28 THE FLUTIST QUARTERLY WINTER 2015

NFAONLINE.ORG
 For Better or Worse:
The Virtuosic Flute
Virtuosity has evolved both in popularity and by definition over the
past two centuries. A look at the phenomenon through the lens of the
19th century, when it was simultaneously celebrated and reviled, can
help us better understand its development and significance.
by Timothy Hagen

Why is so much flute music very difficult? excluding the lower middle class but enticing members of
the “middle bourgeoisie”4 to purchase a level of artistic
Why do flutists lack solo repertoire by major Romantic appreciation previously available only to aristocrats and
composers? nobility in private salons and at court.
The burgeoning market for virtuosity accidentally con-
These questions are intimately linked within the context of tributed to a backlash. Critics harbored “suspicion that
virtuosity in the 19th century. It is therefore worth explor- middle-class audiences only went to concerts…to see and
ing this phenomenon, which affected attitudes about the be seen…and it was far stronger for audiences at virtuoso
flute and flutists so dramatically that players still deal with concerts than at symphony concerts.”5 This dismissive atti-
the aftermath. tude was extended beyond audiences to performances and
performers, revealed in phrases like “excessive ornament”
The Controversial Rise of Virtuosity and “superficial virtuosity.”6 Lines were drawn between
The European middle class of the early 19th century was
hungry for novelty in all fields, including music, where nov-
elty was represented in part by instrumental virtuosity.
Provincial instrumentalists flocked, for example, to Vienna,
“the musical metropolis,”1 assembling careers piecemeal. To
make ends meet they often played in orchestras, taught, and
composed. They also staged benefit concerts for themselves,
which typically featured a wide array of performers, as well as
one concerto and at least one virtuoso showpiece.2
Not confined to Vienna, virtuosity increasingly flour-
ished throughout Europe from 1800 to 1830, followed by
FRANZ LISZT BY FRANZ HANFSTAENGL

what musicologist Carl Dahlhaus called “the heyday of vir-

tuosity [that] began with Paganini’s tours of the European
capitals in the early 1830s and ended in September 1847
when Franz Liszt abandoned his career as a pianist.”3 Like
his Viennese counterparts, Liszt in particular founded his
career on new socioeconomic ground. His touring per-
formances demanded higher-than-typical ticket prices, Franz Liszt in 1858.

Interior of the Vienna State Opera.

WINTER 2015 THE FLUTIST QUARTERLY 29

NFAONLINE.ORG
Carl Dahlhaus Robert Schumann Eduard Hanslick

Liszt, virtuosity’s quintessential representative, and such crit- ity. By the 1830s, Liszt felt trapped by the superficial style bril-
ics as Robert Schumann and, later, Eduard Hanslick, who lant, the foundation of his pianistic technique.11 After hearing

CARL DAHLHAUS COURTESY ANNEMARIE DAHLHAUS; ROBERT SCHUMANN BY JOHANN ANTON VÖLLNER; HAMBURG, EDUARD HANSLICK ARTIST UNKNOWN; NICCOLÒ PAGANINI (1819), BY JEAN AUGUSTE DOMINIQUE INGRES
advocated “serious or ‘symphonic’ music [over] insignificant, Paganini, he began to understand how he might use perfor-
‘dilettantish’ instrumental music.”7 mative virtuosity as a tool in articulating musical form, trans-
forming it into compositional virtuosity and giving it “a sub-
Liszt: Reinventor of Virtuosity stance lacking in the fashionable [style brilliant]….”12
This conflict reveals virtuosity’s growth from a quality into a Following this realization, critics began to note the orchestral
genre that was often seen as superficial, lacking meaning beyond quality of Liszt’s piano playing and compositions, specifically
the notes. Liszt combatted this view of his works through his his “tendency—both in his compositions and his playing—to
advocacy of other composers and a penchant for donating pro- multiply timbres, stratify registers, differentiate dynamics, and
recompose textures….”13 These qualities coincide with every-
ceeds to charity. He also worked to be meaningful to as wide a
thing Berlioz found lacking in the piano before Liszt, offering
public as possible, casting himself as “interpreter of ‘classical’
grounds for his veneration of Liszt. In turn, Berlioz’s influence
works, German patriot, Hungarian patriot, man of letters, the
is clear in Liszt’s decision to feature “orchestrality” in his piano
composer-pianist, the artist aristocrat, as prophet, as humanitar-
works, even those that move beyond symphonic transcrip-
ian, or as revolutionary…. He wanted…to make the virtuoso
tions. Liszt’s Grande fantaisie di bravura sur la clochette de
pianist mean something more than the ongoing debasement of
Paganini, for example, “is a composed-out example of his
super-virtuosos seemed to allow.”8 His desire to be as much a
orchestral approach to the piano,”14 as described above.
social and cultural icon as a musical one placed him alongside
another great 19th-century figure: Hector Berlioz.
According to musicologist Cécile Reynaud, Berlioz viewed
himself as skilled in “playing the orchestra.” He achieved fame
through works such as the Symphonie Fantastique and
Requiem, which contained unprecedented orchestral effects
(e.g., incorporating chromatic brass, introducing novel instru-
ments like the tuba and English horn into symphonic instru-
mentation, using offstage instruments in dialogue with those
onstage, using four timpanists simultaneously to evoke thun-
der, and requiring strings to play col legno). Despite his com-
positional virtuosity, Berlioz expressed impatience toward vir-
tuoso performers and pieces and, in particular, disdain for
piano arrangements of symphonic work.
Despite their differences regarding instrumental virtuosity,
Berlioz and Liszt became friends and collaborators. Berlioz
admired not only Liszt’s novel piano effects but also the
younger composer’s artistry. Likewise, Liszt expressed his
admiration for Berlioz through a lifelong study of the elder
composer’s music, resulting in piano arrangements of many
Berlioz works. Berlioz usually responded to such arrange-
ments with revulsion9 but viewed Liszt’s versions as “work[s]
of art”10 and communicated with Liszt about them.
It is plausible that Berlioz, along with Liszt’s 1831 encounter
with Paganini, inspired Liszt to pursue compositional virtuos- Niccolo Paganini

30 THE FLUTIST QUARTERLY WINTER 2015

NFAONLINE.ORG
 Hector Berlioz Charles Nicholson Theobald Böhm

Though it was revolutionary, Liszt’s symphonic rethinking to solve the problem. The most lasting innovation was Frederick
of the piano was a tool used to give virtuosity meaning, com- Nolan’s ring key, still found today on “open-hole” flutes.
ing around the time Dahlhaus notes “the transformation in The flute’s weaknesses in facility were equally troubling. At
the structure of the [public] concert,”15 which, as a result of the beginning of the 18th century, the one-keyed flute was
anti-virtuosity pressure, promoted symphonic works over standard, meaning that most pitches were obtained by placing
concertos and other virtuoso pieces. Liszt never succumbed to fingers directly onto holes. Such flutes were diatonic.
such attitudes, continually pushing himself to experiment. His Chromatic notes sounded via “cross-fingerings,” whereby
Après une lecture du Dante is a tri-thematic work for solo nonconsecutive fingers were placed down, resulting in awk-
piano written on such a scale as to invoke both “a single sonata ward execution and poor projection and intonation. The
movement and a multimovement sonata cycle.”16 Likewise, his flute’s status “of possessing the worst cross-fingerings”19 of any
Piano Concerto in E flat is described by Dahlhaus as being in wind instrument caused it to become “the first orchestral
league with Brahms’ Piano Concerto in B flat in its absorption woodwind to accept additional chromatic keywork.”20 A more
of “symphonic style.”17 It is therefore fitting to say that Liszt the facile flute would have benefitted players and, through its
pioneer won out over the critics of virtuosity by blending vir- enhanced compositional possibilities, likely drawn more com-
tuoso and symphonic styles to create something richer than posers to the instrument. Throughout the second half of the
either had been before. Virtuoso flutists, however, were not so 18th century and the first half of the 19th, makers therefore
fortunate, largely due to the limitations of their instrument. experimented with adding different numbers of keys, accord-
ing to various fingering systems, to improve facility, a phe-
For Worse: The Victimized Flute nomenon detailed in flute historian Nancy Toff ’s The
The effect of the rise of virtuosity on the 19th-century flute is Development of the Modern Flute.
connected to the instrument’s state at the beginning of the Unlike intonation and facility, areas many makers were try-
century. A treasured instrument in the 1700s, the flute’s diffi- ing to revolutionize, the fullness of tone available to modern
culties in intonation, facility, and tone production caused its flutists can be traced back to a single figure, Charles
status to diminish, and major composers consequently Nicholson, the reigning flute virtuoso in London from the
stopped writing serious solo and chamber repertoire for the 1810s to the 1830s, as detailed by flute historian Ardal Powell
instrument over the first three decades of the 1800s. They in his book The Flute. The most conspicuous element of his
clearly felt their efforts were better spent writing for the piano playing, according to German inventor and flutist Theobald
or violin, neither of which had problems of such magnitude. Böhm, “was his tone, which…was so powerful that no conti-
HECTOR BERLIOZ BY FRANCK, PARIS, C. 1855; CHARLES NICHOLSON BY T. BART

Brilliant virtuoso flutists, most notably Britain’s Charles nental player could match it,” achieved through particular
Nicholson and Germany’s Theobald Böhm, therefore dedicat- embouchure positioning and breathing, as well as unusually
ed themselves to improving the flute. It stands to reason that large tone holes. The most plausible answer for why
in their minds redesigning the flute might have helped recap- Nicholson’s conception lasted, as opposed to his colleagues’
ture some of its former glory. sounds that historians have called “sweet” and “mellifluous,”
Intonation had been a bane for flutists and composers since owes to “the demands of power and brilliance made by…the
the early 18th century. To increase flexibility, flutists, including modern orchestra,”21 developing at the time.
Johann Joachim Quantz, had invented a number of devices, Still, a more powerful tone had its critics, such as Richard
but none were up to the challenge. The result was a funda- Wagner, who purportedly referred to the more powerfully
mentally flawed instrument. Eminent flutist Johann George played flute as a “cannon.”22 In his essay On Conducting, Wagner
Tromlitz wrote that keys with more than three sharps or flats complained, “A softly sustained piano is hardly obtainable from
were “difficult and unsuitable.”18 As composers became con- [woodwinds] anymore, particularly from the flutists, who have
temptuous of these flaws, which weakened the flute as an transformed their formerly so soft instruments into mighty
ensemble instrument, the need to improve intonation became shawms.”23 (Wagner himself never had to make important flute
increasingly pressing, and inventors continued their attempts passages heard over his massive orchestras.)

WINTER 2015 THE FLUTIST QUARTERLY 31

NFAONLINE.ORG
 from nearly inaudible to incredibly loud—available from pianos
and violins, to say nothing of effects like piano chords and violin
double, triple, and quadruple stops. Thus, no flutist could
achieve, “as concerto historian Abraham Veinus put it, the [19th-
century concerto’s]…broad, obvious gestures meant to be seen
and heard from the cheapest seats,”25 another fact that caused
flute literature to suffer. At the same time, paradoxically, the
flute’s “role in the orchestra became ever more important.”26

For Better: The Utilized Flute

Even a cursory examination of 19th-century orchestral music
reveals that composers who fancied themselves “serious” pos-
sessed an ever more virtuosic understanding of the flute,
Beethoven’s Third was written for flutist Anton Dressing at the Theatre an der Wien. thanks to experience with some of its finest players. To these
composers, as to Berlioz, virtuosity would have contributed to
The man who finally assembled all of the elements neces- the meaning of a work, allowing them to write increasingly dif-
sary for the flute to navigate the demands of intonation, facil- ficult passages while escaping the charges of superficiality that
ity, and tone production was the aforementioned Böhm. Born affected performing virtuosos and the works they played.
in 1794, he was around 20 when, as Toff states, he received his The solo in the finale of Ludwig van Beethoven’s Third
first performing appointment. He had established himself as a Symphony, composed in 1804, is a fine starting point. Lasting
professional goldsmith by then, playing and producing flutes for eight measures (mm. 192–200), it is a continuous whirlwind
for himself and his friends to play in his spare time. By 1828 he of arpeggios and scales in D major, a “virtuoso-sounding pas-
had become a full-fledged flute manufacturer. Afterward came sage [that is] technically quite simple, as it involves only two
three crucial stages in the finalization of his flute design, real- cross-fingerings”27 on a pre-Böhm flute. Preceding the solo is a
ized in his instruments of 1831, 1832, and 1847. section in which the flute floats on top of the violins, reaching

THEATER AN DER WIEN BY JAKOB ALT (1789–1872); FELIX MENDELSSOHN BY BARTHOLDY JAMES WARREN CHILDE,1839; LUDWIG VAN BEETHOVEN BY JOSEPH FARL STIELER,1820
The result, as Toff explains, was a flute with tone holes spaced what would have been an adventurous A3, a flute pitch
not for fingering ease but for acoustically correct intonation. Beethoven had only first used in his Second Symphony, as flutist
These holes were larger and worked with a larger bore, allowing Amy Hamilton notes. In the Eighth and Ninth Symphonies,
players to achieve fuller sounds. Facility was improved by intri- Beethoven extended the flute’s range further, to B3 flat.
cate keywork, allowing fingers to close both nearby and remote According to Beethoven specialist Theodore Albrecht, the
tone holes. This design survives today with only minor tweaks to Third Symphony (as well as the third Leonore Overture) was
the mechanism, bore size, and tone hole placement. written to be played by excellent principal flutist Anton
Despite its superiority to other flutes of the time, Böhm’s
flute was not popular before the second half of the 19th cen-
tury, especially in his native Germany, as Toff explains, due to
the number of instrument makers fighting for primacy and
older players unwilling to learn a new fingering system. This
forced Böhm to tour Europe, performing his own works as
part of a campaign on behalf of his design. Given his prioriti-
zation of technique and lack of Liszt’s superhuman artistic
profile and abilities, one can easily imagine Böhm being
reviled as a superficial virtuoso by critics. Such a view leads to
observations, like this one by Toff, regarding potential acci-
dental effects of the efforts of Böhm and his colleagues:

The great composers of the century, possibly discour-

aged by the performers’ enthusiasm for merely
impressive pieces, were not inclined to waste their
creative efforts on the flute. Louis Fleury, reflecting
despairingly on the lack of Romantic solo literature,
charged that the virtuosi thereby “did more harm to
their instrument, in spite of their undoubted mastery
of it, than the clumsiest amateur could have done.”24

Ironically, in trying to save the flute, Böhm’s approach likely dis-

couraged composers from writing serious solo and chamber lit-
erature for it. Moreover, for all the advantages of his design, it
was impossible for any design to replicate the scope of sound— Felix Mendelssohn

32 THE FLUTIST QUARTERLY WINTER 2015

NFAONLINE.ORG
WINTER 2015 THE FLUTIST QUARTERLY 33
NFAONLINE.ORG
Louis Drouet An illustration of Karl August Grenser, an early Böhm supporter.

Dreyssig and his colleagues in the orchestra of the Theater an Mendelssohn’s Fourth Symphony and may well have played
der Wien. The premiere of the Eighth Symphony in 1814 the work’s premiere. As for the Midsummer Night’s Dream
included exemplary flutists Georg Bayr and Aloys Khayll, who Scherzo, Mendelssohn again had proof of the playability of his
had played at the Theater an der Wien alongside Dreyssig. flute writing, according to flutist Leonardo de Lorenzo:
Among these players, Beethoven received a first-rate educa-
tion in the pre-Böhm flute’s capabilities. When [Mendelssohn] rehearsed his famous
Felix Mendelssohn’s orchestral music represented a significant Scherzo…for the first time, the first flutist failed in
step up in technical difficulty, reflecting the contemporaneous the difficult passage, and declared impatiently that it
jump in virtuosic flute playing. The finale to his Fourth could not be played. The composer immediately said
Symphony, commissioned by the London Philharmonic Society to the second flutist, “Then, please, Mr. Haacke, will
in 1833, is a furious saltarello, the theme of which is exposed you play it?” And Haacke did so successfully.32
(mm. 6–34) as a flute duet featuring long streams of rapidly
articulated notes that extend to A3. It is the earliest example of As Hamilton posits, Robert Schumann’s awkwardly difficult
such strenuous flute articulation in any symphony from the flute parts point to a lesser understanding of the flute. His First
modern orchestral canon, though it is not isolated in Symphony, for example, was written in 1841 and features

LOUIS DROUET BY NELSON MULNIER; KARL AUGUSTIN GRENSER BY CHRISTIAN REIMERS

Mendelssohn’s output. His 1842 Scherzo from the Incidental “many technical passages…[that] were quite awkward…[for
Music to A Midsummer Night’s Dream closes with a 40-bar flute the] eight-keyed flute” common at the beginning of the 19th
solo using near-constant 16th-note articulation with only two century but that would have been easier on the Böhm flute.
quick opportunities for the player to breathe. Karl August Grenser was the principal flutist in Leipzig at the
Like Beethoven, Mendelssohn knew some of the finest time of the work’s premiere under Mendelssohn,33 so it is plau-
flutists of his day, though they also pre-dated the rise of the sible that he was the first flutist in that performance. Powell
Böhm flute. He persuaded renowned Dutch flutist Louis notes that Grenser was a known Böhm supporter as early as
Drouet to leave retirement in 1828, well before he wrote either 1824, though Leipzig flutists tended to be anti-Böhm in the
of the works mentioned above.28 Drouet’s Variations on God following decades, as the city was “a deeply conservative force
Save the King “gave [him] ample opportunity to show off his in German flute-playing….”34 It is therefore unknown whether
sensational double staccato”30 and were almost certainly Grenser played a Böhm flute and consequently how awkward
known to Mendelssohn, as they were performed on the same Schumann’s writing would have been for him.
1829 concert as the English premiere of Mendelssohn’s A In any case, passagework is not the only difficulty for the
Midsummer Night’s Dream Overture, conducted by the com- flute in Schumann’s First Symphony; intermittent B3 flats
poser.31 Moreover, Charles Nicholson was active with the can be found, sometimes scored softly in passages where the
London Philharmonic Society at the time of the premiere of flute is exposed,35 and there are examples of two flutes play-

34 THE FLUTIST QUARTERLY WINTER 2015

NFAONLINE.ORG
ing “in unison in the extreme upper register at soft dynam- Notes
1. Clements, “Situating Schubert,” 17.
ic levels, even though intonation difficulties were probable 2. Ibid., 23−28.
under these circumstances.”36 3. Dahlhaus, Nineteenth-Century Music, 137.
Schumann’s Neue Zeitschrift für Musik helps little in ascer- 4. Gooley, The Virtuoso Liszt, 7.
5. Gooley, “The Battle Against Instrumental Virtuosity,” 88.
taining his knowledge about the flute, as its many years of 6. Ibid., 77.
reviews contain scarce references to works featuring the flute 7. Ibid.
8. Gooley, The Virtuoso Liszt, 14
as primary instrument, none authored by him. The few extant 9. Reynaud, “Berlioz, Liszt, and the Question of Virtuosity,” 117.
articles relate to works by anti-Böhm flutists and flutists and 10. Ibid., 114.
composers with ties to conservative, implicitly anti-Böhm 11. Dahlhaus, 135.
12. Ibid.
locales. Any knowledge Schumann might have gleaned from 13. Gooley, The Virtuoso Liszt, 36.
the flute via Neue Zeitschrift reviews would therefore have 14. Ibid., 37.
15. Dahlhaus, 140.
been related to works that were most likely for pre-Böhm 16. Ibid., 135.
flutes, instruments for which his symphonic writing would 17. Ibid., 140.
have been especially difficult. 18. Toff, The Development of the Modern Flute, 23.
19. Ibid., 24.
In any case, it is plausible that even if Schumann knew little 20. Ibid.
about the flute, he knew the music of Beethoven and 21. Ibid., 42.
22. Powell, 191.
Mendelssohn intimately and may have hypothesized that his 23. Ibid.
music represented the next logical step in meaningful virtuos- 24. Toff, The Development of the Modern Flute, 79.
ity. If it was acceptable for Beethoven to stretch the flute’s 25. Toff, The Flute Book, 245.
26. Ibid., 235.
range in his Third Symphony—a musical monument to a 27. Hamilton, “The Relationship of Flute Construction,” 139.
great hero—and Mendelssohn to make unprecedented techni- 28. Albrecht,Anton Dreyssig, 188.
29. Clements, 145.
cal demands to depict a fiery Italian dance (Fourth 30. Wye, Foreword to Variations on British Airs.
Symphony) and a flurry of fairies (A Midsummer Night’s 31. Ibid.
Dream), then surely he was safe to push the flute further in his 32. de Lorenzo, My Complete Story of the Flute,” 355−356.
33. Wion, “Orchestral Principal Flutists.”
tribute to springtime. 34. Powell, 198.
35. Hamilton, 292.
36. Ibid., 294.
A New Century’s Possibilities
Predisposed to disregard virtuosity, many 19th-century com- Bibliography
Albrecht, Theodore. “Anton Dreyssig (c1753/4−1820): Mozart and Beethoven’s
posers were likely discouraged from writing solo and chamber Zauberflötist.” In Words About Mozart: Essays in Honor of Stanley Sadie.
flute literature, both by the instrument’s unresolvable short- Edited by Dorothea Link with Judith Nagley. Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell
comings and the attitudes and approaches of virtuoso inven- Press, 2005.

tor-players. They nevertheless recognized the vastly improved Clements, Gretchen Rowe. “Situating Schubert: Early Nineteenth-Century
capabilities of the instrument in the hands of these very play- Flute Culture and the ‘Trockne Blumen’ Variations, D. 802. PhD dissertation.
Buffalo: State University of New York, 2007.
ers and in turn pushed the boundaries of what the instrument
Dahlhaus, Carl. Nineteenth-Century Music. Translated by J. Bradford
could securely do, thereby coopting the work of the inventor- Robinson. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
players in the name of expression and influencing future gen-
De Lorenzo, Leonardo. My Complete Story of the Flute: The Instrument, The
erations of composers. By the end of the century, however, vir- Performer, The Music. Lubbock: Texas Tech University Press, 1992.
tuosic sensationalism had become prominent again. Younger
Gooley, Dana. “The Battle Against Instrumental Virtuosity in the Early
composers (most notably Richard Strauss, as detailed by his- Nineteenth Century.” In Franz Liszt and His World, edited by Christopher H.
torian James Hepokoski) emerged with writing more chal- Gibbs and Dana Gooley. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006.
lenging than anything discussed above, espousing complexity Gooley, Dana. The Virtuoso Liszt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
simply because they could. Hamilton, Amy Sue. “The Relationship of Flute Construction to the
Though Strauss’ attitude marks the antithesis of mid-centu- Symphonic Role of the Flute and Orchestral Performance Practice in the
ry, anti-virtuoso sentiment, his passages that still trouble us, as Nineteenth Century.” DMA dissertation. Northwestern University, 1984.
well as the increasingly difficult music composed after him, Hepokoski, James. “Framing Till Eulenspiegel.” In Music, Structure, Thought:
would never have been if not for the initial rise of virtuosity Selected Essays. Burlington: Ashgate, 2009.

and all the possibilities it introduced. For better or worse, the Powell, Ardal. The Flute. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002.
province of today’s flutists is to master these possibilities. ❃ Reynaud, Cécile. “Berlioz, Liszt, and the Question of Virtuosity.” In Berlioz:
Past, Present, Future—Bicentenary Essays, edited and translated by Peter
Anthony Bloom. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2003.
Timothy Hagen is a professional flutist, educator, composer,
and scholar. Active throughout the United States as a guest Toff, Nancy. The Development of the Modern Flute. New York: Taplinger
Publishing Company, 1979.
teacher and artist, he is principal flutist of the Missouri
Symphony and resides in Dallas, where he is adjunct instructor Toff, Nancy. The Flute Book. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

of flute at Brookhaven College and maintains a large private Wion, John. “Orchestral Principal Flutists.” http://www.johnwion.com/orches-
tra.html (2014).
flute studio. He holds degrees from the University of Texas at
Austin, University of Southern California, and North Carolina Wye, Trevor. Foreward to Variations on British Airs, Vol. 1: Louis Drouet,
Variations on the Air “God Save the King” for Flute and Piano; Guilio Briccialdi,
School of the Arts and completed additional studies at the Introduction and Variations on the Air “God Save the Queen” for Flute and
Colburn School. Piano, Op. 51. Edited by Trevor Wye. Amsterdam: Brökmans en van Poppel, 1986.

WINTER 2015 THE FLUTIST QUARTERLY 35

NFAONLINE.ORG
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.