Baroques Flutes and Modern: Sound Spectra and Performance Results

Author(s): Anne Chatoney Shreffler

Source: The Galpin Society Journal , Mar., 1983, Vol. 36 (Mar., 1983), pp. 88-96
Published by: Galpin Society

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/841678

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Galpin Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Galpin Society Journal

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 ANNE CHATONEY SHREFFLER

Baroques Flutes and Mo

Sound Spectra and Perfor
Results
INTRODUCTION

WHILE it is well known that the sounds of a baroque flute and a

modern flute differ, the actual differences between them have
not been precisely, systematically explored. And while it is widely
believed that baroque music sounds different when played on a baroque
flute than on a modern one, the significance of the sonic differences
for the presentation of baroque musical structures has hardly been
precisely, systematically explored, either.
Fortunately, sonic and structural analysis can now begin to resolve
these interesting problems. The presentation that follows consists of
two parts. The first part details sonic, and in particular, spectral differ-
ences between baroque and modern flutes. The instrumental sounds are
analyzed using the sound spectrum analytical facilities of the Sonic
Analysis Laboratory at the New England Conservatory. The second
part considers structural characteristics of the Sarabande from J. S.
Bach's Partita in A minor for solo flute (BWV IoI 3); and furthermore,
compares the structural transformations with sonic transformations
that occur during the movement, particularly with those sonic trans-
formations that occur on the baroque flute due to register shift from
octave to octave.*

The two types of presentation of data are: photographs of a real-

display, which show the fundamental tones horizontally and t
partials above, all as they occur in time, and photographs of a histog
display, which show the fundamental as a vertical spike, and its pa
beside it, all 'frozen' in an instant of time. The real-time display of
Sonic Analysis Laboratory is unique; no other facility can show en
pieces as they unfold in time, thereby making apparent their ove
tone-color structure. The histograph display is used when gre
detail of a single sound is desired. The photographs, coupled w

* The American acoustical system is followed in the numbering of oct

in this article: C4 = c'; C5 = c"; etc.

88

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
analysis of the music, reveal how the baroque flute, through tone
color, brings out and intensifies the beauty of not only details, but also
of the total structure of the piece. A comparison of two 'sound scores'
will show that much of the primary shaping of the piece is lost when
played on modern silver flute. One arrives at a new view of the piece
in which registral motion and sonic transformation, together, are of
primary structural and expressive importance.

SPECTRAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BAROQUE

AND MODERN FLUTE SOUNDS
Many differences between baroque flute and modern flu
immediately apparent upon hearing them. The baroqu
general much softer than modern flute: while the modern
piercing, even shrill, the baroque flute has a mellow
sound.1 Another important difference is that the Baroque
not even; certain notes have very different tone color fro
immediate neighbors. The modern flute sound, in contra
geneous from note to note.
Sound spectrum analysis reveals a less obvious but equally
difference: the overall spectral character of the baroque
exact opposite of that of the modern flute. On baroque f
notes tend to lack strong upper partials, and the spect
(increasing number of upper partials, bearing increasing e
register ascends. On the modern flute the low register is s
richest while the upper notes become almost sine-tone lik
In Example I below, D4 is compared.2 Even though
generate approximately the same number of partials, the m
has much more strength in upper partials, especially parti
7 (Pl. VIII a).
In its middle register the baroque flute starts to becom
brighter. In P1. VIII b, which compares D5's, one can
partials extend into register 8, evenly distributed. On th
however, the modern flute concentrates most of its energy
In the upper register, the Baroque flute sound continues
upper partials. In P1. VIII c, one can see that its partials e
register 9. On modern flutes the same note generates only
the first two being by far the strongest.
The graph, Fig. I, summarizes the characteristic spectra
and modern flutes. It makes clear that the modern flute, in
fills registers 6 and 7 with partials. This results in a sonic
regardless of the fundamental, registers 6 and 7 are prom

89

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 I

Lf''

register

Baroque flute Modern flute

FIG. I. Summary graph of spectrum for each register.

Thick line, fundamental; hatched area, region of strong partials.

sound. In the baroque flute, however, each register of fundamentals

activates distinctive registers of partials: these appear only with register
5 and especially register 6 fundamentals. Consequently, a registral
ascent of fundamentals is amplified and intensified by a parallel ascent
of spectral regions, and for descents, vice versa. Given the ear's well-
known sensitivity in registers 7 and 8 (as established in equal-loudness
curves of Fletcher, Munson,3 and others), the absence or presence of
stimulation in these registers has the greatest significance for our pre-
ception of sonic intensity and color. With the modern flute the activa-
tion of these regions tends to be constant. With the baroque flute it is
variable depending on the register of the fundamental: fundamentals in
register 5 and especially register 6 derive from this not only a spectral
richness but also a spectral intensity that lends them a unique character-
ization for that instrument.

SARABANDE FROM PARTITA IN A MINOR,

J. S. BACH
In the organization of this movement, the tonal (linear) and registral
plans interlock; each reinforces the other and both are crucial to the

90

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
structure. This registral plan is emphasized by the tone color of the
baroque flute.
The piece can be seen as having four phrases, each characterized by,
among other things, as ascent to D6, the highest note used in the move-
ment, followed by a rapid descent. In each section, the upper voice of
a multi-voiced melodic structure leads upward; the section culminates
only when register 6 is reached. The phrases are defined as follows:
Phrase I mm. 1-16
Phrase II mm. 17-26
Phrase III mm. 27-34
Phrase IV mm. 35-46
We recall that the spectrum of the baroque flute is dependent on
its register: low register tones generate weaker upper partials, while
upper register tones generate stronger ones, sometimes reaching into
register 9. For the purpose of this analysis, I will classify three different
types of sound used in the piece as played on a baroque flute (although
of course there are many gradations between the three classes I am
considering). Class I (dark) refers to a tone in register 4 (D4-C5),
which has relatively few partials which can extend up to register 6.
Class 2 (medium) refers to a tone in register 5 (D5-A5) which has
partials extending into registers 7-8. Class 3 (bright) refers to a tone
in the upper part of register 5 and in any part of register 6 (Bb5-D6),
which can have partials extending into register 9.
In the structure of the piece the distribution of these different
spectral-registral colors is vivid. Note, in the baroque flute sound score
(as performed by Franz Briiggen, P1. IX a) that register 9 is activated
in only a few places. All of these places (with one exception, Bb5, J]
in measure 22) correspond to the four peaks at the ends of the four
sections outlined above (see sound score, mm. 14, 25, 31-32, and 44).
Each of these high points is emphasized by direct contrasting juxta-
position with its sonic opposite from class I. After every class 3
spectrum, a lower, darker spectrum is immediately sounded (see sound
score, mm. 14-16, 25-26, 31-34, 44-46). For example, the linear apex
D6 in m. I4 generates partials up to register 9; it is followed immed-
iately by the linear goal C5 (mm. 15-I6), whose highest partial reaches
only to register 6.
A prominent structural feature of the piece is the register shift of
linear connections established in one register into a higher register.
These register shifts are prepared at the very beginning of the piece
(mm. I-6) when, in the initial two-measure phrase, the F4-E4 of m. 2
recurs as F5-E5 in m. 6. In Ex. I, one is led to expect the B in m. 14 to
be in register 4, continuing the preceding G4 and A4; instead, it is shifted

9'

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
to register 5. It is this register shift that brings the first section to the
high point D6 described above.

EX. I: Measures IO-I4

The graph in Ex. 2 shows how the linear ascent E-C is doubled in
two melodic voices. The bi-registral (F)-E of the initial two-measure
phrase (and its repetition) is continued bi-registrally: (F4)-E4-C5 and
(F5)-Es-C6.

EX. 2: Pitch graph of mm. 1-16

In sonic terms, the spectrum photo shows that the result of this
structure is a constant spectral ascent and brightening: the transform-
ation F4-E4, class I sounds, to F5-E5, class 2 sounds, initiates a process
of constant transformation from class I to class 2 that leads ultimately
to the apical class 3 sounds that dominate m. 14. Between the beginning
class I sounds (m. I-2) and the climactic class 3 sounds, class 2 sounds
provided by register shifts mediate.
In Phrase II, the upper voice ascends from A5 to D6. The starting
point of the ascent is higher in this section: it is A5 instead of E5 as
before, and the ascent now occurs in the context of D as a temporary
tonal center. Once again linear connections are created in three different
registers, and the peak of the ascent, D6, is reached by an unexpected
register shift in m. 24 (Ex. 3).

-- - 'I i'

EX. 3: Pitch of graph

92

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
As in Phrase I, the spectrum photo shows an overall spectral brighten-
ing: notice especially the increase in partials in registers 7-8 resulting
from the increased activity in fundamentals between AS-D6 in mm.
21-25. Notice, again, how mm. 23-24 vary mm. 21-22 in such a way
as to intensify registral-spectral contrast at the peak of this phrase.
In Phrase III, a voice connecting D6, C5, and B5 is superimposed over
a 'sustained' A5 (see Ex. 4). The registral-spectral peak is the most
continuous and intense in the piece so far; register 6 fundamentals
sound for two full measures (mm. 31-32) before descending.

- ,., , , . ..
as ~ ~31 3 J 3

EX. 4: Pitch graph of Phrase III, mm. 27

In Phrase IV (the final part of the movement)

of Phrase I is recapitulated; but this convention
its structural understanding any easier. Nor are
referring them simply to the need to retain all
in Phrase IV, whereas Phrase I moved tonally fr
major. What, for example, is to be made of the
register shifts by which D6 is suddenly made t
it were, out of the prevailing music in registers
close (m. 44)? Ex. 5 is a graph of Phrase IV: it is
of the last four measures of the piece as they mi
without the register shift (Ex. 6).

,j t J I '~ r r
EX. 5: Pitch graph of Phrase IV, mm. 35-

EX. 6: Measures 43-46 without the register

93

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Phrase IV reveals the most intense registral, and thereby spectral,
contrast of the piece. In Phrase I the rising line of long notes (G4-A4,
mm. 10-I2) contribute to a spectral brightening process: they lead into
register 5, and already display the characteristics of class 2 spectra. They
are part of the process of transforming the prevailing spectrum from
the stressed class I spectra ofm. 2 to the brightening class 2, and finally
class 3, spectra of the close of Phrase I. In contrast, the corresponding
notes in Phrase IV (E4-F#4, mm. 40-42) are among the longest, most
strongly stressed low notes in the piece: their class I spectra stand in
stark opposition to the brightening process so prominent in the piece
as a whole. Even while they transform Phrase I in its literal aspect,
more profoundly they affect a direct reference to, and marked recapit-
ulation of, its strong focus in register 4 and on class I sonorities.
Consequently, the final reference to D6 and to class 3 spectral sonority
spirals up suddenly and intensely out of its registral and spectral
opposites-these long notes in register 4 with their class I sonorities.
It has already been mentioned that the movement can be understood
as four phrases, each characterized by an ascent to D6 followed by a
rapid descent. Looking at these four phrases more closely, one can
see that each of the first three phrases ascends in a shorter time span
than in the preceding phrase: the phrase ascents undergo diminution
and acceleration:

Duration of each ascent (in number of measures)

ascent descent total
Phrase I 14 2 16
Phrase II 9 I Io
Phrase III 6 2 8

This acceleration continue

IV reveals two ascents in o
second in mm. 38-end. T
rapidly and directly oppos
piece, and their associated
So the piece not only deals
been described above, but
sity.
We find that the piece is multi-leveled in structure: three registers,
and their associated spectral colors, in almost constant and changing,
interplay. The large-scale contrasts of register and color are continually
reflected on local levels as well. Each phrase contains these built-in
color contrasts, some quite extreme, as in Ex. 7.

94

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 EX. 7: Measure 9Ig

Because of the performance technique of the baroque flute, color

contrasts occur on an even lower level. The technique is that of constant
fluctuation of the air stream, thus increasing and decreasing the
dynamic level of a tone. Quantz describes this (Versuch, transl. Reilly,
p. 166):
Yet each note, whether it is a crotchet, quaver, or semi-quaver, must have its
own Piano and Forte, to the extent that the time permits. If, however ...,
the time does not permit you to swell each note individually, you can still
swell and diminish the tone during notes like this [faster notes that follow a
long note] so that some sound louder and others softer.
The spectrum photo of the baroque flute performance shows that the
transformation of a long note is not only dynamic but also spectral. In
m. 2 one sees a spectral rise (and fall) corresponding to the dynamic
transformation. The rising dynamic-spectral transformation of the first
long note of the piece, in itself, foreshadows the registral-spectral
transformations of the phrase and piece. Which is, finally, only to say
that the music and instrument reveal an absolutely organic relationship
to each other!

Naturally, the overall spectral transformation, as well as the changing

sonic details, are lost when the Sarabande is performed on a modern
flute (see sound score P1. IX b). Low notes and high notes alike
activate the same regions of upper partials. Rather than adding upper
partials as it ascends, the modern flute subtracts lower registers, a much
weaker transformation. Furthermore, surprisingly, the spectral com-
pass of the modern flute is one register less than that of the baroque
flute. In this spectrum photo of the modern flute, there is no ascent in
the first phrase; notes of all registers have partials up to register 7,
which is the constant 'ceiling'. The opposition between m. 14 (register
6) and the register 5 spectra that follow it, m. 16, is considerably
diminished on the modern flute: the two measures have less than an
octave between their highest partials, while in the baroque flute
example the same two notes have three octaves between their highest
partials. As a result, the striking addition (and subtraction) of spectral
regions, and their amplification of the registral transformations, are
missing when the piece is played on a modern flute.
Finally I acknowledge the advice and criticism of Robert Cogan,
which has been invaluable in the preparation of this article.

95

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 NOTES

I I use the word 'woodier' metaphorically: it has been shown that

factors being equal, the materials of which a flute is made have no
its tone quality (see John W. Coltman, 'The Effect of Material on
Quality', Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, vol. 49 no. 2,
520-523).
2 In this and following photos of individual sounds, the baroque flute
examples are played by Peter Bloom on a one-key conical flute made by
Roderick Cameron. The flute is a copy of a flute by J.-H. Rottenberg,
c.I735. The modern flute examples are played by the author on a silver
Powell flute (1968).
3 Fletcher, Harvey, Speech and Hearing in Communication (Princeton: Van
Nostrand Co., 1953) p. 188. (As reprinted in Sonic Design by Robert Cogan
and Pozzi Escot, Prentice Hall, 1976, p. 446.)

96

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (a)

(b)

-. ' I - , -

(c)

PLATE VIII

(a) Spectrum photo of D4 on (above) baroque and (b

(b) Spectrum photo ofDs (baroque flute abov
(c) Spectrum photo ofD6 (similarly)
(By kind permission of Robert Cogan, Director, S

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 (aI)

~11

I I I I1 I
'1- 8t cL i't Ib 2. 1 sxb6 2i 3g 32
'3] 1m

(b)

J. S. Bac
(a) Franz
(b) Jean-

,h.t. I-I

This content downloaded from

176.83.90.165 on Tue, 05 Apr 2022 09:31:01 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms