An excellent course online!

The contents of a course covering tuning and other music/math topics, apparently taught at the University of Georgia, can be downloaded from

http://www.math.uga.edu/~djb/math-music.html

The presentation is very professional and clear, with many supporting illustrations. Chapters 4, 5, and 6, covers much of what has been discussed on this list lately -- including the importance of a vanishing 81:80 in common-practice Western music, schismic thirds in 15th century Pythagorean Gb-B tuning, the unexpected prominence of cubic difference tones at low volumes, and periodicity blocks and unison vectors. I suggest everyone print out a copy and keep it for reference. It's the closest thing we have to a true FAQ at the present moment.

However, it's pretty clear that much of the material derives from postings on this list, without proper credit given. Though the presentation is, in many ways, improved, I'm not too happy about that situation. So I've contacted the professor, with high praise for his materials, of course . . .

Paul wrote:

> The contents of a course covering tuning and other music/math
> topics, apparently taught at the University of Georgia, can be
> downloaded from
>
> http://www.math.uga.edu/~djb/math-music.html

I did look at this before, but it got overshadowed by the Miracle
rediscovery. I notice Manuel's name in the acknowledgements.

> However, it's pretty clear that much of the material derives from
> postings on this list, without proper credit given. Though the
> presentation is, in many ways, improved, I'm not too happy about
> that situation. So I've contacted the professor, with high praise
> for his materials, of course . . .

You think so? I assume that's a vague similarity, as few ideas seem
to be used unattributed. The most glaring one is the tetrahedral
lattice on p.143. So whose idea was that? There's also a footnote
on p.161 that says "Paul Erlich" with no further explanation.

Graham

--- In tuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:

So whose idea was that? There's also a footnote
> on p.161 that says "Paul Erlich" with no further explanation.

Paul tells me it is Erv Wilson. I started doing them around 1971, and
Wilson some time in the 60's, I understand.

--- In tuning@y..., "Graham Breed" <graham@m...> wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
> > The contents of a course covering tuning and other music/math
> > topics, apparently taught at the University of Georgia, can be
> > downloaded from
> >
> > http://www.math.uga.edu/~djb/math-music.html
>
> I did look at this before, but it got overshadowed by the Miracle
> rediscovery. I notice Manuel's name in the acknowledgements.
>
> > However, it's pretty clear that much of the material derives from
> > postings on this list, without proper credit given. Though the
> > presentation is, in many ways, improved, I'm not too happy about
> > that situation. So I've contacted the professor, with high praise
> > for his materials, of course . . .
>
> You think so?

Yes, and the author acknowledged as much when I contacted him. But he
doesn't like web citations . . . he'll only list published (on paper)
articles and books in his citations. Compare section 6.8 with
the "Gentle Introduction" and the other posts my be that are linked
to from there, vs. the Fokker article Benson cites.

> I assume that's a vague similarity, as few ideas seem
> to be used unattributed. The most glaring one is the tetrahedral
> lattice on p.143. So whose idea was that?

Erv Wilson thought of it earlier, but see the four slashes making up
the diagonal lines? That's the way I started drawing them on this
list, soon followed by you, Carl Lumma, Paul Hahn, and others. I
doubt it's a coincidence . . .

> There's also a footnote
> on p.161 that says "Paul Erlich" with no further explanation.

It's not a footnote, it's an exercise about the triple-BP scale (my
idea).

Paul wrote:

> Yes, and the author acknowledged as much when I contacted him. But he
> doesn't like web citations . . . he'll only list published (on paper)
> articles and books in his citations. Compare section 6.8 with
> the "Gentle Introduction" and the other posts my be that are linked
> to from there, vs. the Fokker article Benson cites.

That's interesting, because his university's Academic Honesty Policy says
<http://www.uga.edu/ovpi/honesty/sect05.html>:

"""
a. Plagiarism - This means submitting for academic advancement the words,
ideas, opinions or theories of another that are not common knowledge,
without fair attribution to that other person. Unfair attribution
includes, but is not limited to, a direct quotation of all or part of
another's words without identifying that fact by appropriate marks, and/or
merely stating the source generally in a bibliography without having noted
the specified sources within the body of the work. Plagiarism includes,
but is not limited to, the following acts when performed without fair
attribution:

i. Directly quoting all or part of another person's written or spoken
words without quotation marks, as appropriate to the discipline;

ii. Paraphrasing all or part of another person's written or spoken words
without notes or documentation within the body of the work;

iii. Presenting an idea, theory or formula originated by another person as
the original work of the person submitting that work;

iv. Repeating information, such as statistics or demographics, which is
not common knowledge and which was originally compiled by another person;

v. Purchasing (or receiving in any other manner) a term paper or other
assignment that is the work of another person and submitting that term
paper or other assignment as the student's own work.
"""

I don't see any clause stating "But if it comes from the Internet, that's
okay."

Graham

Gentlemen/women,

To Paul and Graham and whoever else might have been 'utilized' by the
professor in the online course, I would highly recommend someone
pursue, through the university, some course of action. While many of
the research-related areas of tuning, as developed on this list, may
not be my particular area of interest, I have the *highest* regard
for the work that has gone on. I find it inexcusable to have your
work pillaged without permission or accreditation, and if it is
allowed to stand then it is fair game from here on out.

I'm especially pissed that somehow, somewhere, someone would find
that publishing on the web or the internet gives them free reign over
the material -- this is *not* the case, and should not be condoned.

If you need letters of support, etc., I am willing; I sincerely doubt
anything I've ever written was included! But I'm happy to lend
support and vigor.

Colleagially,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m... wrote:

> I don't see any clause stating "But if it comes from the Internet,
that's
> okay."

It's not OK, and in fact if it comes from a private communication or
oral presentation it still should be acknowledged--if it is regarded
as significant enough to be considered an authentic discovery. Erv
could have scribbed something on a ketchup-stained tablecloth in
1963, and if it can be show to have priority, should be acknowledged
unless it is so obvious as not to be worth mentioning. That would be
a judgment call.

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <
JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Gentlemen/women,
>
> To Paul and Graham and whoever else might have been 'utilized' by the
> professor in the online course, I would highly recommend someone
> pursue, through the university, some course of action. While many of
> the research-related areas of tuning, as developed on this list, may
> not be my particular area of interest, I have the *highest* regard
> for the work that has gone on. I find it inexcusable to have your
> work pillaged without permission or accreditation, and if it is
> allowed to stand then it is fair game from here on out.
>
> I'm especially pissed that somehow, somewhere, someone would find
> that publishing on the web or the internet gives them free reign over
> the material -- this is *not* the case, and should not be condoned.
>
> If you need letters of support, etc., I am willing; I sincerely doubt
> anything I've ever written was included! But I'm happy to lend
> support and vigor.
>
> Colleagially,
> Jon

There is no need, as the author
has agreed to credit me as
appropriate. In fact, he and I are
becoming quite friendly, due to
our common interests in tuning,
math, progressive rock, fusion,
Indian music . . . By the way,
please do print out a copy of his
article for yourself -- it's
definitely the best "companion
book" for this list that I can think
of.

--- In tuning@y..., graham@m...
wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
> > Yes, and the author acknowledged as much when I contacted him. But he
> > doesn't like web citations . . . he'll only list published (on paper)
> > articles and books in his citations. Compare section 6.8 with
> > the "Gentle Introduction" and the other posts my be that are linked
> > to from there, vs. the Fokker article Benson cites.
>
> That's interesting, because his university's Academic Honesty Policy says
> <http://www.uga.edu/ovpi/honesty/sect05.html>:
>
> """
> a. Plagiarism - This means submitting for academic advancement the words,
> ideas, opinions or theories of another that are not common knowledge,
> without fair attribution to that other person. Unfair attribution
> includes, but is not limited to, a direct quotation of all or part of
> another's words without identifying that fact by appropriate marks, and/or
> merely stating the source generally in a bibliography without having noted
> the specified sources within the body of the work. Plagiarism includes,
> but is not limited to, the following acts when performed without fair
> attribution:
>
> i. Directly quoting all or part of another person's written or spoken
> words without quotation marks, as appropriate to the discipline;
>
> ii. Paraphrasing all or part of another person's written or spoken words
> without notes or documentation within the body of the work;
>
> iii. Presenting an idea, theory or formula originated by another person as
> the original work of the person submitting that work;
>
> iv. Repeating information, such as statistics or demographics, which is
> not common knowledge and which was originally compiled by another person;
>
> v. Purchasing (or receiving in any other manner) a term paper or other
> assignment that is the work of another person and submitting that term
> paper or other assignment as the student's own work.
> """
>
> I don't see any clause stating "But if it comes from the Internet, that's
> okay."
>
>
> Graham

The author told me he's going to
bite the bullet and include a web
citation in this case, even though
he's avoided doing so in the past.

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> There is no need, as the author
> has agreed to credit me as
> appropriate.

Just to clarify, are you the *only* person he has pulled material
from? If I get a chance, I'll take a look, but if anyone else is
involved then there is a principal at stake and not just whether or
not you guys have become friends.

Well, hoping it works out,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <
JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> --- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > There is no need, as the author
> > has agreed to credit me as
> > appropriate.
>
> Just to clarify, are you the *only* person he has pulled material
> from? If I get a chance, I'll take a look, but if anyone else is
> involved then there is a principal

Principle?

at stake and not just whether or
> not you guys have become friends.

Well, absolutely, and I encourage
everyone to read through his
course and see if they think their
ideas have been presented
without due credit.

Paul,

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > If I get a chance, I'll take a look, but if anyone else is
> > involved then there is a principal
>
> Principle?

No, I mean send them to the Principal's Office! :) Yes, indeed, mind-
typos do occur...

> Well, absolutely, and I encourage
> everyone to read through his
> course and see if they think their
> ideas have been presented
> without due credit.

Right, but I've seen Erv Wilson's name in the conversation, and I
myself can't necessarily tell which idea belongs to who. Were *you*
able to ascertain whether other author's work had been used,
uncredited?

Jon

Whomever,

OK, I did my part and downloaded the 7+mB of pdf files, and glanced
for a second. I have no idea where or who might have been
quoted/cited without mention, so concerned citizens will need to do
their own scanning of the text.

My, that thing is big. Some people sure have a lot of time on their
hands!

Best,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

> The author told me he's going to
> bite the bullet and include a web
> citation in this case, even though
> he's avoided doing so in the past.

It's got to be done--web publication is publication in the legal
sense, for starters, and if it is archived it is readily accessible.
If it's good enough to use, it's good enough to cite. I've started to
see web citations appear, and academics will just have to get used to
it; anyway we now have all these e-journals!

Of course, it doesn't carry the cachet of peer review.

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> > Well, absolutely, and I encourage
> > everyone to read through his
> > course and see if they think their
> > ideas have been presented
> > without due credit.
>
> Right, but I've seen Erv Wilson's name in the conversation, and I
> myself can't necessarily tell which idea belongs to who. Were *you*
> able to ascertain whether other author's work had been used,
> uncredited?

The only uncredited or miscredited material I was sure about appeared
to me to come from some of my articles on Monz's website. It didn't
seem that Erv Wilson, or anyone else, had been "plagiarized", but I
made sure to point out to Benson that Wilson has priority (as far as
I know) as an independent developer of the tetrahedral-octahedral
lattice for 7-limit, and told him he should read all of Wilson's
materials (he had never heard of Wilson before).

--- In tuning@y..., "Paul Erlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> The only uncredited or miscredited material I was sure about
> appeared to me to come from some of my articles on Monz's website.

...and etc. Fair enough, sounds like this will all be fine. If he
ever does get it published, certainly if it goes beyond making a
textbook just for the classes he'll teach, both legally and ethically
he will need to get permission from the various sources.

Thanks for taking a look again. I really don't have time to plow
through almost 8mB of pdf files!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@y..., "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

> ...and etc. Fair enough, sounds like this will all be fine. If he
> ever does get it published, certainly if it goes beyond making a
> textbook just for the classes he'll teach, both legally and
ethically
> he will need to get permission from the various sources.

He doesn't need permission to make use of ideas, but he does need to
cite them. The copyright code specifically forbids copyrighting
ideas, which is nice, or the whole academic enterprise would collapse.

Hi Paul :)

I have some "foundamental" questions about JI !

The math say :

1/1=unisson, np :)

21/20 = 1/2 ton
9/8 = whole ton, right ?
But 42/20 =! 9/8 WHY ?!

6/5=minor third, or two minor thirds=? Because the
tritonus=7/5 For example: A=440 C=(440*6)/5 =528 and
Eb = (528*6)/5 = 633.6; But tritonus is also
(440*7)/5=...616 !!!

5/4=major third or major third + minor third = fifth ?
Will try that also, ok
A=440 C#= 440*5/4=550 E=550*6/5=660 Youpiiii :)))
Here all is right !
Hum... minor third+1/2 ton = major third?
C=528 C# must be 528*21/20=...554.4 and NOT 550, why
?!

4/3=forth or D= 440*4/3=586.666 ; minor third+1
ton=forth ? But C+1 ton= 528*9/8=...594 !!!
Other way, major third+1/2 ton= forth ?
C#+1/2 ton =550*21/20=...577.5 It's so so ...!!!

What's THE JI ?! Most of ratios are false and that's
named "just intonation" ? :))))

Dimitrov

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Un e-mail gratuit @yahoo.fr !
Yahoo! Courrier : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., Latchezar Dimitrov <latchezar_d@y...> wrote:

> 21/20 = 1/2 ton
> 9/8 = whole ton, right ?
> But 42/20 =! 9/8 WHY ?!

Because 42/20 = 21/10 is an octave above 21/20--multiplying by 2 is
going up an octave.

> 6/5=minor third, or two minor thirds=?

One minor third.

> 5/4=major third or major third + minor third = fifth ?

5/4 = major third, it is also 25/24 times 6/5, or a small semitone
above a minor third. You don't normally add (except for cents); you
multiply.

Well , well :))

But I'm not "conviced" because:

--- genewardsmith@juno.com a �crit�: > --- In
tuning@y..., Latchezar Dimitrov
> <latchezar_d@y...> wrote:
>
> > 21/20 = 1/2 ton
> > 9/8 = whole ton, right ?
> > But 42/20 =! 9/8 WHY ?!
>
> Because 42/20 = 21/10 is an octave above
> 21/20--multiplying by 2 is
> going up an octave.
>

21/20=1.05
1.05*1.05=1.1025 ok?
9/8=1.125 !!!

In JI only minor third+major third done just fifth:
6/5*5/4=30/20=1.5

All other definitions are falses !!!
For example-the semi tone between major and minor
third is strange(not 21/20!), see yourself:
5/4=1.25;6/5=1.2;1.25/1.2=1.042 !!!! and NOT 1.05, ok
?

> 5/4 = major third, it is also 25/24 times 6/5, or a
> small semitone
> above a minor third. You don't normally add (except
> for cents); you
> multiply.

Why do you use the definitions like "small semitone" ?
I ask me how that's possible to play nice tuned piano
in concert because all of semitones are fixed there,
and we never hear one false tone ! I think that the JI
is fully useless and nobody work with...Only numbers
and nothing more...
It's only my humble opinion :))

Dimitrov

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Un e-mail gratuit @yahoo.fr !
Yahoo! Courrier : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., Latchezar Dimitrov <latchezar_d@y...> wrote:

> I think that the JI
> is fully useless and nobody work with...

Harry Partch
Ben Johnston
LaMonte Young
Carter Scholz
James Tenney
Robert Rich
Terry Riley
David Doty
Jon Catler
Dean Drummond

. . . the list goes on and on of fine composers who use JI.

--- Paul Erlich <paul@stretch-music.com> a �crit�: >
--- In tuning@y..., Latchezar Dimitrov
> <latchezar_d@y...> wrote:
>
> > I think that the JI
> > is fully useless and nobody work with...
>
> Harry Partch
> Ben Johnston
> LaMonte Young
> Carter Scholz
> James Tenney
> Robert Rich
> Terry Riley
> David Doty
> Jon Catler
> Dean Drummond
>
> . . . the list goes on and on of fine composers who
> use JI.
>
>

Ok, Paul :)

Do you remember also you purpose(99.99%...) ? :)
You found every time what to respond, but you shoose
first only a part of subject...
Is'nt too easy so ? ;)

Dimitrov

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Un e-mail gratuit @yahoo.fr !
Yahoo! Courrier : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

Latchezar,

Your arguements are getting tiresome. If you wish to make small
alterations to 12tET, then please do so. All it does is give a
slightly different sound to the system that is in place in most all
of Western music. The purpose of this list is to find alternatives to
12tET -- not mere 'minor changes' that leave the basic premise of
12tET intact, but truly different worlds of tuning.

It is fine what you are doing, but please understand that the main
focus of this group is in other areas, and if you constantly belittle
those areas (such as saying that JI is not useful for making music)
then you are obviously speaking to the wrong group.

You want to clean the windows so that you can look out on the same
view with a clearer perspective; we'd like to look out new windows at
new landscapes...

Respectfully,
Jon

Well, Jon,

You are right-I feel the same when I read about most
of articles here, and I'm really bored when I listen
microtonal music also...Will look for other group soon
and will stop to writing and participate,np...
Will learn english ect. :)

Have fun

Dimitrov

--- Jon Szanto <JSZANTO@ADNC.COM> a �crit�: >
Latchezar,
>
> Your arguements are getting tiresome. If you wish to
> make small
> alterations to 12tET, then please do so. All it does
> is give a
> slightly different sound to the system that is in
> place in most all
> of Western music. The purpose of this list is to
> find alternatives to
> 12tET -- not mere 'minor changes' that leave the
> basic premise of
> 12tET intact, but truly different worlds of tuning.
>
> It is fine what you are doing, but please understand
> that the main
> focus of this group is in other areas, and if you
> constantly belittle
> those areas (such as saying that JI is not useful
> for making music)
> then you are obviously speaking to the wrong group.
>
> You want to clean the windows so that you can look
> out on the same
> view with a clearer perspective; we'd like to look
> out new windows at
> new landscapes...
>
> Respectfully,
> Jon
>
>

___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Un e-mail gratuit @yahoo.fr !
Yahoo! Courrier : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., Latchezar Dimitrov <latchezar_d@y...> wrote:
> --- Paul Erlich <paul@s...> a écrit : >
> --- In tuning@y..., Latchezar Dimitrov
> > <latchezar_d@y...> wrote:
> >
> > > I think that the JI
> > > is fully useless and nobody work with...
> >
> > Harry Partch
> > Ben Johnston
> > LaMonte Young
> > Carter Scholz
> > James Tenney
> > Robert Rich
> > Terry Riley
> > David Doty
> > Jon Catler
> > Dean Drummond
> >
> > . . . the list goes on and on of fine composers who
> > use JI.
> >
> >
>
> Ok, Paul :)
>
> Do you remember also you purpose(99.99%...) ? :)
> You found every time what to respond, but you shoose
> first only a part of subject...
> Is'nt too easy so ? ;)

I don't understand. Peut-etre en francais?

--- In tuning@y..., Latchezar Dimitrov <latchezar_d@y...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_28645.html#28856

>
> Well, Jon,
>
> You are right-I feel the same when I read about most
> of articles here, and I'm really bored when I listen
> microtonal music also...Will look for other group soon
> and will stop to writing and participate,np...
> Will learn english ect. :)
>
> Have fun
>
> Dimitrov
>

This is probably a good idea, Latch... although in defense of this
group I would have to say that I, personally, have learned a *lot*
about *very* traditional kinds of historical tunings here: meantone,
various "well-temperaments" all using 12-notes per octave and even
different approaches, philosophies and histories of 12-tET.

So, even though most of the members here are excited about *truly*
alternate tunings, there has been *much* discussion of very
traditional tunings here also...

So, I'm not really so certain where you are going to go...

__________ _________ ________
Joseph Pehrson

I didn't realize the list was talking about Kyle Gann recently. Haven't
been keeping up with it very well. Basically, what I want to do
(presented in my earlier post) is to recreate his own experiment
(described on another page on his site;
http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/histune.html)

<clip>

I've done experiments with students at Bard and Bucknell, playing
preludes from the W.T.C. in different keys on a sampled piano tuned to
Kirnberger III; say, playing the C major prelude in B, C, and D
(computer-sequenced, so that the quality of the transposed performances
wasn't a factor). Especially at Bard, the students could invariably pick
which was the appropriate key for each prelude. In keys with poor
consonances, like F# major, Bach will pass quickly by the major third,
and the slight touches of dissonance give the prelude a bright, sparkly
air. In more consonant keys, as in the C major prelude, the tonality is
much more mellow, and Bach can afford to dwell on the tonic triad. Each
key has a different color (as opposed to the uniform color of all keys
in equal termperament), and even (or especially!) the unpracticed ear
can hear appropriate and inappropriate correspondences between the
character of each prelude and the color of each key. Of course, there
are preludes that sound fine in more than one key; but it's
disconcerting to move a prelude to a distant key, such as from Bb to B,
or C# minor to Eb minor.

</clip>

Except he told me personally that his site was wrong, he meant to put
Werckmeister III instead of Kirnberger. I did figure out how to use
Scala's MIDI retune feature, but it appears that when I retune the
prelude, it's always retuned based on whatever key I've transposed it
in. For example, I transposed the prelude to D and Scala retuned it to
Werckmeister III, it based the Werckmeister retuning on D. It put all
D's into channel 1, Eb's in channel 2, etc. instead of tuning it still
with C's in channel 1. So basically I ended with the exact same thing
as I started with, transposed up a step. How can I retune a file in D
to Werckmeister III (based on C)?

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Brad Beyenhof wrote:
>How can I retune a file in D to Werckmeister III (based on C)?

You can do one of two things. After loading werck3.scl, type
"key 2" and that will put the scale in the key of D. Then
retune the MIDI-file.
Or change the current keyboard mapping (look at it with
SHOW MAPPING). If you want note number 62 mapped to the 1/1,
use SET MIDDLE. Then you also might want to adapt the
reference frequency, otherwise it will sound lower.
Anyway there's no need to transpose the MIDI-file first what you
did. If these things aren't adequately described in the help
text, let me know.

Manuel

This post brings up a question I've had for awhile now. I notice that
some people apparently believe that Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier was
written for Kirnberger's temperament and others mention Werckmeister.
I know, for example, that Johnny Reinhard uses Werckmeister III. Yet
I still see references here and there to Kirnberger as the one.

I thought this was resolved as Werckmeister's, but wondering. Thanks!

--- In tuning@y..., "Brad Beyenhof" <tenorhead@y...> wrote:
> I didn't realize the list was talking about Kyle Gann recently.
Haven't
> been keeping up with it very well. Basically, what I want to do
> (presented in my earlier post) is to recreate his own experiment
> (described on another page on his site;
> http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/histune.html)
>
> <clip>
>
> I've done experiments with students at Bard and Bucknell, playing
> preludes from the W.T.C. in different keys on a sampled piano tuned
to
> Kirnberger III; say, playing the C major prelude in B, C, and D
> (computer-sequenced, so that the quality of the transposed
performances
> wasn't a factor). Especially at Bard, the students could invariably
pick
> which was the appropriate key for each prelude. In keys with poor
> consonances, like F# major, Bach will pass quickly by the major
third,
> and the slight touches of dissonance give the prelude a bright,
sparkly
> air. In more consonant keys, as in the C major prelude, the
tonality is
> much more mellow, and Bach can afford to dwell on the tonic triad.
Each
> key has a different color (as opposed to the uniform color of all
keys
> in equal termperament), and even (or especially!) the unpracticed
ear
> can hear appropriate and inappropriate correspondences between the
> character of each prelude and the color of each key. Of course,
there
> are preludes that sound fine in more than one key; but it's
> disconcerting to move a prelude to a distant key, such as from Bb
to B,
> or C# minor to Eb minor.
>
> </clip>
>
> Except he told me personally that his site was wrong, he meant to
put
> Werckmeister III instead of Kirnberger. I did figure out how to use
> Scala's MIDI retune feature, but it appears that when I retune the
> prelude, it's always retuned based on whatever key I've transposed
it
> in. For example, I transposed the prelude to D and Scala retuned
it to
> Werckmeister III, it based the Werckmeister retuning on D. It put
all
> D's into channel 1, Eb's in channel 2, etc. instead of tuning it
still
> with C's in channel 1. So basically I ended with the exact same
thing
> as I started with, transposed up a step. How can I retune a file
in D
> to Werckmeister III (based on C)?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

I also have a question for Johnny Reinhard or anyone else who chooses
to answer it:

I thought Bach wrote the WTC to demonstrate to others the properties
of this tuning (Werckmeister III, I assume). Does this not imply the
continued widespread use of other tunings? And why did Bach restrict
his inventions to the keys normally available in the meantone
variants if he never used temperaments other than Werckmeister?

I've always had the impression that Bach was showing off the SPECIAL
characteristics of a SPECIAL tuning for the time. I think Johnny has
studied this more deeply than just about anyone in this group, but I
would welcome any and all contributions.

--- In tuning@y..., "Brad Beyenhof" <tenorhead@y...> wrote:
> I didn't realize the list was talking about Kyle Gann recently.
Haven't
> been keeping up with it very well. Basically, what I want to do
> (presented in my earlier post) is to recreate his own experiment
> (described on another page on his site;
> http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/histune.html)
>
> <clip>
>
> I've done experiments with students at Bard and Bucknell, playing
> preludes from the W.T.C. in different keys on a sampled piano tuned
to
> Kirnberger III; say, playing the C major prelude in B, C, and D
> (computer-sequenced, so that the quality of the transposed
performances
> wasn't a factor). Especially at Bard, the students could invariably
pick
> which was the appropriate key for each prelude. In keys with poor
> consonances, like F# major, Bach will pass quickly by the major
third,
> and the slight touches of dissonance give the prelude a bright,
sparkly
> air. In more consonant keys, as in the C major prelude, the
tonality is
> much more mellow, and Bach can afford to dwell on the tonic triad.
Each
> key has a different color (as opposed to the uniform color of all
keys
> in equal termperament), and even (or especially!) the unpracticed
ear
> can hear appropriate and inappropriate correspondences between the
> character of each prelude and the color of each key. Of course,
there
> are preludes that sound fine in more than one key; but it's
> disconcerting to move a prelude to a distant key, such as from Bb
to B,
> or C# minor to Eb minor.
>
> </clip>
>
> Except he told me personally that his site was wrong, he meant to
put
> Werckmeister III instead of Kirnberger. I did figure out how to use
> Scala's MIDI retune feature, but it appears that when I retune the
> prelude, it's always retuned based on whatever key I've transposed
it
> in. For example, I transposed the prelude to D and Scala retuned
it to
> Werckmeister III, it based the Werckmeister retuning on D. It put
all
> D's into channel 1, Eb's in channel 2, etc. instead of tuning it
still
> with C's in channel 1. So basically I ended with the exact same
thing
> as I started with, transposed up a step. How can I retune a file
in D
> to Werckmeister III (based on C)?
>
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> I also have a question for Johnny Reinhard or anyone else who
chooses
> to answer it:
>
> I thought Bach wrote the WTC to demonstrate to others the
properties
> of this tuning (Werckmeister III, I assume). Does this not imply
the
> continued widespread use of other tunings?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but other tunings were very
widespread in most regions of Europe at the time, and for some time
thereafter. Mozart taught string players to use meantone intonation
(probably close to 1/6-comma), and 1/4-comma meantone for organs
persisted in England and Spain through about 1850.

> And why did Bach restrict
> his inventions to the keys normally available in the meantone
> variants if he never used temperaments other than Werckmeister?

I'm not sure, but I think the evidence is that in Bach's geographic
region, Werckmeister III or something like it was already entrenched
during Bach's youth. If you want to see a composer whose output
transitions from meantone to well-tempered, look to Buxtehude.

--- In tuning@y..., BobWendell@t... wrote:
> This post brings up a question I've had for awhile now. I notice
that
> some people apparently believe that Bach's Well-Tempered Clavier
was
> written for Kirnberger's temperament and others mention
Werckmeister.
> I know, for example, that Johnny Reinhard uses Werckmeister III.
Yet
> I still see references here and there to Kirnberger as the one.
>
> I thought this was resolved as Werckmeister's, but wondering.
Thanks!

The main contenders are Werckmeister III and the Kellner Bach
temperament. The only noticeable difference between the two is the
fifth A-E, which is just in WIII but tempered in Kellner.