, thick/intense, clear/bright, penetrating/ ringing, masculine, pleasing/beautiful (Quantz/Tromlitz). Other findings of note are that the sound´s colour, dynamic level and volume must be varied throughout a performance in order to achieve a “good execution” and to move the listener; and that a ΄sound colour΄ and tone quality is individual by each performer.

1.2 Modern perspectives on traverso sound

Attempting to look at the traverso ΄sound ideal΄ from modern-day perspective, it is tempting to take one of two different established perspectives: an ΄early music΄ perspective or a broader ΄classical music΄[25] perspective. The first implies trying to look from the past to the present; the second implies looking from the present to the past. Both perspectives are very complex and have their own historical background and context. Therefore, I would like to briefly look into the history of what has come to be called ΄historically informed practice΄ (HIP) or ΄early music΄ study, and examine three performing styles that, according to B. Haynes, we know in 20th and 21st century. In my opinion, these three styles have an influence on forming modern-day ΄sound ideal΄ of the one-keyed flute.

1.2.1 A brief history of HIP and its performing styles

As we have already outlined in the Introduction, the HIP movement advocates a performing style studied and executed in its historical context, reviving historical repertoires, and performance on period (historical) instruments.According to Haynes, there were two waves of HIP in 20th century, both advocating the idea of reviving historical repertoires but differing in their approach to performance of these repertoires.

The first HIP “revolution” happened at the turn of 19th and 20th centuries, and was represented by such musicians as Arnold Dolmetsch, Violet Gordon Woodhouse and Wanda Landowska[26]. If we listen to the recordings of Landowska and Gordon-Woodhouse, we can clearly hear that their performing style and ΄sound΄ is different from most of modern-day ΄early music΄ performances. Based on the context of that period, their performing style was highly influenced by, what Haynes calls, a “Romantic style”, a main performing style of this period, characterized by high expressivity, including lots of portamentos, rhythmical freedom, fluctuating tempos and “unrelenting earnestness”. Nowadays, we can hear it only on early recordings[27].

The second “revolution” of HIP movement emerged in 1960s, as an opposition to, what Haynes calls, a “Modern style”. This style had developed as a gradual “mutation” of the Romantic style after the World War I, as Haynes explains, until it had reached its today´s form. The Modern style is characterized by accuracy, literal interpretation of the scores, and often “tightfisted with personal expression.”[28] As a reaction of the second wave of HIP against this Modern style, a third style developed – a “Period style”. This Period style, reviving performance of historical repertoires on historical instruments was, according to Haynes, characterized by literacy, replication and “exact” interpretation of historical repertoire.

The performing style of both HIP movements is inseparable from the influence of main styles occurring in their periods: the influence of Romantic style on the first HIP movement, and the influence of Modern style on the second HIP movement. The Period style exists in within ΄early music΄ education and performance until today, although nowadays, there is more variety of approaches within ΄early music΄ education. However the changes in performing styles during the 20th century influence the modern-day ΄sound ideal΄ of early music instruments, even though the times might be changing, and even though as ΄early music΄ students we might not be fully aware of this influence.

1.2.2. ΄Early music΄ and ΄classical music΄ perspective of the traverso ΄sound ideal΄

Looking at the traverso ΄sound ideal΄ from the perspective of modern-day ΄early music΄ performance, we could see that this practice is constantly influenced by the times we are living in, and today may be different from what it was thirty or fifty years ago. I have chosen opinions on flute ΄sound΄ of some important ΄early music΄ performers and specialists of the second half of 20th century. All of them represent different generation of ΄early music΄ performers, and they examine the flute´s ΄sound΄ from the perspective of historical sources.

In his introduction[29] to Die Flöte in der “Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung”[30] Frans Vester[31] writes: “The most salient feature of today’s flute playing is uniformity. On the surface, the different conceptions may differ, but there is hardly any profound difference of opinion.” [32] Vester further points out that the terms “phrasing” and “articulation” have lost their original meaning, and that “stylistic differences exist only in the imagination.” He criticizes the fact that the demonstration of performer´s technical abilities became more important than the “music itself” – unlike it was at the end of the 18th century, in the time of AMZ, when the “uniformity of style” as we experience it today was unknown. Although referring most probably to modern flute practice in his time, Vester´s opinion is relevant for us since he was one of the first performer´s on historical flutes at the time, and he belongs to the second generation of HIP´s movement emerging in 1960s.

Barthold Kuijken[33] gives a more specific opinion on some aspects of sound of ΄early music΄ performance in his writings[34]. He points out to the 18th century´s principle of a singing voice being a model for instrumentalist´s articulation, phrasing or dynamics. About the use of dynamics, he says: “… Clearly differentiated micro-dynamics, valid for a very small group of notes were predominant.[35] According to Kuijken this micro-dynamics is related to “good” and “bad” notes, hierarchy of beats in the bar, dynamics in regards to articulation (e.g. diminuendo at the end of a slur), intervals (ascending or descending), and harmony (dissonant, resolutions). He finds the use of micro-dynamics more important than the macro-dynamics: “When micro-dynamics are omnipresent… macro-dynamics extending over longer passages, cannot be very important.[36] He writes that together with this preference for dynamic variation on a smaller scale (mostly within a bar), there was a preference for a more delicate and fine way of playing, and that towards the end of 18th century, a louder and more even sound would be preferred, appearing together with the development of the instruments. Kuijken is of an opinion that this evolution of the instruments does not necessarily come as their improvement: "… instruments may gain in evenness and volume – but might at the same time lose variety of colours and delicacy."[37]

We can find a completely different perspective on the 18th century ΄sound ideal΄ in regards to volume and dynamics in an article ΄Sonority in 18th century, un poco più forte?΄ by J. Wentz and W. Kroesberger. Similarly to B. Kuijken, author´s opinion is strongly rooted in sources. However, here the sources offer a completely different perspective: the sound which was preferred and considered beautiful is such sound that is loud and strong. Author quotes Quantz with “his taste for a strong flute tone”, and explains that flute players made use of an imitation of the strongest register of the organ – Prestant, known as Principalton[38]. Even with the changing taste in performance practice and thus ΄sound ideal΄ by the end of the century, “flautists continued to strive for a healthy, firm, full, and masculine tone.” Here author´s opinion we can link to Tromlitz´s preference for such sound. Authors explain the 18th century preference for the strong sound, among other quotations, like this: “Crousaz proposed that humans were born to be moved – “affected” in the 18th century sense of the word. To this can be attributed their preference for the strongest sensual impressions, as long as they were not physically painful.[39] Therefore the preference for a long and strong sound is directly linked with the expressions of the passions. We have already seen the connection between the passions and their expression through instrument´s sound in music performance earlier in this chapter, in quotes by Quantz.

In summary, the modern perspectives on 18th century ΄sound ideal΄ from a perspective of ΄early music performance practice΄ rely highly on exploration of the period sources. As we could see only from the opinions of the three quoted authors, who represent different generations of ΄early music΄ practice, the understanding and interpretation of the sources can be very different, and that is for, in my opinion, two reasons. Firstly, we might become selective (if consciously or unconsciously) in what we take from the sources based on what we find relevant for our own interpretation of ΄early music΄, or what we believe about it. Secondly, our understanding of the sources will always be to some degree influenced by the times we live in and the current circumstances in ΄early music΄. Therefore, even if we all study sources and we all play historical instruments, our opinions on ΄sound ideal΄ may be different. Perhaps here we can find a parallel with the 18th century´s opinion on ΄sound ideal΄: what is beautiful cannot be established (Tromlitz), because everyone considers beautiful a different sound, everyone has a different “taste”.

Looking from a perspective of ΄classical music΄, the one-keyed flute might be considered an “imperfect” predecessor of today´s modern flute: much softer in sound, “less well in tune”, a smaller range, etc. This perspective might influence our ΄sound ideal΄ of the one-keyed flute - if comparing its sound capabilities to modern flute and to the prevailing sound in ΄classical music΄ nowadays – uniform in timbre, homogenous, loud, even through all registers. But I do not want to criticize here the sound in ΄classical music΄. I would just like to point out the influence it might have on forming of our ΄sound ideal΄ in general. Because we cannot separate ourselves from the times we live in, the aesthetics of the Modern style - including a specific ΄sound ideal΄, might also influence us to a certain degree, whether we realize it or not.

In my opinion, what is important is to look for the essence of the sound rather than a copy or an imitation based on literal understanding (or misunderstanding) of given information, which can be a danger when studying the historical sources. To search for this essence, we must experiment with the instrument itself, exploring its materiality and all its capacities, in order to find its limits, its volume capacity, and its colours. In the next chapters we will experiment with the traverso sound in the field of contemporary music. The word “experimentation” is important here. A real experimentation with the sound happens outside set rules and outside the established ΄sound ideal΄ of a given period.


In this chapter the ΄sound ideal΄ of the one-keyed flute will be revisited from the perspective of contemporary music in order to find the “real” possibilities and limitations of the instrument, free of any established ΄sound ideal΄ that we have explored in the first chapter.

The “limitations of the traverso” coming into whole new context, now disappear, and they become a vehicle for performing new music on an old (historical) instrument. Before we start this exploration and experimentation, let´s look what are the considered “limitations” of the one-keyed flute nowadays.

2.1 Limitations of the traverso for the performance of 18th century music, from the 21st century perspective

As has already been suggested, from the modern perspective of 18th century performance practice, there are some perceived limitations in the sound of the baroque flute. Even highly competent professional performers of the traverso today often seem to feel they have to veil or compensate for innate “weaknesses” in the instrument. I have collected the most frequently occurring aspects of “traverso limits” below.

2.1.1 Volume

Nowadays, the baroque flute is often seen as a “soft” instrument that is problematic for balance in small and large ensembles. The softness is considered a negative quality.

2.1.2 Dynamics

There are several limitations perceived with the dynamic range of the instrument, these are:

(i) the small volume tends to discourage playing really softly (pp and ppp dynamics) - for fear of being inaudible,
(ii) the louder end of the flute’s dynamic range is sometimes underutilised - for fear of the sound becoming ugly or forced,
(iii) the actual difference between pianissimo and fortissimo on the traverso is considered quite small.

To maximise the difference we rely on contrast. To achieve this we need to be in smaller ensembles or alone, and in a room that supports the piano with resonance. Playing in larger ensembles or rooms, we tend to cut out the lower end of the dynamic range and/or push the louder sound, compromising its quality.

In 18th century, Tromlitz´s advice for keeping a clearly audible difference between piano and forte on the traverso is in having a “good” sound as a basis: "…You need only to take care to obtain a healthy, firm, full, intense, and supple tone of such strength that you can still always produce a piano or forte, …"[40]

2.1.3 Range

The acute register (above e’’’) is often experienced as difficult, limiting the useful range of the flute to even less than 2.5 octaves. In Hotteterre´s time the tones above e’’’ were not often in use as well, he says: “The notes above e´´´ are forced notes, and cannot enter naturally in any piece.[41] He says however, these notes are used sometimes, but only advanced flutists should use them. Going further in the 18th century, the third octave was used more frequently, often in virtuoso pieces, like in Capriccios[42] by Quantz, or Etudes[43] by De Lusse.

2.1.4 Uneven registers

The strength of low and high register being uneven was also considered problematic, especially at the end of the 18th century. Tromlitz writes: "…It is indeed true that the high tones of the flute are much more penetrating than the low tones, and thus it is important that the lower tones be produced with more force, but this stronger and weaker production must not be exaggerated on either side, otherwise you will always encounter the aforementioned mistake. An educated and correctly-attuned ear can easily decide how much weaker the high notes must be played in order to retain the same sound quality as the lower octave. "[44]

The “correct” strength in low as well as high register is to be achieved by the combination of angle of blowing, speed of the airstream and the correct position of the lips. This should be achieved not only in volume, but also in the quality of the sound – something we find difficult today as well.

2.1.5 Fork fingerings (cross-fingerings) and “good” notes vs. “bad” notes

This aspect is connected with the “unevenness” mentioned above - the unevenness of volume and of colour of single tones, especially the cross-fingered tones can be experienced as a handicap, as soon as the goal is uniformity of colour and/or intensity. Many flats and a “soft key” bring up the general problem of volume and dynamic.

At the end of the 18th century Tromlitz writes: “Many also believe it is not possible to make the tones which are by nature dull on the flute, as bright as the other tones, but much is possible if the flute, the embouchure, and the ear are good. … in the upper register there is more evenness by nature, and it is therefore much easier to retain quality.”[45]

The changing ideal in Tromlitz´s time influenced his view, however, the goal of 18th century flute playing was to find variety in colour, it was considered natural that different tones have different colour. Therefore this “uneven” colour of single tones was not seen as a handicap, especially in the first half of the 18th century, these different colours were sought-after. We can understand this, for example, from the mentioned Hotteterre´s treatise, where he gives an importance to explaining in a great technical detail the execution of each pitch on the flute.

2.1.6 Tuning

There can be a tension between the inherent tuning of the flute and the “compromised” temperaments used nowadays by keyboards and lutes.

The traverso seems to be designed to make pure intervals, as we can read in Hottettere, or Tromlitz: "…you must take care to learn to retain evenness between high and low also, so that not just the high register alone (has good quality) while the lower register does not match at all, as often happens. … as a result not only the evenness between high and low, but also the purity of the intervals, even on a well-voiced instrument, is lost."[46]

Another fact is, that most of the original models of the one-keyed 18th century flutes are in various tunings ranging from a´=392 Hz to approximately a´=415 Hz, most of them built in around a´= 400 Hz, where the flute is said to sound its best. Since today´s tuning pitch in early music is a “compromised” a´= 415 Hz, most of today´s replicas are “adjusted” to this pitch, therefore their sound and tuning is compromised as well.

2.1.7 Conclusions

As a result of these established stereotypes, we have to make compromises all the time, mostly in chamber music settings. I have observed that often instead of “expanding” or breaking through “the limitations of the traverso” by experimenting with them, we simply accept them as unchangeable and act upon them, compromising hugely our performance practice. The expression of music suffers from this approach the most. Because the sound of the baroque flute is like our voice, and we are often not searching for the possibilities of “our voice”, beyond what has been already established.

We will now view the ΄sound ideal΄ from a third perspective – from a perspective of contemporary music. I believe that the environment of contemporary music can allow us to explore and experiment with the instrument beyond the established ΄classical music΄ or ΄early music΄ ΄sound ideals΄.

2.2. ΄Sound ideal΄ from the perspective of contemporary music

Sound has its very own place in contemporary music[47]. It is not primarily about beauty and homogeneity. It includes a richer and more diverse understanding compared to the understanding we usually get through ΄classical music΄ education or ΄early music΄ education. The ΄sound΄ in contemporary music has a meaning in all its possible forms. Here the ΄sound ideal΄ had completely freed itself from any tonal base, and from everything that had been considered “beautiful” until the beginning of the 20th century. This perspective has its historical background.

As H. Russcol explains[48], until the beginning of 1900, everything in tonal music was said and explored and tried; tonality reached its end line. One of the evidences for this is that the traditional instruments stopped their evolution around the middle of 19th century, because the instrument makers were no longer challenged by the discoveries of composers[49]. In 1907, F. Busoni published a book Sketch of a New Aesthetic of Music, a first writing embracing revolutionary ideas on music and its changing aesthetic, dissolving of the traditional form and departing from the traditional tonal system towards the “era of sound”.

The gradual decomposition of tonal system that had started in the second half of 19th century, continued shortly after 1900 by “the great revolutionaries” (Satie, Stravinsky, Schönberg, Skrijabin, Ives) and Webern and Varèse, who were pivotal figures “in the shift from the harmonic age to the age of sound”[50]. After the World War II, there was a second wave of a big shift in music aesthetic. The battles between tonality and atonality were done, and composers Xenakis, Stockhausen, Boulez, and Cage embraced the new music that knew no limits, boundaries, or categories.

It is interesting to note, that at the same time when this “age of sound” in contemporary music was emerging - in 1950s, the Modern style in ΄classical music΄ world was fully in. One decade later, the second wave of HIP movement started to emerge and the Period style was shaped. In the time when the great experiments of contemporary music were starting, the ΄classical music΄ world saw its complete abandoning of high expressivity of Romantic style, and ΄early music΄ world with its Period style was taking shape and step by step getting its way to the formal education in music schools.

2.3 Extended techniques, expanding the sonority of woodwinds

In 1960s, Bruno Bartolozzi, started to experiment with the sound possibilities of woodwind instruments. In his revolutionary book New sounds for Woodwinds, he presents many concepts for developing new sonorities and techniques for woodwind group. He examines the relation between the historical development of woodwind instruments, their sound possibilities and today´s ΄sound ideal΄. He says that full sound possibilities of the instrument are not primarily limited by its technical possibilities or limitations, but by the fact, that the efforts of instrument makers and performers “have been concentrated on a single objective - the emission of single sounds of maximum timbric homogeneity throughout the range of instruments. The objective has therefore been not one of exploiting the characteristic possibilities of each instrument but of satisfying the musical requirements of each successive epoch.[51]

As he explains, the “untraditional” techniques had always existed - they had existed before they were actually “discovered”, but they had not been used due to the aesthetic requirements (or ΄sound ideals΄) of the past epochs. The instruments had been developing to be “improved”, but their “improvement” is strongly determined by requirements in performance practice and music aesthetic of a given time.

According to Harnoncourt, these “improvements” have their “shadow” side too. He implies that each improvement of the instrument “sacrifices” a different aspect of the instrument: “I both see and hear that each instrument, by the time it is used in art music, has already reached an optimal stage where overall improvements are no longer possible. Any improvement in one area must therefore be paid for by a worsening in a different area. This is a hypothesis which I have found consistently confirmed in innumerable experiments and in constant dealing with this material, so that it has begun to assume for me the character of a demonstrated fact.”[52] We could see this observation of Harnoncourt in the development of the traverso in 18th century. As more keys were added to the flute, it was gaining on evenness and clarity of sound, but it had lost its original colourfulness of single tones.

Bartolozzi further explains that the playing technique of woodwind instruments was standardized too in order to meet the criteria of maximum timbric unity and “good” intonation, and this resulted in an unvaried standard type of performing techniques[53]. From the 20th century perspective, Bartolozzi was among the first ones, who “broke through” this traditional playing technique, and started to develop so-called ΄extended techniques΄ for woodwind instruments.

The ΄extended techniques΄ are known as techniques used in contemporary music, expanding instrument´s sound possibilities beyond the limits of the traditional – in this case, flute repertoire. They are like a language of contemporary flute music.

In 1980s, the ΄extended techniques΄ were further explored by Robert Dick. His book[54] focuses on these techniques in great detail and its purpose is to explore all possible capabilities of the flute “as a sound-producing instrument”. We will explore the ΄extended techniques΄ and look into R. Dick´s book in the third chapter.

2.4 The Traverso in Contemporary Music

Today´s traverso players such as Maja Miró Wiśniewska and Matteo Gemolo are among those who devote themselves to the performance of contemporary repertoire for traverso as well as exploration of the non-traditional traverso techniques. Gemolo, one of today´s pioneers of ΄extended techniques΄ on the one-keyed flute, writes about the sound possibilities of traverso in these words: “Notably, the traverso offers an incredibly new soundscape, thanks to its rich palette of timbres and sound possibilities and its flexibility in producing microtones and embracing other extended techniques.[55]

Since 1980s the traverso and other early music instruments started to be regularly employed in contemporary music compositions[56], resulting in some innovative ways of using these instruments. Matteo Gemolo explains the modern-day growing interest of composers to employ traverso in their compositions like this: "…Within the contemporary music scene, the new composers’ tendency and need to distance themselves from the strict rules of post-serialism and free their voices from any orthodox approach to music seems to find in the traverso sound and its Baroque legacy the best way of reconnecting the contemporary ‘effects’ with the perennial ‘affects’ that this instrument is able to evoke. "[57] Up until today there are around 150 contemporary music compositions written for the traverso in various settings: as a solo instrument, solo with electronics, and traverso in various chamber music settings.


Here we will take the traverso “out of its comfort zone” of its traditional playing technique. What will be the focus of this chapter is a close examination of the ΄extended techniques΄ when applied on the baroque flute, since their study is fundamental for performance of contemporary music.

The following list is supported by the list of ´extended techniques´ for the modern flute described in Robert Dick´s book THE OTHER FLUTE, a performance manual of contemporary techniques. This list is re-examined and adjusted to create a selection of extended techniques which can be produced on the one-keyed flute.

Some of the most specific and sought-after ´extended techniques´ are described in articles of Matteo Gemolo. Perhaps surprisingly, the execution of many of the ´extended techniques´ is also supported by some 18th century sources: apart from all the elements of the “traditional” traverso technique, the information from these treatises can be very well used in execution of many extended techniques played on the traverso. As we will see, some of what is nowadays considered as an “extended technique” was in the 18th century considered a part of a common practice. And lastly, the executions of some ´extended techniques´ are explained as based on my own experimenting with them.

The ´extended techniques´ below are divided into three big categories – “single sounds”, “multiple sounds” and “other sonorities”, following the example of R. Dick´s book. The “single sounds” stand for techniques producing only one sound at a time, the “multiple sounds” stand for techniques producing two or more than two sounds at a time, and “other sonorities” include techniques that produce sounds rather different than of a “melodically-based” character.



In Dick´s book “tone colouration” is included among extended techniques. As we could see in previous chapters, tone colouration has an important place in the realm of 18th century traverso music. However, in 18th century music we talk about tone coloration mainly from the perspective of different colours of different tonalities and the colours of different fingerings (alternative fingerings) of the one-keyed flute.

In the realm of contemporary music and its broad perception of sound, we can vary the tone´s colour in several different ways. Among the ´extended techniques´ that are responsible for tone coloration, we include: Natural Harmonics, Alternative Fingerings and Embouchure Control. Natural Harmonics

According to Robert Dick, “natural harmonics are the simplest of all ways to vary the flute tone´s quality.”[58] They are produced by over-blowing of regular fingerings. The fingering of the fundamental tone very much influences the timbre of the harmonics. Together with the given pitch of the harmonics, a residual tone[59] is often heard along with the given pitch of the harmonics.

Charles De Lusse dedicates a whole chapter to « the harmonic sounds ». He explains:

"The harmonic sounds are produced successively by the gradation of air that one provides in the flute, without moving any fingers… To understand these different successions, take for example, the Re, the first generated sound; it produces re in its octave, la in its second, re in its fourth (or double octave), fa in its seventeenth, and la in its nineteenth. It is the same in regard to other generated sounds, in that one must be observing always the position of the fingers, conforming to the preceding ranges, and furthermore paying close attention, so that one can make the most accurate sound of the harmonics."[60]

He gives the following table[61] of the notation of harmonics successions:

What is worth noticing in this table are the resulting harmonics on D#´, F#´ and C#´´. Let´s take the D#´ as an example. The resulting harmonic tones should be: an octave - D#´´, after a fifth - A#´´ and again D#´´´. However, De Lusse writes E♭´´, B♭´´ and E♭´´´. Similarly he writes the resulting harmonic tones of F#´ and C#´´ not as sharps, but as flats. As we will see in Alternative Fingerings, these produced harmonics on D#´ are not just “enharmonic tones” of D#´´ (enharmonic would be E♭´´) and A#´´ (enharmonic would be B♭´´) like from a modern-day perspective we could assume. On the one-keyed flute, these “enharmonic” pitches sound slightly different, and therefore stand for different tones. If De Lusse wrote them specifically as flats, it has a meaning. We can assume it means that the harmonics on D#´ (and F#´ and C#´´) sound slightly higher in pitch in relation to its fundamental, or that he used the flats-notation to point out the different tone colours of sounding harmonics if compared to its equivalent fingered pitch.

However, why did De Lusse mention using the harmonic tones in the first place? What was his reason to mention them – or perhaps even to insist on using them? Was it for tuning reasons, or for reasons of different colours? We are not sure about his reasons. But assuming from his description of the existing “harmonic sounds” and the table, we know that already in 18th century, they knew about the execution of harmonic series on the one-keyed flute, as well as the different pitch colours these ΄harmonic sounds΄ produce.

The range of a wind instrument influences the range of the natural harmonics, more precisely: the degree to which we can over-blow the natural harmonics of a given pitch. The range of the one-keyed flute is relatively limited – in most cases two and a half octaves (d1 – a3) – therefore the range possibility of natural harmonics is not very broad, as we can also see from De Lusse´s table.

Following De Lusse´s example, I experimented with playing the harmonic series on the first six tones of the traverso. In the table[62] below, my results are described. The harmonics were played on three different instruments[63]. The nature and character of an individual instrument influences the sound and difficulty or ease of executing the harmonics series. Therefore the results may vary from instrument to instrument.

Based on this experiment, my conclusion is that the best sounding and most “in tune” harmonics on the one-keyed flute are those arising from the low D, and low E♭/D# since these two lowest pitches “embrace” almost the full range of the traverso. Above G´ it is hardly possible to produce natural harmonics higher than the first one in the harmonic series, in other words just a regular over-blowing to the octaves. This is due to the range of the one-keyed flute that does not allow enough “space” for higher harmonics. There might be several reasons why on some fundamentals “wrong” harmonics are sounding: 1. the influence of fork fingerings of fundamentals, like E´, F´ and F#´, on resulting harmonics; 2. the influence of how a particular model of the traverso is built[64].

Both from De Lusse´s table and my experimentation, we can conclude that the harmonic notes have their very specific colour. For example, the tone A´´ as a harmonic tone of D´ has a more airy and subtle, perhaps sweeter colour than a regular A´´ fingering. As R. Dick explains, this specific colour of harmonic tones can be used in contemporary music, for example, for echo effects or extremely soft fade-outs on high notes. Alternative Fingerings

Unlike on the modern flute, alternative fingerings are a common practice on the one-keyed flute. But like on the modern flute, nowadays they are mostly used only for technical reasons such as in technically difficult passages, for trills or for intonation reasons. Performers rarely choose them for reasons of having a different tone colour on a particular pitch or passage.

All the mentioned 18th century and other[65] flute treatises explain the alternative fingerings, some briefly giving a table with fingerings (like De Lusse); some in more detail (like Hotteterre or Quantz). I will not explain all the “normal” alternative fingerings available on the traverso, for these can be easily found in the mentioned 18th century flute treatises. Instead, based on differences in sound and function, I have divided alternative fingerings into two categories:

1. Multiple fingerings for the same pitch

These are alternative fingerings that are used for the same sounding pitch, used mostly for tuning reasons, often in high notes. We can also choose them for reasons of different colour, or for softer dynamics.

Examples: there are alternative fingerings for C´´´ - often used for tuning reasons. In highest notes like F-sharp ´´´ or G´´´ there could be an alternative fingering used when these notes are played in piano for sound and tuning reasons.

2. “Enharmonic” tones

Within the paradigm of equal temperament that divided the octave into twelve equidistant semitones, an arrangement that became more prevalent from the late nineteeth century on, the term “enharmonic” denoted notes of exactly the same pitch that nevertheless bore two different names, for example, Ab and G#, Bb and A# etc. By contrast, (as is well-known) in the paradigm of 18th century music, with its different temperaments, that acknowledged the impossibility of achieving pure tuning of all intervals consistently with a perfect octave, the notes Ab and G# represented two different pitches and corresponded to the different melodic and harmonic contexts in which each would appear. Eighteenth century traversos (among other instruments) were designed to be able to produce these slightly different pitches, whether by different fingerings, or by manipulation of the embouchure. This was crucial, not only for accurate tuning, but also for the sense of the appropriate ‘colour’ and musical expression of notes in whatever context.

2 a. Two different fingerings and two different sounding pitches:

[Example:]{.underline} F# and G♭ are two different fingerings on the one-keyed flute, in both first and second octaves. The first pitch sounds slightly lower than the second one, just as it „should", reflecting the different harmonic contexts in which this note will appear. In the same way, different fingerings exist to distinguish the following notes from each other: G# and A♭, A# and B♭, B# and C. Different fingerings for C# and Db exist in the second octave only, (simply due to the limited number of holes on the traverso).

2 b. Same fingering and a differently “coloured” pitch:

Example: for D# / E ♭ on the traverso we use the same fingering in all three octaves, but depending on the scale in which we are playing (for example D# in E major or E ♭ in F minor), we “place” the mentioned pitch in differently. By this “placement” I mean a specific tuning but also colour of the given pitch. This is difficult to exactly measure.

Based on my experience, this is a skill requiring some practice, careful listening and a certain amount of experimenting. It is essential for the “art of traverso playing”. Without it, mastery of the necessary finesse of tuning and sound colour would be impossible. Embouchure control

No less than for the traditional repertoire, embouchure control is essential for performing contemporary repertoire, because it can greatly influence changes in dynamics, pitch, and timbre.

Robert Dick describes four parameters included in embouchure control. He says: “The four parameters are, of course, closely interdependent, and control over all of them is necessary to make adjustments freely and sensitively in dynamics, pitch and timbre.”[66] These parameters are all equally applicable on the traverso, and they are:

Angle of the flute [67] is important for the direction of the airstream into the flute. It affects primarily pitch and tone quality. Airstream directed more into the flute produces more a brilliant and thinner sound. Airstream directed more outwards produces more airy, but thicker sound. The whisper tones are produced by blowing gently and turning the flute beyond the normal playing angle.

Lip opening[68] focuses or de-focuses the air stream and is responsible for control of over-blowing as well as for control of dynamics and timbre. Wider opening produces less focused, more airy and louder sound, and has more residual tones. Smaller opening produces less volume and focused sound with reduced noise and reduced residual tones.

Lip position[69] and its function are described by R. Dick like this: “Basically, the effect of the lip position is similar to the coarse focus on a microscope or camera.[70] This is therefore not only a fixed lip position, but also a lip movement. Similarly, the lip movement and its influence on the change of timbre is described by Quantz: “On the flute the tone is formed by the movement of the lips, in accordance with the degree to which they are contracted during the exhalation of the air into the mouth hole of the flute. The mouth and its parts, however, may also modify the tone in many ways.[71]


Gemolo explains that from the perspective of their function the microtones on the one-keyed flute can be produced in two different ways. First one is conceived “as an addition to the equal-tempered chromatic scale”; second one “as a means of redefining musical intervals within the search for a better approximation than that delivered by the twelve tones equal temperament”[72]. Based on my experimentation, on the one-keyed flute we can produce microtones in three ways:

  1. by covering the mouth-hole to varying degrees by the movement of the lips,

This technique I find the best for creating microtones around one pitch; or for creating a “sound effect” rather than an exact microtone pitch.

  1. by covering or uncovering the holes partially,

This method is similar to an execution of a flattement[73], apart from the fact that flattement is a continuous movement around one pitch, while the microtone is created only by one “slide” of the finger. However, the flattement also creates a microtonal modulation.

  1. by a combination of the first and the second way.

This method is the most flexible, and gives the performer a number of possibilities and more freedom. Matteo Gemolo employs a similar way of producing the microtones, summarizing: “Smaller intervals (smaller than quarter-tones, note: author) are made possible by gradually covering the holes of the flute with the fingers and tuning those pitches with an upward or downward rolling of the embouchure.[74]

An interesting fact is that the use of microtones was known already in 18th century. One of the appendixes of De Lusse´s treatise includes an air called ΄Air a la Grecque΄ for flute and bass, which involves some microtonal passages. Next to the air De Lusse gives a table with fingerings for all the included quarter-tone pitches. Below is an excerpt, with the fingerings for the flute (the upper line) next to it.

Matteo Gemolo mentions the air in one of his articles: "Due to its natural flexibility in tuning, the one-keyed flute was used to explore microtonality almost since its birth. In ΄L´Art de la flute traversière΄ the French flautist Charles De Lusse (ca. 1720-ca. 1774) presented what is considered the first chart of quarter-tones, writing in the appendix of his method a tune entitled ΄Air à la grecque΄ in which those intervals could be applied. A few years later, one of the best-known flute virtuosos of his time, Pierre-Gabriel Buffardin (ca. 1690-1768), referred directly to De Lusse´s microtonal pieces, expressing his interest in the system of quarter-tones in a letter published in ΄Mercure de France΄ in September, 1764 (Kollpacher-Haas, 1962)."[75]

What I suggest as worth further experimenting with, is to use some of the “harmonic sounds” as microtonal fingerings as well. As we could see in Natural Harmonics some pitches of the harmonic series sound slightly higher or lower compared to their equivalent fingerings. Therefore these sounding “harmonic sounds” could be used as “microtonal fingerings”.


Gemolo compares a glissando to a portamento: “The similarities with portamento are many. … The employment with portamento seems to relate more to performance practice than to a technique stipulated by composers.[76] Unlike portamento, glissando always follows a specific symbol in the notated music. A picture with notation of two different glissandi types below is taken from Robert Dick´s book:

According to Gemolo, the glissando is one of the most frequently employed techniques in contemporary music for the one-keyed flute due to its great flexibility and effectiveness.

It can be produced in one of the following ways:

Rolling the head-joint of the flute in or out is the easiest way how to produce glissando on the one-keyed flute, and this way is also very flexible.

Based on my own experience, it is easily possible to produce a glissando also between relatively large intervals, such as an octave. Similarly as mentioned above, we can just slide one of the available fingers (one which is not included in playing the given pitches) on or off an available finger-hole. From my own exploration, there is no exact way (there are no “glissando fingerings”) how to play a glissando. This gives the performer a space and a flexibility using own sensibility and creativity to execute a particular glissando within a given musical context.

Even though we focus on 18th century flute methods, it is worth mentioning that Fürstenau has in his method (1844) a whole section[77] on the glissando. This raises a question: when did the use of glissando become common in flute playing? We may assume, the practice of glissando had existed before it was noted down by Fürstenau. The one-keyed flute is from its constructional perspective the most natural instrument to produce the glissando (it has no keys – only finger-holes which makes the sliding of the fingers on and off the holes even easier). Therefore I would suggest that the use of glissando perhaps dates back already to 18th century.


3.2.1 Multiple sonorities

Producing multiple sonorities requires great embouchure flexibility. Embouchure positions that resonate several tones at once require greater exactness and control, but we can achieve this through regular practice and experimenting. R. Dick says: “The embouchure developed through working with multiple sonorities is a great benefit to traditional playing since tone, flexibility, and control can be much improved.[78]

Including this technique into one´s regular practice improves embouchure control and sound in general, as well as enhancing sensitivity for hearing very subtle changes in tuning, tone colour and dynamics.

On the one-keyed flute this subject still needs to be more thoroughly explored, and it goes beyond this research. However, in the fourth chapter we will see some examples of multiple sonorities in chosen contemporary pieces for traverso.

3.2.2. Singing and playing simultaneously

This technique is a common practice in contemporary music. Simply put, it is a combination of the flutist singing while playing at the same time. The sound and timbre of the resulting sonorities depend both on the pitch played and on the flutist´s voice. Some intervals are easier to produce, others are more difficult. In general, the result is very individual, differing from performer to performer. However, there are some general observations:


3.3.1 Flutter tonguing

Flutter-tonguing [f.–t.] is the rolling of the tongue while blowing into the flute. We produce it by fluent “pronunciation” of “rrrrrr” at the tip of the tongue. Other names for flutter-tonguing are German flatterzunge [flz. / flt.] or Italian frullato [frull]. Symbols for flutter-tonguing are traditionally notated as one of the symbols[79] below:

According to both R. Dick and M. Gemolo there are two ways flutter-tonguing can be produced:

The flutter-tonguing can be easily varied depending on the speed and intensity of the pulsations, and it can be applied in various measures to all sonorities produced on the one-keyed flute. Based on my personal experience, it is up to performer´s own exploration to find out which of the two ways of flutter-tonguing works best in each octave or on a given pitch. Some performers have the ability to produce flutter-tonguing by both ways (this can also improve by regular practice), some performers can only produce one of the two types.

On the low notes ranging from D´ to G´, I personally find it easier to use the uvular flutter because it sounds clearer than using the rolling of the “r”, which produces a very airy effect with softer and slower pulsations. Above G´ the rolling of the “r” gets easier to produce and it works well also on the higher notes (in the second and third octaves). In addition to this, performer´s choice of the execution will much depend on the musical context, composer´s specific requirements and the character or the effect that the performer wants to convey.

3.3.2. Percussive sounds

Percussive sounds are produced by clicking of the tongue, and on the modern flute by slapping of the keys. On the one-keyed flute a similar way would be to use the slapping on the finger holes, but this technique produces extremely soft percussive sound, and it is not very effective, unless used for a very soft and very special effect. According to R. Dick´s book, the symbol for the tongue click is as follows:

On the one-keyed flute I personally find the most effective percussive sounds produced by clicking of the tongue. The clicking can be directed more into the embouchure hole for more intense effect. Tongue clicks can be produced on any pitch of the flute. If we “hold” a fingering of a particular pitch, it will sound together with the clicking.


In this chapter I will closely look at two contemporary pieces for traverso. There are several reasons for choosing these two pieces:

The first piece Anspielungen by Hans-Martin Linde is in the sense of notation and used techniques a more “traditional” piece as compared to the second piece JMF for DM for traverso solo by Daniel Matej. However, from the perspective of novelty and more unconventional approach of using the baroque flute Anspielungen is a piece offering a different view and a different technical approach as compared to the traditional repertoire. JMF for DM for traverso solo is notated as a verbal score[80] where much depends on the performer´s creativity in the performance of the piece.

I will do an analysis of each piece covering different aspects: the structure of the piece, use of traditional and/or extended techniques, interpretative possibilities and performance opinion of each piece. The analysis is largely performed from my own interpretative perspective.

4.1 Hans-Martin Linde (* 1930): Anspielungen for baroque (or modern) Flute

This piece[81] was written in 1988 and apart from the above mentioned reasons I chose it because it is one of the first contemporary pieces written for an unaccompanied baroque flute. In Preface the composer explains the title ΄Anspielungen΄ – a German word of double meaning translated as “to try out” or “to allude to”. The title itself contains composer´s idea of the piece, where he wants to try out different sound possibilities of the instrument as well as to allude to well-known flute pieces and deal with “typical passages” of earlier styles.

The composition has two movements marked as I and II, and it contains composer´s performance directions with explanations of symbols used in the score. The piece was written for Konrad Hünteler[82].

Movement I

H.-M. Linde: Anspielungen I, recorded in Studio 1, Koninklijk Conservatium Den Haag, on February 19th 2020, traverso: Dorota Matejová; sound engineer: Jakub Klimeš

Structurally we can divide the first movement into three bigger sections, based on their motivic material. Each of these sections is divided into phrases. Phrasing is important here and I assume that the composer himself thought of phrases, when he divided the movement by three types of fermatas: “normal”, “longer” and “very long” pauses (fermatas), each of them having its specific symbol. From a performance perspective we can see the fermatas not only as phrase divisions, but also as moments connecting the phrases through silences. Therefore it is important to keep the tension through these, variously long, silences.

The first section, bars 1 – 12, is divided into four shorter phrases:

picture 1.

Here we can already find two first extended techniques – singing and playing simultaneously and a vibrato (“Vibr.”). Throughout the piece the composer asks for three types of vibrato[83]: “diaphragm vibrato”, “tongue vibrato” and “vibrating the instrument by moving the right hand”. In bar 2, a “diaphragm vibrato” is required. The intervals are a sixth apart and therefore in a comfortable singing position, and the diaphragm vibrato I find to be produced easily. In bar 2, I suggest to use “no tongue” when starting the Bb´´ to achieve a softer piano effect.

picture 2.
picture 3.
picture 4.

Another technique included in this phrase is a flattement (“flatt.”), a finger vibrato in bar 12 (picture 5.); interestingly enough flattement here is perceived as an ΄extended technique΄. The bar ends with a rapid “run” ending in ff on a high G´´´.

picture 5.

The “very long” fermata at the end of this phrase marks also the end of the first section of the 1st movement.

The second section, bars 13-18, is divided into phrases by “normal” length fermatas, and one “longer” fermata between bars 17 and 18. This section consists of long-tone phrases in ppp dynamics, which are “interrupted” by staccato and scherzando phrases.

picture 6.

This very quiet passage is followed by a two-bar passage of staccated eight-notes, some of these accentuated, all in piano dynamics. In bar 15, the phrase comes back to long tones with glissandos in ppp dynamics, however now in a tempo, therefore in a more rhythmically pulsating character, ending with a high “diaphragm-vibrated” F#´´´ in ff. I see the ppp passages in this phrase as balancing between the instrument´s audibility and inaudibility; we can perceive them as a “whisper”.

After this, a passage marked più mosso follows. I see it as an intermezzo before the last – third – section of the piece. It includes some very short motives alternated by rests, one glissando, and a chord sound (picture 7.) at its end. For the chord to sound both pitches we need to find a good position of the embouchure. I find it works best if the airstream is directed much into the flute. Depending how strong we want the chord to sound, we can have a bigger (more sound) or smaller (less sound) lip opening.

picture 7.

The third section, bars 22-25, marked Moderato is the longest rhythmical section of the first movement. It starts in ppp dynamics alternating sixteenth-note sextuplets, quintuplets and quadruplets. I tend to play this passage at the limit of audibility. I find that the changing rhythm interestingly adds an inner micro-dynamics of this almost “inaudible” passage, which, in my opinion, creates the magic of it.

After the first (very long!) bar, the dynamics jumps to mf dynamics with crescendos and decrescendos of sextuplets at the end of the bar. What I find interesting in this passage is that it uses a lot of flat signs – for example G b´´, which to me suggests a certain “softer” and “rounder” tone colour. The last bar (25) of the movement includes only few notes with rests in between (picture 8.). The movement ends in almost silence and some mystery, leaving the listener waiting for what comes next.

picture 8.

The first movement uses the full range of the traverso from D´ to G´´´ and requires a full range of dynamics from ppp to ff which on the traverso is one of the challenges. While it might seem that most of the interpretative requirements are precisely marked, I find that there is a lot up to performer´s choice, such as the length of fermatas, or the way some of the techniques are executed. For example, the glissandos could be executed by rolling the flute or by sliding the fingers on and off the finger-holes. The passages can be played in different dynamic ranges depending on performer´s ability, the tone colour of passages will vary from performer to performer, etc.

What I also find worth mentioning is that the passages can be seen as “gestures”, having their rhetoric, phrasing and articulation, similarly to 18th century music. In form, the first movement might remind us of Telemann Fantasias for solo traverso[86]. Similarly to this Movement I, they often include slow-fast-slow-fast or fast-slow-fast-slow passages within one movement, such as in Fantasias No. 3, 5, and 12; or very short motives repeated successively in two different tempi, such as in Fantasia No. 1 (adagio – allegro of the Vivace).

Movement II

H.-M. Linde: Anspielungen II, recorded in Studio 1, Koninklijk Conservatium Den Haag, on February 19th 2020, traverso: Dorota Matejová; sound engineer: Jakub Klimeš

From my perspective, the second movement can be divided into four bigger sections; we could parallel them to some baroque forms: first section as a Prelude, second section as a dance (perhaps Allemande), third section as an Interlude, and fourth section – a Coda - as a Gigue.

The first section consisting of three very long bars has a ´Prelude´ character marked as Liberamente which implies that a rhythmical freedom within the phrases can be taken. The composer uses three types of vibrato on long notes: a “tongue vibrato” (picture 9.); an “irregular finger vibrato” (picture 10.); and in bar 3 both a “diaphragm vibrato” and a “tongue vibrato” (picture 11.).

picture 9.
picture 10.
picture 11.

I found out, that the “tongue vibrato” can be executed in different ways: 1. by saying “lu-lu-lu” without touching the palette with the tongue; 2. by saying “lu-lu-lu” and moving the tongue to the sides; 3. by “vibrating” the root of the tongue. At the end of the ΄Prelude΄ there is a “very long” fermata suggesting an end of a movement, just like in a baroque suite or sonata.

The second section, bars 4-26, is the longest one of the second movement. It is a rhythmical section, and for the first time in the piece there are metre signatures indicated by the composer. The section is dynamically phrased and its returning motif is a seventh chord consisting of a minor triad and a major seventh (d´-f´-a´-c#´).

From bar 13-19, the tempo stays in ¾ metre and the whole section consists of triplets in varied articulations. In this section the affect changes, it has a more singing and mellow character. In bar 18-19, a new extended technique occurs: hard tonguing effect marked as sputato (picture 12.).

picture 12.

I produce this with a tongue placed on the palette and releasing it with saying “t”. The “percussive” sound is produced by the air releasing the pressure between the tip of the tongue and the palette, fingered pitches sounding at the same time.

A passage marked a tempo, forte and brillante starts in bar 20, consisting of sixteenth-notes alternating between staccato and legato articulations. Last bar of the section (b. 26) includes the same allusion to a motif from C.P.E. Bach´s solo flute sonata as we saw in the Movement I, this time slightly varied (picture 13.). This motif resolves the section into bar 27, where the ΄Interlude΄ starts.

picture 13.
The second section reminds of a dance in duple metre, perhaps an Allemande or Gavotte.

The third section, an ΄Interlude΄, bars 27-29, marked meno mosso e libero has a calmer character. Bar 27 asks for a low C#´, which the one-keyed flute (the lowest note is D´), does not have – therefore the composer asks to produce it with a fingering of d´ but “turning the flute firmly inwards” to lower the pitch. The beginning of bar 29 includes an allusion to another motif from C.P.E. Bach´s solo sonata[87], in diminished rhythm (picture 14.).

picture 14.

The ΄Interlude΄ ends in ppp dynamics with repeated notes played by vibrato type - “vibrating the instrument by moving the right hand” (picture 15.).

picture 15.

The fourth section, bars 30-39, marked Presto, can be seen either as a Coda or as a last movement of this “contemporary suite” – a dance reminding of Gigue. Consisting of mostly triplet and sextuplet rhythms, the motivic material of the second section comes back here (d´-f´-a´-c#´) in sextuplets. Bar 32 includes the last ΄extended technique΄ of the piece, a flutter-tonguing (picture 16.).

picture 16.

The ending of the piece is in the last three bars. In bar 37, three rapid jumps over two octaves marked ff and pesante result in bar 38 on a high G´´´ vibrated by the “moving the instrument by the right hand” diminishing into pp which is challenging on such a high note. After this, there is a “very long” fermata before the last bar. The last bar (picture 17.) Prestissimo ends the whole piece in sixteenth-notes jumps into the last high A´´´, accentuated and in the strongest volume.

picture 17.

This tone is the highest one on the traverso, and in my opinion, the composer hints here to the same ending tone of the first movement of J.S. Bach´s Partita[88] for solo traverso.

4.2 Daniel Matej (*1963): JMF for DM for traverso solo

The origin of this piece dates back to somewhere at the beginning of 2013, when I asked the Slovak composer Daniel Matej to write a piece for my graduation exam in modern flute. Thus in June 2013 I premiered a piece called JMF for DM, which at that time the composer wrote for a modern flute and a “prepared piano”[89]. The letters in the title stand for “Jesu Meine Freude for Dorota Matejová”, where Jesu Meine Freude refers to the famous choral, based on which J.S. Bach wrote the same name motet.

The version for traverso solo originated in spring 2015, and was written specially for a celebration concert at occasion of Commenius Day in Naarden. Until today this piece has several versions. Below is a citation from a recent programme note by composer himself, which describes the piece fittingly:

"Daniel Matejʼs verbal score JMF for DM (its first concept dates back to year 2013) is in a way a work-in-progress and today exists in numerous versions, starting from the one for a solo flute (or traverso) and ending with a version for an unspecified instrumental ensemble (in regard both to its size and instrumentation). From a certain point of view, the process taking place during its realization could be perceived as a “journey through various sound space-time continuums”, or we could understand it as a transformation from the “tumultuous brutality of the everyday” to “the state of quieting the mind and heart,” and therefore (as John Cage would say) to being “susceptible to divine influences”… "

The verbal score of the piece is divided into four sections marked as A, B, C and D (meant as a coda). The piece lasts approximately 7 minutes, while each section has an approximate chronometric duration “recommended” by the composer.

Section A, lasts approximately 1 and ½ minutes, and its basic material are short sforzando ff “attacks” in the highest (and occasionally also lowest) register of the instrument. The tension of this section comes out of two “rhythmic processes”: the “attacks” played in a regular pulse for few seconds, and the pulse dissolving after few seconds into irregularity. These two “processes” should be repeated several times. The harsh and “noise-like” sound character of the “attacks” could be seen in a context of bruitism[90] in music.

Section B, lasting approximately two minutes, consists of two basic sound motifs: the “attacks” from section A and a set of tones in a twelve tone row, determined by the composer (picture 18.). This set of tones can be seen in a context of serialism[91].

picture 18.

The “attacks” are slowly replaced by the set, which is to be played in the whole range of the instrument and always played in the same order as composer set it. The whole process is slowly calming down, the “attacks” are slowly disappearing, and a new sound material is introduced: the tones of the set are to be played in various colours and articulations, and some of them should be articulated in repetitions resembling a “Morse code” rhythm. Now it is up to performer´s imagination to use some of the ΄extended techniques΄ as well: tones played as multiphonics, flutter-tongued tones, tones in different colours, “percussioned” tones, tones senza colore (without colour), etc.

In Section C, lasting approximately also two minutes, the series from section B are still played in arbitrary articulations of various sounds, but gradually, five selected tones of the series, including D´ and A´ outbalance from all the twelve tones – the serialism slowly dissolves into “white-keys” diatonic[92]. These selected tones should be played with sforzando and “die out” in diminuendo. Slowly, they order themselves into the melodic succession of the beginning of the chorale cited in the last section (Coda) – a descending pentachord (picture 19.).

picture 19.

Section D (Coda), lasting approximately 1 and ½ minute, is the last section of the piece and it is the only part that is notated in a kind of traditional notation. It is based on choral from Bach´s motet Jesu Meine Freude[93]. It is notated in ppp dynamics with freer rhythm, which is three times “disturbed” (or, as composer says in the instructions - could be) by “Morse code” at the end tones of phrases. The whole piece “dies out” on the low D´ “shaking” in Morse code and the softest possible dynamics on the traverso.

We could say that the piece JMF for DM for traverso solo is one huge diminuendo, starting with the most extreme sounds on the instrument and ending in its well-known “environment” – Bach´s choral, however in a completely different sound colour, and completely different context.

If we compare the two described compositions, we can come to several conclusions that I will base on my own perspective and opinion after analysing both. H.-M. Linde´s piece symbolically comes from the ΄early music΄ environment and mindset into contemporary environment. This piece is based on the exploration of the instrument itself, its technical and sound possibilities, employing some ΄extended techniques΄ as well. In the way it is written, we can find some parallels with an 18th century solo compositions (like G. Ph. Telemann´s Fantasias): clear phrasing, motives that are repeated or developed, alternation between fast and slow sections, virtuosic passages, etc. Even though the composition is traditionally notated, we can find several ways how to execute and interpret particular phrases. The performance of this composition will depend upon each performer individually.

On the other hand, Matej´s composition is notated untraditionally and leaves quite a large space for performer´s interpretation and choice of sounds and extended techniques. Therefore it might be even more challenging to perform it, if we want to transmit the idea of the piece clearly and faithfully. We could almost say that it does not matter, which instrument performs this piece, but the idea is what is basic here; and we should find a way how to communicate each section and the piece as a whole through all the sound possibilities of the instrument – in my case, the traverso. Starting from a purely contemporary environment, the composition slowly diminishes into Bach´s choral, like to a “forgotten memory”, sounding only one single time at the very end of the whole process.


After exploring the realm of ΄extended techniques΄, and exploring two contemporary compositions for traverso solo involving ΄extended techniques΄ and untraditional approach to the sound possibilities of the traverso, I am coming to ask a question that I have been asking at the beginning of my research:

5.1 Effect of ΄extended techniques΄ and contemporary music practice on traditional playing technique on the one-keyed flute

Based on my experience with practicing the ΄extended techniques΄ on the traverso, this practice can be beneficial for the performer already for its purely technical aspect. I have found out that the traditional traverso technique can positively benefit from both experimenting with ΄extended techniques΄ and exploring the contemporary repertoire in these aspects:

R. Dick supports my observations, when he writes: “… it is also significant to note that many flutists may find working with the new sonorities and techniques beneficial to their traditional playing, especially in the area of tone development. Quite simply, practice of the new sonorities serves to develop both the strength and suppleness of the embouchure.”[94]

5.2 What can we consider as ΄extended techniques΄ for the one-keyed flute in 18th century?

As I have explained in the third chapter, the knowledge of the more untraditional ΄single sounds΄ techniques, such as harmonic series, alternative fingerings, microtones, etc., existed already in 18th century. Furthermore, Matteo Gemolo argues that the use of ΄multiple sonorities΄ on the flute is also not a 20th century discovery – this technique was known already at the beginning of the 19th century: “… if we look at the history of the flute at the beginning of the 19th century, the Austrian flutist Georg Bayr (1733 – 1833) was already working on a method to address one of the techniques that would become so popular a century later: how to play more notes at the same time on the flute or, as we call them nowadays, multiphonics.”[95]

In this context, our understanding of what are the traditional techniques and what are the ΄extended techniques΄ might come into a question. Few examples of the techniques perceived nowadays as ΄extended΄, but described already in 18th century in some flute treatises, to mention are:

For other ΄extended techniques΄ of the 18th century΄ we could also consider:

In 18th century all the above mentioned techniques would be used in the context of expressing the passions through music performance. Their execution is related directly to the expression of a particular baroque affect. Therefore we could say that in the 18th century perspective, the ΄extended΄ stands for the emotional content carried out through a technical execution on the instrument.

5.3 How can these discoveries feed back to the traditional traverso repertoire?

We can say that the ΄extended techniques΄ exist in contemporary music to create various “effects”, as Gemolo says[103]. These “effects” always carry out a meaning, and even though contemporary music might be sometimes perceived as more abstract compared to the traditional traverso repertoire, it does carry certain emotional content. Therefore we could also say that the ΄extended techniques΄ are a kind of emotional language of contemporary music. Here, we can find a parallel with baroque music. From 18th century perspective, the playing technique of the one-keyed flute was a tool for expression of the emotional content of the music – the passions.

What comes now into question is how our explorations of traverso sound possibilities and expanding its “limitations” can feed back to the traditional repertoire and its performance. There are several conclusions I have made.

Firstly, the purely technical benefits (mentioned earlier in this chapter) of practicing the ΄extended techniques΄ on the traverso can already feed back to the performance of the traditional repertoire since they open up performer´s perception of the instrument´s sound possibilities. Therefore the performer has more freedom to perform the 18th century flute compositions in an enriched and deepened expressive imagination. Secondly, we might start to see the notation of traditional flute pieces in a different perspective. Our imagination of the sound possibilities of the notated motives and phrases can perhaps lead us to become freer and less “attached” to the score, using the score more as guidance for expressing the music and its passions through the ΄sound΄ rather than literally executing what and how it is written.

I chose two excerpts which can serve us as an example of seeing the execution of some notations of 18th century flute music in a new perspective:

From these examples, we can see that often the interpretative execution of notation of 18th century traverso repertoire depends on our own understanding of musical context and our imagination behind the notated motives/phrases, of course having the knowledge of baroque principles as a base.

These discoveries also suggest there may be many more 18th century musical passages and utterances, which we might see - after encountering the expressive potential of extended techniques - as inviting greater contrast, and more extreme and deeper expression than HIP performers have tended to assume until now.

6. Conclusion

During the process of my work I have been slowly beginning to understand how much are the musical taste and musical aesthetic, including the technical aspects of instruments and their sound ideals, influenced by the current circumstances in the music world. Furthermore, I have found out that the understanding of what is considered ΄traditional΄ and what ΄untraditional΄ - or ΄extended΄ - in music performance and instrument´s technique largely depends upon our understanding of historical contexts, our perspective of modern-day ΄sound ideal΄ of the traverso, and until what extent the modern-day perspectives on the ΄sound ideal΄ influence us.

If we now consider the question what are the ΄traditional techniques΄ on the one-keyed flute and what are the ΄extended techniques΄, we might ask ourselves further: what had happened during the history of music that had resulted into today´s division between ΄traditional΄ and ΄untraditional techniques΄, and their use only for purposes in one field of music – either 18th century or contemporary music performance?

As we could see, in 18th century, the ΄sound΄ and playing technique of the traverso was a tool for expression through musical performance. We will never know exactly until what extent the 18th century performers used their instruments - from modern-day perspective, “untraditionally”, in search for expressive possibilities. However, I suggest we might want to deepen our own search for expressive possibilities through sound (and other devices) in ΄early music΄ performance, inspired by these new perspectives on 18th century performance.

Furthermore, the widened perspective of traverso sound possibilities and breaking through its “limitations” coming from our experimentation with the ΄extended techniques΄ and exploration of some contemporary traverso repertoire gives us the possibility to be much freer in using the instrument´s technique and sound for the purpose of expression.

Apart from all these “discoveries”, this research has become a part of my personal search for both my sound on the traverso and more complex expressive abilities. The exploration of contemporary music for traverso has become my “work in progress”, including the recording of *Anspielungen and experimentation with JMF for DM for traverso solo. I am hoping to develop the “sound world” of these and other pieces further, and continue my work with some composers I have come to collaborate during the process of my research.

Lastly, I would like to express my many thanks to Kate Clark, Daniel Matej, Matteo Gemolo, Jed Wentz, Kat Carson, Jakub Klimeš, Maja Miró, and my family and friends for their help, advices and support during the process of my work.

Dorota Matejová, February 2020, Den Haag

7. Bibliography

BARTOLOZZI, Bruno: New sounds for woodwind. Translated and edited by Reginald Smith Brindle. London: Oxford University Press, 1967. ISBN 0-19-318607-1

BOLAND, Janice Dockendorff: Method for the One-Keyed Flute (1998). London: University of California Press, 1998. ISBN 0-520-21447-1

DE LUSSE, Charles : L´Art de la flûte traversière (Paris ca. 1761). Firenze : Studio per edizioni scelte, 1997.

DICK, Robert: THE OTHER FLUTE: A Performance Manual of Contemporary Techniques. London: Oxford University Press, 1975. ISBN 0-19-3221-25-X

FÜRSTENAU, Anton Bernhard: Die Kunst des Flötenspiels (1844). Leipzig: Breitkopf und Härtel, 1844.

GEMOLO, Matteo: ΄Extended techniques on the traverso: The case of the glissando and the flattement΄, ÍMPAR, Online Journal for Artistic Research, Vol.2, No.2 (2018), p. 30-47. ISSN 2184-1993

GEMOLO, Matteo: ΄Extended techniques on the traverso (part 2): the case of the flutter-tonguing and microtones in the post-modernist repertoire for the one-keyed flute΄, ÍMPAR Online journal for artistic research, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2019), p. 5-23. ISSN 2184-1993

HARNONCOURT, Nikolaus: Musik als Klangrede (1982). Translated by Mary O´Neill: Music As Speech, Ways to a New Understanding of Music. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press, 1995. ISBN 0-931340-91-8

HAYNES, Bruce: The End of Early Music; A period performer´s history of music for the twenty-first century (2007). New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-19-518987-2

HOTTETERRE, Jacques Martin : Principes de la Flûte traversière, ou flûte d´Allemagne; de la flute à bec, ou flute douce; et du haut-bois (1707). Translated and edited by David Lasocki. London: Barrie & Rockliff, The Cresset Press, 1968.

KUIJKEN, Barthold: The Notation Is Not the Music; Reflections on Early Music Practice and Performance. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-253-01060-5

POWELL, Ardal: The Flute (2001). New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-300-09341-1

QUANTZ, Johann Joachim: Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen (Berlin 1752). Translated by Edward R. Reilly: On playing the flute; a complete translation with an introduction and notes by E. R. Reilly. London: Faber and Faber, 1966.

RUSCCOL, Herbert: The liberation of sound: an introduction to electronic music (1972). London: Prentice Hall, 1972. ISBN 0-13-535393-9

TROMLITZ, Johann George: Unterricht die Flöte zu spielen (1791). Translated by Linda Bishop Hartig. A Translation and Comparative study by L. B. Hartig. Ann Arbor MI: UMI Dissertation Information Services, 1991.

VESTER, Frans: Die Flötenspielpraxis zur Zeit der AMZ (1798-1848), und heute. Die Flöte in der „Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung“ (1798-1848). Amsterdam: Broekmans & Van Poppel B. V., 1997. ISBN 90-71939-09-X

WENTZ, Jed, KROESBERGER, Willem: ΄Sonority in the 18th Century, un poco più forte?΄, Early Music, Vol. 22, No. 3 (August 1994), p. 482-495. Oxford University Press. Stable URL:

Internet sources: HAAS, Ole : Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung (2009). Source:, Accessed on : September 30, 2019

  1. The four parts are: a head-joint, an upper middle joint, a lower middle joint and a foot-joint with one key (for D#/E b). At the beginning and the first half of the 18th century traversos appeared first in three parts, in models such as the Hotteterre flute. Later the middle joint was divided into two parts. ↩︎

  2. As Bruce Haynes calls this repertoire in his book The End of Early Music: A period performer´s history of music for the twenty-first century, it is a repertoire of epochs before Romantic era. ↩︎

  3. from Harnoncourt´s essay On the Interpretation of Historical Music, p. 42. It was written in 1954, and was author´s first written observation on the given topic, as he says himself in the introduction to his book Music as Speech ↩︎

  4. from the German original Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen, published in 1752. There are several English translations and editions of the original method, therefore the translated titles might vary slightly. The translation I am using here is On Playing the Flute, second edition, transl. by Edward R. Reilly. ↩︎

  5. Johann Joachim Quantz (1697-1773) was a flautist, a composer, an instrument maker, and an author of Versuch einer Anweisung die Flöte traversiere zu spielen. ↩︎

  6. All other treatises from the 16th-18th centuries that touch on flute playing can be described as ‘methods’ rather than musical compendia of the sort Quantz wrote. Compare Agricola (1545), Mersenne (1636) Hottetterre (1707), Corrette (1773), De Lusse (ca. 1760), Tromlitz (1791) - which comes closest in scope, and Devienne (1794). ↩︎

  7. Quantz: On playing the Flute, chapter XI, par. 14 ↩︎

  8. Passions, based on a theory of affects – or affections – were a part of aesthetics in baroque music and art. They are based on human emotions, and their expression through music was an essential part of music aesthetics and practice of the time. ↩︎

  9. Quantz: On playing the Flute, chapter XI, par. 21 ↩︎

  10. In my understanding, there is a difference between being moved by the passion and being overwhelmed by the passion. As performers, if we get overwhelmed, it might have an influence on the quality of our music performance, however, our technique can “hold” us, thus this performance will just depend upon a particular situation. ↩︎

  11. Charles De Lusse (1720-1774) was a French flutist, composer and author of L´Art de la flûte traversière. ↩︎

  12. From L´Art de la flûte traversière (The Art of the Transverse Flute), written and published in ca. 1761, paragraph (Y) Du Piano et Du Forte (On Piano and Forte), original text translated by Kat Carson ↩︎

  13. Quantz: On playing the Flute, chapter IV, par. 3 ↩︎

  14. Johann George Tromlitz ((1725-1805) was a German flute virtuoso, flute-maker and writer, based in Leipzig. ↩︎

  15. From a German original Unterricht die Flöte zu spielen, written in 1791, was designed after Quantz´s treatise Versuch… (1752), presents a detailed pre-classical look at performance practice and design of the flute. According to the translator of Tromlitz´s treatise L. Bishop Hartig, the author attempted to write an instruction book for learning how to play the flute without the help of a teacher. ↩︎

  16. Tromlitz: Unterricht die Flöte zu spielen, transl. by L. Bishop Hartig, p. 180 ↩︎

  17. Quantz: On playing the Flute, p. 50 ↩︎

  18. Quantz: On playing the Flute, chapter IV, par. 4 ↩︎

  19. Tromlitz: Die Unterricht die Flöte uz spielen, transl. by L. Bishop Hartig, p. 179 ↩︎

  20. Jacques Martin Hotteterre le Romain (1674-1763) was a French musician, an instrument maker, and a composer, who played various woodwinds. He was a flutist of the king´s chamber and one of the most sought-after teachers of the time. ↩︎

  21. J.M. Hotteterre: Preface to Principles of the flute, recorder and oboe, from the French original Principes de la Flûte traversière, ou flûte d´Allemagne; de la flute à bec, ou flute douce; et du haut-bois, a first known essay on flute playing, published in 1707. It was intended for beginners on the instrument, most of them probably amateur musicians. ↩︎

  22. Hotteterre: Principles of the flute, recorder and oboe, Introduction by D. Lasocki, p. 25 ↩︎

  23. Tromlitz writes about this in detail in Chapter 6: About Tone Quality and Pure Intonation, par. 4 and par. 6 ↩︎

  24. Boland: Method for the One-Keyed Flute, p. 71 ↩︎

  25. I refer to ΄classical music΄ as a most common musical practice nowadays, including a cross-section study of several historical epochs, while all the repertoires are executed in a similar manner – Modern style, as B. Haynes calls it (see 1.2.1 A brief history of HIP and its performing styles). ↩︎

  26. Haynes: The End of Early Music, chapter 2: Prophets of the Revolution: Dolmetsch and Landowska ↩︎

  27. Recordings from the turn of 19th and 20th centuries, and early 20th century ↩︎

  28. Haynes: The End of Early Music, p. 32 ↩︎

  29. Vester´s introduction is called Die Flötenspielpraxis zur Zeit der AMZ (1798 – 1848), und heute (The flute playing practice at the time of AMZ (1798-1848), and today) ↩︎

  30. Der Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung (AMZ) was a weekly journal created by the publishing house of Breitkopf & Härtel, and existed in the years 1798 to 1848. It was the first internationally esteemed music journal. ↩︎

  31. Frans Vester (1922-1987) was a performer on both modern and historical flutes, editor, and scholar, and he is said to be one of the most influential performers on historical flutes in the second half of 20th century. He was a teacher of modern flute at the Koninklijk Conservatorium in The Hague. ↩︎

  32. Die Flöte in der „Allgemeine Musikalische Zeitung", p. XIII, transl. by Dorota Matejová ↩︎

  33. B. Kuijken (*1949), a performer and a pedagogue of historical flutes, one of the most influential figures in traverso performance in second half of 20th century. ↩︎

  34. B. Kuijken: The Notation is Not the Music: Reflections on Early Music Practice and Performance; chapters 6.Articulation and 7.Dynamics ↩︎

  35. B. Kuijken: The Notation is Not the Music, p. 56 ↩︎

  36. B. Kuijken: The Notation is Not the Music, p. 59 ↩︎

  37. B. Kuijken: The Notation is Not the Music, p. 59 ↩︎

  38. J. Wentz and W. Kroesberger: Sonority in 18th century, un poco più forte?, Early Music, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Aug. 1994), p. 488 ↩︎

  39. J. Wentz and W. Kroesberger: The sonority in 18th century, un poco più forte?, p. 493 ↩︎

  40. Tromlitz: Unterricht Die Flöte zu spielen, transl. by L. Bishop Hartig, p. 184 ↩︎

  41. Hotteterre: Principles of the flute, recorder and oboe, p. 45 ↩︎

  42. J.J. Quantz: 8 Capriccios for Solo Flute ↩︎

  43. Included in the appendix of De Lusse´s L´Art de la flûte traversière ↩︎

  44. Tromlitz: Unterricht Die Flöte zu spielen, transl. by L. Bishop Hartig, p. 183, par. 7 ↩︎

  45. Tromlitz: Unterricht Die Flöte zu spielen, transl. by L. Bishop Hartig, p. 182, par. 5 ↩︎

  46. Tromlitz: Unterricht Die Flöte zu spielen, transl. by L. Bishop Hartig, p.182, par. 6. ↩︎

  47. Contemporary music – I refer here as to music covering the period from approximately 1950s until present, and exploring innovative ideas concerning sound and its organization ↩︎

  48. H. Russcol – The Liberation of Sound: An Introduction to Electronic Music (1972) ↩︎

  49. Theobald Böhm (1794-1881) invented and patented the keyed-system for woodwinds in 1847.The modern flute uses the same system until today and in its construction is has barely changed since the middle of 19th century. ↩︎

  50. Russcol: The Liberation of Sound, p. 16 ↩︎

  51. Bartolozzi: New Sounds for Woodwinds, p. 3 ↩︎

  52. Harnoncourt: Music and Sound, p. 266-267 ↩︎

  53. Bartolozzi: New Sounds for Woodwinds, p. 5 ↩︎

  54. Robert Dick: THE OTHER FLUTE: A Performance Manual of Contemporary Techniques ↩︎

  55. Gemolo: Extended techniques on the traverso: The case of the glissando and the flattement, ÍMPAR, Online Journal for Artistic Research, vol.2 no.2, 2018, p. 30 ↩︎

  56. Gemolo: Extended techniques on the traverso: The case of the glissando and the flattement, ÍMPAR, Online journal for artistic research, vol.2 no.2, 2018, p.30 ↩︎

  57. Gemolo: Extended techniques on the traverso: The case of the glissando and the flattement, ÍMPAR, Online Journal for Artistic Research, vol.2 no.2, 2018, p.30 ↩︎

  58. R. Dick: The Other Flute, p. 12 ↩︎

  59. Residual tone is a “by-product”, a tone heard alongside the desired pitch of the harmonics. It often has a noise-like quality and a weak sounding fundamental and its several overtones. ↩︎

  60. De Lusse: L´art de la flûte traversière, p. 10, par. « Des Sons Harmoniques » (The Harmonic Sounds), from French translated by Kat Carson ↩︎

  61. De Lusse: L´art de la flûte traversière, appendix Tablature Des Sons Harmoniques ↩︎

  62. In the table, the symbol „° " next to the tone is a symbol used for the sounding harmonic tone. The arrows ↓ and ↑ indicate if the harmonic tone sounds lower or higher compared to its regularly fingered pitch. The harmonic tones indicated in green are the deviations from pitches that “should” sound. If there are two harmonic sounds notated in one “box”, then the first one is for the Beukers instrument, and the second one for Tutz instrument. ↩︎

  63. Models: one-keyed W. Beukers flute made by Simon Polak (a=415 Hz); one-keyed J. H. Rottenburgh flute made by R. Tutz (a=415 Hz); one-keyed Hotteterre flute made by “unknown” (a=392 Hz) ↩︎

  64. Most of modern-day replicas of traversos are built in 415 Hz due to the standardized pitch requirement in early music performance. However, most of the original instruments were built in ca. 400 Hz. Therefore the modern-day measurements calculated for 415 Hz influence the general tuning and tone colour of current traverso replicas. ↩︎

  65. For example, Bordet Touissant : Méthode raisonnée pour apprendre la musique (ca. 1755) and M. Corrette : Méthode pour apprendre aisément à jouer de la flûte traversière (ca. 1735-1740) ↩︎

  66. R. Dick: The Other Flute, p. 47 ↩︎

  67. For symbols, see R. Dick: The Other Flute, p. 47 ↩︎

  68. For symbols, see R. Dick: The Other Flute, p. 47 ↩︎

  69. For symbols, see R. Dick: The Other Flute, p. 48 ↩︎

  70. R. Dick: The Other Flute, p. 46 ↩︎

  71. Quantz: On playing the Flute, p. 49-50 ↩︎

  72. Gemolo: Extended techniques on the traverso (part 2): the case of the flutter-tonguing and microtones in the post-modernist repertoire for the one-keyed flute, ÍMPAR Online journal for artistic research, vol. 3, No. 1, 2019, p. 14 ↩︎

  73. Also known as “finger vibrato”, in 18th century used as an ornament, especially on long tones ↩︎

  74. Gemolo: Extended techniques on the traverso (part 2): the case of the flutter-tonguing and microtones in the post-modernist repertoire for the one-keyed flute, ÍMPAR Online journal for artistic research, vol. 3, No. 1, 2019, p. 18 ↩︎

  75. Gemolo: Extended techniques on the traverso (part 2): the case of the flutter-tonguing and microtones in the post-modernist repertoire for the one-keyed flute, ÍMPAR Online journal for artistic research, vol. 3, no. 1, p. 14 ↩︎

  76. Gemolo, Extended techniques on the traverso: The case of the glissando and the flattement, ÍMPAR, Online journal for artistic research, vol.2 no.2, 2018, p. 31 ↩︎

  77. A. B. Fürstenau: Die Kunst des Flötenspiels, Op. 138, p. 84 ↩︎

  78. R. Dick: The Other Flute, p. 82 ↩︎

  79. symbol taken from R. Dick: The Other Flute, p. 128 ↩︎

  80. A type of score used in contemporary music, where instead of traditional notation, a composer gives written instructions for the performer. Often, in this type of scores, much depends upon performer´s creative approach and deeper understanding of the idea behind the piece. ↩︎

  81. Please note, that for copyright reasons the full score of Anspielungen is not included here. For analysis of this piece I am using the score by edition Schott. ↩︎

  82. Konrad Hünteler (born 1947) is a German flautist and conductor. Among others he was a student of Hans-Martin Linde whose Anspielungen is dedicated to Hünteler. ↩︎

  83. composer describes them in the Performance Directions ↩︎

  84. An allusion is to - J.S. Bach: Sonata No. 5 in E minor for flute and continuo, BWV 1034, I. Adagio ma nontanto, bar 21 ↩︎

  85. An allusion to C.P.E. Bach: Sonata in A minor for Unaccompanied Flute, I. Poco Adagio, bar 58-59 ↩︎

  86. G. Ph. Telemann: Twelve Fantasias for Flute without Bass, TWV 40:2-13 ↩︎

  87. An allusion to C.P.E. Bach: Sonata in A minor for Unaccompanied Flute, I. Poco Adagio, bar 92 ↩︎

  88. J.S. Bach: Partita in A minor for Solo Flute, BWV 1013, 1. Allemande, bar 46 ↩︎

  89. „Prepared piano" is often used in contemporary music. It means that the instrument is “adjusted” or “prepared” in a way, that different small objects are inserted in between the instrument´s strings (e.g. piece of paper, small objects, etc.) in order to allow different sounds for certain keys or group of keys of the piano. ↩︎

  90. From French “bruit” = noise ↩︎

  91. Serialism is a compositional technique employing a set (a „series") of fixed tones, usually the twelve tones of the chromatic scale, or its sections. ↩︎

  92. The name is derived from the white keys of the piano. ↩︎

  93. J.S. Bach: Jesu Meine Freude, BWV 227 ↩︎

  94. R. Dick: The Other Flute, Introduction, p. V ↩︎

  95. Gemolo: Extended techniques on the traverso: The case of the glissando and the flattement, ÍMPAR, Online Journal for Artistic Research, vol.2 no.2, 2018, p.31 ↩︎

  96. De Lusse: L´art de la flûte traversière, p. 10, par. Z ↩︎

  97. In treatises by Hotteterre, De Lusse, Quantz, etc. ↩︎

  98. De Lusse: L´art de la flûte traversière, p. 8, par. L, M, N, O ↩︎

  99. Hotteterre: Principles of the flute, recorder and oboe, chapter 9 ↩︎

  100. Tromlitz: Die Unterricht die Flöte uz spielen, transl. by L. Bishop Hartig, p. 351,353 ↩︎

  101. Quantz: On playing the Flute, p. 79 ↩︎

  102. De Lusse: L´art de la flûte traversière, p. 4 ↩︎

  103. Gemolo, Extended techniques on the traverso: The case of the glissando and the flattement, ÍMPAR, Online journal for artistic research, vol.2 no.2, 2018, p. 30 ↩︎

  104. M. P. de Montèclair (1667-1737): ΄Pan et Sirinx - Cantata IV for voice, and violin or oboe or flute΄ from the Second Book of ΄Cantates à voix seule et avec simfonie΄, published in 1706 ↩︎

  105. Recit ΄Dé ja Sirinx parcouroit l´Erimanthe΄ ↩︎