The life and work of John Clinton, cont.The Outcome of Clinton’s
Visit to Munich
As
noted above, at the time of Clinton’s visit Boehm had been out of the
flute development field for 12 years and was still primarily occupied
with other business interests. One very interesting line of speculation
is to consider whether or not Clinton’s visit could have had any
influence upon Boehm’s subsequent decision to re-enter the field of
flute development in 1846 after a 13-year absence from the field.
Whatever his other failings, Clinton’s energy and enthusiasm
appear to be amply borne out by the available record, and contact with a
true enthusiast can have a very stimulating effect, as most musicians
know well!! Certainly, it
was not long after Clinton’s visit that Boehm embarked upon the
intensive program of studies to which reference has already been made
and which were described in detail by Boehm in his most informative 1871
book “The Flute and Flute Playing” (10).
One thing appears certain - despite what has been
inferred by some commentators, Clinton’s visit to Munich clearly had
no negative effect whatsoever either on the relations between Boehm and
Clinton or on Clinton’s general opinion of the merits (and
deficiencies) of the then-current Boehm flute (the improved 1832 model). On the
contrary, it appears that Clinton left Munich still on the best of terms
with Boehm and that whatever he may have learned there about Boehm’s
own views did not cause him any disquiet. Clinton
himself states that he left Munich under the happy impression that all
had gone well, that Boehm would “endeavour to carry out my (Clinton’s)
views” and that he merely had to await the production by Boehm of the
finished prototypes of a new-generation Boehm flute incorporating
Clinton’s suggestions to step out onto the stage in the role of
manufacturer. Clinton is
clearly implying (accurately or otherwise) that Boehm had agreed to
undertake further research using Clinton’s suggestions as a template. Clinton’s subsequent (and highly regarded) 1846
tutor for the ring-keyed 1832 Boehm flute was dedicated in the most
fulsome terms to Boehm himself, who was given full credit by Clinton for
the design. This clearly
proves that a year after the visit to Munich, Clinton still held Boehm
and his ring-keyed 1832 flute in very high regard, although he must have
been looking forward to receiving the practical results of his own and
Boehm’s joint improvements. It also sheds light on Clinton’s
character by showing once again that, as with his 1843 tutor, Clinton
was anything but mealy-mouthed in giving credit to Boehm for Boehm’s
innovations. He was clearly
not a man to withhold credit where credit was due, even if in this case
he may have expected a return in terms of a future business opportunity.
It is apparent that we must look to the period
subsequent to 1846 to find the basis for Clinton’s period of
disillusionment with the Boehm flute which was to commence so abruptly
in 1847. Clinton states in the 1860 “Code of Instructions” (op.
cit) that in the summer of 1847 Boehm “brought over his metal
flute with cylindrical bore and conical head (erroneously termed
“parabola”) like the clarionet” for Clinton to try out.
Clinton goes on to say that
it was only at this point that he determined on an independent
course of action, since he found Boehm’s new design to be “as far as
ever from removing the defects, or of perfecting the (1832)
instrument” and that Clinton “could not adopt it with pleasure or
satisfaction, nor conscientiously recommend it“. On this basis,
Clinton states that he “was (most reluctantly, I confess) compelled to
decline it”. One may also surmise based on the directions taken
by Clinton in his subsequent development work and associated writings
that few, if any, of Clinton’s suggestions put to Boehm in 1845
appeared in the design of the new flute.
To a man of Clinton’s obvious ego (based on his somewhat
self-laudatory writings), this would have been extremely difficult to
swallow, just as his earlier rejection by the English manufacturers
would have been. We will
examine this factor further in a subsequent section of this paper. Another inference which may reasonably be drawn from
the events described above is that the design of Boehm’s 1847 flute
took Clinton very much by surprise. It appears on the evidence that
Boehm had not kept Clinton up to date on his research directions, likely
because they ran directly counter to the advice provided by Clinton
during the 1845 visit. If he had kept Clinton informed, it seems
probable that Clinton would not have waited until 1847 to express his
disagreement with the direction being taken! In all probability, Boehm
decided that the best thing to do would be to keep quiet until the
actual prototype was available for test, and then hope that the
instrument would recommend itself to Clinton and others in terms of its
improved performance. In
Clinton’s case, this expectation was not fulfilled! One important element of Clinton’s version of
Boehm’s actions in bringing the new flute over for a trial is the
unequivocal statement that it was his
decision, not Boehm’s, to decline to take up the manufacturing rights
of the new flute. It is of course possible that this was a face-saving
statement by Clinton, as we shall see later. However, in making these
statements Clinton is clearly going on record as absolving Boehm of any
accusations of double-dealing in promising the rights to Clinton and
then granting the to Rudall & Rose. Whatever the truth of the
matter, the fact remains that the English manufacturing rights to the
new Boehm flute were finally granted to Rudall & Rose rather than
Clinton. |