Guidelines for working with composers
A general approach recognizes the rules of common sense and courtesy and can be practiced by students and seasoned professionals alike. (Especially seasoned professionals!)
Unless you are dealing with a composer/performer, you are the expert of your instrument and in a possible position to educate the composer. See your role as that of an educator, but use it with care - no one likes to feel patronised. To say simply "this is impossible" is very unproductive, even when it comes to a simple mistake such as a low C on the piccolo.
When faced with difficulty, the first step is to find an alternative. You may take the initiative and suggest one yourself, or work with the composer to find one. As in all possible conflict situations, it is better to retain the "I" message rather than the "you" message. For example: I naively expect composers to know basic orchestration rules for flute and piccolo; therefore I am constantly disappointed. What to do? Some example suggestions: "could I take this low C up an octave? My piccolo, (and most piccolos), only play to low D." or "given the (lack of) time we have, I would much prefer to play this rapid 4th octave passage on the piccolo rather than on the flute." or "on this high C, I can acheive a much nicer pianissimo on the piccolo rather than on the flute." The composer will most likely get the idea.
Articulation of staccato notes is another difficulty I run into with composers (and even conductors). On the lowest notes, the flute has a long resonating tube, and this takes time to speak. Some head joint cuts are designed so this register speaks loudly and easily. One can always strive to do better, and there are many exercises for the improvement of this technique. However, if you run into serious trouble trying to match the length of notes with string instruments or electronic sounds, you do have an acoustical excuse. If you see an alternative, suggest it. If not, express your willingness to work on improvement, but show the composer the length of tube required to resonate (and thus the physical limitations).
Often, when puzzling over an extended technique, rather than say "this is impossible" or "I can't do this", it helps to ask what the composer actually wants acoustically. Is there another technique which you can do which would be just as or more effective? Or ask where s/he got the technique from. Was it from another player whom you could simply contact for advice? Was it from a book? Were acoustical considerations overlooked such as the difference between a B foot and a C foot, or the difference between any two flutes or flutists?
Most composers I have worked with are very open and eager to look for solutions together. I once experienced a misunderstanding in an ensemble piece where I was faced with a passage of rapid, high whistle tones (notated exactly so: "whistle tone") marked forte. The composer actually wanted these sounds loud, which is an acoustical impossibility. The composer insisted, however, that the previous player had acheived this. I asked him what the previous player had actually done, then tried out a few things according to his description. It turned out that what he wanted were overblown harmonics with a lot of air, which in the context of this ensemble piece did give a whistling effect. So these effects were not whistle tones as I had learned them, nor as they appear in textbooks. I pointed this out to the composer, who did not take my point or make any "correction" in the part. As long as we had found the acoustic solution together, he was satisfied his notation had produced the results he wanted. What to do? In this case, I decided I had done my "duty" by pointing out a possible misunderstanding for the next flutist. To have taken "educator" role too far would have just meant getting into an argument (which I would have undertaken had this been a solo piece).
Notation is another area in which I can quickly slip into didactic mode. There are some textbook notations in current use that are extremely unhelpful. In addition, as of yet, there is no notational standaradization of extended techniques or multiphonics.
For multiphonics, some composers still use the Bartolozzi system (from his book "New Sounds for Woodwinds"). There are two problems with this system for multiphonics: first, the thumb-keys, the G# key, Bb lever, trill keys, and foot joint keys are notated by numbers. This is not at first a very intuitive system, compared with other notations that show the keys graphically or by name. The other problem (as I was told) is that these multiphonics were analysed by a computer that picked up more overtones, ghost tones, or whatever than the human ear can easily perceive. This did not stop Bartolozzi from notating them in the multiphonic. What seems to be a diad or triad is often notated with 4 or more tones. If you spend time trying to realize all of these tones equally, you will go batty. If you are unfortunate enough to be working with a composer who uses this notation and expects to clearly hear all these tones, you will go even more batty. Careful communication of these issues is very important.
Notation of air or aeolian sounds with open note heads can create rhythmic confusion between half notes and quarter notes. When used by composers, I try to carefully point this out in hope that this tradition will eventually disappear.
This is perhaps a long way of saying to my fellow flutists: let's work together with composers to encourage the following: