1) The document explores the performance history of Carl Nielsen's Flute Concerto in the UK, discussing its first broadcast and public performance in 1953 and 1954. 2) It examines the musical language and challenges of the concerto, including its improvisatory quality and Nielsen's loose tonality, which can be difficult for flute players. 3) The summarization concludes that collaboration between the soloist and orchestra is key to successful performances of the concerto, but it has not always received positive receptions and programming has been inconsistent in the UK.

1. bfs.org.uk52
Neilsen
E
dward Blakeman’s decision to programme Carl Nielsen’s
(1865-1931) Flute Concerto (1926) at the 2015 BBC
Proms, after an eighty-nine year absence, led me to
explore the performance history of the work in the UK.
Nielsen’s Flute Concerto was first broadcast in the UK
on 19 August 1953 by flute player Geoffrey Gilbert and
the London Chamber Orchestra under Anthony Bernard.
Subsequently, the ‘first public performance’ was held at the
Royal Festival Hall with Gilbert, Bernard and the Royal
Philharmonic Orchestra on 22 February 1954.
Musical Language
Nielsen’s deteriorating health and apprehensions about
the world are present in his Flute Concerto, a work which
channels humour alongside dark psychological tendencies.
The injection of ‘sympathetic humour’ by Nielsen suggests that
he was trying to escape a world of which he was becoming
more and more sceptical.
The musical language has an improvisatory quality
described by Norman Stinchcombe as ‘mercurial’, changing
‘mood with startling rapidity – sunny and carefree one
minute, overcast and threatening the next’. For the listener
the Concerto is as Daniel Grimley suggests, ‘some of Nielsen’s
most complex and challenging music’.
A work embodying the character of Gilbert-Jespersen, to
whom the work was dedicated, depicts a man of ‘fastidious
taste, fond of French music, slightly inclined to fuss, but
essentially lovable’. Katherine Bryan ‘demolished received
opinion about this multi-faceted concerto being amiable,
pastoral and all that gentler side of the musical spectrum’,
demonstrating that a work can take on distinct characteristics
in performance that contrast preconceived ideas.
Nielsen’s loose tonality if not handled sensitively through
nuances of sound and harmonic understanding can be ‘highly
embarrassing’ for the flute player, an area that even the
composer himself had great difficulty coming to terms with.
Instrumentation and Orchestration
The instrumentation of two oboes, clarinets and bassoons,
four horns, bass trombone, timpani and strings is proportional
to chamber music. Nielsen’s rationale to produce a small
accompanying ensemble is expressed in a programme note
he wrote stating, ‘the flute cannot belie its true nature, it is at
home in Arcadia and prefers pastoral moods. A composer
must therefore fit in with its gentle nature if he doesn’t want to
be branded as a barbarian’. These characteristics led Michael
Tumelty to label the work as ‘almost an anti-concerto’ in 2007.
Concert-goers today may share Tumelty’s quasi-traditionalist
view not only due to the orchestration but because it has
two instead of the typical three movements. This suggests
that audiences have not developed a sense of adventure
since the turn of the twentieth century. Nielsen was not the
only composer to write a two movement work; Berg’s Violin
Concerto in 1935 is one example. Nevertheless, flute player
Bryan shares the view that it can ‘unbalance’ an audience;
Tumelty adds, ‘it’s not got the right number of movements
for a concerto: it has two instead of the usual three’. Breaking
away from the stereotypical concerto pattern attracts attention
from enthusiasts and critics alike, however there is no doubt
that Nielsen’s scoring of the Flute Concerto is imaginative yet
modest.
Nielsen pits the soloist against the orchestra to dramatic
effect throughout, the bass trombone most prominent in
opposition. The juxtaposition of the flute and bass trombone
is best illustrated by The Times as ‘a clash of instrumental
personalities’. Noël Goodwin, Andrew Porter, and Andrew
Smith are more exacting following the first public performance
in 1954, describing the flute as ‘aristocratic’ and ‘sensitive’, and
the bass trombone as ‘plebeian’, ‘vulgar’, and ‘rude’.
The performance is all the more important in this instance
in order to capture the flavour of the two instruments. In
1954 the ‘argument was not crisp enough to carry complete
conviction’, whilst flute player Lorna McGhee’s tussle with the
bass trombone, more than forty years later, was ‘convincingly
portrayed’. Interpretation varies between orchestras with some
choosing to carefully balance the contrasting timbres as seen
here in 2009: ‘swaggering bass-trombone interjections were
given significant prominence, without obtruding unduly’.
Such considerations may be driven by balance issues between
the two instruments and the capability of the performers.
Commentators such as Brian Hick dispute the rhetoric of
the device leaving many to question whether the work should
be taken seriously despite being labelled as ‘one of the most
bizarre combinations of sonorities’ in the early part of the
twentieth century; perhaps one ‘should just sit back and enjoy
it and not worry about the journey’.
Humour is embodied in Nielsen’s Concerto through the
interplay between flute and bass trombone. The first encounter
between the two can be found in the allegro moderato (Fig.
The performance history of Carl
Nielsen’s Flute Concerto in Britain
by James Wilson
PAN November 2016.indd 52 09/11/2016 02:39

2. November 2016 53
Neilsen
1). The flute is marked fortissimo throughout characterised
by spiky figuration, whilst the bass trombone is marked
espressivo. The consensus amongst critics is that the bass
trombone is somewhat interrupting, ‘ruthlessly cutting into’,
the idyllic landscape that the flute is fashioning. Although
it would seem that Nielsen is using both instruments in a
‘spirited’ manner on this occasion in what is a tumultuous
passage.
Disruption and humour unite in the allegretto
characterised by the bass trombone glissandi in bars 208-
211, and more prominently in the final bars of the concerto
intensified by the orchestral diminuendo (Fig. 1). The
flourishing gestures create a sense of completion amongst an
otherwise underwhelming finale despite ‘rudely’ overpowering
the solo part.
Soloist
The technical challenges of Nielsen’s Flute Concerto lie
not only with the soloist but also the orchestra. Whilst this
can prove to be challenging for the flute player, an exemplary
performance can define the reception of the work as it is
the role of the soloist to sell the piece. Nielsen too knew of
the technicalities: ‘it is very difficult for the soloist, so there
will be something to study for the good Gilbert[-Jespersen]’.
The participation of prominent flute player Geoffrey Gilbert
in the first UK public performance steered The Times in a
different direction, stating Nielsen’s writing ‘gave [him] ample
opportunity for virtuosity’.
Nielsen’s Concerto is ‘not a vehicle for the soloist’ in
McGhee’s opinion, unlike other flute concertos such as those
of Ibert and Lowell Liebermann, due to its chamber music
Fig. 1
Fig. 2
PAN November 2016.indd 53 09/11/2016 02:39

3. bfs.org.uk54
Neilsen
characteristics which Christopher Morley puts down to the
interplay between orchestral principal players. In contrast
to Bryan, McGhee states that the flute player cannot simply
‘carry the performance on his or her own shoulders’, it instead
requires a ‘sympathetic and willing collaboration between
conductor and orchestra alike’. It is without question that
the solo part is the focal point of a concerto, however there
is a sense here that Nielsen’s writing does demand equal
cooperation and delivery from soloist and orchestra in order
for the performance to carry conviction.
Performance
Collaboration is key to the elevation of Nielsen’s Flute
Concerto, requiring ‘fleetness of hand and mind from the
orchestra and soloist’. The BBC Young Musician of the Year
competition in 2004 demonstrated the value of a successful
collaboration: ‘Walker’s playing […] categorically confirmed
the […] little-valued piece as a masterwork, […] with Volkov
and the BBC SSO in flying form in accompaniment’. Despite
Tumelty’s efforts to commend the work, he suggests that of
an accompanying role for conductor and orchestra failing to
identify what is unequivocally chamber music and therefore
a collaborative effort from all involved. The importance of
ensemble filters through to musical recordings, here Bryan
is ‘beautifully supported by Paul Daniel and the Scottish
National Players’.
The notion that the soloist is the driving force behind
any successful performance is captured by Hilary Finch
in her 1981 review of James Galway’s performance at the
Royal Festival Hall: ‘Galway played […] white-jacketed, eyes
a-twinkle, with an equally predictable, effortless and benign
whimsicality which perfectly suited the bonhomie of the piece’,
evidence that it is not just the flute playing alone that has an
effect on the performance as a whole.
Not every performance of the Concerto has received a
positive reception especially when the demands of the music
are not met, as was evidently noted by Goodwin in 1954:
‘unfortunately the orchestra seemed none too sure of the
composer’s intentions, and the humour should have been
much more sharply pointed’. Conductor Jacek Kaspszyk and
the Orchestra of Opera North performed the work in 2007.
Kaspszyk was a stand in for Kees Bakels, widely regarded as an
expert in Nielsen, who would have ostensibly ‘brought more
pungency to the accompaniment’, demonstrating the need for
all parties to be unified.
Listener
There is a consensus amongst flute players reacting to
their own experience of performing Nielsen’s Flute Concerto,
and critics alike, that the listener makes an understandably
snap judgement the first time they hear the work and would
therefore benefit from multiple hearings.
As David Hargreaves’s research demonstrates it is the
correlation between ‘liking’ and ‘familiarity’ driven from
multiple hearings that best represents the standing of a work.
Nielsen’s Concerto is no different. There are a number of
factors that permeate the reception of the Concerto but as
conductor Thierry Fischer describes, ‘everyone doing it for
the first time would like to do it again, soon’. Hargreaves’s
theory is shared by Frank Munro, who regards the Concerto
as ‘not […] immediately attractive’. Tumelty too agrees with
this sentiment suggesting ‘audiences […] are unfamiliar with
a work that does not reveal all of its secrets on a single hearing’.
Listeners accustomed to the works and character profile of
Nielsen find the anti-climactic ending ‘charming’ and ‘enjoy
the interplay with the solo part and orchestral solos’, Bryan
suggests.
Flute Repertory
Nielsen’s Flute Concerto has arguably cemented its place
as one of ‘the finest of all works for the instrument’. Amongst
all of the works written for the flute including concertos
by Mozart, Reinecke, Ibert, Jolivet, and Liebermann, that
of Nielsen is ‘a favourite of the flautist’s repertoire’ states
Jack Lawson. The work is described as ‘rich’ and ‘original’
by Robert Simpson. In comparison, Simpson’s own Flute
Concerto is as ‘scarcely […] rewarding to play as that of
Nielsen which […] is full of ingratiating, memorable ideas’.
Whilst Noémi Győri agrees with that view she identifies
‘a number of twentieth and twenty-first century concerti that
are at least to its standards or much better’. The Concerto is
part of the teaching at UK conservatoires and features on
the FRSM diploma examination syllabus of the ABRSM.
Flute tutor at Birmingham Conservatoire, Marie-Christine
Zupancic, concurs with Győri that the work is very much part
of the curriculum, whilst McGhee suggests it was recently
an audition requirement for a vacant position at the Berliner
Philharmoniker.
Flute players hold a key role in raising the profile of a work.
Jean-Pierre Rampal, one of the greatest of his generation,
whose ‘advocacy has helped put [Nielsen’s Concerto] firmly on
the map’ is one example.
Conclusions
In 1954, the Flute Concerto was labelled as a ‘novelty’
in a programme of Beethoven, Mendelssohn, and Britten.
Goodwin confesses that it was a testing time for Nielsen in
the UK: ‘is he to be accepted as a master who has suffered
undue neglect here, or is he to be dismissed as “a Scandinavian
poor relation of Saint-Saëns”?’. It would seem that the public
did not delight in the work as there would not be a recurrent
performance of the Concerto until 1965.
Held at the Barbican, Tender is the North focused upon
the works of Scandinavian, Icelandic, and Finnish composers,
with the LSO and Sir Colin Davis performing a cycle of
Nielsen symphonies. The Concerto was performed by
William Bennett, the English Chamber Orchestra, and Finnish
conductor Paavo Berglund during the festival. The Barbican’s
ethos was to awake London and England to the ‘rich and often
PAN November 2016.indd 54 09/11/2016 02:39

4. November 2016 55
Neilsen
little-known artistic bounty’ of the aforementioned regions,
however there is no evidence that this festival reached out
to other regions of the UK, resulting in a London-centric
festival with little accessibility for those outside of the capital.
Nevertheless, it coherently promoted Nielsen’s music and by
juxtaposing his and similar composers’ works ‘we discover
their individuality’.
In 1999, Nielsen was named ‘composer of the year at the
Proms’. Sir Nicholas Kenyon did not programme the Flute
Concerto. There is nothing to suggest that this was a deliberate
omission from the controller, as ten works by Nielsen
including Symphony no. 6 did feature. Liebermann’s Flute
Concerto, op. 39 was the only flute concerto to feature that
year at the Royal Albert Hall. The venue is one factor for why
not more wind concertos are programmed: ‘the nature and
size of the [Royal] Albert Hall is one reason in relation to the
flute as a solo instrument’.
Kenyon also reflects on the number of wind concertos post
eighteenth century versus those written for piano, violin, and
cello. This is acknowledged by flute players Gareth Davies
and Jonathan Snowden. The dominance of piano and violin
concertos is evident from a performance that falls under
the Leeds International Concert Season (henceforth, LICS)
umbrella. Nielsen’s Concerto performed on 14 April 2007
achieved an attendance figure of forty-one percent compared
to a season average of seventy-three percent. One factor for
the low turnout is perhaps due to the performance being given
by the Orchestra of Opera North in their home city. One may
conclude that audiences in the city regularly attend opera
productions by the company, therefore this performance is an
example of market saturation by an orchestra that specialises
in operatic repertoire. A report by Matthew Sims in 2007
states that the LICS ‘is well used, maximises income and has
tremendous attendance and loyalty (06/07 orchestral season
averaged nearly 80%)’.
In contrast to the LICS, estimated attendance figures by the
RLPO were positive. Attendance was approximately eighty and
seventy percent for performances of the Concerto in 1993 and
2004 respectively.
A reluctance to programme Nielsen’s Flute Concerto is
a view shared by a number of commentators. One reporter
asked ‘when was […] Nielsen’s Flute Concerto last performed
in Nottingham? Possibly never. Perhaps others may
programme it after […] Győri’s dazzlingly virtuosic playing’.
Incidentally it was performed in 1989. To programme a work
which is unfamiliar to many could be deemed as brave in
today’s economy.
A decade between performances from the Royal Scottish
National Orchestra is not something of a surprise for Tumelty,
‘because the piece is something of a rarity’. He adds, ‘concert
programmers, if they have to have a flute concerto at all, would
rather play safe with a Mozart concerto’. For many, Nielsen’s
wind concertos are on an equal footing to those of Mozart but
popular culture would suggest otherwise. The Classic FM Hall
of Fame, voted for by the listeners, lists the top three hundred
works. Mozart’s Flute and Harp Concerto in C, K299 is the
only concerto for flute to feature; no works by Nielsen. Davies
writes: ‘I cannot stand the work [Mozart Flute and Harp
Concerto in C, K299]. In my opinion the Nielsen is far greater
a piece, but less popular. So what?’.
Other than the 2000s, performances of Nielsen’s Flute
Concerto have increased each decade since the 1950s.
Performances of the Concerto decreased from twenty-three to
twenty-two during the noughties, however one can conclude
that these statistics are insignificant when looking at the bigger
picture. Since 2010, UK performances of the Flute Concerto
stand at thirty-one, a record high.
It is commonplace to find principal wind players appearing
as the concerto soloist, and the Nielsen Flute Concerto is no
different. The likelihood of an orchestra programmeming a
wind concerto is increased if they possess a principal who has
the capability of carrying a solo part, demonstrated by William
Bennett as he ‘stepped from his orchestra chair to enrich the
demanding solo role’. Davies states that if we look at UK
orchestras and discount their respective principal flute players
‘you will find one or two [soloists] if you are lucky’.
Since the emergence of Nielsen’s wind concertos in the 1950s,
the Concerto has been performed one-hundred-and-ten times.
Simpson’s prediction about the Concerto is at present true:
Of the three concertos […] the second [Flute Concerto] [is]
the most lovable, and in the long run it […] perhaps […] will
achieve the greatest popularity for it has a ripe sense of fun with
a deeply poetic insight into human character; in many ways it is
the richest and most original concerto ever written for the flute.
The Flute Concerto is having somewhat of a renaissance
in the UK of late, owing largely to Nielsen’s sesquicentennial
in 2015 which appears to be having similar impact on the
musical landscape as his centenary provided, a period
described by Paolo Muntoni as ‘the revaluation, where
Nielsen’s music is reconsidered without the excesses of the
previous phases (1965-1977)’. Paavo Järvi’s Nielsen cycle
with the Philharmonia Orchestra, set to conclude early 2017,
is further evidence of Nielsen’s positive reception, having
programmed the Concerto on 19 November 2015. 2017 sees
the launch of a ‘year-long festival of Nordic art and culture’
at the Southbank Centre giving the public the opportunity
to ‘experience […] an extensive programme of music, dance,
performance, digital, literature, spoken word, design, visual
art, fashion and food’. However there focus ‘will most likely be
directed towards contemporary Nordic composers’.
James Wilson
A footnoted version of this article can be found on the BFS
website at www.bfs.org.uk, along with transcriptions of
interviews with various performers.
PAN November 2016.indd 55 09/11/2016 02:39