Re: Lucca -- Bb/A# or G#/Ab?

Dear Leonardo Perretti, dear Margo Schulter
and List members

thanks for your valuable mails on this topic.

I don't need to go into detail on Margo Schulter's careful discussion on
Ramis (1482) and Schlick (1511).

Both your interpretations of the sources seem possible for the
Lucca-qestion, either addition of ab and d# or d# and a#.
I'd prefer to take the point of departure from the sources of the
instrument: the instrument it self, it it would still exist, or written
sources. I agree alos completely with the views on problems of old texts

> Moving from theory to practice, I am not aware of the use of A# in any
> written composition of the era around 1480-1520,

Arguing from analysis of literature (existing scores) adds valuable
insights to the whole picture (if we have something like a "whole
picture"), but it might be misleading when talking about a certain
instrument, of which we don't know whether compositions we take as
examples, have been played on that very instrument. And most played
music was improvised at the respective instrument, being adjusted to
pitch and temperament.

With leaving the question of Lucca unsolved, it might be worth looking
to the transposition possiblities offered by

A transposition has to take in account the keyboard compass. If we are
talking of composed music with both high and low voices even a
transposition by a fourth might lead to problems

If Lucca had the design with additional D# and A#, the "usual" meantone compass:

G~~~D~~~A~~~E~~~B~~~F#~~C#~~G#
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
Eb~~Bb~~F~~~C~~~G~~~D~~~A~~~E~~~B

it could be transposed conveniently by playing a whole tone step upwards
(Here the player plays the a# to have a sounding g#-high pitch):

A~~~E~~~B~~~F#~~C#~~G#~~D#~~A#
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
F~~~C~~~G~~~D~~~A~~~E~~~B~~~F#~~C#

or a minor third lower. This is more limited, but still leaves good
possibilities (only an E# is "missing", which would be the sounding g#):

E~~~B~~~F#~~C#~~G#~~D#~~A#
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
C~~~G~~~D~~~A~~~E~~~B~~~F#~~C#

Transposition a fifth upwards allows more possibilities, but will in
many cases lead to problems with the keyboard compass or
vocal/instrumental range:

D~~~A~~~E~~~B~~~F#~~C#~~G#~~D#~~A#
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
Bb~~F~~~C~~~G~~~D~~~A~~~E~~~B~~~F#~~C#

------------------

If the compass Eb-G# would be added by a "sharp" on both sides of the
circle of fifths, + Ab *and D#

transposition a fifth downwards and fourth upwards allows more
possibilities, but will in many cases lead to problems with the keyboard
compass or vocal/instrumental range

transposition of a whole tone upwards is more limited, but still leaves
good possibilities (only an A# is "missing", which would be the sounding
G# - sounding E-major triad is impossible):

A~~~E~~~B~~~F#~~C#~~G#~~D#
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
F~~~C~~~G~~~D~~~A~~~E~~~B~~~F#

transposition of a minor third lower is even less useful (transposed A-
major and E-major-triads unpossible: A#, E# are missing):

E~~~B~~~F#~~C#~~G#~~D#
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
C~~~G~~~D~~~A~~~E~~~B~~~F#

However, this doesn't tell either about the likeliness of d# and a# in
Lucca in 1480

- on the one hand it would be a very early example. The next known
example, being from Lucca, seems to have been built much later
- on the other hand we might not kow about the 10 or 20 similar
organs around which have been rebuilt, destroyed etc.

The corpus of available information is still too small to come to proof conlusion.

Organs with a#

Lucca, 1480, (d# and a#, no ab, ?)
Lucca, Accademia di Tomaso Raffaelli, before 1609
Wolfenb�ttel, 1620-1624
Hamburg, 1635-1636
Caltanisetta, 1638
Sciacca, 1639
Den Haag, 1641 (d# and a#, no ab)
Alkmaar, 1643-1645/6 (d# and a#, no ab)
Alcal�, 1659 (might have been only a proposal)
Stockholm, 1690-98
Frankfurt a. d. Oder (east of Berlin), 1691-1695
Uppsala, 1710

It might be interesting to compare

Organs with a d-flat
which might have been more seldom:

Cremona, 1544 or 1617
Firenze, before 1563 (Stembridge: db and ab, no d#)
Wolfenb�ttel, 1620-1624
Sciacca, 1639
Alcal�, 1659 (might have been only a proposal)

Both Sciacca and Wolfenb�ttel had 4 splits (all except f#/gb) but each
only in one octave.

Kind regards
Ibo Ortgies

Hello, there, Ibo Ortgies and everyone, and thank you for very
edifying remarks on the possible uses of a Bb/A# split key on the
Lucca organ of 1480. I much agree that while the written repertory may
give some clues as to what _might_ be more "probable" in the way of
split keys, each instrument follows its own logic, and that the kind
of improvised transpositions you describe could make A# immediately
useful in a way which studying contemporary accidental usage in known
compositions might not reveal.

Although my discussion focused on the emphasis of Ramos (1482) and
Schlick (1511) on the Ab/G# question, and on the usefulness of Ab in
transpositions of Dorian, for example, down a major second from D to C
(with a signature of Bb and Eb) where the usual flexible step H/B or
B/Bb (German and English notations) becomes A/Ab, I much agree that if
we transpose E Phrygian up a step to F#, then A# is needed if we
desire a major third above the final (G# in the untransposed verson of
this mode).

Here, interestingly, both Ramos and Schlick provide evidence that
although they themselves did _not_ consider such a major third above
the final in Phrygian to be essential, other musicians may have
already felt it important, a position evidently becoming the norm by
around the 1520's or 1530's.

Both Ramos and Schlick address the question not of Bb/A# but of Ab/G#,
but as I now realize after reading your article, with some significant
implications if one considers that the transposition of Phrygian up a
whole-tone step may have been not too uncommon in practice.

In 1482, while much of Ramos's weighing of the merits on Ab vs. G#
focuses on the use of these notes in cadential major thirds expanding
to fifths or major sixths expanding to octaves, a somewhat ambiguous
passage may address the matter of a major third above the final in the
usual E Phrygian.

In one reading of this passage which I find attractive and likely, in
part because of his discussion elsewhere of the modes, he notes the
argument that his favored Ab-C# tuning cannot divide the Phrygian
fifth E-B into a major third below and minor third above --
i.e. E-G#-B.

However, in his view, the third might well be omitted, or the division
used with a major third in regard to the upper note of the fifth and a
minor third in regard to the lower note, i.e. E-G-B.

Although not without ambiguity -- Mark Lindley has read this passage
to refer to the fifth "from B," i.e. B-F# -- Ramos's remarks would fit
the apparent state of practice at the time, a state of affairs still
evidently obtaining when Schlick wrote in 1511.

While Schlick cleverly finesses the tuning of Ab to provide a
serviceable but rather heavily tempered major third Ab-C and a
possibly near-Pythagorean E-G# satisfactory for use in rapid and
somewhat ornamented cadences, this arrangement would evidently not be
so apt if one desired to have final cadences in Phrygian concluding
with a sonority featuring a major third above the final.

Thus it follows that in 1511, as in 1482 (if Ramos is referring to the
fifth E-B), a major third above the final of E Phrygian was not
universally considered essential by Western European musicians.

However, the remarks by Ramos also suggest (again if he refers to the
fifth E-B) that as early as 1482, some musicians _did_ desire this
major third, and furthermore saw this desire as an important advantage
of a 12-note tuning in Eb-G#.

Changes in cadential and other vertical progressions during the 15th
and early 16th centuries make a fascinating topic, and here I would
like to cover just enough to give the views of Ramos and Schlick some
musical context.

From the earliest era of regular writing for three and four voices,
the period of Perotin and his colleagues around 1200 or a bit earlier,
we find a kind of cadence on E which becomes standard by the 14th
century:

D4 E4
A3 B3
F3 E3

Here the lower third expands to a fifth, and the outer sixth to an
octave, arriving at a complete trine with outer octave, lower fifth,
and upper fourth (a pure 2:3:4 in Pythagorean intonation).

In a Gothic style, one way to expand this typical three-voice
progression to four voices is to add a resolution from the major tenth
to the twelfth:

A4 B4
D4 E4
A3 B3
F3 E3

This majestic progression nicely fits the style of the 14th century,
but raises a problem by the middle 15th century: the parallel fifths
and octaves, more and more consistently avoided both in practice and
in theory under the new stylistic guidelines.

With only three voices, the traditional Gothic form is still viable
and popular, fitting the remarks of Ramos suggesting that in Phyrgian
one may have a cadence involving the fifth E-B without a third -- in
older medieval terms, finishing on the complete trine E3-B3-E4 or its
prime interval of the lower fifth.

Such a cadence may also be adorned in the "modern" 15th-century manner
with a suspension, e.g. a major seventh resolving to a major sixth
which then expands in usual fashion to the octave:

*
E3 D3 E4
B3 A3 B3
G3 F3 E3

M7-M6

This kind of three-voice solution remarks standard and popular
throughout the 16th century.

In another type of Phyrgian cadence which avoids the Renaissance
problem of parallel fifths or octaves in four voices, the bass may
ascend by a fifth or descend by a fourth:

E4 E3
C4 B3
A3 B3
A2 E3

Here the next-to-highest voice has a characteristic descending
semitone motion giving the cadence its "Phyrgian" quality, while the
two middle voices contract from minor third to unison.

Around the time of Ramos and Schlick, these cadences arriving at
fifth-octave consonances (the term "trine" maybe implying a Gothic
outlook a bit dated by this point) remained very common, with final
cadences arriving at a sonority including a third just coming into
vogue (e.g. Josquin, Isaac).

Furthermore, in cadences around 1500 which do conclude on a sonority
including a third, that third might well be minor in relation to the
modal final or the lowest note, for example

E4 E4
C4 B3
A3 G3
A2 E3

Later in the 16th-century -- Aaron mentions the practice as early as
1523 -- performers would routinely (although not necessarily
invariably) sing an inflection of G-mi, that is G#, in order to obtain
a closing major third, but in the Josquin/Isaac era that close on a
minor third might well have been favored. Such a state of affairs
would fit the remark of Ramos (in its E-B reading) that one may well
divide the Phyrgian fifth into a sonority with a major third above and
minor third below -- here E3-G3-B3-E4.

Schlick's evident view of G# as a note occurring in cadences which can
be marginally accommodated in a 12-note tuning while preferring Ab for
a more sustained major third Ab-C also suggests cadences in E Phrygian
concluding on a sonority without the major third E-G#.

In fact, at least to me, cadences on a fifth-octave consonance or a
sonority with the minor third E-G seem nicely to fit the style and
musical color of the time.

However, tastes may have varied, with the preference for a concluding
major third in evidence by the epoch of Aaron's publications, and with
Vicentino and Zarlino making this preference an element of their
expressive aesthetics.

Returning to Lucca in 1480, if one applies Zarlino's later remarks
that transpositions up or down a whole-tone are among the more common
ones, then F# Phrygian would indeed place the Bb/A# question in a
position analogous to that of the Ab/G# question in E Phyrgian. Two
years later, Ramos's ambiguous but suggestive passage may hint that
some musicians already preferred the option of a major third above the
final -- providing a rationale for Eb-G# as a standard 12-note tuning,
and also for Bb/A# if we regard the transposition up a whole-tone as a
not-too-unlikely one.

Based on this kind of reasoning, I would much agree with your helpful
caution that simply looking at the known composed repertory of this
period may give a very partial and selective view of which accidentals
organists may have found useful in practice -- quite apart from
general issues of just how comprehensive or representative a record we
have in the manuscripts and (starting with Petrucci around 1501)
printed editions which happen to have come down to us.

Dialogue at once enriches and informs, and your article is a fine
example of how these discussions can enlarge and more fully educate my
perspectives on such a question.

Most appreciatively,

Margo Schulter
mschulter@value.net