Editing Recorder (musical instrument) (section)

===== Fourth Brandenburg Concerto BWV 1049 =====
The concertino group of [[Johann Sebastian Bach|Bach's]] fourth [[Brandenburg Concerto]] in G major, BWV 1049, consists of a {{Lang|it|violono principale}}, and {{lang|it|due fiauti d'echo}}, with [[ripieno]] strings. His later harpsichord transcription of this concerto, BWV 1057, lowers the key by a tone, as in all of Bach's harpsichord transcriptions, and is scored for solo harpsichord, two {{Lang|it|fiauti à bec}} and [[ripieno]] strings. The desired instrument for the {{Lang|it|fiauti d'echo}} parts in BWV 1049 has been a matter of perennial musicological and organological debate for two primary reasons: first, the term {{Lang|it|fiauto d'echo}} is not mentioned in dictionaries or tutors of the period; and second, the first {{Lang|it|fiauto}} part uses F#6, a note which is difficult to produce on a Baroque alto recorder in F4.

The instrumentation of BWV 1057 is uncontroversial: {{Lang|it|fiauti à bec}} unambiguously specifies recorders, and both parts have been modified to fit comfortably on altos in F4, avoiding, for example, an unplayable Eb4 in the second {{Lang|it|fiauto}} that would have resulted from a simple transposition of a tone.

For the first and last movements of the concerto, two opinions predominate: first, that both recorder parts should be played on alto recorders in F4; and second, that the first part should be played on an alto recorder in G and the second part on an alto in F. Tushaar Power has argued for the alto in G4 on the basis that Bach uses the high F#6, which can be easily played on an alto in G4, but not the low F4, a note not playable on the alto in G4. He corroborates this with other alto recorder parts in Bach's cantatas. [[Michael Marissen]] reads the repertoire differently, demonstrating that in other recorder parts, Bach used both the low F4 and F#6, as well as higher notes. Marissen argues that Bach was not as consistent as Power asserts, and that Bach would have almost certainly had access to only altos in F. He corroborates this with examinations of pitch standards and notation in Bach's cantatas, in which the recorder parts are sometimes written as transposing instruments to play with organs that sounded as much as a minor third above written pitch. Marissen also reads Bach's revisions to the recorder parts in BWV 1057 as indicative of his avoidance of F#6 in BWV 1049, a sign that he only used the difficult note when necessary in designing the part for an alto recorder in F4. He posits that Bach avoided F#6 in BWV 1049, at the cost of inferior counterpoint, reinstating them as E6 in BWV 1057.

In the second movement, breaking of beaming in the {{Lang|it|fiauto}} parts, markings of ''f'' and ''p,'' the fermata over the final double bar of the first movement, and the 21 bars of rest at the beginning of the third have led some musicologists to argue that Bach intended the use of "echo flutes" distinct from normal recorders in the second movement in particular. The breaking of beaming could be an indication of changes in register or tonal quality, the rests introduced to allow the players time to change instruments, and the markings of ''f'' and ''p'' further indicative of register or sound changes. Marissen has demonstrated that the ''f'' and ''p'' markings probably indicated tutti and solo sections rather than loud and soft ones.

A number of instruments other than normal recorders have been suggested for the {{Lang|it|fiauto d'echo}}. One of the earliest proposed alternatives, by [[Thurston Dart]], was the use of double flageolets, a suggestion since revealed to be founded on unsteady musicological grounds. Dart did, however, bring to light numerous newspaper references to Paisible's performance on an "echo flute" between 1713 and 1718. Another contemporary reference to the "echo flute" is in [[Étienne Loulié|Etienne Loulié's]] {{Lang|fr|Elements ou principes de musique}} (Amsterdam, 1696): {{Lang|fr|Les sons de deux flutes d'echo sont differents, parce que l'un est fort, & que l'autre est foible}} (The sounds of two echo flutes are different, because one is strong and the other is weak). Loulié is unclear on why one would need two echo flutes to play strongly and weakly, and on why it is that echo flutes differ. Perhaps the echo flute was composed in two halves: one which plays strongly, the other weakly? On this we can only speculate.

Surviving instruments which are candidates for echo flutes include an instrument in Leipzig which consists of two recorders of different tonal characteristics joined at the head and footjoints by brass flanges. There is also evidence of double recorders tuned in thirds, but these are not candidates for the {{Lang|it|fiauto}} parts in BWV 1049.