Re: [tuning] Re: Prime Rarity? & Christmas Bach

Well, since the WKCR antenna was atop the World Trade Center, it has only
partially recovered. South of midtown and outer boroughs and states could
not receive its signal. 60 people were listening real time through the
Internet (as we checked).

I'm used to a torrent of telephone calls during this program...and there were
none. A CD of most of the interview was made but I have not received it to
date.

I thought I had some new things to add about Bach on this show, but it would
be tough to list in this e-mail. As soon as all the Ives materials are
complete, I will leap into work on a book on Bach's Tuning.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

Hi, Johnny! I'm recalling a thread between you and Kellner regarding
Bach's tuning. I was never clear on how that washed out for you? Did
you buy his thinking on dividing the P-comma into 5 parts instead of
4 and putting one of them between A and E instead of the commonly
accepted Werckmeister III, which divides the comma into 4 and leaves
out the fifth between A and E. Both, of course, put one of the
reductions between B and F#?

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Well, since the WKCR antenna was atop the World Trade Center, it
has only
> partially recovered. South of midtown and outer boroughs and
states could
> not receive its signal. 60 people were listening real time through
the
> Internet (as we checked).
>
> I'm used to a torrent of telephone calls during this program...and
there were
> none. A CD of most of the interview was made but I have not
received it to
> date.
>
> I thought I had some new things to add about Bach on this show, but
it would
> be tough to list in this e-mail. As soon as all the Ives materials
are
> complete, I will leap into work on a book on Bach's Tuning.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 1/8/02 1:35:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
BobWendell@technet-inc.com writes:

> Hi, Johnny! I'm recalling a thread between you and Kellner regarding
> Bach's tuning. I was never clear on how that washed out for you? Did
> you buy his thinking on dividing the P-comma into 5 parts instead of
> 4 and putting one of them between A and E instead of the commonly
> accepted Werckmeister III, which divides the comma into 4 and leaves
> out the fifth between A and E. Both, of course, put one of the
> reductions between B and F#?
>

Well, actually, no. Kellner's actual difference from Werckmeister chromatic
is negligible. He may, though, have been early in understanding Bach as not
equal temperament as a result of his inquiries.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

Yes, I agree that the only difference in practice is that it improves
the third between C and E and also between G and B only very
incrementally and the other aspects of the tuning change even less.

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/8/02 1:35:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> BobWendell@t... writes:
>
>
> > Hi, Johnny! I'm recalling a thread between you and Kellner
regarding
> > Bach's tuning. I was never clear on how that washed out for you?
Did
> > you buy his thinking on dividing the P-comma into 5 parts instead
of
> > 4 and putting one of them between A and E instead of the commonly
> > accepted Werckmeister III, which divides the comma into 4 and
leaves
> > out the fifth between A and E. Both, of course, put one of the
> > reductions between B and F#?
> >
>
> Well, actually, no. Kellner's actual difference from Werckmeister
chromatic
> is negligible. He may, though, have been early in understanding
Bach as not
> equal temperament as a result of his inquiries.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 1/8/02 3:30:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
BobWendell@technet-inc.com writes:

> Yes, I agree that the only difference in practice is that it improves
> the third between C and E and also between G and B only very
> incrementally and the other aspects of the tuning change even less.
>
>
>

Ah, but I disagree with you in that is does not "improve" but hinders.
Melodic lines are truncated by it, while there is no lengthy, static harmony
in Bach to take advantage of "less-beating" intervals.

J.S. Bach is the glory of all sound between JI and the cycle of fifths.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 1/8/02 3:30:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> BobWendell@t... writes:
>
>
> > Yes, I agree that the only difference in practice is that it
improves
> > the third between C and E and also between G and B only very
> > incrementally and the other aspects of the tuning change even
less.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Ah, but I disagree with you in that is does not "improve" but
hinders.
> Melodic lines are truncated by it, while there is no lengthy,
static harmony
> in Bach to take advantage of "less-beating" intervals.

>
> J.S. Bach is the glory of all sound between JI and the cycle of
fifths.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard

Bob:
And the best to you in this new and hopefully much better year,
Johnny! Well, I was just agreeing with you that the difference is
quite small. With all due respect, that was your statement; not mine,
Johnny. My language, namely the word "improves", only meant to refer
to the incontrovertible fact that it tunes them closer to the pure JI
interval, but only marginally so as you pointed out yourself in the
post to which I was responding.

--- In tuning@y..., "robert_wendell" <BobWendell@t...> wrote:

> Yes, I agree that the only difference in practice is that it
improves
> the third between C and E and also between G and B only very
> incrementally and the other aspects of the tuning change even less.

What about the fact that the fifth A-E is just in one tuning but
noticeably beating in the other? That would seem to be a far more
important difference, particularly for pieces with a long sustained A
major or A minor chord.

>
>
> --- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 1/8/02 1:35:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > BobWendell@t... writes:
> >
> >
> > > Hi, Johnny! I'm recalling a thread between you and Kellner
> regarding
> > > Bach's tuning. I was never clear on how that washed out for
you?
> Did
> > > you buy his thinking on dividing the P-comma into 5 parts
instead
> of
> > > 4 and putting one of them between A and E instead of the
commonly
> > > accepted Werckmeister III, which divides the comma into 4 and
> leaves
> > > out the fifth between A and E. Both, of course, put one of the
> > > reductions between B and F#?
> > >
> >
> > Well, actually, no. Kellner's actual difference from
Werckmeister
> chromatic
> > is negligible. He may, though, have been early in understanding
> Bach as not
> > equal temperament as a result of his inquiries.
> >
> > Best, Johnny Reinhard