I’ve studied computer science and then gone on to study the recorder and I’m currently busying myself with making the recorder able to control the computer. I love the combination, but wondered a bit about if I’ve chosen a favourable tradeoff. I’m happy so I guess I’m not doing to bad. But, when I started reading “On playing the Flute” by Johann Joachim Quantz (the book I’m referring to is the 2nd edition of the English translation by Edward R. Reilly published through Faber & Faber) I found that he had something to say on the issue. In chapter 1 (page 24) he writes:

“Furthermore, a musician must not occupy himself with too many other things. Almost every science requires the whole man. My meaning here, however, is by no means that it is impossible to excel in more than one science at the same time, but that ...

When Quantz writes “On playing the flute”, the flute is just emerging from a time of much change, and we know that the flute changed much until it became the flute we know today. The recorder is in a similar situation today where the recorders that are made are often very different from what they were only fifteen year ago, and through my correspondence with inventors and recorder builders I have no reason to believe that the recorder is done developing now.

What I have found is that recorders made by good recorder players are in general better than those made by instrument makers who are not good recorder players. And I was happy to find support for this finding in Quantz’ book. He writes this for the traverso, but I see no reason why this should be different for the recorder if we replace the word embouchure with breathing ...