Letter from Benjamin Wells
to the “Musical Opinion and Music Trade Review”
Published in the January 1st, 1890 edition
Introduction
The core text which follows is taken verbatim from a letter
which was written by the eminent English flautist Benjamin Wells (1826 –
1899) to the London monthly publication “Musical Opinion & Music Trade
Review” It was published in the January 1890 issue of that
periodical as part of an interesting series of letters on the subject of
the flute which appeared at that time. We have presented a summary of the
remainder of these letters
elsewhere on this web
site.
Wells was born in Cambridge, England in 1826, making him a
direct contemporary of the flautist and writer Richard S. Rockstro, who
was born in the same year. However, Wells far outshone Rockstro in terms
of his musical accomplishments, becoming one of the most celebrated
flautists and teachers in England for many years while Rockstro toiled in
relative obscurity prior to the publication of his famous “Treatise on
the Flute” in 1890. Rockstro is however mentioned in the letter which
follows.
Wells was an accomplished pianist as well as a flautist, and
composed some music for flute. In his teenage years he was a pupil at
the Royal Academy of Music and studied first under Joseph Richardson and
then under Richardson’s successor John Clinton. By 1843 (at only 17 years
of age) he had become sufficiently well-recognised to participate in the
first performance of Balfe’s “Bohemian Girl” at Drury Lane Theatre.
He subsequently became a close friend of Balfe’s. In 1845 (aged nineteen)
he was appointed first flute at the “showcase” concerts given by students
and professors at the Royal Academy of Music – a high honor for one so
young.
Wells began on an 8-key flute and adopted the Siccama
Diatonic flute for a short time in the late 1840’s, but by 1851 he had
abandoned that instrument. In that year he was appointed as principal
demonstrator of Rudall & Rose’s various renditions of the Boehm cylinder
flute at the 1851 Exhibition, and the following letter deals at some
length with his experiences on that occasion.
Following the 1851 Exhibition, Wells played a Carte 1851
model flute thenceforth until 1868. He became a regular member of
Jullien’s orchestra until Jullien’s departure from the scene in 1859. In
1856 at the age of thirty, he succeeded his old teacher Clinton as
Professor of Flute at the Royal Academy of Music. At about the same time
he became private flute tutor to the Royal Consort, Prince Albert (who
died in 1862) – a signal honor! He subsequently became President of the
London Flute Society and a popular lecturer and teacher of the flute as
well as maintaining an active performing schedule. Upon the introduction
of the Carte 1867 flute, which replaced the 1851, Wells immediately (1868)
adopted the new design and played it thereafter until his death in 1899 at
age 73.
At the time (1890) when he wrote the following letter at the
age of 64, Wells was still a prominent performer – indeed, he was widely
viewed as one of England’s most talented performers upon the instrument,
and his reputation had reached America and elsewhere. This view of Wells
is fully reflected in the series of letters to the “Musical Opinion &
Music Trade Review” of which Wells’ letter forms only a single
contribution.
Despite this celebrity, Wells was completely ignored by
Rockstro in his 1890 “Treatise on the Flute” , the publication of
which followed shortly upon the heels of the following letter. His
equally celebrated flautist colleague John Radcliff (b. 1842, d. 1917),
who had designed his own old-fingered variant of the Boehm flute, was
similarly ignored despite the fact that others of lesser or at least no
greater accomplishment were recognized by Rockstro. The reasons for these
and other glaring omissions in Rockstro’s work have never been
satisfactorily explained, and to judge by the tone of his letter with
respect to Rockstro, Wells must have been quite surprised to find himself
excluded!
It should be readily apparent that Wells was a consequential
figure in the story of the flute in nineteenth century England. It is a
real shame that he left so little in the way of written commentary on the
changing state of the instrument during his career. A text of one of his
lectures would have been of the greatest interest (as would a similar
contribution from his younger colleague John Radcliff, who also gave
lectures). Failing that, the following letter at least gives us some
insight into his views and experiences.
We have taken the liberty of inserting our own comments in
[brackets] at various points in the text, Otherwise, the letter is
reproduced word for word as it was written.
To the Editor, Musical
Opinion and Music Trade Review;
SIR;-
I have been much interested and amused by the correspondence,
in your excellent journal, on the subject of “Flutes, Ancient and Modern”,
which is the title of a lecture that I delivered for many years in London
and the provinces, and I still have a number of old programmes connected
therewith.
[The first point of interest – the title of Wells’ lectures
was apparently exactly the same as the title of those delivered by John
Radcliff, although Radcliff’s lectures carried the extended title of “Flutes,
Ancient and Modern; or, from Pan to Pinafore”. This may be read as a
very veiled challenge to Radcliff - Wells has the programmes to prove his
case for priority in the title!!]
If you will allow me to say a few words on the subject, it
might interest some of your readers, although I am by no means desirous
(even if I were capable) of entering into competition with the vast amount
of mechanical knowledge of flutes exhibited in your pages. I am simply a
flute player who has performed upon all flutes, from the shilling fife to
the elaborate instruments at the present large prices.
[Clearly, Wells has experience with more or less anything
with a hole in it that can be made to produce a note or two!]
I do not wish to make invidious comparisons between the
improvements of Mr. Rockstro, Mr. Barratt
[sic –
Rockstro spells his name “Barrett”] or Mr. Radcliff, who are all old
friends of mine,
[Wells does not want to take sides in the debate regarding
various models which has been raging in recent issues of the periodical.
This allusion to Rockstro as an “old friend of mine” is puzzling –
here Wells is speaking of the very individual who was about to publish his
life’s work on the flute – the “Treatise on the Flute” which
appeared later in 1890 - without any reference at any point to his “old
friend” Wells (or for that matter to Wells’ other acknowledged friend
and equally distinguished colleague Radcliff). It would be fascinating to
know the reasons for Rockstro’s omissions here!
In the case of Radcliff, a possible explanation of sorts is
apparent – Radcliff had introduced his own flute design in 1870 which as
of 1890 was still very much in direct competition for customers with
Rockstro’s own Boehm-based model (introduced commercially in 1877), both
models being made by Rudall, Carte & Co. The main correspondence thread
reflects this competition very well. Rockstro may have been unwilling to
give Radcliff any space in his book because to do so would have inevitably
involved drawing attention to Radcliff’s model. If this was the strategy,
it did not succeed – the Radcliff model actually outsold the Rockstro
model, albeit by a relatively small margin.
But this explanation does not cover Wells, who had never
thrown his hat into the flute design ring. Perhaps it was simply Wells’
championship of the Carte 1867 model flute (implying its superiority over
the Rockstro) that drew Rockstro’s ire?!? But then if that was the case,
why include the third member of Wells’ acknowledged cadre of
friends - William Lewis Barratt (or Barrett)?? The latter was a prominent
professional flautist who ranked with Wells and Radcliff (as reflected in
the main correspondence chain summarized elsewhere) and had recently
modified his Carte 1867 flute to eliminate the “open” (all fingers off) D
which characterized Carte’s successive designs and which complicated the
fingering for C sharp. Barrett was mentioned by Rockstro –
Article 685 deals in detail with his modification. This makes the
suppression of Radcliff’s design (which was based on the Carte 1851 minus
the open D) all the more difficult to understand, and does nothing to help
us to understand Wells’ exclusion either!
It is possible that Wells’ exclusion was based on nothing
more than professional jealousy – as we began by saying, Wells and
Rockstro were direct contemporaries, but Wells quickly achieved (and
retained) far greater prominence as a player than Rockstro ever did. This
may have rankled more than we can guess …………………..]
and I am sure that they each and all conscientiously believe
that the alterations they have suggested are for the benefit of the flute
playing community. That being the case, they are entitled to the
gratitude of the flautistic world, even though there be differences of
opinion as to which or either of them has hit upon the narrow path that
leads straight to perfection in flute playing.
[This comment refers to the fact that the series of letters
of which this one is a part had thrown up some strongly partisan views
regarding the various designs mentioned. Wells seems to think that such
arguments do nothing to detract from the value of the efforts of each and
every one of them. A commendably balanced viewpoint ……………..]
In the year 1851 I was appointed to represent Messrs. Rudall,
Rose & Carte (who were the patentees of Mr. Boehm’s last splendid
invention, the “cylindrical and parabolic flute”) at the Great Exhibition,
and to play this flute before the Jury, the chairman of which was Hector
Berlioz, other members consisting of Sterndale Bennett, Sir George Smart,
Sir Henry Bishop and Charles Godfrey, father of the present Lieutenant
Godfrey of the Grenadier Guards. There were a number of flutes exhibited,
each maker bringing his own professor to play for him.
[This is an extremely enlightening paragraph! It begins with
an error – the entry at the 1851 Exhibition was under the name
Rudall & Rose, since Rudall, Rose & Carte had yet to be
established as a corporate entity – this only happened the following year
(1852). It could well be that Carte was sufficiently prominent that it was
Rudall, Rose and Carte in all but name.
But more significantly, Wells has long been recognized as the
“demonstrator of the Boehm flute” at the 1851 Exhibition. However, it has
widely been assumed that he did so on behalf of Theobald Boehm himself
(who entered his own instruments entirely separately from Rudall & Rose
and won the prestigious Council Medal under his own name) and that Richard
Carte, who was himself an eminent professional flautist who had recently
introduced his 1851 design variant of Boehm’s flute and had just in
consequence been admitted to the firm, would have demonstrated the
products of Rudall & Rose. Wells confirms that this was not so – for some
reason, Carte was no longer considered up to the task of demonstrating his
own flutes!!]
It so happened that Siccama’s and Boehm’s flutes were to be
tried together, and I found myself face to face with my old master, Joseph
Richardson, who was, without exception, the finest executant in the
world. Of course, Richardson had to start, which he did by taking flight
in a chromatic scale (the astounding speed of which I shall never forget)
and perching upon the top note.
[The Siccama flute had been
introduced in 1846 by the linguist and keen amateur flautist Abel
Siccama. His flutes were made to a very high standard by the talented
maker John Hudson. They were basically similar
to the old 8-key conical bored flute but with a modified conical bore and
simple mechanism to bring the holes for E and A into their proper location
and size. In that respect, they followed the design precepts of Boehm, who
had established the dictum that the holes in a flute should be placed and
sized correctly on the basis of their acoustical functions, it being then
up to the maker to devise suitable mechanism to bring them under the
control of the fingers. Richardson played the Siccama flute until his
death in 1862, and Robert Sidney Pratten played this design for some years
also. Wells was undoubtedly familiar with this design, having played it
himself for a time.]
Berlioz immediately said: “Gently, Mr. Richardson, this is
not a question of your talent; we all know that. But please play me the
scale of G flat very slowly”. To make a long story short, we had
alternately to play arpeggios of diminished sevenths and various other
combinations, slow and fast. Berlioz suddenly asked Richardson what
special improvement he claimed for Mr. Siccama’s flute, to which he
replied that it was in the bore, being more like that of Mr. Boehm’s
flute.
[This comment must surely rank with the greatest faux pas in
recorded musical history, and to the present authors it seems quite
incredible not only that those present on this occasion should have
accepted it at face value but that later writers (including Wells, it
would seem) have never questioned it! To anyone (like Wells) having the
slightest familiarity with the two designs, Richardson’s quoted statement
is clearly absurd!! Siccama’s modified conical bore is of course
nothing like the cylinder bore used in the 1847 Boehm, and both
Richardson and Wells (as present and former users of the design)
must have known that! If they really examined the two flutes, so
should the Jury!
We can think of two
possible explanations:
-
Perhaps Richardson
meant to say that it used holes arranged more like those on Boehm’s
flute - ie closer to their acoustically ideal location, with extender
keys to make that possible.
-
Or perhaps he meant
that Siccama's bore, being less acutely tapered than the flutes from the
preceding era was therefore a little more cylindrical, and therefore a
little more like Boehm's.
Obviously an understandable case of getting flustered by an
unexpected grilling from the Jury! Regardless, instead of probing further
into this clearly untrue statement, the Jury immediately took it at its
face value as an “endorsement through imitation” of Boehm’s design by
Siccama!! What a farce!! ]
This admission was fatal to Siccama, whose face and red hair
were like the fiery furnace poor Daniel was thrown into, while Boehm
seemed much gratified.
[Here we must include Boehm as one of the guilty parties to
this debacle – he of all people must surely have known that Richardson’s
statement was untrue. Evidently, though, he took pleasure in the
unwarranted discomfiture of his rival manufacturer! The main importance
of this statement is that it shows that Boehm was present at this
comparison even though he had his own stand exhibiting his own instruments
under his own name. We also learn incidentally that Siccama had red
hair!!]
Berlioz directly turned to the other members of the Jury, and
said “It appears to me, gentlemen, that we could not have a better
compliment to the ingenuity of Mr. Boehm”.
The result is well known. Mr. Boehm obtained the Council Medal, and
Messrs. Rudall, Rose & Carte the prize medal for Mr. Carte’s improvements
for facility of fingering the Boehm system.
[Now we come to one of the greatest misunderstandings of all
in connection with the 1851 Exhibition. To understand the following
comments, it is necessary first to understand the criteria for which the
cited medals were to be awarded. Direct
reference
to the criteria with which the Jury was provided by the Exhibition
organisers reveals that the two medals were specifically intended to
recognise two completely distinct criteria – innovation of
ideas (the Council Medal) and execution of ideas (the Prize
Medal). The distinction was specifically cited as being intended to help
the Jury and to avoid any appearance of relative merit
between the two awards – they were in fact for totally different criteria
and hence implied no relative merit whatsoever. The Prize
Medal (which Rudall & Rose won for Carte’s Patent Boehm Flutes) was
specifically to be conferred by the Jury upon exhibitors whose offerings
displayed “a certain standard of excellence in production or
workmanship”. A vital point – there is no mention
here of ideas or design innovation. Recognition of those
factors was reserved for the Council Medal (awarded to Boehm), which was
only to be awarded by the Council of Juries (as opposed to
the individual Juries) to those exhibitors whose offerings displayed “some
important novelty of invention or application” and was
specifically not to be awarded on the basis of “excellence
of production or workmanship alone, however eminent". The
comment was actually made at the time that some winners of the Council
Medal were far inferior in terms of workmanship to their less innovative
brethren!
Once we
grasp this, the true state of affairs becomes quite clear. Boehm won the
Council Medal fair and square for his innovative ideas
expressed in the flutes and oboe which he exhibited on his own stand. The
oboe was critical – the Jury specifically noted the fact that Boehm had
demonstrated his improvements
to be applicable to more than just flutes. Indeed, in the official
citation for Boehm’s Council Medal, the word “flutes” appears only once as
part of a list of instruments to which Boehm’s ideas can be applied.
By contrast, Carte’s 1851 flute was largely derivative (by
Carte’s open admission) and hence did not qualify for an
award based on innovation. In fact, for the most part it used the same
innovations for which Boehm received separate recognition – even the
principles (as opposed to the application) of its mechanism were similar.
However, the manufacturing expertise of Rudall & Rose was deservedly well
known, and we cannot doubt that they put their very best work on display
at the Exhibition. They duly received the Prize Medal for their rendition
of Carte’s 1851 flute on the Boehm principle, but this was specifically
for workmanship and had nothing whatsoever to do with any
level of recognition for innovation.
Despite this, marketing considerations induced Carte to claim
that the Prize Medal constituted recognition of his innovative mechanism,
despite the fact that the award criteria clearly excluded this. It is
another mystery why this claim has never been challenged – seemingly, even
Wells was taken in! This can only be explained by Carte gambling
successfully that few people would be familiar with (or bother to make
themselves familiar with) the true criteria for the various awards. It is
high time that this false impression was corrected.]
In the year 1867, Mr. George Spencer, an amateur flautist who
took a deep interest in flutes and flute players, and more particularly –
being an engineer – in the mechanical construction of the instrument,
suggested that the complicated mechanism necessary for the long F natural
key (played with the little finger of the left hand) might be dispensed
with by doing away with the hole on that side altogether, and making
another, to be played with the first finger of the right hand. This was
done, and the 1867 patent sprang into existence.
[This statement was directly challenged by Christopher Welch
in the preface to the Second Edition (1892) of his 1882 book “History
of the Boehm Flute”. On page lxxvi of that work, he quotes the above
passage from Wells’ letter directly, stating his view that Wells was most
likely writing in good faith, and then proceeds to dispute Spencer’s claim
to this innovation. Welch says that as a result of an injury to his right
forefinger, he had certain modifications made to his own Carte 1851 flute
which included the relocation of the hole as described by Wells. He claims
to have the dated drawings to prove his case. Together with certain other
modifications, this led to the Carte 1867 model entering production with
Welch’s modification as one of its main features.]
Mr. Spencer and myself immediately gave up the 1851, and I
believe that I subsequently sold mine to a professional pupil, Mr. A. P.
Vivian, who was then playing on a conical “Pratten’s Perfected” . I was
the first to play in public on the 1867, and still play on it.
I observe that the gentleman rejoicing in the initial of “B”
says that “the open D, which is on the Carte 1867, and no other system”
Now I am sorry to be obliged to contradict him, as I have played the open
D ever since 1851, it being one of the principal features of Mr. Carte’s
inventions at the Great Exhibition;
[Quite true – the open D is a feature of the Carte 1851. But
Wells is becoming a little picky here – if one reads the letter of “B”
to which he refers, it is apparent that the writer was referring to the
open D as being used on no other system than the Carte 1867 at his
time of writing. “B” never meant to imply that it had been
used in the past on no system other than the Carte 1867!]
and it was at my suggestion, in 1855, that Signor Paggi (who
was an exceedingly fine oboe player) transposed his solo ”Rimembranze
Napolitane” from the key of G to A, on purpose to trot out the open D;
it was dedicated to me, and I played it for the first time at a concert in
the Hanover Square Rooms – the late Mr. J. L. Hatton accompanying.
My opinion, being that of a single individual, is not worth
much. I cannot, however, before concluding, refrain from saying, with
regard to the material employed for the construction of flutes, that there
is nothing in the world that can compare with ebonite for volume of tone,
durability and, indeed, everything. I say this after playing on it for
twenty years.
[Opinions regarding the qualities of ebonite as a material
for flutes were all over the map at this time, as a perusal of the main
letter series will make clear. In truth, it seems to have been very much
a matter of personal taste.]
Yours, &c.,
Benjamin Wells
3 Shaftesbury Rd., Ravenscourt Park, W., (A. R. A. M.).
December 16, 1889
So there it is – one of the few known surviving written
testaments of a great flautist and teacher, who has been undeservedly
overlooked in the past, notably by his “good friend” Rockstro. One
wishes that Wells had contributed more to the literature of the flute -
having participated from Richardson’s time right through the entire great
“transition stage” of the flute in England from 1840 to 1880, he would
have been uniquely placed to enhance our understanding of this period.
Still, we must make do with what we have – and at least the above letter
allows us the opportunity to dispel a few errors which have been
perpetuated in the past, to the detriment of historical objectivity.
________________________________
Other know surviving
works by Wells include:
-
Album célèbre. 10 Morceaux choisis
transcrits pour Flûte et Piano par B. Wells. Vol.ii / [by] Wells,
Benjamin . 1880
-
Dramatic Fantasia for Flute and
Piano, etc / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1883
-
Gems of Melody, selected from the ...
works of Rossini, Meyerbeer, Mendelssohn, Bellini, Donizetti, Mozart,
Weber, Auber, etc., for the flute ... with an accompaniment for the
pianoforte by Parry, Forde, Carte, Dipple, Clinton, B. Wells, &c. New
Edition. 1 / [by] Auber, Daniel Franois Esprit, 1782-1871 , et al.
1880
-
The Merry Maid. Ballad ... arranged
with Flute obligato by B. Wells / [by] Guglielmo, P. D ; Wells,
Benjamin . 1876
-
Scale Practice for the Flute / [by]
Wells, Benjamin . 1866
-
Scena pastorale, Flute and Piano /
[by] Wells, Benjamin . 1883
-
Scène dramatique for Flute and Piano
Forte / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1883
-
Serenade. [Flute and P. F.] / [by]
Wells, Benjamin . 1883
-
Simpson's Flute Gems, a series of
favorite melodies ... for Flute & Piano / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1878
-
Simpson's Flute Gems ... arranged for
Flute & Piano by B. Wells / [by] Wells, Benjamin . 1879
|