Helen Bledsoe

Category: Advice for Composers

  • Flute Presentation for Composers – a forward

    This text has been adapted from introductions to my presentation to student composers on writing for flute that I have given the last few years. The actual presentation is here.

    I’d like to start with a short preface about some general ideas not specific to the flute, and to preface: what I am about to say you can easily ignore if you are writing a solo piece for a particular player. But to successfully work as a composer with an ensemble or orchestra filled with professional, experienced, perhaps middle-aged and grumpy players, I suggest you pay attention.

    I have reservations about giving these kinds of information-dump talks these days. You don’t really need me here, most of this stuff you can find on YouTube. However, information is not knowledge, and as a teacher I want to impart and share knowledge. That is why I will try to focus on concepts, because as adult learners, that is what we really retain.

    Maybe you have heard us players complain that “instrumentation has become a lost art”. I used to think that, but now I think that is somehow romanticized. Perhaps what we are observing is the nature of evolving systems. As in other systems, such as computer programming and software development, some aspects of the work flow become trivial. In the scope of musical composition, instrumentation has become trivial.

    Let me explain. In our society, and in your degree program, you are under pressure to get started and produce right away. So it is expedient to know what knowledge is trivial and what is not. What is not trivial is fundamental; an example of that is the need to know which clef for which instruments, which transposition for which instrument. Just as when learning a computer language quickly, you first learn to print “hello world!” and you need to know how to type the syntax and whether to put a comma, semicolon or whatever at the end of your statements. But beyond that, more specific things (like the code for a fluid dynamic simulation or a how to notate a string or woodwind harmonic) can be looked up and then memorized as it becomes part of your routine. In other words, you don’t have to carry around tons of information in order to get started and get productive. This is what I mean by an evolved system, they tend to have streamlined and rapid work flows. Whether it is a short-lived or long-lived system remains to be seen.

    So as I give this presentation, think about what might be fundamental or trivial for you. I will try to underline basic concepts (like acoustical constraints, which you can see from the design of the flute) that I hope you will, if not at least retain, at least remember that this is something you need to check the docs before diving into 🙂 And I will send the link to this presentation for your reference.

    In this presentation, I will also try to walk the line of what is necessary for players to read and what will not stifle your creativity. Most of us here at Musikfabrik also do not want to contribute to the culture that is only going to produce sight-readable, boring pieces. At the same time, I want to keep you from making the same mistakes over and over that make players loose faith in your process. If you think about it, would you take a text seriously if it were filled with spelling and punctuation mistakes? That might be acceptable in poetry, if done deliberately for artistic effect. But for that, I would suggest a graphic score 🙂

    Speaking of scores, as a final note, I would like to introduce a novel concept that I think should be adopted by all composers, and that is to put your scores (maybe) and parts (definitely) in some sort of GIT version control system. Not only would it be helpful to keep track of different versions, but would also allow community contributions, corrections, improvements, etc. For instrumental parts this would be super! For example, I could suggest fingerings, and that version would automatically be saved for the next player, who might alter them and create their own version, and future players could examine both versions and contribute or correct to make their own. Nothing is erased or thrown away, and the process can be viewed at all stages.

    Producing artworks is often teamwork, creativity takes all kinds of knowledge and contributions. No longer are you as composers expected to be lone geniuses who toil in solitary towers, so there should be no shame in allowing players to access your parts and make them playable in their own way and then share them back to the community. This would put publishing houses in trouble, though.

  • Extended techniques: Do We Need a Pan-Woodwind View?

    Since the 1967 publication of Bruno Bartolozzi’s New Sounds for Woodwind, there have been many books published for new sounds, or extended techniques, for the individual woodwind instruments. (Read here about some thoughts about the term “extended techniques”.) However, to my knowledge, since then, there has been no book that addresses the emerging uses of extended sounds for the woodwinds as a whole. This has become a problem for composers whose main focus is orchestral and ensemble writing.

    I do not intend to disparage the hard work that has gone into the existing books for single instrumental techniques (for example, the Bärenreiter series). However, reading each individual book is not entirely helpful (or cheap) for a composer who wants to write an orchestral score with these techniques – a score that graphically reflects the Geist of the sounds (open note heads for air sounds, for example) and is consistent in its notation throughout the staves. These aspects are very important for juries, funding committees, conductors, and other people whose job it is to peruse scores. Then there are the players, for whom the score also needs to give clear information as to what to play and how to play it.

    Take air (aeolian) sounds, for example. It’s a very different production technique for flute, single reed, or double reed, and they produce different sound results. However, a composer will want a unified notation and a conductor will expect a balanced sound from this notation (which usually doesn’t result!). A similar situation with percussive techniques. Different methods of production are even reflected in our terminology (slap tongue for reeds, pizzicato for flutes). And unpitched material? Ideally a composer might want to reflect it by a clef change (using a precussion clef), but for winds, often our “unpitchted” material needs a fingering, therefore five lines and a treble or bass clef (think tongue ram or jet whistle).

    In spite of my love for continuing the flute traditions of notation, and my pedantic writings on “Lumping and Splitting” notations, I do agree that some things could be improved by re-thinking the notational traditions that came out of solo works that flourished in the 1980’s and 1990’s in order to make a more comprehensive, woodwind-wide system that makes a composer’s life easier. Any thoughts?

  • Flute Microtonality for Composers

    Please understand that for all winds, we have to use special fingerings or lip adjustments for microtonal playing. This can make fast passages tricky, and not just twice as tricky, but I would even say to a factor between 5 and 10 times as hard. My first advice is to avoid fast passages, but there are ways under which quick microtonal passages can work, so here are some guidelines:

    In short, if you have to go fast:

    • avoid notes that need to be lipped, or need to have the flutist roll the flute in or out (i.e. notes that have no fingerings): G-1/4 flat (F-3/4 sharp) and all the notes below our low Eb (anything produced by the foot joint, where there are no open holes), unless all notes in the passage can be lipped in the same direction (all 1/4 or 3/4 sharps, for example).
    • if you are considering such a lipped passage, don’t mix 12ET (chromatic) and microtones together. If we have to lip, it’s nice if we can keep our lips in the same direction for an ergonomic length of time and not have to “reset” to normal for a single note in a fast passage. 
    • whether lipped or fingered, keep the motion scalar, larger intervals can be trickier esp. over a break
    • keep the passage short or discontinuous

    These remarks are for standard, open-hole systems, but those of us with a Kingma system will also be grateful if you follow these guidelines. Be aware that closed-hole systems (and this includes most piccolos, alto- and bass flutes) have even more limitations when it comes to playing fast.

    As usual, my remarks are geared heavily towards ensemble works, which are often delivered late and may not have enough rehearsal time. In writing a solo piece, whatever two consenting adults agree on is ok.

    What do I consider fast for microtones? Subjectively, 16ths above quarter note = 100, or any speed where rolling in and out (another term for lipping) quickly is not feasible. Often fingerings work, but sometimes notes need to be lipped (like that pesky G-1/4 flat). There is also the question of how long a microtonal passage is – if faster but short with a few microtones, that can be ok.

    What about Xi by Stockhausen? Why does this work, for a closed-hole flute no less? First of all, the motion is scalar, which makes it easier. Second of all, he had an awesome flutist collaborator to guide him: Kathinka Pasveer. Another aspect is this is a solo piece, it is understood that hours of preparation are going to be invested.

    Here are some examples from Grisey and Aperghis:

    The above example works because of the scalar motion, and the dreaded F 3/4 sharp is a long note that can be lipped.

    The above example here breaks some of my guidelines, but is doable, and as long as the passage is short it’s fine for me. However, unless you are already a famous composer, I would still advise you to think more closely about a passage like this and perhaps make some ergonomic adjustments, especially if it’s not a solo work and the passage becomes extended.

    Should you write in the fingerings for the flutist? Nowadays (2025), most professional players will know the standard quarter-tone fingerings, or they have access to charts. However, if you want a shaded microtone with a special sound associated with a special fingering, yes, please provide it.

    As a general rule, it’s nice for the player to know what role microtones play in your work. Do you use quarter-tones as a part of 24 note equal temperament? Are they sometimes meant to represent smaller, perhaps spectral intervals? Do they reflect the inflections of speech or some other acoustic phenomenon?

    Here are some general remarks on notating microtones, taken from Ensemble Musikfabrik’s Style Guide. Accidentals: For equal tempered quarter tones:

    Smaller intervals may be indicated with arrows or other symbols, but must be clearly labeled in the performance instructions. Spectral and just intonation: we recommend the additional use of ratios, partial numbers or cent indications. Apply quarter-tone accidentals only for the 11th partial.

    Want more information about composing for flute? Here is a handy presentation.

  • Bisbigliando or Not?

    Let’s do some logic:

    I assume the answer is “no” – at tempo = 60 this is not really rapid.

    Again my guess is “no”, neither the notation nor the tempo would qualify this as a tremolo.

    Again the logical conclusion is “no”. It does not fit the criteria for a tremolo or a trill.

    So why do we sometimes encounter this notation shown above? Slow-moving harmonic changes are in no way a tremolo, trembling, or whispering, therefore, not bisbigliando. So I would genuinely love to know why this notation above persists; why is the term “bisbigliando” written sometimes over slow harmonic changes? Why does this continue to be taught, where does this tradition come from, and what kind of logic it is based on?

    Please, convince me!

    Here are some reasons why this notation is problematic. In essence, this is a term for harp players. A little appropriation among musical terms is fine, but I think this extrapolation meaning “any movement between harmonics regardless of context” is misleading. Sometimes a passage can be played with a change in harmonics AND bisbigliando/timbre trill, therefore it makes more sense to be specific. Do you want the slow change of harmonics? Do you want a timbral trill? Do you want both?

    So if you don’t really want a timbral trill, what would you write in the passage shown above? The good news is: nothing! You don’t need a descriptive word or any notational elaborations, because the notation speaks for itself. If you want a descriptive word, perhaps use “sotto voce”, “lontano”, “quasi niente” or something to that effect, if it is something atmospheric you are after.

  • Lumping and Splitting Part III

    Subtitle: the Great Jet Whistle Lump

    (for an introduction to the topic of Lumping and Splitting, read Part I)

    “Airy Sound” is an indication that I come across very often. Although I use it myself in my own pieces, I am aware that it’s a whole kettle of lumped-together fish!

    For flutists, the main distinction that has to be made is whether the air should go:

    1. across the flute in normal playing position (pitched air sounds), or
    2. into the flute with the mouth covering the embouchure hole (unpitched air sounds)

    I want to write about the second type, these “unpitched air” or “inside flute” sounds. They are interesting for several reasons:

    1. you can make filtered noise with sibilant sounds (“s” – “sshhh”)
    2. you can play with vowel sounds (“ooh” – “iii”)
    3. you can mess around with speech (if you like muffled effects – bear in mind, speech produced with the hole covered will neither carry nor be understood, unless amplified).
    4. you can buzz around like a trumpet (not great for your embouchure, I like to do this in improv for shorts bursts, though)
    5. you can play jet whistles

    OK, I have listed at 5 things you can do, and there are definitely more. But let’s not muddy the waters, let’s look at the ones that deal with just air, numbers 1, 2, and 5. These are all quite distinct techniques that sound very different.

    So why, WHY, do some composers lump all these techniques together and call them “Jet Whistle”? This is lumping on a grand scale.

    On Rogier de Pijper’s very useful webpage, he defines: “Jet whistle is a forceful and loud attack of air. It might be associated with the starting of a jet plane, that’s why they are called Jet whistle”. Exactly. Anything slower or softer is just an aeolian / airy sound with the embouchure hole covered, no jets involved.

    It’s valid to imagine how a jet whistle would sound slowed-down, and one can do it a bit slowed down, the way a flutist would blow into their flute to warm it up. This is still a fairly quick action that needs time for breathing and to change the embouchure position. It takes air to get those upper harmonics resonating. Longer effects would be better served by writing a covered-embouchure air sound with the vowels “ooh — iii — ooh”, where the dashes represent gradual changes.

    So why don’t I accept these longer effects as a “slowed-down” jet whistles? Because from the flute perspective, it’s very different on the technical production level, and because there are many other ways you can imagine this kind of slow, air/aeolian sound, with different combinations of shapes, vowels and sibilant sounds. This is where it pays to be specific, because there are so many different, wonderful, whooshing sounds possible on the flute! Why be generic?

    For tips on how to notate air sounds, see this blog entry or this video on pitched air sounds or this video on unpitched air sounds. For a more general video on consonant and vowel colorations for flute, see this tutorial here.

  • Lumping and Splitting Part II

    (Read Part I for an intro to this topic.) Here are my opinions (at this point) about notating techniques for the flute: which techniques for the flute one can lump together (generalize), and which ones benefit from more differentiation.

    Percussive sounds in Ensemble/orchestral situations

    There are several places to put your tongue inside your mouth and make popping noises that resonate lightly with the flute. Traditionally, these are called pizzicati preceded by its place of oral origin: lip pizz, palatal pizz, sometimes the generic tongue pizz. Some people borrow the term “slap tongue” or “slap tone” from reed playing. There is no reed involved in flute playing, and pizzicati are not produced by any kind of slapping motion. Pizzicato refers to a plucking motion, which is a better description of what happens in a flutist’s mouth. Therefore, the term pizzicato is correct. I see these terms “slap..” and pizzicato used interchangeably, which is puzzling, but at least I know more or less what to do.

    calling this a just a pizz or pizzicato is OK

    As far as differentiating the place of origin for a pizz, in an ensemble or orchestral situation, I think lumping is ok – it is not necessary to specify how or where it is produced. The difference between a lip pizz or a palatal pizz is very subtle, but can be effective under amplification or other acoustically welcoming conditions. So if you really want a good pizz, you might let the flutist decide where in the mouth they can do it most effectively.

    Speaking of effectiveness: please use the first octave only!

    Here is a short video showing the differences (or lack thereof) between a tongue pizz produced first on the palate, then on the lips, and then a pizz with just the lips, which could be referred to as a bilabial pizzicato is you want to get fancy, or you could just notate a normal pizzicato with the letter “P” below it. Actually, any unvoiced consonant can be used this way.

    More to come in Part III

  • Lumping Whistles and Splitting Pizzes (Part 1)

    In the realm of notation of extended techniques, the phenomenon of Lumpers and Splitters is alive and well. First, a short explanation of this phenomenon, then I will give you my take on how lumpers and lumping seems to be the dominant force behind recent notation trends. In Part 2 I will discuss where I think lumping makes sense, and where it doesn’t.

    The first known use of this term is attributed to Charles Darwin, and is defined by Wikipedia as “opposing factions in any discipline that has to place individual examples into rigorously defined categories.” Continuing with the Wikipedia definition, a “lumper” is a person who assigns examples broadly, assuming that differences are not as important as signature similarities. A “splitter” is one who makes precise definitions, and creates new categories to classify samples that differ in key ways.” I first came across this term while reading about the findings of hominin fossils in East Africa. Do the collections of fossils represent one species, or several? A lumper would say one species, a splitter would say many.

    In fields where there is only a very small sample size, or there is little objective, material criteria, such as (historical) linguistics, religion, software engineering, you will find these discussions. Among musicologists, there are lumpers and splitters who debate on the periodization of our (Western) musical history.

    I am seeing a definite tendency towards lumping in the notation of extended techniques: using the term jet whistle to refer to diverse air/aeolian sounds, referring to multiphonics as split tones (no pun intended!), or all sorts of pizzicati referred to as slaps.

    As to why there is this trend, “splits can be lumped more easily than lumps can be split” is perhaps the simplest explanation. And we all know that the more information that is out there, the less overview there is, and fewer people will take the time to try to navigate it. Therefore, the lowest common denominator prevails.

    In my practice, I think it makes sense to lump some techniques, whereas other techniques could be more effective if they were subject to more differentiation.

    More about that in Part 2.

  • New Tutorial Series for Composers

    I have done quite a few tutorials, thanks to the Musikfabrik and our youth ensemble Studio Musifabrik. However, in the course of our Adventure project with composition students from the Hochschule here in Cologne, there are several topics that keep coming up. I have been asked to make short explanatory videos about these topics, and now it is time to deliver. I decided to do it in a very casual setting (a bar/pub at closing time) and with a deliberate DIY look.

    There are four topics I will be covering: unpitched air sounds, pizzicati, pitched air sounds, and notating multiphonics.

    Here are the links:

    unpitched air sounds

    pizzicato for flute

    pitched air sounds

    notating multiphonics