Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Re: [loonnnggg] Evidence [tuning] Re: Werckmeister, Schnitger Buxtehude etc.

Hi,

ok, I correct myself in as much as that I'll take up the
argument again.

I again will stay to scientific historical methods - trying not
to argue from my personal preference.
As it is in Latin and very wise: "Sine ira et studio"

But before going into the arguments itself I want to answer some
of the last paragraphs of Johnny Reinhard's mail:

> Considering my efforts up to date, you really owe me
> an apology.

Considering efforts from my side:
I corrected lots of mistakes, factual and conjectural, so
that others will not get confused from wishful
misinterpretation, wrong info, prejudice and personal
preference;
I gave also a lots of info on where you could go on,
inform yourself (if you wished so), archives and what
is required.
On the other hand I had to read negative statements
(on no foundation) on my scientific background,
on my listening abilities etc.

No, we owe each other no apologies.

> Rather than embrace my efforts
> to explore this "murky" area of musical scholarship,

I still don't see your exploring an area of "musical
scholarship" - and it didn't get precisely less murky by the
many smaller and larger mistakes.

> you have been dismissive

May be: The german saying is. "As you shout into the woods,

> and condescending.

... so it will echo back.

But I would not have been that, if you would show any sign of
- distance to your topic,
- appropriate scientific scepticism not only to my research
which I welcome, but also to your work
- a wish to take the efforts needed, like learning the
language[s] relevant for the topic you are dealing with,
- interest and drive to find something yourself, even if it
might go beyond your preset conception. I mean it might be,
that you find something than confirms you, and I would
support that - but you might also find things which contradict
you
If you want to work in science you have to accept that, too. For
me that part of learning took a long time, you might be faster.
Would be nice to meet you on the field of research..

> I admit to some of the same, especially regarding the
> field of "musicology," which you need not take
> personally.

I don't take it personally - I only see that you blame a whole
science, without having learnt, what the science actually is
not: namely a tool for self-affirmation.

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> It has been great fun to sift through Ibo Ortgies'
> sparring on Baroque music.
> I have tried to stay on topic and have had to make
> 2 parts for a response.

> Ibo kindly allows me to finish up on the topics he has
> contended with.

I'm not contending ... I put forward arguments, evidence,
reasoning and expect the same from a serious reply. As much as
I'm exposing personal prejudices and preferences I take careful
consideration to avoid that they blur my arguments.

> He wrote last:
>> Ibo: Hi Johnny and all this my last statement on this matter
>> here
(I falsify myself by this my mail)
>> I ask the list to judge everyone for himself from the
>> arguments exchanged here.
At least I'd especially invite anyone to take part in the
discussion, who does know sources and evidence, and argues not
further from his conviction
...
> JR: And so I now have the opportunity to shed more light
> on the Bach research I have become involved with, along
> with my other microtonal activities.

>>...
----------

> JR: And now Part I of Evidence.

GREAT, let's look at your evidence.

>> Ibo: 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".

> JR: And since Bach used all 12 notes in so many of his
> compositions, he required "Genus Chromaticum."
> This is especially true for organists notable for
> improvisation.

Even if it would be assumed that Bach's improvising was always
or even mainly in "genus chromaticum", then it still doesn't
affect the common improvisation practice as reflected in the
treatises of the time (and Werckmeister's treatise "Orgelprobe"
especially was written for the organist, taking part in organ
examinations - basically for every organist. That explains also
his plain and simple language).
The purpose of organ music (improvisation not "repertoire") was
not mainly to play "chromatically". Bach got critisized for
that (in Arnstadt; well known), not merely from a unreflected
conservatism of his critics, but because he went beyond the
limits of the function of the organ and organ playing in its
social and liturgical context. So it can be seen a conflict
between his artistic will and the needs of parishes, the church.
The exceptions he formed in this were especially noted, like in
Arnstadt or rather late in his life, wehn he performed
(improvised!) Altenburg.
And many of his works (what we see as "repertoire" today) are
not especially chromatic.

> The inflexibility of organ tuning mitigates for a single
> organ tuning, and Werckmeister III is singularly admirable.

Admiration should not play a part in the scientific evaluation
of sources, evidence and facts.
I also admire Bach, Werckmeister, Buxtehude, Vallotti, Walther
etc. - but therefore I'm especially careful to avoid value
judgements from my preference as much as possible.

>> Any organ composition that used an Ab is likely to be
>> well-tempered since G# was the more usual key allocation
>> in meantone.

There are not just a few examples in which the the meantone G#
can be taken as a "septimal" A-flat. But that is and was a
matter of preference.
We find a-flat'' for example in Matthias Weckman[n]'s works. The
Jakobi-organ in Hamburg, which he played, had before Schnitger
split keys in the Rückpositiv (se my forthcoming article, now in
Print, in "GOArt Research Reports, Vol. 3, advertised on our
website). And as usual the "splits" went up only to
e-flat''/d#''. So when he wrote the piece in which he makes use
of the non existing a-flat'' he could only expect the septimal
sound of a g#'' instead.
That leaves the following possiblities:
- Either Weckman[n] accepted the simple "must", however
willingly/unwillingly we don't know, nor can we
conclude from anything around him.
- He composed it for another organ (no indication)
- He didn't write it in view of a specific performance

And on the other hand we have reports about organists from the
time until far into the 18th century, who played b-major chords
or f-minor on meantone organs. Sure, sometimes they got
critisized by other organists or musicians, musical theorists -
but, sometimes not. So there were those who accepted it, may be
even liked it (for the sake of an obscure "expression"?) and
those who didn't accept - sounds pretty much familiar.
Preferences then, preferences now.
I have heard one of the famous 20th century harpsichordist
playing an f-minor passacaglia on a meantone tuned instrument in
a festival concert after a break - he didn't retune the a-flats
or d-flats, occuring frequently in the music. I had severe
"problems" during that piece, a few others too. But there were
other musicians and connaisseurs who liked it. It was Gustav
Leonhardt playing around 1990: now was he right or wrong, was I
right or wrong, or those who argued with what they perceived as
musical "expression"?
Judging the historical situation from our instilled preferences
does not have any validity for the research of the historical
and highly complex situation, which in this respect was as
chaotic then as it was now.

I have recorded examples of a bunch of Buxtehude-Preludes in
1/4-s.c.-meantone without using any split keys (i. e. playing g#
when a-flat stands, e-flat in places of a d#-note, etc.) and
with contemporary (and varying) registrations. I played the
recording to some of the foremost Buxtehude-researchers
recently, plus ca. 30 other people highly experienced in
HIP-performance and research (and I didn't "prepare" them):
All agreed on that it was "playable", and especially from the
Buxtehude researchers came no objection. And the few passages
critisized by a few of the others (then mainly organists!), were
different - in other words: each pointed to different passages,
than his/her colleagues. The judgement on playability/
unplayability, suitability (or opposite) doesn't tell anything
therefore about what temperament might or might not be suitable
or "good". It is a personal preference, from which no conclusion
on the historic situation can be drawn, as it has been done over
and over until now (and probably will be done in future -
similar to the obviously impossible task to speak against the
myth of Werckmeister inventing ET and Bach writing the WTC for
it), because even well-trained musicologists couldn't withhold
their preferences, and didn't notice them - even less biased
20th or 21st century musicians.

>> Ibo: 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?

> JR: You are putting words into my mouth (yech).

No, as you see from the "?" it was a question?

> I draw no conclusions by making musical performances alone.

I didn't say that, but you let you guide from your personal
musical perception. You come to a conviction by modern practice

> At best, they are the satisfactory

But, what about those, who might be not satisfied with your
performance? Are they "nuts", "uneducated", a coalition of the
"unwilling"?

> result of much research. If you would be a bit patient,
> I will respond to your points, while making a few of my own.

Welcome, will be interesting if there will be and what kind of
evidence as the subject line proudly stated.

>> Ibo: As a musician I believe, that we can't get enough
>> historical 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

[IO added] and (once) available

>> 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.

> JR: That is a bleak assessment in my judgment. Using numbers
> allows for accuracy to 1200 cents to the octave. This puts
> all temperaments on the same table, for easy cross
> examination.

> The music is the form that results, and is the ultimate
> reason for your research.

No, I'm not primary researching for the music.
And before someone might misunderstand me as "dry musicologist":
As I pointed out before I don't see it as the task of musicology
to provide "usable" knowledge. Everyone in science must know
that research which serves a purpose will mainly tending towards
delivering the results, which are expected to be usable. For
example when the chocolate industry will ask and pay for
researching of the health effects of chocolate, we'll hear in
the news, that a recent study showed "scientifically" that
eating loads of chocolate has - at least - no effects on health
or even is advisable.

I see my task as a music historian: Finding as much sources,
evidence, (simple?) facts as possible, having a very wide scope
from the beginning and making exactly clear, where the
boundaries are in which my personal preferences might come in.
To avoid the personal misbeliefs, prejudices etc. as much as
possible, I not only do scrutinize my own reasoning again and
again, but give my papers to colleagues who know the field,
before I publish, and I get very helpful critics - and revise a
lot, when better evidene or sources are peresented. No problems
with that at all - I'm dealing with science, not taste. The
largest part in scientific work is taking away taste and
prejudice - I know, this is against much what so-called
"New-Musicology" is about, in which the "narrative" (jargon
word for "story" - but that could be too easily understood by
"non-scientists") is to day often seen more important than
to rely on sources, evidence and facts. To include a chapter
on some modern philosopher is also often more important than to
be able to handle the (not simple) craft of our profession
inasmuch it has to do with history (and musical "archaeology").
Frequently researchers like me are also attacked with the
primitive "positivism"-club - I have got plenty of buffer to
cope with more of that if it comes (and it will come, I'm sure).

>> Ibo: 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).

> JR: Like you, I don't want to hear experiments. For
> example, I have always resisted the fast comparison of
> the same piece being performed in competing
> tunings. However, there is science is the music
> of Bach, as well.

> For example, an analysis of the Brandenburg Concerti opening
> melodic intervals reveals that Bach used four semitones as
> an opening interval in four different Concerti. In each
> instance, the specific interval used is a semitone of 108
> cents,

This is fiction:
How would Bach or someone else guarantee an performance to the
maximum deviation of 0.1 cent (which your use of the figure 108
indicates. I guess you follow the scientific standard in giving
figures and the degree of preciseness indicated by them).
A free intonating instrument will not be able to carry out a
controlled out-of-tuneness that exactly. Not to speak of the
collective imprecision of several free intonating players.

Some simple physics might help understanding the practical
implications.
In wind-instruments, the problem of "warming up" the instrument
will produce considerable deviations larger than 1 cent (per 1°
Celsius temperature difference will be 3.0 cents). When the
player stops playing for a few minutes to pause, the temperature
will probably have dropped. Whatever he did in the meantime to
keep the instrument at exactly the pitch required bby the
exactictude from which your description starts, it will fail,
due to the "chaotic" behaviour of the many circumstances which
are not all precisely controlled by the enesmble-leader nor the
player himself (room-temperature, breath temperature,
playing-wind pressure etc.)

Temperature will be important not only in wind instruments, but
also other instruments. When the room gets warm, the strings
fall in pitch (contary to the would winds!). More chaos to come.

Temperature brings us back from the very different question of
ensemble intonation, which was seen completely different by the
17th and 18th century authors: Bach's famous and very
experienced colleague Telemann stated for example that you
"daily" hear singers and woodwinds playing pure)

Similar or the same physical effects will appear in an
accompanying organ (not used in the Brandenburg concerti but our
point of departure), whether it is tuned to Werckmeister XY or
any other temperament or tuning: there will be a rise or fall of
3.0 Cent per degree Celsius. This is a result of the function of
speed of sound in air.
Btw I expected, that humidity changes could play a role,
too, but a research on that - done by a colleague in acoustics
department, showed that humidity plays a neglectible role to
the pitch, it is way beyond 0.1 cent difference.
And if you think to performance with an organ (positive organ,
or in a smaller church or other room): at what temperature was
the organ tuned and how much different is the temperature in the
given moment, that the music is performed? In an unheated church
the temperature range easily will cover a range of 16 °C from
4° C to 20° C over the year (small churches might warm up even
more in the Summer).
This results in a difference of 48 cents. When the profesional
tuner started - I have documented examples for that (evidence!)
- it might have taken 6-9 or even mor moths in a large organ, to
tune it (these lenghts are from tuning activities in North
German church record between the end of the 16th century to the
end of the 18th century - in th 17th century for example a total
retuning away from meantone is nowhere indicated (all evidence
points without exception to the contrary).
An additional unwelcome effect is that the pipework doesn't
react linear to warming or cooling. This depends also on the
heat conductance of the pipe wall material (tin, lead, tin-lead
alloys, wood of different density and isolating properties), the
different coefficients for thermal expansion which might affect
the sounding length of the pipe. And (not only) in a church the
question of the warmth of from where the wind comes into the
organ (extra bellowsroom or from the church inner) plays a role
for the overall stability. Think also about front pipes which
will earlier be affected by the room temperature, than the inner
pipe work - at the same time the form a huge block of material,
slowing downm the room temperature change from the pipework
behind them. Also the different sizes of pipes will make huge
differences in adjusting to the temperature: small pipes will
change the temperature again much faster than the large pipes.
Therefore the mixtures are a main head ache.
Oh, I nearlly forgot that the divisions of large organs might be
distributed over a total height of an organ up to 20 m. The
molecular movement by warming up any matter in gaseous state
(like air) leads to that the gas needs more space (air pressure
remaining more or less constant) need more space: it will expand
in volume, and become less dense. Consequence is not only the
already mentioned change of speed of sound in the warmed up air
(causing rise of pitch), but also that the heated "bubble" will
get a buyoant force (Auftrieb) - In simple words: heated air
goes up, collects under the vaults, and soon your Oberwerk will
get out of tune, or at best rise (all pipes of the Oberwerk
together by 3.0 cents/degree Celsius temperature
difference.
Other problems will be the "flexible wind" supply, however the
pressure wave damped by a system of interrelated bellows may be.

So, suppose that someone actually started with the intention of
tuning a Werckmeister XY-temperament, or another well-tempered
or ET. If it actually was there at a moment, then it is likely
that next day or in one month your Werckmeister becomes a
"Jägermeister" (a German bitters, or liqueur)

How about meantone temperament. Yes, it is also affected by the
same physics and circumstances. But similar to an ensemble,
performing in the way it is described in treatises throughout
the time aruond 1700, the many close to pure intervals of
meantone temperament, if technically proper tuned (which is
difficult, too), can be suspected to have withstood, somewhat
better.
However, tuning an organ was an exhausting procedure - and it
was, as as a famous young colleague of Buxtehude wrote, the
"most important" to check in the organ examination (which
itself could take days and days!).

> the largest of four different sizes of semitone in
> Werckmeister III.

Neither the different semitones, nor other (unsuccessful)
"controlled" deviations in other of his or other author's
suggestions (includung ET) were regarded worth one single word
in the treatises (to name a few relevant: Quantz, Agricola
(Tosi), Mattheson, Telemann). And it is interesting to watch,
that the treatises more and more take up the issue of playing as
pure as possible during the 18th century, when - as Mattheson
puts it - ET was the preferred temperament, but he confirms at
the same time that singers and free intonating musicians are not
able too perform the semitones and the other out of tune
intervals. He says it would take at least one generation to
educate them in such a way, and that a positive result of such
education is not guaranteed or can be foreseen.
If they couldn't perform constant and exact semitones of 100
cent, how could they have performed other semitones, required
for keyboards? Mattheson for example states in this
context, that the keyboards do not include the organ: he points
especially to Werckmeister's temperaments and ET, saying that
they are not to be found in organs - from time to time however
in harpsichords!)

In the middle of the 18th century for that reason the organ
began to lose its function as an accompaniment instrument (also
stated by Mattheson and others) - because of the (most often
still prevailing) old temperament (i. e. meantone), causing more
and more problems in the accompaniment practice!
Then, another point is, that retunings to Equal temperament would not have been necessary if the Werckmeister-XY-
temperaments would have been regarded as important as you make
him (contrary to Werckmeister's own statement, now often
reffered to)

> It makes musical sense to use only the
> largest semitone for the opening melodic motive. This is
> too much for chance.

For the believer, yes - But not for those who have consulted the
sources, and consider the frame given by musiacl acoustic, and
instrument acoustics.

> There are 39 distinct melodic intervals in Werckmeister
> III and this is clearly more important to the musician
> than to the musicologist.

Today, may be, but to the contrary for the contemporary
free-intonating musician, who was required to sing or play as
pure as possible (above the continuo).

>> Ibo: But from that small and vague performance basis a
>> valid judgment or an evaluation of a previous historical
>> situation cannot be drawn. Not even for temperaments.

> JR: This is just your opinion.

Of course: If I would write here 2+2 = 4 or that there is this
and that evidence for that the Earth is moving "round" the Sun,
you might say on the same basis of your scientific philosophy,
that such statements are opinion.

> Live performance further informs.

I agree: it informs about exactly the performance condition of
that very moment of today.

> It is part of the process, a necessary part, in my opinion.

Of the process of playing, yes, and the process of buildig up
one's own (modern) aesthetics - must not be, but can contradict
the historical practice completely

>> Ibo: Personal preferences for example for a certain
>> temperament are by definition no evidence - except
>> for the individual, who brings it forward.

> JR: The above is meaningless in regard to my situation.

Yes, but if you would start to use the "tools" used to find,
verify or falsify historical information, it could become
meaningful at some point.

> You cannot be blamed for not knowing what my involvement
> in music has been.

Yes I can't, and I acknowledge of course that you certainly are
much more into performance with modern instruments than into
historical research. No one can do everything the same good, and
I do only my work as music historian with some dilettantic
musicianship besides ("Dilettant" was in Beethoven's and
Schubert's Vienna someone who didn't live from professional
musik making, but has anyway a musical education, which he could
use to leive on it)

> Ibo: 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 [challenge? JR].

> JR: I above wholeheartedly with the above statement.

Great, when do you start to sceptically scrutinize your beliefs,
which a scientist must do always? It is that elmentary
scientific scepticism which scientist have to learn. To this
belongs that selective reading of source parts, without taking
their context into consideration is "dangereous" - when talking
about organs, it is for example, not taking in the available
info on their contemporary status.
After years this scepticism brought me away from the simplistic
belief that well-temperaments were suddenly en vogue in organs,
only because such temperaments were published by gifted
propagandists, who for whatever reason (finances, support by a
convinced duke etc.) had the possiblity to publish).
Scientific scepticism lead me also away from believing that ET
is not a choice for the early eighteenth century - something
which I have had a hard time with, because I don't "like" my
result. But my preference is contradicted by important evidence
from the time - so I have to put aside my aesthetic prejudice
against ET. And for ensemble performance ET can work fine in the
accompanying keyboard instrument(s), as any other circulating
temperament.

>> Ibo: 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.

> JR: Sorry to contradict, but history is already practically
> all-myth regarding temperament. "Bach invented equal
> temperament" is widely believed throughout history, and it
> is a myth.

What is contradicting? Here we partly agree, inasmuch this
simple-minded Bach-ET myth is obviously again and again
transported and will be so in eternity, amen!
We can only bring the historical facts to the fore. But those,
on the other hand do not allow us to conclude, neither that Bach
used only one temperament over his nearly 50 years of
professional musicianship, nor which temperament it was at a
given moment. All sources, relate vaguely to this matter only,
and are from later time and used as material in the
"Temperaturenstreit" in which not even Bach's former students
agreed on anything.
Cautiously one could argue that Bach
- might have used some form of circulating temperament in his
stringed keyboard instruments, may be for some works a
meantone or modified meantone temp., for others some form
of a well-temperament, for others may up to "hand made" ET
- applied the common rule for free intonating instruments
in ensemble music, and
- in organs simply had to take what he got when he came to
a place (like Hamburg, where he applied, liked the organs,
which were all meantone long after his visit!)

>>> Ã˜ while making one of my travels. His wife Vertrude
>> Ibo: Is really 'Vertrude' her name?
> JR: Technically, it MUST be Gertrude, but he always said
> it like it was with a "V".

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

>> Ibo: 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.

> JR: Perhaps, they were not following his suggestions
> enough?

How could he control or know that if he didn't travel everywhere?
How could he expect an exact taking-over, while being he,
as a very practical and brilliant organ expert (with a slight
tic for temperaments - biased like all, but more practicalk than
his contemporary or modern "figure-knights") knew what
extraordinary effort it was to tune/retune an organ?

> While the fact that he kept changing through corrections

In all Werckmeister I don't see that he corrects one single of
his previous temperament suggestions, saying "this was not good
enough, take better this instead from now on"

> and additions underscores the fact that W. always referred
> his readers back to Musicalische Temperatur of 1691 for
> further temperament detail.

and for general detail, but it was not a prescription of how to
do it.
And why did he explain the 1/3-p.comma-temperament in words,
while just give an unxplained table for W III?
And, why did Bendeler, his colleague (and in that case really a
friend and cooperating together in Quedlinburg) publish himself
in the 1690s three temperament suggestions? B., a real
practitioner, claimed that they didn't not deviate in
practice from what he describes on paper - he was an experienced
organist, organ consultant and probably even an organ builder.
These are two temperaments with 1/3rd-p.comma-fifths, one with 1/4 p.caomma-fifths. Like Werckmeister he describes mainly how
to deal with the 1/3rd-comma- temps. Bendeler's organ building
treatise got a second edition in the 1730s (!) and was copied
even later in the 18th, for example by hand of a Swiss organ
builder.

Please explain, why exactly Bendeler's well-tempered suggestions
as well as Werckmeister's 1/3rd-comma-temp. are not belonging to
what you think acceptable, better etc.? What is the factual
basis for your, now often repeated, until now unsupported
statements?

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

>> Ibo: 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?

> JR: My understanding is that organs cannot retain their
> tuning for over 300 years.

That's nothing news and organs were frequently maintained.
Tuning touch-ups were done in some cases every 3-4 year -
without temperament change (intended).
To get to know things like this it is necessary to look into
archival evidence like examination reports. So, what exactly is
your evidence from archives (also from later published archival
research), if not reports on the actual status of the organ at a
given moment?

> Further, many records regarding church organs have
> been destroyed as a result of war.

Many have been destroyed in wars or in previous town burning.
Historical matter has the "natural" tendency to disappear with
time - it happens right know on two criminal sides which acting
in war against each other.

However, much has survived to let us see even detailed shapes of
the mosaiques and most of the colours.
And thorough archival research will deliver much more in
future. Too many amateurs, especially in the organ field have
done archival work too selectively, often not regarding the
development of the archive and its collections, not seeing in
which contexts other indications can be found.
Especially in Eastern Germany you can find lots in church
archives, which no one ever has taken effort to look through. In
May 2001 I was travelling through some town and church archives
in that area.
In one case I had within one morning a whole library in my hand,
in the attic (thin, partly broken windows, no heating or
artificial climate!) with hand written and printed 16th and 17th
books, scores (incl. Praetorius, Hammerschmidt) and other
material - stapled in meter-high bulks! Incredible and sad at
tha same time. In the whole "mess" I found a whole organ file
about an important 1650-instrument of one of the best builders
of te time. It showed that the organ basically existed only
slihtly altered until 1928/29. I hope to be able to find a photo
soon - as I found a early 19th-century architectural(!) drawing
of the instrument, too!

A lot has been done on the other hand, which was fortunately
published before the war(s), so there is plenty too dig in - and
we need a lot of highly skilled archival researchers,
Especially to clean up with many myths and the preferences which
have partly developped from not taking this evidence serious,
but mainly from not knowing such evidence.

> As the nomenclature for discussing tuning is so flexible,
> and has been poorly translated previously

That's exact the reason why any researcher in the history of
this field has to have a profound knowledge of the used historic
language. No one studying the Romans can do without proper
knowledge of classical Latin, for example. ( A musicologist
dealing with music and sources before 1800 also should have some
working knowledge of Latin, probably some of Italian and Spanish
as well. German, English, Dutch and one of the three
indoeuropean scandinavian languages for the Northern European
parts, too.)
If I would go to study Purcell and his music, I would have to
deeply dig into the English Language of his time, and how it is
different from today.
If I see for example that one of the key publications of the
early 17th century, was translated to English, is available to
music students, I can only welcome it. But the translator did a
bad job because in basically every second paragraph I find major
faults already in his understanding the language (In this
respect one publication deserves praise, it the Schlick-
translation by Elizabeth Berry Barber). Without knowing the
original language, and sometimes exchanging opinion with other
experts on it, the reading of such sources is useless, at best -
but more often dangering scientific work.
Recently in a musicology seminar a translated quote from a
German text of 1802 was read and discussed at great length. This
text spoke about the "subtle" - and big discussion about "das
Subtile" started. My remark, that the translation probably was
wrong, because ... was not taken into account, who cares about a
source? In the evening of the same day I got a fotocopy of the
original text, since a friend offered to look it up on my
protest. As I had suspected, the original was not using the
word "subtle" at all and the whole original text didn't touch
the topic by far.

> to both scholars and musicians, a new look on tuning
> practice for the late Baroque is warranted.

yes, always: for the organ from sources and evidence, which
until now is neglected: status reports etc.
And a new look must shed new light on it, not burring it by
personal preference

>>> Ã˜ Before he was to publish in Quedlinburg he
>>> travelledÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.even to Amsterdam.

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

> JR: I noticed that Werckmeister used Dutch terms in some of
> his writing.
> Particularly, I recall the Dutch word for the comma.

I have grown up with German, Low German, and partly with Dutch -
all three closely related. I read Dutch, talk a bit, my Dutch
friends talk often in Dutch too me, as my relatives in Low
German. I also have studied a lot of older Dutch (my
Alkmaar-Article shows evidence for that).
However, I have not sen any particular use of words pointing to
Ducth, may be at times, to local (Harz-region) variant of
Low-German or Eastfalian German dialect.

From your excellence in Dutch language, tell us please, which
word you are referring to, as the Dutch word is "Komma" (or also
"comma").

> (Frau Lichtwitz translated trough different Werckmeister
> books.)

I will not doubt her excellence, but it is a frequent mistake
from Germans of other German regions to think, that Low German
and Dutch are more or less the same, because they don't
understand either of them (I don't refer to the German-Low
German mix, which originated in some North German areas with an
earlier and higher fluctuation of population).

Did you check, that she has a very thorough working knowledge in
all these three related, but different languages?
Anyway, better not rely on people only because the are nice
people (of which fortunately many are around) - for example to
solve my question on influence of humidity on pitch, I asked an
building engineer, who is at the same acoustician, with
profound knowledge on materials, too. I could have asked an
organ buidler or musician friend with some "popular science"
knowledge, sure - but how could I trust the info, so I anyway
have to double-check with someone else, if I can't myself
understand the underlying principles. It's hard work to come to
small pieces of info, but the reliable part of the mosaiques
grow, and now, after many years of research, they grow faster
and faster (which needs even more double-checking)

> The Dutch trip is now relegated to a hunch. It would make
> sense for a young Werckmeister to check out the environs
> of Sweelink.

Yes and you could make up a lot more of "could be-s":
Werckmeister then probably traveled to Rome to visit the grave
of Palestrina and on the way in Munich di Lasso's heritage -
both were reference composers until far to the end of the 17th
ct.. Not to speak of course about the famous Zarlino's relics in
Venice, finally he was one of the constantly referred to tuning
and temperament theoreticians.
And from that card house we could "scientifically" conclude also
that he spoke Italian and Latin (for the papal administration)

From Zarlino Sweelinck is said to have taken lots of
theoretical background - a previous, suspected journey of
Sweelinck to Zarlino however is today regared as having a very
small likelines!

>>> Ã˜ 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.

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

[to Wallyesterrufus: This info I have from several of reference
works, not at least Lindley's works, also Franz Josef Ratte's
highly valuable source reading book]

> JR: This is what concerns me: the idea is a circular
> well-temperament.
> Why do you characterize Werckmeister about making pompous
> claims?

Which claims, do you mean by "pompous"?

> Werckmeister calls meantone-temperament "Praetorian tuning"
> with all possible respect to Praetorious.

Who?

> Though this was listed "second" as Werckmeister II,
> it is just a category of common tuningâ€¦though of an earlier
> tradition (or generation).

Werckmeister calls meantone temperament in his time the common
temperament ("die allgemeine Temperatur") as a opposed to his
own inventions. Would be strange if he wouldn't claim something
new and propose it: that method wrked already before
Werckmeister and is the fundament of successful marketing!

>>> Ã˜ In fact we don't have a face to put on him.
>> Ibo: [Probably people today would think it to be funny, too,
>> like his language]
> JR: I wouldn't. J

Here I agree!

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

[you ommited something here]

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

> JR: I guess the question, then, is why did Bach-archiv
> publish such bad musicology, then?

Good idea, why don't you ask them?
I don't think (like you) that it is "such bad". It provides some
different source evidence - which however is not connected to
each other sufficiently to make the author's case. So that
article has also a very good and careful part in bringing us new
archival material (partly quoting from other publications, too)
and thus increasing the chance this material to survive if the
originals will be lost at some time in the future.
And I have adressed my concern to the author -as I wrote before.
What he does with my info is his "beer" - it is not my task to
hinder anyone from feasable reasoning nor keeping to unproven
card houses (which might stabilize, if only evidence would shown
for statements). If it concerns my research, i might or will
speak up, however.

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

What you regard as "musically", "necessary" or/and
"musically/necessary" can be different for any person, then and
now. It doesn't contribute slightly to the case:
We are talking still, about what was the actual status of
temperament in the organs in Werckmeister's time and still I
have not heard of any example additional to those one or two (of
which the exact temperament has been assumed only!) which
Werckmeister mentions.

As musical performance is much about aesthetics you can't claim
a "truth" from modern performance (in fact not even from a
performance in Werckmeister's time).

>> Ibo: Take the differenciating view of the Bremen Dom
>> (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).

> JR: This is an interesting example. As a performer, it
> is at the opposite end of what music means. Grave
> would not use the organ with instrumentalists.

Yes, he would, too - but not as excessive as it was done in
Lutheran churches. The cathedral in Bremen had always
instrumental music - but the large organs purpose was not mainly
to play *always* with them. You'll find that and much more in
the valuable dissertation by Oliver Rosteck: "Bremische
Musikgeschichte von der Reformation bis zur Mitte des 18.
Jahrhunderts", Lilienthal/Bremen: Eres, 1999. He covers actually
more than the title already suggests. It is a large, well
founded study, relying very much on his thorough archival
studies (but according to New Musicology that's of course
inferior. Being inferior in this respect myself, I stick to my
other inferior colleagues as Rosteck, who still keep to the
old-fashioned scientific methods. Fortunately we dinosaurs
still are many - and probably like dinosaurs on the long run
we'll have been the most long existing and successful
species).

> That's a good, specific example.
You bet!

> It may be the exception

On the contrary - if you would study the organ history,
especially, but not only of the large town organs, you'll find
a similar pattern in the arguments of organists in the 18th century

> that proves the rule: that organs more often
> DO play with instrumentalists.

yes - and exactly to that purpose meantone was so much
preferred, because it stabilizes the ensemble intonation of the
free intonating instruments! At the same time it was most
beneficial in congregational singing (for a long time not
accompanied, but even more benficial for that!) and for the
abundant practice of transposing pieces, one of the most
important tasks professional organists had to be able to perform
- to the "weirdest" intervals and from scratch - it was one of
the best tested ability during organist auditions (even more
interesting is ..., but that I'll tell you later)!
Also it was more stable as organ tuning than its (later) WT or
ET concurrents. Somewhat exact tuned ET (as much as the
technique and physics allowed) also formed a excellent basis for
the above described ensemble practice, since the deviations to
be heard were constant, and not evven worse chords of WTs like
F#-major would disturb even more in pieces which made use of
such harmonies.

Since well-temperaments or ET didn't differ in this respect very
much, ET was taking over especially from mid-18th century

> And that this is an important function.
Again agreed

>> Ibo: 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

> JR: I would say conservative,

> non-progressive (because he likely never
> heard exact equal temperamentâ€¦s. Jorgensen),

This is again a value-judgement not backed by enough historical
knowledge. Who today hears "exact" ET in this respect,
except when ET has been tuned with the help of electronic
instruments, And how long does it stay as exact in mechanical
instruments? Which organ stays today in 99,99% exact ET. There
are lots of myths and belifes around the modern practice, too.
The aristidëic calculations of monochord lengths and also the
very exact* methods referred to by Kirnberger (I seem to
remember, that he got his wisdom from a French, Lambert)
(*exact: within the frame of hand tuned possibilities, even if a
electronic tuning device will be used, for example for tuning a
harpscihord, the method related by Kirnberger will produce a
result of the same - or even - better preciseness! The
difference to mathematical exact ET lies in about one beat per
more than a week: If you can hear that, than I'll fall on my
knees ...!).

Jorgensen is a piano tuner, highly systematic, but the practical
usefulness of his approach can be viewed differently. Anyway
recommended to know (not the least for piano technicians).
But J. is not a historian, so the historical info you can get
from his book is at best second hand, usually not even that.

>> and "matter-of-fact" (not part of your choices.

This would meat that Grave could be seen in two categories, in
"function" and may be (without judging or implying political
thoughts) in "conservative".
Or we might even agree her: he was simply practical - down to
earth. After they really had the organ tuned to ET in 1775/1776
he had all his old age to hear the organ in that state.
Whatever the quality of the carried out retuning-work was -
clearly and like in many cases, ET was the intended aim and goal.

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

>> JR: JC Bach (uncle) frequented Muhlhausen at a time when
>> Werckmeister was studying latin in Nordhausen, (born in just
>> outside, Benneckenstein). By driving

May be walking would help you much better to understand the
distances, and why Amsterdam was quite a bit off ...

>> to Nordhausen I got a good sense of the distances.
>> Muhlhausen is quite next to Nordhausen.

Don't tell your little secret to inhabitants of those towns,
Muehlhausen and Nordhausen. You might not survive it ;-)

>> How could these two miss meeting each other?

May be they didn't know each other? Or used different roads?
And even if they met...
Imageine, we two would meet, would that mean that we had to
agree on everything, only from the fact that we meet?
Meetings, chronological coincidences do not form the basis of
temperaments.

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

>> Ibo: 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.

> JR: Here we have a problem. I don't care

Yes! I agree: There we have a problem, a major problem:
If you, on the contrary would turn to care
- for thorough archival study,
- for a well-based knowledge of the language(s) which are
and were used in the area you want to start to study
seriously (Bach and Werckmeister, may be) and
- for source-based research,
then may be that your arguing would win a lot!
And be confirmed - I can tell from my own experience - it is
ground-lifting, when one's preferences get smashed by crashing,
massive evidence. But that's part of the fun of well-based
research.

> if ET works.
I can tell you: it works.

> Nor could I entertain Valotti (which appears after Bach
> died)

Yes, it appeared quite exact 200 years later, because the last
vol. Vallotti's (Va-LL-o-TT-i) large musictheoretical-historical
opus (3 vols. ) remained a manuscript and appeared in 1950!
And that - I really don't know anymore whether I should laugh or
not - contains his temperament description.

Still Vallotti is a good practical ensemble-intonation
temperament, even in an organ, as long as chords like D-fat
major or F#-major and other less bad "niceties" are not too much
perceptible and destroy the good intonation of the other
players and instruments

> for Buxtehude.

We don't know which temperament(s) Buxtehude might have used in
stringed keybaord instruments - his contact to Werckmeister
shows, that he is likely to have known them. But practical
considerations aside (as "How long does the harpsichord stay in
tune?" - "As soon as someone opens the door!") - we don't know.

> This is slipshod, and unnecessary

I'm sorry for that: I think by now I have often pointed to
thorough research and requirements of that, so you should from
now on avoid being slipshod - and certainly with much better
support, than I ever could deliver to you.
Start directly with getting away from the following of your
preconceived ideas:

> As a composer, I believe a composer has a more precise
> image in the mind than many a player can render under
> the best of circumstances.

This is only an idealistic view in the spirit of 19th and 20th
century heroic biography tradition - it doesn't help your
scientific excellence.
Composers like Bach and Buxtehude were in many respects highly
practical people. If the oboe would play 1 or 2 cent above or
below the pure third required this would be perfectly in the
frame of then-accepted ensemble intonation.

> I think it is important that the tuning basis of a composer
> be honored.

Yes, as soon as you might find evidence for Buxtehude or Bach or
whomever from that time, I'm eager to get to know it including
the exact basis, the "calculation of your possible error"
(determining one's and one's matrials limits is a very useful
habit from natural science).

> Hence, the drive to determine tunings for each composer.

Better get away from the drive, again: "Sine ira et studio!"

>> Ibo: 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 preference,
>> and not to mine?

> JR: I could convince you if you made a visit to my
> apartment in New York.

Thanks for the invitation - you are as much welcome here, too.
But I have no special plans to visit the US in the near future

> I would play examples and help you recognize the
> appropriateness of Werckmeister's tuning to Buxtehude
> and how ET fails the composer utterly in comparison.

So I will have to wait until times might get better. I regret
this, since after 20 years of professional tuning practice, I
really feel the desperate need to learn about appropriatness of
Werckmeister III - from your evidence (until now not presented).

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

>> Ibo: He died in 1706

and of course I know very well that the "Paradoxal=Discourse"
appeared posthumously

> JR: Yes, but his last book was published posthumously
> by his children in order to gain some much needed income.

The reason of my remark was exactly to provoce that you give
some exact background information, for once. Thanks!

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

Like Bendeler's book and legion of others.
Frankfurt and Leipzig were centra of book production for a long
time and the Mekka's of book trade with their large book fairs
- a "tradition" (bla bla... insert Gustav Mahler's famous quote)
which they claim to have still.
Anyway, they have big book fairs in these towns today, from
which we cannot conclude anything backwards. In the same way we
cannot conlude backwards from our individual performing backgrounds.

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

>> Ibo: 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.

> JR: You don't see the good politics here?

Lateley I have become somewhat fed up with politics.
Werckmeister, however, accepted in his writings everything but
meantone. He expressed his preference to somewhat better
diatonic notes and left it to the good (or bad) judgement of his
readers and those who could tune an instrument.
So what?

> More significant, he continued to endorse his own ideas.

Agreed, whatever all his (sometimes) diverging "ideas" were.

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

>> Ibo: 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

> JR: I couldn't disagree more.

It is by definition not possible to compare a negation.
"Disagree" means that you do not share an opinion. How can you
"more not" ("notter"?) share an opinion.
Am I right to guess that you want to exaggerate your point? Ok,
but here you deny strongly scientific reason, simple maths and
evidence. Again, do not let your preference steer your perception.

> But of course, I understand your misunderstanding.
> (Look, I'm sorry to appear arrogant.

No, no, not at all, just lack of facts, until now unpresented
evidence etc.

> But I hope you realize as I do that we are really only
> poking a bit of fun at each other in a polemical manner.)

My way of writing might be funny at times, but arguments are dry
and exact.

> I read your letters and generally enjoyed them. To the
> matters we have been addressing, I must disagree with
> this one:

>> Ibo (from Harpsichord List) "WTs force the singer/player to
>> a much more difficult to control intonation, especially in
>> the remote keys (where WTs are worse than ET)."

Here I must say, that I could *not* *not* disagree more with
myself. I wonder how I got such a normal and factual correct
sentence out of this stupid keyboard.

> JR: What is more accurate is that Werckmeister III is a
> case of controlled expression.

I'm very eager to learn from you, what it might "express". The
pythagorean thirds in A-flat-major for example might reflect
some composers bellyache. And the somewhat pure C-major chord
expresses may this ..., that.. or may be that ...
A 50.000 musically educated other people will come up with
50.001 diffrent opinions on that. Bla bla...

> Where a modern musician might use an elastic intonation,

I here this all the time, just have to switch on any radio
programme: this kind of modern "eeelaaastic intonation"
stretches my ears . Then the vibrato comes and covers with mercy
the de-tonation of 99,9999 % of the "trained" musicians - (being
highly trained not to listen exactly).

> Werckmeister III require head on intonation (in other
> words, no sliding below or above notes). The
> harpsichord becomes gold.

Which type of harpsichord exactly? In Germany there were around
Flemish types (may be with french ravalement), Italian types,
and of course the german "schools". Each one reacting quite
different to temperament and tuning.
And what do you think of the quite natural effect of string
torsion? Happens every now and then - and forces the experienced
tuner to deviate more or less from a concept he might have
intended (don't tell me, that Buxtehude or Bach restrung some
strings just a few minutes before a public performance just for
that). Anyway your W III is mainly a fiction in many cases, it
is an approximation (in the keyboard instrument)

Btw. there are many places where you can read, that instruments
got tuned according to the key of the piece. Do you "transpose"
Werckmeister?

> Every string players huddles
That huddling we hear plenty everywhere on recordings, concerts,
what you want

> by it to get the exact intonation throughout the concert.

Do you mean seriously you have heard "exact" (how exact, did you
measure?) intonation from free intonating instruments? And you
do not mean anyway the as pure as possible intonation as
described and requireed in the 17th and 18th century?

> When everyone know ET, it doesn't matter much whether you
> can hear the harpsichord in a continuo. But when in
> W III, string players find it vital.

Unexperienced and without knowldge of the historical background?
Certainly.

> Your lower expectations will yield lesser results, I'm
> afraid.

(here I scarcely can avoid a really insulting remark ...)

>> Ibo: 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.

> JR: Yes they can.

Let's see - my ear and the sources contradict. To please you,
let's take history and the sources aside:
Hic Rhodos, hic salta - You claim it is possible, then give the
proof.
Certainly you have careful measurements from performances for
each of the instruments playing in your ensemble. I want to know
whether it is true, that there is one ensemble in the world
which does, what no one else has achieved. And then when you can
prove it, I'll help to spread the good news, honestly.
Do you have a recording of which you might be able to have a
fairly good real audio rendering - but that could follow the
evidence you present by clear-cut acoustical measurements?

On the other hand I can only wonder, why you would want to
enforce the rather bad thirds too be found too in Werckmeister
III, a bunch even worse than equal, by trying to let the
instruments play different sizes of major thirds of 400+x cents.
And let's leave out for now the question what to not speaking
about the other even harder to control intervals

Actually, until proof is delivered - I think this
Werckmeister-Ensemble-intonation is great fiction! And, however,
irrelevant to the time of Werckmeister (read the sources, but
now exactly!).

> One way is to treat WIII as a 12 note (or less) blues
> scale. Some players actually like the cents values
> due to their training, others would run away from them.
> But all love to get near the harpsichord.

Of course it is recommendable to be close to the continuo
instrument so that you can hear the bass note to intonate on it.

>>> (I've already described the use of tape.) Trumpets, no
>>> problem so far (with its use of a minor third worth of
>>> interval bandwidth).

> Ibo: 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
> Violone, Gamba or Cello, 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)

> JR: There is nothing impure to mask.

Of course ...

> Impurity base on later concepts of vertical
> simultanaities do not apply to strict counterpoint.

as for example, major thirds of 402 cents or 408 cents, occuring
in W III, are not pure by definition and even more so, by
hearing them.

And the matter of well-temperament is not related to strict
counterpoint.

> These are melodies that need further distinguishing,

If you use the appropriate period instruments and a singing
technique as much as possible according to historical
descriptions, this kind of "distinguishing" of polyphonic lines
will not be needed. However, the historical as pure as possible
intonation will enforce the natural overtones (to which the
different parts can adjust to also quite well - contrary to an
assumed performance "in" some WT or ET, as you claim unproven to
be "exactly" possible)

> which Werckmeister III is ideally suited to accomplish.

Thus spake the prophet.

> When music becomes more chordal, only then do your
> ideas of "better" and "worse" make any sense.

You would get the sense when you would achieve sufficient
experience in performing by integrating knowledge from HIP. And
practice it for some years, but not letting taking over by your
preference. Lot's left to do...

> In the Middle Ages, cycle of fifth tuning

What else? Cycle of Septimas?

> was popular in Germany.

I'm speaking about well-tempered sytems and their actual
existence (or non-existence) or use (or not, or abuse) in the
musical context of the 17th-18th century.
The copmpletely different context of Medieval Music has nothing
to with our discussion (ask Margo Schulter on that ma
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)

Re: [loonnnggg] Evidence [tuning] Re: Werckmeister, Schnitger Buxtehude etc.

🔗Ibo Ortgies <ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Joseph Pehrson <jpehrson@rcn.com>