On Being a Recorder Player

As I was listening to Telemann’s Concerto in A minor for Recorder and Cello (I call it the “Pirate Concerto”, but that’s another blog entry) I started to think about what it is to be a recorder player.

Recorders made in this day and age can be considered “modern” because of the workmanship and materials used (especially those made of plastic). In reality, they are “replicas” of the Baroque recorder, though some are more <em>replicas</em> than others and are considered professional models (read: <cite>tre expensivo</cite>). I recently bought a Mollenhauer Alto recorder in tropical boxwood (not the traditional European boxwood). It plays very well. Better than my Adler alto in I-don’t-know-what-kind-of wood. Though the <em>timbre</em> of the Mollenhauer is close to what I’m used to from the Zen-on Bressen plastic recorder (probably the best plastic alto made) that I recently gave away, the response and carrying power of this recorder is far superior. Superior as it is, I still face two problems: playing in an ensemble with “modern” instruments (read: <cite>loud</cite>) and playing the music of Bach and Telemann who didn’t have a flying frog’s butt care in the world of recorder players needing to contort themselves to play their music (perhaps this is where carpal tunnel syndrome came from).

To address the first problem, composers (yes, including Bach and Telemann; they weren’t that heartless) would “tacit-fy” the other instruments (minus the basso continuo) in order to let the recorder say what it had to say. To address the second problem, well, there is no addressing of the second problem. You just have to live with it. The recorder, according to Kenneth Wollitz, has a rich fingering vocabulary. This coupled with its sound  and intonation (which is a combination of fingering, bore diameter, shape and length) give the recorder its charm. It’s an imperfect instrument that thrives to be perfect amongst a world of “perfect” instrument. It is the only “modern” instrument that retains its root qualities. I also play the flute (the modern flute, that is). I play Baroque music written for the Baroque flute with my modern flute. I don’t think about playing the Baroque flute while I’m playing this music. It’s difficult enough to play the modern flute. Playing the Baroque flute hurdles some technical difficulties in this music (with the obvious exception of Bach and sons), but introduces the same issues as the recorder.

So, if the flute evolved into what it is today, why didn’t the recorder? Perhaps because there is no more music being made for recorder. Well, that’s not entirely true. There are some contemporary pieces  for recorder, but these were written when the recorder was re-introduced to society in the 20th century. So now the recorder has 300 years to play catch up with other instruments. But, wait! Wasn’t the flute created to overcome the limitations of the recorder? Um, yeah. So why is the recorder still around? Because it’s charming and cute. Well, perhaps there’s more to that. 

Charming comes from the timbre. It’s a sound that you cannot reproduce with a flute. That, in it of itself, is a reason to keep the recorder as a unique instrument (the same could be said of the lute and harpsichord though these instruments haven’t been as “modernized” as the recorder). It’s relative ease of playing is another factor. Actually, it is easy to make a sound on the recorder AND it provides the beginner an opportunity to have some success on a “real” instrument. This is akin to pipe smoking. Many people don’t like it because it’s too involved: fill the bowl, pack the bowl (but not too tight!), light the tobacco, suck in (but not too much; you want to “nurture” the tobacco so as to not burn it too fast), then the cleaning, the care of the pipe, the materials to care for the pipe, etc. It creates a ritual. It give you something “extraordinary” to do on an otherwise ordinary task. Whereas smoking cigarettes a pack of Marlboro rolled up in your t-shirt sleeve and a Bic disposable lighter (and yellow teeth, of course). James Galway answered after being asked if he played “ancient” instruments (referring to the recorder) “…it’s hard enough playing the flute…” and he’s right. Being a flute player doesn’t inherently make your a recorder player (just because you play recorder music on the flute without transcriptions).

So why do I play the recorder? Well, in a way I’m a purist. I like to play recorder music on recorder because that’s what it was written for. I also adhere to the charm thing that I mentioned earlier and the pipe analogy. I also like to explore what other music I can make “charming” with the recorder. I play the recorder at times in my church orchestra which plays contemporary Christian music (pop style). Some of this music have elements that are found in Renaissance and Medieval music (meter, pulse and mode are some of the elements) and it lends itself to the recorder. Some people have never heard the recorder played in such a context and find it “charming”. Would I play contemporary music written for the recorder? Perhaps, but that would require a skill that I don’t have and would have to study intently. Also, my recorder is not capable of such music. Enter the modern recorder: a recorder made to address challenges posed by modern music. But wait, wasn’t that the reason why the flute was created? Wasn’t the flute to address dynamics, complex articulation (sonority), range and expression? The answer is “yes”. 

The modern recorder (here’s an example http://www.mollenhauer.com/Shop/en-us/p_160.html) addresses all these issues. This instrument is totally different from the Baroque recorder, though it is still called a recorder. So the question is what makes a recorder a recorder? This particular modern recorder adds mechanism to control the sound, dynamics and to further extend the range of the traditional recorder. These mechanisms mimic the modern flute. It’s not the same as the evolution of the flute where keys where added, where the construction improved the sound and intonation. There are features of the flute that have existed since the beginning: altering the sound with the embouchure, altering the dynamics, pitch of a note, etc., that have been added to the recorder. So the flute was <em>improved</em> and the recorder was <em>changed</em>.

If I do venture into playing modern recorder music (which would preempt acquiring a modern recorder) then I’m making an investment into, not only an instrument, but in craft that will identify me as something other than a “flute player”: I would become a “recorder player” as well. Both occupations will require equal amounts of effort and degrees of professionalism whereas currently I am a “flute player that plays the recorder”. This is a different connotation. I am not required to be as adept at the recorder as in the flute (though Telemman is kicking my butt). I can always play the recorder music with my flute.

We can conclude that modern flute can play all the music from the Baroque to the 20th century and the traditional recorder can play all recorder music (except, of course for the most modern of the lot). You may ask, why not play the Baroque flute for Baroque music? Well, I do want to, but then the logical progression is to play the Classical flute for Classical music, the Romantic flute  for Romantic Music and the modern flute for modern music. This is not the case with the recorder. So at this stage, the traditional recorder and the flute are equal in status, but different as instruments. Each have their own bailiwick. The question is whether the modern recorder is a recorder or is it a totally new breed of instrument. You decide.