Re: Werckmeister, Schnitger Buxtehude etc.

Hi Johnny and all

this my last statement on this matter here

I ask the list to judge everyone for himself from the arguments
exchanged here.
Instead I'm called for no reason as "conservative", questions my
listening abilities,

The best is:
> From where I sit, mine is the important new
> research, while you are sitting on the status quo.

From my side the discussion is closed, since Johnny Reinhard
doesn't present any evidence to support his case.

At the end of this letter I say

However in science I'll not give in to
- unsufficient or non existing evidence,
- reasoning on no basis or personal preferences and prejudices,
derived from irrelevant modern practice, nor
- unscientific methods.

I have better things to do than to keep up this until now useless
discussion - I'll turn back to scientific research on temperament
practice.

Best
Ibo Ortgies

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

I wrote
>> Schnitger
>> worked in the much larger Dutch town, which is today
>> famous for its Schnitger-tradition:
>> GRONINGEN.

Johnny Reinhard answered
> JR: Of course, I did not have the two cities confused in
> my head. I just couldn't get the umlaut to happen in an
> e-mail. J

fine!

>> Ibo: Btw, with Gröningen (GrOEningen) we are sometimes leaving
>> now the North German area to the "middle-German" Thuringian
>> and Saxon tradition, which - in a few documented examples -
>> turned earlier to well-temperaments and equal temperament.

> JR: And of course "equal temperament" is a well-temperament.

There are different opinions about that, already in history
But I would agree from a mere practical standpoint.

Historically we have to research it for every single author and
make clear as much as possible what exactly he is talking about.

Systematically, I would prefer to make a difference between
temperaments like
- meantone,
- (may be) modified meantone,
- well-temperaments with
- regular comma-divisions
- irregular comma-parts
- irregular distribution of regular comma divisions

Then of course the differenciation of the purpose has to come.

In this case - Werckmeister for example:
He designed his (today) best known temperament (W III) with
1/4-p.comma division not as the one and only temperament,
gernerally to be used, but for the irregular modes or the "Genus
Chromaticum". On the other hand for the regular modes or "Genus
Diatonicum" he designed his 3rd-p.comma based suggestion - both
side to side to be found in his "Musicalische Temperatur" 1691, p.
77 ff.).
Btw, on page 79-81, he takes the effort to describe only more
exact this 3rd-p.comma-temperament - and nopt the W III. And he
notes that, since the beat(rate)s usually are not hit right
easily, one has to correct until it sounds tolerabel (whatever
that might be) - he was a practitioner, too, knowing that his
systems were just one suggestion among other possibilities.

Anyway, if Werckmeister designs his temperaments differently for
different purposes, - here according to the modes - how could we
say that only W III might be more apt, except when arguing not
from any (historical) evidence but from mere personal preference,
or "experiences", which were back then as indivdual as today -
meaningles for analysis of the actual status of an historic organ.

> The trend of "unequal temperament" in a circle of keys seems
> to have skipped Nederland,

yes, but not without one or the other exception - even in the beginning of the 1800s I have one example of a Ducth report,
speaking of Kirnberger's temperament (probably K III)

> but not Thuringia and Anhalt-Sachsen, and parts of Saxony,
> Hamburg, and Lubeck.

My English is may be not good enough (my "old German" works better
:-) Do I understand you

a)
the trend towards (of) well-temwell skipped Thuringia,
Sachsen-Anhalt and parts of Saxony, as well as it skipped Hamburg
an Lübeck

or b)
The trend towards (of) well skipped Thuringia, Sachsen-Anhalt
but *not* parts of Saxony, as well as it skipped Hamburg an Lübeck

Both I can't be claimed

In Thuringia and Saxony we have a few documented examples of an
earlier developing well-tempered
In Sachsen-Anhalt we have the example from Werckmeisters direct
influence - only reported only in Gröningen and Quedlinburg (there
unspecific) - however in the big cities like Magdeburg organs were
tuned in meantone in Werckmeisters time, being retuned only way
after his death (1706)

>> Ibo: (After lengthy examples of his own…) What is your material?

> JR: Beginning with a Columbia University Masters thesis
> called "Bach's Tuning," I have made 5 visits to Germany,
> the last 4 to study the world of Bach and to eventually
> write a book called Bach's Tuning.

> To that effect, I
> have performed or produced numerous Bach works in numerous
> tunings, always to prefer Werckmeister III for musical
> reasons. As a musician, I believe the music reveals
> more than the book readings that musicologists are most
> sensitive to.

I appreciate your musicianship. But what exactly do you need the
ttravels then for, if you already from your excellence as musician
believe to be able to draw conclusions about the history of
temperament practice?
As many others I also have my musical experiences and preferences
derived from that: From nearly 3 decades of making music - up to
solistic ensemble music (which I had to stop beginning of the 90s
due to other obligations), but also as a professional harpsichord
tuner for concerts or on recordings (s. my work for the Tomkins
complete keyboard works with Bernhard Klapprott on MDG or MD & G,
4 CDs - 3 of which I tuned for).

As a musician I believe, that we can't get enough histoorical
information - and then make an artistic decision when it comes to
the performance. Usually we have only a fraction of the knowledge
of a specific historic situation or historic condition. It can't be expressed in numbers, but as a magnitude or proportion, one
reasonably will not exceed more than 1% of the total necessary
knowledge. This means that in the magnitude of 99 % "modern"
thoughts, prejudices and preferences will come into any
performance, making any performance automatically a modern
performance.
At the same time this makes performance always "artistic", beyond
science or scientific consideration. In other words: I don't want
to hear experiments (which I'm interested as scientist), but I'm
interested in the artistic result (as musician, music lover).

But from that small and vague perfomance basis a valid judgement
or an evaluation of a previous historical situation can not be
drawn. Not even for temperaments.

> I don't mean to offend, but there is seldom
> a day that goes by when I am not still shocked that a
> musicologist has missed the boat on something that is
> "obvious" to certain musicians (and, of course, certain
> musicologists).

I don't care whether someone calls himself or is regarded as a
musician, a musicologist, or whatever - as long as s/he supports
arguments by evidence and not by his/her preference. As it comes
to history, arguments have to be based on historical sources.
Personal preferences for example for a certain temperament are by
definition no evidence - except for the individual, who brings it
forward.

And as a musically and musicologically educated person, I'm daily
wondering (not being shocked anymore, because it is so normal)
that musicians take their emotional and half-knowledge as basis to
judge and draw conclusions about history.
I do hope, however, of course that you don't do so - as you are
also doing musicological research and being a musician.

Research and modern musical practice should be helping other. But
research is there to put forward the evidence and to - as much as
possible - clarify, verify and objectify knowledge. It is not the
tool for defending personal preferences or even worse, prejudices, though frequently abused to do so.
Researchers in musicology might make findings, which contradict
modern views on performance - might even contradict the new myths
of historical informed performance (HIP) practice, even generally
held views, on topics, of which everyone seems to know the contrary.
I'm certainly an ardent representant of HIP, but (deriving from
Adorno's famous title) I think it is necessary to "defend" HIP
"against its devotees" - by collecting and constantly widening
knowledge. We don't need believers in the field who don't want to
see evidence contradicting them, but we need knowledgeable people who.
Temperament is one field of building historical myths, others are
also fields of mixing individual (historical and modern)
preferences to find explanatory systems, which please us so much
nowadays: "key characteristics", "rhetorics" and "affects" - and
tempi.

>>> As you said, you don't need to bring Werckmeister into your
>>>dissertation.
>>>I would hate to upset your track to graduation. ;)

>> Ibo: Thanks for the concern - just wonder why I should not
>> know, what belongs to my diss. topic or not.

> JR: Now, I don't think you mean to get sarcastic, not with
> so many nice and juicy fact morsels below. If you check
> above, I have used an ironic icon to indicate that I am
> not being "earnestly" serious.

OK, I didn't know that sign - only one of the many misprints in
our mails. I appreciate good irony and humour, but it is in a
multi-lingual surrounding with non-english-speakers like me
probably my fault that I don't get all nuances. May be better to
be very clear.

> Ø However, there are other sources. Have you checked

>>Werckmeister's own report of 1705 about the Groningen
>>temperament change? It has just been published
>>in English.

>> [Didn't find it - can you provide us with the bibliographical data)

>> I can only hope that the translators didn't mess it up further
>> about (wrong) GrOningen, instead of (right) GrÖningen.

> JR: Krieger, Marcos Fernando. Dissertation: An English Translation and
> Commentary on Andreas Werckmeister's Organun Gruningense Redivivum
> ... University of Nebraska, 1998.

Thanks

>> Ibo: It is however always more than advisable to read the facsimile.
>> Many Germans nowadays misinterpret old German, because many words or
>> idiomatic phrases changed meaning, sometimes slightly,
>> sometimes more. Still some sentences, words might not be
>> understood at all. I always wonder how much translators are
>> aware about things like this. The reprint is: Werckmeister,
>> Andreas. Organum Gruningense redivivum. Quedlinburg and
Aschersleben,
>> 1705. Reprint,
>> ed. Paul
>> Smets. Mainz 1932.

> JR: Thank you. I have both, thanks to a recent visit
> to Indiana University Library. You are quite right
> about reading Werckmeister's German. Mizler
> and Huygens and Rasch have criticized Werckmeister's
> "bad" German.

W.'s German is not that bad or funny.
Authors have often failed to see that a local and colloquial use of language might differ from other standards. People from other
regions and/or eras like Huygens (Dutch, 17th century), Mizler
(German 18th century) Rasch (German?, Dutch 20th century) might
not see that socio- and historical-liinguistic fact.

> However, I had the good fortune to stay with Herr Lichtwitz
> of the great library in Wolfenbuttal

this is Wolfenbuettel (better: Wolfenbüttel)
the famous Herzog-August-Bibliothek,

> while making one of my travels. His wife Vertrude

Is really 'Vertrude' her name?

> was native to this area

in which the use of language since Werckmeister has changed
significantly,

> and good easily translate aloud in almost real time.

which I won't doubt.

> She found Werckmeister's writing - and I concurred - funny
> and erudite.
> There were many double entendres and "paradoxes."

>> Ibo: Werckmeister does not specify any precise temperament
>> to which that organ had been retuned. However he mentions
>> only precisely that the organ was tuned before in the "old,
>> so called Praetorian" temperament (i. e. meantone)

> JR: Wasn't it his pride to write things up because his
> temperament was chosen? Why else?

Yes of course, because as he himself stated in print 1697, that
the organ builders are so stubborn and don't follow his new
temperament suggestions. Which he by the way constantly changed,
added, admitted change, corrections tec. from book to book which
he published.

> Ø Werckmeister doesn't mention other people enough (everyone

>>he does mention is listed in Walther's Lexicon).

>> Ibo: The retuning in Gröningen which Werckmeister
>> vaguely describes was a single case, not representative
>> at all for the temperament practice. Not even in W.'s region
>> - as several known examples up to the late 1730s show.

> JR: So here, you seem to accept the logic of a single
> case. We must take one at a time.

that is what I'm doing mainly - taking one organ examination
report after the other, or other documents (archival or
transcribed in publication or printed descriptions of actual
organs and therir temperaments).
And I can assure you not one single of the cases (for the time and
areas I'm researching in) the well-tempered assumtions of modern
researches could withstand the documented evidence.

> For me, it is with Bach that I can begin to check other
> cases.

and for me it is the organs, which were not just retuned, because
even a Bach came along for a visit.

> There is a logic in using Werckmeister III in his music
> that I will attempt to expose sometime soon. I am sorry,
> I must disagree with some of your assumptions about
> Central German churches and their temperament.

You are welcome, if you can base your assumtions on evidence and
not only on your convictions or beliefs - however respeectful they
may be from a modern performance view.

> There are more churches per square inch in this area than
> anywhere on earth, and so many church organs where a
> chromatacist as Bach

Let me guess for once: Bach certainly would disagree with this
categorization.

> could be welcomed.

Of course he would be welcomed - and he would have to take what
was available.

>> Ibo: In the North the same development starts and can be seen
>> between ca. 1760-1830 (+- 20 years) - since it came so late
>> in the North, Werckmeister's ideas came often "too late"
>> for retuning the still meantone organ - most often we can
>> find indications of retunings from meantone directly
>> into ET (with all the organ building problems I sketched
>> above)

> JR: The above is true in Holland, yes: but not Thuringia.

What are your statistics for Thuringia. You just correctly stated
that the area is crowded with churches in many smaller and greater
places. Of how many exactly do you have any evidence about the
status of the organ in Bach's lifetime 1685-1750?

> Werckmeister was not "too late."

I meant his several temperament suggestions, which came so "late",
that they often were overrun instead by (intended) Equal temperament.

> He was early. His first publication was 1681 (the year
> Telemann was born in Magdeburg (which had been completely
> destroyed in 1631 by the Thirty-years War).

Thanks, I know these facts well and the Magdeburg-case - a real
war crime - played a role in my research on Matthias Weckman[n]'s
biography (s. references in the new edition of the New Grove)

> Before he was to publish in Quedlinburg he travelled….even
> to Amsterdam.

No,
at least if you didn't find evidence for that in some archive -
that would be really exciting!

As the conference-reports from the Werckmeister-Kolloquium 1985
(published in Michaelstein, 1986) and Rudolf Rasch's research (in
his facsimile edition of the "Musicalische Temperatur" Utrecht,
1983) showed there is no journey to Amsterdam known, nor indicated
somewhere.
I think yo mix the information up:
Werckmeister's second enlarged edition (1698) of his "Orgelprobe"
(first, 1681), the edition Leipzig 1754 got translated into
Dutch. It was published namely in Amsterdam, and is the only
connection of Werckmeister to the Dutch capital
By the way, that was 48 years after Werckmeister's death. I think
that is really a dead link.

Translator was Jacob Wilhelm Lustig (*1706 in Hamburg,
Werckmeisters' death year). After grwon up in the meantone Hamburg
he became organist at the large (meantone) Schnitger-organ in
GrOningen (Netherlands). tchaaa, and he became a proponent of
equal temperament, at first for ensemble music, later 1760s even
for organs - as the documents from Vlissingen show clearly. The
rather close time coincidence with the ET-retuning in Alkmaar 1765
is tempting to think that he might have been involved in the
background - but no evidence at all points to that! (But wiith
personal preferences others might easily conclude that, too)
In his Dutch translation Lustig substantially enlarged and
annotated the text, to adapt it to the contemporary Dutch
situation, most likely even showing Lustig's wish to influence it.
There is a facsimile available, Baarn: de Praestantpers, 1968

> And he likely spoke Dutch!

Sorry can't help - as W's German is assumed to be so terrible, why
should he try to spoil Dutch, too - especially when he probably
didn't get there?

> He was a Johnny
> Appleseed of tuning ideas he had called a natural consequence
> of Praetorian quarter-comma meantone. He doesn't claim to
> originate the idea, not does he name it.

Which idea? Meantone -temperament? He couldn't claim that, since
it was in use before Praetorius 1619, and before Zqarlino's
description in 1571 and before Pietro A(a)ron and before Ramis de
Parejas practical description in 1482.

> In fact we don't have a face to put on him.

[Probably people today would think it to be funny, too, like his
language]

>>The organ builder Wender of Muhlhausen preferred to use
>>Werckmeister's tuning.

> Ibo: Nothing proves that - It is an assumption on shiny chronological
> and geographical coincidences

> JR: It is musicology.

No, bad methods occur in any science - actually often they can't
be considered to be science, but novel writing.

> Ø Ahle, Bach's predecessor in Muhlhausen, was indeed friends

>>with W. (including things about W. in his prose and
>>voluminous writings). It would appear

> It would, yes, and might appear so to some.
> But the historical documents available until now on Wender do not
> back up the assumptions enough, to conclude which exact temperament
> he might have used.

> JR: As I read it, you are endorsing a very conservative view,

On the contrary: Since my view is obviously new and people are
getting stirred up from their comfy well-tempered chairs, I would
consider the results of my (largely unpublished research, of which
I give here a glance) as brand new. Of course I relyo many others
valuable and respected research - in that, however, I'm truly
conservative.

> one that misattributes the influence of Andreas Werckmeister
> on early German music.

Your evidence please for this assumtion, on what I do.

> There was no one before Werckmeister to present a tuning
> that would do what was musically necessary.

No, since professional musicians and organ builders advocated
meantone temperaments before, in the time and past Werckmeister,
they were not just nuts.

Take the differenciating view of the Bremen cDom (cathedral)
organist Grave who advocated 1755 for keeping the meantone
temperament in the (Schnitger)-organ, because it is better for the
liturgical function the organ, though he says that he would
prefer ET for accompanying the ensemble music (a pattern of
argument, which we find in Mattheson's and other writer's
publications already around 1730). However he states, that the
ensemble music is not as important issue in his church, so the
"Praetorian" temperament should be kept. The organ was retuned 20
years later - direct to ET! (A bunch of similar cases and
arguments are known to me).

How would we "characterize" Mr. Grave:
- "conservative" because he let's the meantone temperament
stay in the organ, since it serves well the required
or recognized function (in the liturgy)
- "progressive" as he propses equal temperament for ensemble
music accompaniment
- "moderate", "opportunistic" or "functional" as he judges in
general from the function of the organ

Our modern political labels "conservative" etc. may remain in the
drawers, for my part.

> In some likelihood, Bach's uncle Johann Christoph Bach
> may have had one of those "bumps" into the 3-year younger
> Werckmeister.

> And Christoph spoke Dutch as well!

If you referred here to the unproven and unlikely knowledge of
Dutch of Werckmeister -> s. above.

>
> Ø that Bach walked into an already tuned Werckmeister

>> Ibo: Nothing is known, which sufficiently would confirm
>> this or support it.
>> Do you know what the examination reports from these
>> organ specify about the temperament?

> JR: Have you never heard the difference between
> equal tempered Buxtehude and Werckmeister III tuned
> Buxtehude? It is night and day.

Hear hear! I tuned these myself frequently, and with some pieces
W III gives a fine result, with others even ET works, others again
don't reject a Vallotti ... Some work in every surrounding.

Plus, the voicing, registration and the room can do incredible
much to lead astray even experiencesd people.

So what could we gain from our today's listening experience -
where we already do not agree. How would you know that Buxtehude
or Werckmeister would agree to your personal prefeerence, and not
to mine?

> Ø organ in both Arnstadt and Muhlhausen. No less

>>than Kuhnau spoke of Wender's insistence on Werckmeister
>>tuning.

> Ibo: Please provide a reference for this: when did Kuhnau
> state this, and which exactly of Werckmeister's several
> temperaments does he refer to?

> JR: It is from the Bach-archiv article you referenced.
> And since Sorge and others have credited Werckmeister's
> third listing is his actual favorite, this is
> historically the better choice.

No - as there is no historical evidence for that, it can't prove
the historical validity.

I have taken contact to Markus Rathey by the way and sent him my
concerns about his article - we had some mail exchange on that and
he is still thinking about it.

He convinced himself of his assumtions to become "facts" in the
course of the article. What he claims to be assumtive in the
beginning, returns at the end as historical reality, without any
proof or evidence delivered.

> Musical Temperament (1691) gives quite short shrift to
> Werckmeister IV and V, etc.

> It is important to point out that every single book
> Werckmeister published through 1707

He died in 1706

> refers back to his 1691 publication (which was sold in Leipzig
> and Frankfort).

Frankfurt, yes

> He never failed to favor purer intervals in diatonic
> keys.

Yes as he says about ET that he thinks is a good choice, too!
But he admits that he himself would like to keep some thirds
slightly better.

But to what is he referring, too. Remember, that the purpose of
the temperament, but also the purpose of instrument it was
designed for, plays a decisive role.

> Incidentally, I just conducted "Where is the newborn
> king of the Jews" in Werckmeister III.

The temperament of the continuo doesn't play a larger role:

See my contribution on the harpsichord list
"temperament - ensemble intonation"
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0301&L=hpschd-l&P=R3618
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0301&L=hpschd-l&P=R4534

> I liked his Christmas Cantata, mainly because it was fun
> and demonstrated well his skills in composition and form.
> Two older women approached right afterwards asking
> where the microtones were.

How did you demonstrate them? And what exactly are the microtones
in Werckmeister? Do you mean correctly, the different sizes of
semitones and other intervals? But they can't consistently be
performed by free intonating musicians as exact to the pitches
created by the well-temperament in a fixed-pitch-instrument like a
keyboard instrument.

And the effect of any temperament is and should be masked by the
continuo-group, which to this aim should consist of several
additional bass instruments, like a Viollone, Gamba or caello,
Dulcian or Fagotto, etc. In this way it is better guaranteed,
that the disturbing impure chords* from the keyboard instruments
will not destroy the pure flexible intonation required from the non-continuo-players (and singers)

*in Werckmeister already A-major is a theiretically a schisma
worse than the ET-A-major, not to speak of B-major oor A-flat-major

> I had to announce to the
> audience that it is quite interesting that the identifying
> name of Werckmeister with tuning was so conservative
> in his actual use of pitch relationships.

I don't grasp the story. If your singers and players would have
performed in the way descrived by numerous authors of the 17 and
18th century, your audience should not be able to detect what
temperament the keybaord instrument has, as the other musicians
should play as pure as possible (above the lowest sooounding note)
and the rest of the continuo should be loud enough to mask the bad
chords...

> Ibo: Kuhnau worked in Leipzig, - around 1700 this was
> scarcely related to the - quite different - organ building
> practice of Northern Germany which I'm researching.

> JR: Maybe, but Kuhnau had the same basic interests as
> Werckmeister…and they were likely friends as well.

Obviously all were "friends" who lived in the same time.
I give up on this part. I am sorry: If you can't prove something,
then don't think that by repeting it, it will get a better likeliness.

>> Ibo: If you can show the evidence for your statement
>> by any reference, then it would point to a significant
>> change in Kuhnau's position towards temperament: in
>> 1717 he complains to Mattheson in a letter about the
>> organ builder's Wender's and Silbermann's temperament
>> practice, that they do not use the "exact temperament"
>> of Neidhart (i. e. ET, as Neidhart specified it, from
>> his other suggestions).

> JR: Thanks. This is as good as saying: Wender is in
> Werckmeister's chromatic tuning.

Be my guest to think free what you make up from my statements: I
did not say that and the available data allow not to conclude
anything like that!

I can't help, if you let your preference steer your belief,
instead being guided by your scientific education and accepted
methods of rational arguing.

>> Ibo: And the Silbermann researcher Frank Harald Gress
>> pointed to Silbermann's usual application of some form
>> of meantone temperament (probably 1/4-comma-meantone, or
>> very close) in Silbermann's earlier decades (the later
>> statement from Sorge about a 1/6-komma-temperament, must
>> be seen in the biased light of the "Temperaturen-Streit"
>> of the later 18th century! Sorge's description can't
>> simply be taken literally for Silbermann's practice,
>> as confirmed by other documents).

> JR: Everyone is biased and no one is biased. How can
> you disregard whom you like and whom you do not? Now
> we believe Sorge, now we disbelieve Werckmeister: now,
> we reverse.

Whether someone is biased or not, has to be discussed by evidence.
It is about making the case. Take the "facts" check and double
check them, explain their prerequiites, contradictions, prove as
much as possile their point or disprove it. It has nothing to do
with like or dislike.
I don't know Sorge, nor Werckmeister personally - I have no
preference to the one or other. Both were incredibly skilled
people with good judgement. What they write has a ground, an aim
and a purpose: bias.
What we have are their writings, some letters, or other info.
Then we have the info from the organs themselves, the reports
(often signed by several examinators, because the churches wanted
to be sure not to be betrayed - these reports are nearly always
critical to the point (agianst the organ builder), mentioning,
critisizing or indicating temperaments etc.
What would that have to to with bias, etc

> The musicology means little if after reading a big book
> one can only say it is all gook.

Which I didn't say.

> Ibo: Whatever temperament Wender actually might have applied,
> is not known or documented to my knowledge. The recent
> Bach-Jahrbuch article by Marcus

Sorry, my fault: Markus
And the article is
Die Temperierung der Divi Blasii-Orgel in Mühlhausen.
BachJb, 87 (2001), 163-171

> Rathey unfortunately creates
> the impression from mere chronological and geographical
> coincidences and reasoning, without any proof and double
> checks from the organ's history.

> JR: I will have to go back to Rathey to quote him, but I
> remember his having particular statements by Kuhnau and
> Ahle, connecting Wender to Werckmeister's tuning.

Exactly: HIS (Rathey's 2001) statements connecting Wender and
Werckmeister...

> Ibo: And once same old soup again here, too: How much does
> an assumed friendship between Ahle and Werckmeister tell
> about Wender's (not documented) actual organ temperament
> in Mülhausen? Nothing, of course - it is an interpretation
> by connecting non-temperament-related items. May be -
> may be not.

> JR: From where I sit, mine is the important new
> research, while you are sitting on the status quo.

Sure, as you have "proven" here with loads of your personal
preference from modern performance, not to speak of unexact
statements, falsifiable statements.

If this is the quality of "important new research" in the "brave
new world" of "new musicology" - I'll give up my profession tomorrow.

I leave the judgement to the list participants ...

>> Ibo: For an free intonating instrument it is no advantage
>> from another circulating temperament, since they only have
>> to play pure above the lowest - as pure as possible: in
>> practice that means, +-3 to 5 cents around the pure (!)
>> interval above the lowest note, which
>> makes for that purpose all well-temperaments
>> marginal in difference!

> JR: We play accurate to the cent whenever possible, at
> least in the mind.

If that is "accurate" as your arguments in this discussion, then
the imagination of good intonation happened probably only in the
minds.

> The way you are discussing tuning, they all sound just
> about the same.

Completely wrong
and by my discussing no tuning nor temperament will change, I bet.

> I do not hear that way,

That's a big problem. A piece of good advice to solve that
problem, which partly spoils this whole discussion:
See to educate your ear as much as possible

I have trained and exercised that for years and I hope such
training will help you to improve your judgement in the future, so
that you to get away from the prejudices, which conceal the
historical evidence to you. You'll find a fascinating world of
intonation and still can - like I do - keep some other fine
prejudices for the non scientific part of our life.

> nor do I suspect Buxtehude did.

You suspect to much.
Scientific reasoning is very much the same like a trial When the
police suspects someone, the trial serves to fid out as much as
possible from the evidence, what happened. For that techniques of
proof and disproof will be applied. Sometimes the court will come
to the conclusion, that the evidence doesn't allow to draw a
conclusion. In a state where justice prevails the defendant is
freed then. In science, however, it can only be stated, that
nothing safe is known.

> Nor did Bach.

Here the above suspicion ""I suspect Buxtehude did" turned already
in a factual statement "Bach did".

> Werckmeister is ideal in every way to fit the missing link
> that is Thuringia.

Well, if you think he is ideal, than make the case - your belief
is no proof.

>> Ibo: But an organ, was of course difficult to retune. Only
>> to convince the church Elders to pay the money, could be
>> the first part of the work, with which a project might have
>> failed. As I said before: large, public payed organs,
>> serving a function in a "conservative" society and
>> liturgy were no lab for unprecedented temperament
>> experiments, to change a ca. 250 years tradition

> JR: Which is why a theologian like Werckmeister

Now you make him to something he never was: a theologian. (Read
his biography in the literature on Werckmeister, s. above).
No, he was no scientist on (christian) religion,
but "only" a believer in his God, and sometimes also argued from
these his preferences and beliefs. Sounds by now familiar that you
bring him into that context.

> was ideally place to pave the way for well-temperament

again "ideally" is your unproven statement - and what the
(Lutheran) church had to say to the term "well-tempered" is about
zero.

> (a term that he coined in publication as "Wohl-temperirt").
> The church was on his side.

Good for him. Has nothing to do with his temperaments, even less
with the documented temperament practice around him.

> Any examples you have to the contrary will be of great interest to us.

>> Ibo: Today, tape is may be a solution - But, contradicting is, that I
>> have not seen any good baroque oboe player doing something like
>> that to his instrument.

> JR: How about Bram Kreeftmeijer of Arnhem. He was my oboist for
> Brandenburg Concerto #2…and he used scotch tape that I procured.

>> Ibo: And what kind of tape would you suggest
>> for the practice back then? I thought it is an invention of the
>> 20th century?

OK, But what does Mhr. Kreeftmmeijer may be useful tape-strangling
of a modern oboe for your recent concert have to do with
Werckmeister's temperament, and whether it was actually applied in
which organ.

> JR: Back then they had no keys on oboes. One would have used
> beeswax on wind instruments. On a modern bassoon playing
> Johann Michael Bach's "Ach bleib,…
> .," I used tape as well: it works flawlessly.

A modern bassoon is for our discussion pointless, like the
previously mentioned modern oboe. No historical reports confirm
that beewax-practice in order to reach different interval sizes of
well-temperaments. On the contrary, oboes (like all woodwinds)
were especially required by 18th autors to play as pure as
possible (to the continuo, as described above). The same authors
might advocate in the same sources use of well-temperaments or
even ET in te accompanying keyboard instruments

>> Ibo: I certainly can imagine that you were part of a great
>> performance of concerted ensemble music, which you mention.

Obviously performed on modern instruments, thus irrelevant to the
instrument-acoustical situation and practice of Werckmeister's time...

>> But again, how
>> exactly could an argument be drawn from your recent
>> performance for the historical knowledge or
for
>> narrowing in to the temperament practice**
>> in North German church organs from the
>> documented evidence, as reported for example in
>> examination and other status reports etc.
** practice, not theories, which were published, without that we
know that they were practised.

> JR: Your sentence above was too long for me to figure
> out how to respond to it.

I didn't formulate it clear, sorry. I hope it is better formulated
now.

> Certainly, there is plenty of room for argument…of one type or
> another.
> As time unravels from last weeks concerts, many revelations unwrap,
> sort of like an onion peal.

>>>for all the usage of Werckmeister.

>> of which Walther doesn't write even a tiny bit!

>>>He's all over the place.

>> Ibo: Werckmeister's name in Walther's Lexicon? Yes
>> - but not one hint on any Werckmeister-temperament,
>> no example of any organ thus tuned is listed by Walther.

> JR: We certainly have different eyes. I see a whole
> page on Werckmeister and much less on most any
> other personage.

I think physically our eyes are rather alike - if you only take
away your persona-preference-bias-glasses ...

Walther lists on "the whole page" on Werckmeister the latter's
publications, yes.
But he doesn't describe any of W.'s temperaments. Neither does he
do so for any other author on temperament!

> I see Werckmeister's name listed first in the article on
> "Temperament,"

I see it too, but I see also mentioned in the same entry
- Printz (whose entry get's even more than space
in the Walther's Lexikon), who was a proponent of
meantone temperament
- Brossard, who evenly gets nearly a page

> and I see Werckmeister's name listed to anything that
> Walther can find that would indeed connect. But no,
> not to a specific organ.

So what? No temperament specified, no specific organ mentioned,
where the reader might listen to it in 1732...

> Ø And take a listen to Armin Shoof's

>> Schoof, the organist of the Jakobi church Lübeck
>> ... the fabulous small organ (1467/1637)

>>>performances of Buxtehude on Lubeck's St. Jacobi Kirche.

>> What is your opinion:
>> How does a (Schoof's) performance *today* tell us
>> anything about the actual temperaments to be found
>> in (North German) organs in Buxtehude's and
>> Werckmeister's time?

> JR: My opinion, and everyone that has heard
> Shoof's

really, its: Schoof!

> more recent Buxtehude album,

I got it as a personal gift from him ...

> is that it is a different piece than its equal tempered
> manifestations.
> Sequences have a life that are intended for subtle
> comparison, totally lost in ET.
> People cry at the significant difference.

Hmm - I regret that. But may be transposition to other keys might
help away from that crying state. I have a bunch of printed organ
teaching manuals (handbooks) and other stuff which confirm that
transposing pieces was common exercise in Buxtehude's time and
area (and way beyond in time and region).

> Please be sure to share this with Armin Shoof.

(Schoof again).
No, share you preferences with him, if you like.
I have frequent talkks with him and we agree and he understands my
points very well. On his invitation I'm going to present on my
research there end of June.

>> Ibo: And even if the Werckmeister temperament would
>> unexpectedly have been heard from the organ in St.
>> Jakobi in around 1700 in the organ(s) in St. Jakobi,
>> it would not mean, that the organ(s) in the
>> neighbouring church St. Marien, where Buxtehude worked,
>> must have had a well-temperament.

> JR: When, according to the records, was the St. Jakobi
> kleine orgel first tuned into Werckmeister III.

In 1979, in words nineteenhundredseventynine
during the previous restoration.
And I have studied the Lübeck archive on site (maybe in total I
have spent there 2 or emore months over the past years), the
historical data and the restoration documentation of that organ
very well), I can promise you - and you can ask Armin S-C-hoof
about it. Also the 16th to 20th century archival data of the other
organs of Lübeck

> It is a middle ages era

In history 1467 we do not call it middle age or medieval anymore.
However this layer is adressed as "late gothic" in the standard
art history for this region.

> instrument so there must be records.

most, lost - probably in WW II, or not returned frm the
ex-Soviet-union.

>> Ibo: Since, however, nothing points to a Werckmeister
>> temperament in Lübeck-Jakobi in Buxtehude's time, this
>> example goes to the big bulk of unlikeliness.

> JR: Once again, it appears there is some disconnect
> here.

You might have noticed, meanwhile, that I always try to avoid to
connect items, which don't show any sign of a connection. That's
good scientific habit, which keeps one rather much free from
disturbing own preferences ...

> One can hear the difference, though I admit it
> is difficult to make this clear through the
> internet.

I prefer real instruments from the internet, anyway.
However Pierre Lewis java tuner on his website is worth a small
try for people unexperienced in training their ears.

> But besides the listening, which is understandably
> suspect to you,

can't you read?

What do you think, how I tuned the instruments for the Tomkins
recording? I do not use electronic aids, just a simple tuning fork.
For concerts, teaching students in classes as I recently did when
the organ class from Eastman school of Music (Rochester/NY) came
here.

What do you know about my listening abilities, that you dare to
state this?
How do you think, I recently detected, that the composition of a
high pitched composite stop (a Cimbel III)in one organ was wrong?
How do you think, I came to a recently restored organ, where the
organ restorer claimed wrongly that he didn't temper it to
Vallotti, while I could show it to others only by ear, that he had
tuned that temperament - as was statd then in a report about that
organ (however that historic organ got a wrong temperament with
Vallotti, whose vague suggestions never was used in that region or
time!).

When you have trained your ear so that you can do similar
requirements, then let us talk again.

> Buxtehude wrote a poem dedicated to Werckmesiter. It
> came in 1702, later than the 1691 Musicalische Temperatur.
> He must have been a friend to write a stanza poem
> in Werckmeister's honor. He must have been satisfied with
> what Werckmeister's tuning had to offer. And he must
> have had the time to fully decide if it was of
> substantial importance to the creation of his own
> music.

He must this, he must that - nothing better to offer?

That he and Schnitger wrote the poems, doesn't say anything.
I can praise someone for his excellence in general without
acknowleding him for something, which I would think unpractical or
even wrong. We simply do not know what Buxtehude could have
thought about W.'s temperaments.
And we don't, whether they were really "friends", even if
Buxtehude in his poem calls W. in the exuberant way of the time
"his highly esteemed friend".
They exchanged an unknown number of letters, may be only one each,
may be more - we don't know. And even if, nothing is known about,
what and how their contact was, no content reported on B.'s r W.'s
letters, no single hint that temperament might have been (even
controversely?) discussed. Maybe the didn't agree and therefore
stopped the exchange of lettres - Lots of possibilities. But
nothing to conclude.

However, I pointed to the possible irony in Schnitger's poem
already, which he wrote for the same volume of Werckmeister's. And
it was Schnitger, whom Buxtehude wanted to carry out the
renovation of the large organ in St. Marien. This Schnitger, who
did not subscribe to W.'s new temperamentS, - This Schnitger, for
whom in each single case only meantone temperament can be proven,
was the choice for Buxtehude. Finally, the work was carried out
by Otto Diedrich Richborn from Hamburg, Schnitgers concurrence in
Hamburg, where both had their workshop.Nothing points to, that
Buxtehdue wanted an instrument, that would have noticebly to
everyone, different than the "meantone ocean" around him.

>> Ibo: Yes, thanks - would be nice if we could see evidence
>> from Walther, which would be really something new!

> JR: When Walther wrote in a letter that "Bach and Buxtehude
> were the "only living German organists worthy of mention,"
> it is significant.

In it self and for what it is saying, it is certainly significant,
but it says once again nothing about whether and if at all, which
of Werckmeister's temperaments actually were applied to organs.

> Walther received his Buxtehude material directly from
> Werckmeister, personally, in Halberstadt. That Bach
> walked to spend months with Buxtehude's music is also
> significant.

For what? For what temperament in which organ exactly is it
significant?

> Rather than pine about what we cannot know,

As you do by guessing around on no evidence or worse on mere
personal preference

> why not explore what we do know. I hope you agree.

Yes of course, that is exactly what I'm doing - exploring what we
know.

>> Ibo: But I can't find any place in Walther's lexicon,
>> where he explicitly describes any temperament, neither
>> theoretical, nor that it is to be found here or there.

> JR: It is traditional in the Thuringian/Harz tradition
> not to quote the work of other people when their works
> are published.

Strange, but Walther's Lexikon (he was from Thuringia) does
exactly what you deny: It constantly quotes and makes references -
however, not to temperaments - sometimes it quotes.
I could easily display hundreds of printed matter from Thuringia
in the 17th and 18 century in which quoting as everywhere else in
a circle of 2000 kms around Thuringia, was done extensively.
Especially, when honoring someone else's work...

Since you want to write a book about Bach's tuning, you will do
better in checking some sources from time to time, so that you
avoid all this easily falsifiable statements.

> Werckmeister's writings were widely disbursed.

Yes, especially his Orgelprobe, which served its function towards
organists how to technically examine an organ. The small
temperament part was - as now often said, not taken into the organ
builder's practice.

>> Ibo: And Walther's quite long entry on Werckmeister doesn't
>> state anything of what we have discussed here, either
>> (except of a list of Werckmeister's publications).

> JR: Which means he had a huge amount of respect for Andreas
> Werckmeister, for all of his writings. Walther mentions
> far less about most anyone else.

Statistics please

> There has been a veil place over Werckmeister and his
> importance to the music that followed.

Which every single modern music dictionary will disqualify as
false staememt, as well as the scientific research on Werckmeister
himself.

> In the English
> and Dutch speaking work, little has made a proper impact.

No, not true either - The influential Werckmeister publication
(ttransl. by J.W. Lustig) i mentioned already. Then the pioneers
of HIP like Leonhadt, but also their followers Ton Koopman, Bob
von Asperen, plus the work of many organ builders show that
nowadays Werckmeister is used in performance - may be more than in
his days. However, in organs /restorations or "style" copies) it
is almost certainly overused

> For reasons of the truth, my advice to you is to remain
> flexible.

Thanks that is good advice, which I anticipated if I may already
since more than 25 years in music

However in science I'll not give in to
- unsufficient or non existing evidence,
- reasoning on no basis or personal preferences and prejudices,
derived from irrelevant modern practice, nor
- unscientific methods.

Thanks for your attention
best regards
Ibo Ortgies