Re: seeking a rule of thumb flute, intonation, traverso Bach

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Scott Clifford <springswood@y...>
> wrote:

> Hello all,I've joined the group because I have a practical question,
> which I imagine isn't as simple as I'd like. What is? As a bit of
> background I've been playing the flute for 30 odd years in many
> styles, classical first then some jazz. I play in an Irish band too.

> I never studied music theory until a few years back when I
> took my music A level (a university entrance level exam).
> I have however studied physics, so I find the mathematical
> complexities of tuning issues fascinating. Still, like I
> said, I have a practical question.

> In my search to keep stretching myself on the flute I've
> agreed to do a performance of the Bach solo partita in A minor
> for flute, BWV 1013.

> The notes on my edition suggest that intonation nearer
> just than even temperament should help bring out the sense
> of the music. So my question, niavely expressed is, is there
> a rule of thumb I can apply for the enharmonics?

Actually you have two choices here, from a systematical view:

- "melodic" intonation with high leading notes, low "Gleittöne"
in other words: the diatonic semitones will have to be rather
large, sharps on the "high side", flats on the "low side".
This works (not always, but mainly) well in not too complex
not too harmonic-based melodies (simpler folk tunes) - but
only in
In view of Bach and his time, nothing points to any such use
of intonation and especially flute manuals belong to those
indicating that this was note the intonation principle of
professional free-intonating musicians

- "harmonic" intonation", according to the principles of
numerous manuals, among them the 18th ct German Quantz
(closely cooperating with C. P. E. in Berlin ... visit
by J. S. Bach in 1747) is as a thumb rule, quite the
opposite:
play notes with sharps low, flats high ...
The intervals to be "thought" large (ascending=high,
descending=low) are
- diatonic semitones
- minor thirds
- dim. fifths
- minor sixths
- dim. sevenths

Rather small intervals are
- chromnatic semitones
- augmented seconds
- major thirds
- augm.

Practical intonation (or "harmonic intonation, flexible to the
sounding bass-note) - in the 18th ct. sense - has also much to
do with imagination. Watch out that you in ascending are not too
low, in descending

Paradoxically both should be rather "large"
- fourths (especially ascending!)
- fifths

Both systemes large follow the patterns as (in a-minor):

d#- a#
/ \ / \
b - f#- c#- g# -d#
/ \ / \ / \ / \ /
g - d - A - E - b
\ / \ / \ / \ / \
bb- f - c - g - d

Thumbrule:
The higher the note is in the diagram,
1) the higher it should be played in "melodic" intonation
2) the lower in "harmonic" intonation.

Whole tones (and their inversion) are the most problematic may
be (for a while). They depend, where you are in the scale - the
old Hexachord helps a lot (to which the lower and upper diatonic
semitones are added)

I II iii IV V vi
[b] - C - D - e - F - G - a -[Bb]

in relation to another not of the scale note think/play:

- capital letters: higher
- small letters : lower

[so the letters here only indicate the intonation! Not
the major or minor chord following them in the scale]

You see, that the relation of II-iv will be a high D to a low a
(by one syntonic comma).

Aas soon as your tonal center moves, this will change:

I II iii IV V vi
[f#] - G - A - b - C - D - e -[F]

Now the D-A is on V - II as a pure fifth. It is usually decided
by the harmonic context and with some practice and experience,
you'll hear and do that rather automatically.
You can help yourself however, with the "meantone" trick, over
most places. try to intone the seconds not too high

You can insert the minor-scale intervals

I II iii IV V vi
[b] - C - D - e - F - G - a -[Bb]
Eb Ab
III VI

And transpose it to a-minor as the basis for your Bach-partita:

I II iii IV V vi
[g#] - A - B - c#- D - E - f#-[G]
C F
III VI

Note that it is thumbrule!
Not so difficult, or? - only needs practice.

Practice intonation as much as possible with instruments, which
provide a strong, clear bass (non-vibrato-playing of course!) -
That was the aim of the BASSO CONTINUO, which is also the
fundament of music making and improvisation in the 18th century,
even for the few non-accompanied, solos! Remember it was not to
provide the harmony, otherwsie it would have been called basso
ARMONICO. And not to provide a mainly a rhthm group, otherwsie
it would have been called, basso RITMICO. The main purpose ist
to provide the strong basis for intonation. The chords of the
keyboard are at best support (in meantone for the thirds, and to
sing/play high enough fourths) - but anyway do not care about
the temperament of the keyboard (unless yo want to know anyway,
how that restricted area "works", but it is not decisive for
your intonation!)

Learn the intonation on the basis "what is the next note going
to be" in order to avoid unpleasant correcting by commas (or
even worse), which was (probably done, by unexperienced players, but) not accepted back then from professionals. The correction
range might and should not exceed ca. +/- 3-5 cents around the
pure interval.

Finally, as the historical evidence shows, it is not the aim and
goal that the intonation should match any keyboard temperament
(as stetd for example by Telemann.

In view of the "early music" (sources and performance) it is a
capital mistake, to mix up keyboard temperaments, whether they
are Werckmeister, ET, meantone or whatever, with the common
practice of intonatingt as poure as possible.
This is valid for the flute, other woodwinds, string
instruments, singers - which we today all to sldom (most people
never get to hear it, because normally musicians are not
trained, nor can their teachers teach it) or other free
intonating instrument (i. e. an instrument, which does allow
enough flexibility to reach the "correct" intonation, according
to the principles valid for 18th century performance)

Good success,

Ibo Ortgies

Hi again,

Scott, I just notice, that yahoo doesn't render the ASCII- diagrams correct (also my "old" Draft on History and Use of Subsemitones suffers greatly from that)

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Scott Clifford <springswood@y...>
> wrote:

Actually you have two choices here, from a systematical view:

[...snip]

- "harmonic" intonation", according to the principles of
numerous manuals, among them the 18th ct German Quantz
(closely cooperating with C. P. E. in Berlin ... visit
by J. S. Bach in 1747) is as a thumb rule, quite the
opposite:
play notes with sharps low, flats high ...
The intervals to be "thought" large (ascending=high,
descending=low) are
- diatonic semitones
- minor thirds
- dim. fifths
- minor sixths
- dim. sevenths

Rather small intervals are
- chromnatic semitones
- augmented seconds
- major thirds
- augm. fourths
- major sixths
- major septima

Practical intonation (or "harmonic intonation, flexible to the
sounding bass-note) - in the 18th ct. sense - has also much to
do with imagination. Watch out that you in ascending are not too
low, in descending

Paradoxically both should be rather "large"
- fourths (especially ascending!)
- fifths

Both systemes large follow the patterns as (in a-minor):

[Though the lattice wass quite disturbed by Yahoo, the thumbrule still is ...]

The higher the note is in the diagram,
1) the higher it should be played in "melodic" intonation
2) the lower in "harmonic" intonation.

Whole tones (and their inversion) are the most problematic may
be (for a while). They depend, where you are in the scale - the
old Hexachord helps a lot

It is made up of two repeated patterns

C - D - e
F - G - a

to which the lower and upper diatonic semitones are added - Roman numbers indicate the step.:

[b]
C - I
D - II
e - iii
F - IV
G - V
a - vi
[Bb]

in relation to another not of the scale note think/play:

- capital letters: higher
- small letters : lower

[so the letters here only indicate the intonation! Not
the major or minor chord following them in the scale]

[snip...]

You can insert the minor-scale intervals

I II iii IV V vi
[b]
C - I

D - II

Eb- III
e - iii

F - IV

G - V

Ab- VI
a - vi

[Bb]

And transpose it to a-minor as the basis for your Bach-partita:

[... snip]

...
Good success,

Ibo Ortgies

In a message dated 4/15/03 6:16:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se writes:

> In view of the "early music" (sources and performance) it is a
> capital mistake, to mix up keyboard temperaments, whether they
> are Werckmeister, ET, meantone or whatever, with the common
> practice of intonatingt as poure as possible.

This is controversial, at best. Bach, the master of temperament, is not
interested in practicing intonation "as poure as possible." Every example I
have found of an opening perfect fifth in a melody in Bach begins on a
flattened 696 cent fifth when there is a harpsichord. If a harpsichord
exists for 95 percent of all music, it seems an error to treat solos as if
they are from a different planet of intonation.

> This is valid for the flute, other woodwinds, string
> instruments, singers - which we today all to sldom (most people
> never get to hear it, because normally musicians are not
> trained, nor can their teachers teach it) or other free
> intonating instrument (i. e. an instrument, which does allow
> enough flexibility to reach the "correct" intonation, according
> to the principles valid for 18th century performanc
> Good success,
> Ibo Ortgies

This would be valid for playing Vivaldi, and some other Baroque composers.
However, since you asked specifically about Bach, it is toward the enharmonic
that intonation is based.

Frankly, as a solo flute work, it will be challenging for most anyone to hear
the difference between any of these approaches. A minor is not that
different in Werckmeister from its meantone representative (as opposed to Bb
minor).

Have fun with the solo, foremost. best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ibo Ortgies <ibo.ortgies@m...> wrote:
> Hi again,
>
>
> Scott, I just notice, that yahoo doesn't render the ASCII-
> diagrams correct

actually, it does, all you have to do is click on "message index" and
then "expand messages".

Afmmjr@a... wrote:

In a message dated 4/15/03 6:16:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ibo.ortgies@m... writes:

>>In view of the "early music" (sources and performance) it is a >>capital mistake, to mix up keyboard temperaments, whether they >>are Werckmeister, ET, meantone or whatever, with the common >>practice of intonatingt as poure as possible.

> This is controversial, at best.

No, it is not controversial in the sources in Bach's time.
You certainly studied carefully the facsimile editions carefully (Quantz, L. Mozart, Mattheson (several), Kirnberger, Telemann, Tosi/Agricola, Printz, even Werckmeister comments on these items (!) etc. ...
And also the well known articles by Holger Eichhorn, Patrizio Barbieri and Bruce Haynes...
Please, feel welcome to help yuourself.

Then you'll find extensive info of which I gave an interested musician a thumbrule.

> Bach, the master of temperament, is not interested in
> practicing intonation "as poure as possible."

How do you know? We have no single remark by Bach himself (like on temperaments). In the case of intonation we have however an unanimous body of evidence from the above mentioned sources, allowing to conclude with a rather high likeliness, that Bach would not differ from, what all the other authors confirm. When you'll study them carefully, you'll find it. Fortunately it is one of the questions in which all these authors agree. (Only the depth of their different presentations form a difference in this respect)

> Every example I have found of an opening perfect fifth
> in a melody in Bach begins on a flattened 696 cent
> fifth when there is a harpsichord.

Judgement from the music is judgement from personal preference - we don't need to take it up again and again. Let's boar the list with something more well-founded than personal preferences.

> If a harpsichord exists for 95 percent of all music,
> it seems

Yes it seems, but that feeling will vanish as soon as you'll collect some thorough experience in this field.

Forms of synchrone, "dual" intonation are quite natural. They occur basically everywhere all the time, also in any somehow tempered keyboard instrument: its the partials with/contra the temperament or other type of intonation.
Partials in a harpsichord (if you use a strong sounding, historical type) can be well heard at times and tuning and tempering is guided by them - also the choice of temperament has much to do with the individual harpsichord available. In order to let the instrument sound highly resonant it is very useful to listen and to know the instrument before deciding which temperament system and temp-style is appropriate. Pre-cooked recipes, like Werckmeister III, Kirnberger III are of course good starts to practice for a beginner. A given temperament can create a dull in one instrument a very bright (may be too bright) sound in others. Listen, listen , listen - and train your ear.

Now, if you compare the organ for example:
it contains of course also "dual intonation" at the same time - similar to an ensemble until ca 1800 (or even later). The composite stops and mixtures (octaves and fifths, sometimes thirds) are tuned as perfectly pure as possible, while XY-temperament produces AT THE SAME TIME different fifths, and in case of WT and ET also different third-sizes. In meantone the third ranks will form a most harmonious effect with the pure thirds sounding from the temperament, while in all WTs and in ET the pure tuned third-ranks often will not sound very ok, but it depends also on the voicing of the stops and the acoustics of the room and the organ inside (the thirds are more sensitive in this respect, also usually high-pitched) Occurence of third rank stops is btw way one reason, which points to meantone, when other evidence also is available.

In an ensemble it works similar:
- The keyboard instruments and possible other fixed-pitched
instruments (lutes, theorbos, gambas, etc) will and must
have a temperament
- the free-intonating instruments form the pure "mixtures".

The bass, which is reinforced by low strings and woodwinds (dulcian, fagotto), "clean up" the harmony, which is always least in the tempered instruments. This effect can be heard in an organ when a strong, yet fundamental reed stop is drawn together with amongst others a mixture - it can subtract lots of "sharpness" from the all-together sound and is an quite amazing effect!

> an error to treat solos as if
> they are from a different planet of intonation.

They are not from a different planet, and the laws of physics would work on the othare planets to (partials etc. see above.)

>>This is valid for the flute, other woodwinds, string >>instruments, singers - which we today all to sldom (most people >>never get to hear it, because normally musicians are not >>trained, nor can their teachers teach it) or other free >>intonating instrument (i. e. an instrument, which does allow >>enough flexibility to reach the "correct" intonation, according >>to the principles valid for 18th century performanc
>>Good success,
>>Ibo Ortgies

> This would be valid for playing Vivaldi, and some other
> Baroque composers.
> However, since you asked specifically about Bach, it is
> toward the enharmonic that intonation is based.

As one can learn from the sources again, the intonation is not constructed around the concept of the genera (diatonic, chromatic, and enharmonic): each interval is treated according to its "natural ratio" (i.e. the lowest fraction represented in the overtone series - the 7th partial is btw only seldom adressed, for example by Kirnberger).

> Frankly, as a solo flute work, it will be challenging for
> most anyone to hear the difference between any of these
> approaches. A minor is not that different in Werckmeister
> from its meantone representative

Wrong, please look up the figures and beat-rates of intervals and chords in meantone and compoare them to Werckmeister III.
The triads a-c-e and c-e-g might be regarded superficially as having some slight similar quality (not really because the the chords). But already the best major thirds beat audibly fast (contrary to the pure meantone temperaments), getting worse with with each next step away from c. Minor chords are slightly less sensitive (a and e are the same, but also quickly depart from anything neaar meantone.
And since you'll have E-major as "dominant" and related chords on the sharp side you'll get a lot of chords worse than even ET.

> (as opposed to Bb minor).

> Have fun with the solo, foremost. best, Johnny Reinhard

I wish that too: It is not up to me to make artitic decisions for others.

From a merely artistic standpoint of course you can choose against the clear and long published evidence from the 18th century and try instead to follow the modern ideas and style experiments, Johnny Reinhard is working on.

But, like on temperament, we have not one single statement
from Bach himself about ensemble intonation, but plenty of
other close sources, as I mentioned.
If you want to perform Bach as close to the ascertainable practice of his time , then the harmonic intonation ("as pure as possible") which I sketched from the source info, will be your choice. So it is up to evereyone to make his personal choice. No one can blame an artist who decides for whatever reason against knowledge from sources and from history, if it happens on a conscious and knowledgable basis.

kind regards
Ibo Ortgies

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ibo Ortgies <ibo.ortgies@m...> wrote:

> Forms of synchrone, "dual" intonation are quite natural. They
> occur basically everywhere all the time, also in any somehow
> tempered keyboard instrument: its the partials with/contra the
> temperament or other type of intonation.

How do you determine "with" and "contra" partials? Are you talking
about inharmonic partials, and if so how close do you need to come,
and which partials should concern you? If you are thinking of the
amplitude and decay of partials, how do you relate that to temperament?

> Partials in a harpsichord (if you use a strong sounding,
> historical type) can be well heard at times and tuning and
> tempering is guided by them - also the choice of temperament has
> much to do with the individual harpsichord available. In order
> to let the instrument sound highly resonant it is very useful
> to listen and to know the instrument before deciding which
> temperament system and temp-style is appropriate.

What specific physical factors underlie such a choice?

Hi,

first a disclaimer: I can give only my limited perspective of
historical based knowledge. Additionally some experiences from
years of tuning and temperament practice, plus performing
(mainly singing) will come in.
So I will not be able to answer your questions as you might
expect it.

Gene Ward Smith wrote

[to what I wrote:]
>>Forms of synchrone, "dual" intonation are quite natural.
>> They occur basically everywhere all the time, also in
>> any somehow tempered keyboard instrument: its the
>> partials with/contra the temperament or other type
>> of intonation.

> How do you determine "with" and "contra" partials?

Sorry, I hoped to be clearer, than I was obviously - since we
have (historically) two intonation at the same time, the
temperament and the pure as possible ensemble intonation.

For the performer most interesting are the partials from the
bass instruments or the bass in the chordal continuo
instrument(s). They are the easiest to follow, because they are
more likely in a audible range.
It is important that the bass line is overtone rich enough at
the place where the accompanied instrument or singer stands.
This sometimes forms a problem, for example when only a
fundamental sounding continuo instrument is resent, like a too
weak continuo positive - a performer stand ing besides it will
most likely not hear the bass clear enough (only its octaves (if
doubled in the chord).
A 17th century solution was to use a Regal (small reed organ),
which produces a very overtone rich spectrum - rather easy to
blend in. And the fundamental might be not very strong in every
place (anway a Violone etc. was employed), but the higher
overtones of the bass enabled that even if the singer/player is
standing close to such an instrument, that he can orient himself
to the bass line.
The same is true for the northern german organs with its rich
reed "instrumentation", especially in the divisions most often
used for the "Music", which is frequently a term for "ensemble
music" - until now often misinterpreted as referring to music in
general. This principle of using strong overtone-rich, continuo
keyboards worked better in a meantone surrounding: especially by
reed stops,which produce very audible thirds (and of course
often other patials high up are well perceptable, 7th, 9th .. -
however it is the art of the organ builder not to get them too
much sticking out). Note that for example Buxtehude bought a
"double 16-foot regal" for the performances in St. Marien,
Lübeck. Both church and the still existing regal were destroyed
in 1942 - only the church has been reconstructed, except of its
interior. However, no one until now, made an attempt to
reconstruct .'s regal and see what it's use was in the large
"Abendmusiken", public ensemble performances of a long tradition
in Lübeck-Marien (s. the research by Kerala Snyder).
In the large acoustics of this gigantic hanseatic cathedral the
bass reinforcement by a overtone rich 16-foot instrument can be
expected to have been of crucial. I have noted that in gothic
architecture the tenor/lower alto range are often stressed, as
well as quints - may be that reflects the medieval-renaissance
use of tenor-oriented music and use of pure fifths based tunings
(like pythagorean). Later rooms of th early renaisssance or the
Baroque often seem to be somewhat more neutral or even
bass-friendly and third-friendly. (But this is a personal
observation which I would really like to know whether it could
be backed up by acoustical research). Smaller but older rooms
also got more "packed" with interior, changing older room
acoustics probably considerably.
The large North German churches in which meantone temperament
was used far into the 18th century usually employed not only an
organist, but one or two Regal-players (for example in
Hamburg, Lübeck, Bremen)! The use of such stops/regals was
rather restricted to work in music, which doesn't extend to
remote keys too much. In the time after ca. 1700, when ensemble
music more and more used remote keys, the regals got less
popular, and even the organ, which were for other social and
liturgical reasons keeping meantone temperament, was considered as
I have for example one printed source by one of the best known
authors, relevant to our discussion (era and regions) published
around 1750, which says 'we have begun to abandon the us of
regals, organ positives and organs now', because of the problem
of the temperament of such instruments.
Of course a regal or a reed stop, can be tuned to any
temperament, but a well-tempered or ET-tuned regal, with its
strong overtone rich sound is not a highly helpful tool in
guiding an intonation, according the "old" principles.

That brings me to the "contra", to the partials of the tempered
intervals in the fixed pitch instruments (keyboard instruments
etc.), which are differing according to the degree of each
tempered interval in them. As the the chords are by definition
above the so important bass line, the partials of the higher notes of the chords will be tend to be less perceptible (that is
also a basic voicing principle, however adapation to individual
room acoustics have been and should be made). The more distant
the player and even more the public will be from such a continuo
keyboard, the less perceived is this cloud of partials coming
"from the temperament". Otherwise masking by the other (melodic)
bass instruments will merciful mask the effect of tempered out-of-tune intervals.

Just a small experience (I can tell only from that)
In December I took part in a performance of Bachs Magnificat and
stood above the positive organ (well-tempered, Jägermeister XY,
who cares) and got all the nasty F#-major and other bad sounding
chords around my ears, but for intonating I needed only to
listen to the strong sound of the Violone or the Cello, some
meters away, effectively taking away lots of the effect the
weird tempered-harmonies. And the whoöe took part in a merciless
dry acoustics, nothing to disguise.
As I said before, is seems not without reason, that it is called
BASSO [and] CONTINUO (once a seguente), and not basso ARMONICO
or basso RITMICO.

Very simplistic (but hopefully practical - as I was talking
about thumb rules):

- with: the partials of the pure tuned intervals of
a temperament. In meantone is only the pure major
thirds, in some WTs it is a bunch of pure fifths.
Their partials at the same pitch are ideally in
tune with each other.

- contra: the out of tune intervals in each temperament
and their partials against the afore-mentioned

> Are you talking about inharmonic partials,

No, I'm talking about the partials which you can hear and use in
a "practical" situation, like performing a motet, a cantata or
instrumental ensemble music from the time in question. The
playing/performing situation has too many factors, which hinder
(I think it is fortunate) the perception of such minor
deviations, which might be measured or even heard for example in
a test rig in an acoustical lab. Deviations of in the magnitude
of 1-2 cents are practically neglegible (that's why the
differences of different WTs are so marginal towards for
ensemble performance).

In the audible range in harpsichords and similar instruments the
partials are so close to the theoretical exact partials, that
the difference is neglegible for practice. They approach the
"ideal" series of partials, because tension and thickness of the
strings are rather low (compare to a modern grand ...). amy be a
slightly less, but certainly

Which partial(s) you can hear depends on too many factors, where
you stand, the room and how partials are reflected (or not) and
dispersed from the walls, even if your move your head you might
"lose" a partial. That is not to control when you at the same
time try to concentrate on the music. Has a lot to do with
learning to listen, adapt, automatizing. The more everyone
intonates "correct", the more you can fit in your voice or
instrument into the narrower bandwidth of sounds and its
partials. It will not happen all of the time during a
performance and it doesn't even need to, most important are that
the cadences and longer sounding chords get the best of it (Yes,
I agree, I'm also not content with my description here, but I
think ensemble intonation is still a rather unresearched item -
too complex, may be)

> and if so how close do you need to come,

as close as possible:
it is the usual struggle to reach perfection (or against
'chaos', if you want - everyone has a different view on that),
which can't be won - and still we try it again and again. May be
that's what art is about (or some parts of art)?

> and which partials should concern you?

The easiest to hear are usually the fifths (3, 6) or the third
(5). Octaves get easier soaked up, even if the are rather strong
in a sound.

> If you are
> thinking of the amplitude and decay of partials,
> how do you relate that to temperament?

I can't give numbers and already when one might turn the head
one might hear a certain partial less, another comes in more
clear, etc., maybe because that particular partial is reflected
from some wall - whatever. So the thumb rule is (for me): as
soon as one detects a stronger partial (much more likely from
the basses, fortunately) take it and let it guide you.
Admittedly, the practice will show, that this doesn't work all
the time - humans are too imperfect, sometimes, tire,
unconcentrated ...

>>Partials in a harpsichord (if you use a strong
>>sounding, historical type) can be well heard at times
>>and tuning and tempering is guided by them - also the
>>choice of temperament has much to do with the individual
>>harpsichord available.

Just an example: If a performer asks me (as has happened from
time to time) to tune his harpsichord for a concert, I approach
it as follows if time and circumstances allow

- take as much time as you really need and add one hour
for unexpected things (its real "beasts" we are dealing
with)

- analyze the music to be played: which notes occur, which
chords are the longest sounding, which notes could stand
a more or less "septimal" intonation (more often disguised
in chords, than in melodic progression).

- The order of the pieces in the concert (including possibly
a prepared "encore") is important, as the last
chord should not sound like a mess. It is not the task in
earlier music to let the listener go away with "sour milk".
Some years in Italy I tuned for a concert in which someone
played the two Bach-partitas in c-minor and D-major. The
last chord of the concert was D-major. After the concert
experienced musicians came and said, that they never heard
such a good temperament in Bach and what temperament I used.
Of course their friendly statement was exagggerating, because
it was not so much the specific instrument in that case, but
th careful planning of the sound of last chord, which stays
in the memory of the listeners: They all forgot about that
the first half of the concert was rather "bitter". It helped,
that the more frequent minor chords were not as sensitive
as in the D-major-partita. If the c-minor piece would
have been at the end, I had designed the temperament very
different.

- Then - if one knows the instrument or has time to try it
play it through. Detect where torsion of strings or other
factors might lead to a modification or change of
temperament concept. You might start from Werckmeister or
another temperament suiting that specific music after you
have analyzed the music. And end up in the real situation
with something already quite different - because you adjust
temperaments to the context!
Finally it is not the temperament system which counts,
but the sounding result.

- Last and very important: the octaves must be perfect.
Most successful is to control them in two-octave-distance!
Most harpsichord recordings are hopeless in this.
May be the artists or tone engineers think that no one
hears that? And 4' stops are especially often annoying, not
only because their often screaming voicing, but especially
because they transmit sloppiness in tuning the octaves
even more. May be the Italian listeners appreciated even
more my efforts to try to set the octaves really exact?

20 years ago I tuned a harpsichord for Bach's A-major
harpsichord concerto. If I remember right (I don't have the
score here right now) the middle movement uses one or two
B-flats and F-s. I designed a meantone based temperament,
modified only for the A# (as "usable" B-flat) and E# (as
"usable" F). Worked fantastic, I never have heard such a
wonderful interaction of chords and intervals in a Bach-concerto
again. Unfortunately, that lasted only until the small ensemble
came in, using a fretted bass instrument. They honestly adjusted
as much as the could, but it was not highly succesful in that.
I'm still feeling guilty...

>>In order to let the instrument
>>sound highly resonant it is very useful to listen
>>and to know the instrument before deciding which
>>temperament system and temp-style is appropriate.

> What specific physical factors underlie such a choice?

I don't know, as I'm neither a physicist, nor have seen any
studies. My statement was derived from my experience with
different harpsichords over years of tuning and listening. There
is a lot of research on single instrument acoustical problems,
also in harpsichords. But I doubt that the individual harpsichords and the interaction of its parts are researched
from a "holistic" perspective. It is about plucked strings,
pins, bridges, soundboard, case, with different materials, even
inhomogenous, varying density (wood). Plus torsion (strings),
elasticity of inhomogenous materials, two- and three
dimensional waves in such material, damping ...

Probably builders and some players know more about that from
practice, than physical research might be able to reveal.
Nonetheless, a wide-scope and interdisciplinary project to
narrow in the problems would be highly wishful.

kind regards

Ibo Ortgies

Well,
Thanks very much, that's given me loads to work on. I really
appreciate it.
Now we'll just have to see if I can break my rather consistant equal
temperament habits on the flute.
I'll let you know how it goes.
Once again, thanks to everyone who answered.
Scott

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ibo Ortgies <ibo.ortgies@m...> wrote:

> Listen, listen , listen - and train
> your ear.

making this remark to johnny reinhard has got to be the ultimate
irony . . .

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ibo Ortgies <ibo.ortgies@m...> wrote:
>
> > Listen, listen , listen - and train
> > your ear.
>
> making this remark to johnny reinhard has got to be the ultimate
> irony . . .

No kidding. I think this is a clear case where the parties have to 'agree to disagree' and move on with life. Is any amount of data and documentation going to get Johnny to bend? Doubt it. Is the 20+ years career of JR's work going to convince Ibo? Doubt it.

All my other thoughts will remain my own!

Cheers,
Jon

I wrote
>>Listen, listen , listen - and train
>>your ear.

wallyesterpaulrus@y... remarked:

> making this remark to johnny reinhard has got to be the ultimate > irony . . .

Just to clarify:

I really didn't intend to ridicule or shed any irony on Johnny's long time excellence and experience in microtonal music and it's performance.
If that was the perception, I apologize for not being clear enough!

In the above quote I referred to the individual temperament and its adjustment in a certain instrument and its present condition at a certain time. From that I question the concept of a perfect realization of a tuning in the historical situation or in the modern siytuation of using a "historical" instrument.

The background of my remark was still the practical question about a "thumb rule" for performing the Bach-solo partita.
"Practice" is of course, too, a variety of concepts, constantly shifting and adapting. One might well ask whether something as a general practice exists in a wider sense. Seems to be a matter of degree.

I tried to summarize the info, as much as I can see it represented in the historical sources from Bach's time. And as much as I can put them in my own words, it will inevitably get an "esthetic" input from my own (and that might be distorted by my bad command of English).

Johnny Reinhard gave his view, from his respectable experience with "modern" instruments and his underlying esthetics.
And - and I wrote that clearly before - I do not doubt Johnny's modern approach to performing Bach at all!
(If he would need it at all) He has my full support to do this - and if the results give a consistent artistic result, which is valid for a group of listeners today (or on records) in the future self, then I welcome that, unregarding whether I would like the result or not.

However, my point was and is that the modern approach, whatever value it has to us today, can not be claimed to the composer's temperament, as I understood Johnny's postings. Especially in the cases of composers of which no single clue came down to us. In these cases we can at best narrow in from the sources.

The historical info, which I could get so far from many well known and less well-known sources is rather clear (as the manuals in the era we discussed were largely written for educated or self-educating practitioners) and contradicts many modern personal value-judgements or wishful results of the kind "this or that was or must have been so and so (because our performance) ..."

Kind regards
Ibo

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ibo Ortgies <ibo.ortgies@m...> wrote:

> However, my point was and is that the modern approach, whatever
> value it has to us today, can not be claimed to the composer's
> temperament, as I understood Johnny's postings. Especially in
> the cases of composers of which no single clue came down to us.
> In these cases we can at best narrow in from the sources.

another point of view:

http://ha.kellner.bei.t-online.de/

bach's seal shows the circle of fifths, with dashes between c-g, g-d,
d-a, a-e, and b-f#. could it be any more clear what he meant by it?

In a message dated 4/17/03 5:26:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> bach's seal shows the circle of fifths, with dashes between c-g, g-d,
> d-a, a-e, and b-f#. could it be any more clear what he meant by it?
>

Couldn't the significance be: meantone now altered with a shortened B-F#,
with the A-E dash left as both a reminder of the family tuning's roots and in
its pedigreed distinction.

Best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/17/03 5:26:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > bach's seal shows the circle of fifths, with dashes between c-g,
g-d,
> > d-a, a-e, and b-f#. could it be any more clear what he meant by
it?
> >
>
> Couldn't the significance be: meantone now altered with a shortened
>B-F#,
> with the A-E dash left as both a reminder of the family tuning's
>roots and in
> its pedigreed distinction.
>
> Best, Johnny Reinhard

sounds intriguing, but i can't figure out this riddle. what tuning
roots and what does "in its pedigreed distinction" mean?

In a message dated 4/18/03 2:40:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> > Couldn't the significance be: meantone now altered with a shortened
> >B-F#,
> > with the A-E dash left as both a reminder of the family tuning's
> >roots and in
> > its pedigreed distinction.
> >
> > Best, Johnny Reinhard
>
> sounds intriguing, but i can't figure out this riddle. what tuning
> roots and what does "in its pedigreed distinction" mean?

Ah, the roots of the Bach family are in meantone, which would halve all the
fifths shortened. And this would include an A-E indicator. However, in
recognition of the pedigree of Bach's circular tuning (a.k.a. Werckmeister
III) which clearly ran in the family of musicians, the B-F# is rightly
indicated

best, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/18/03 2:40:39 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > > Couldn't the significance be: meantone now altered with a
shortened
> > >B-F#,
> > > with the A-E dash left as both a reminder of the family
tuning's
> > >roots and in
> > > its pedigreed distinction.
> > >
> > > Best, Johnny Reinhard
> >
> > sounds intriguing, but i can't figure out this riddle. what
tuning
> > roots and what does "in its pedigreed distinction" mean?
>
> Ah, the roots of the Bach family are in meantone, which would halve
all the
> fifths shortened. And this would include an A-E indicator.

the same would be true of e-b, though, and e-b is not so indicated.
you're really stretching, johnny!

> However, in
> recognition of the pedigree of Bach's circular tuning (a.k.a.
Werckmeister
> III) which clearly ran in the family of musicians, the B-F# is
rightly
> indicated

same question: e-b?

In a message dated 4/18/03 4:23:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> the same would be true of e-b, though, and e-b is not so indicated.
> you're really stretching, johnny!
>
>

Yeah, but A-E is where the switch is made. Hey, it's only a symbol and I
gave it an interpretation. I wonder if it has changed over time? Johnny