Re: Fwd: Re: [tuning] Abstract/Summary: 'Pure harmony'/ 'Reyne harmonie' in Alkmaar

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/7/03 3:22:05 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ibo.ortgies@m... writes:

>>The hypothesis that organ builder
>>Frans Caspar Schnitger tuned the organ in this modern way as early
>>as 1725, however, turns out to be incorrect; Schnitger used the
>>standard temperament of those days, which means that the organ had
>>a traditional meantone temperament with pure thirds. This fact is
>>corroborated by the history of the pitch of organs; by the history
>>of music, which shows that organs were used in combination with
>>other instrument, making it obligatory for the organist to
>>transpose every now and then; and by the fact that the meantone
>>temperament was the standard temperament to the Northern German
>>organ building tradition to which Schnitger belonged.

> Is this Schnitger related to Arp Schnitger

yes
Frans Caspar Schnitger (senior) was a son of Arp Schnitger

> who was Andreas Werckmeister's friend?

Arp Schnitger knew Werckmeister.
And Schnitger met Buxtehude, as well as Werckmeister.

Whether all these were already friends, only because they lived in
the same larger region and in the same era and met once or twice,
we don't know enough!
Too easily links and conclusions have been drawn from very few
evidence.

Yes, Arp Schnitger wrote a praise poem for Werckmeister's
"Orgelprobe" and he visited him once.

But the evidence in preserved evidence in documents of Schnitger
organs shows only meantone temperament in his work (today only 2
of his organs have his soundscape in terms of temperament:
Lüdingworth and Eenum. Stade-Cosmae and Norden are next best
approximations, though "modifications" can't be proven anywhere).
regarding the usual terminology of the time applied to standard
meantone temperament in examination reports in Norther Germany and
the Netherlands (like "pure harmony", "pure accord" etc.). Around
the many documents on organs of and around schnitger, there is not
one, showing that he or his contemporaries in Northern Germany
used something different from meantone temperament. All arguments
for well-temperaments have not been derived from physical or
documented evidence!

Schnitger praises especially the use of Werckmeister's advice how
to examine an organ (that is what he wrote the "Orgelprobe" for).
Unlike today, organ examinations were a work of days (up to 10,
even 20 days in large organs). But as a famous North German
organist in 1710 wrote, the temperament is the most important in
organ examination: It was Schnitger's friend (really!), the
organist Vincent Lübeck, for 40 years at the brand new, largest
4-manual-organ from Schnitger in St. Nikolai, Hamburg. And
especially Vincent Lübeck praised 1698 in the examination of the
also totally new Schnitger-organ in Bremen-Dom (cathedral) that
the (unspecified) temperament was excellently carried out. And
from the reports in 1755 we learn that that organ was still in
meantone temperament. (This is only a small and well-known part of
the evidence, which I'll go to present in my future diss. - a lot
more to come)

And I can't help to see some irony in Schnitger's poem towards
Andreas Werckmeister:

"What would it (the organ, "das Orgelwerck") be, if it
would be full of defects [Faut=Fehler]?
What purpose should the organ serve then [in such a
defective state]? It would sound strange.
Take away from this art the pure harmony [!]
and look [notice]! a mere howling will remain here,"
"...
Was aber wolt es seyn, wenn es wär voller Fauten
Was solt die Orgel denn? Sie würde seltzam lauuten.
Nim Weg von dieser Kunst die reine Harmonie,
Und schau! ein bloß Geheul wird über bleiben hie,
..."

And Werckmeister in all his writings (lots about temperament)
mentions Schnitger once: when it comes to the weight of pipes.
As W. himself states, he considered the organ builders to be
stubborn and they wouldn't do his wonderful new ideas. And in his
later writings he is desperate to defend him agianst all the
"nerds". If Schnitger or Buxtehude would be of any support, why
didn't they support Werckmeister's ideas. Why doesn't he report
on any actual organ (if ther were one), where people could hear
something, at least similar to his ideas (same is true for his
colleague and friend Bendeler's writings and well-tempered
suggestions!).
The only organ builder he vaguely connects to temperament in all
his 25 years of many publications is Zacharias Thayssner, and only
once - though they cooperated 1677 on the new organ in
Quedlinburg, where Werckmeister and Bendeler were in charge. And
there and in his writings he fails to report, which temperament
Thayssner actually tuned.

Friends? May be. They knew each other, may be agreed on many
things. The discussion in printed matter on the temperament issues
did obviosly not belong to the items they agreed upon.
Practice vs. theory?

In Northern Germany and the Netherlands in many cases, even large
city organs, it took sometimes until far into the 19th century
until they got tuned to another temperament... and equal
temperament (approx.) was then already a frequent or even
"natural" choice - if the organ was not even replaced completely!

> best, Johnny Reinhard

best
Ibo Ortgies

Office: FON +46 31 773 5208 - FAX +46 31 773 5200