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

wallyesterpaulrus@y... wrote:

>Ibo Ortgies wrote:

>>> 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).

> ibo, johnny said 108 cents, not 108.0 cents. therefore the
> scientific standard indicates a maximum deviation of at
> least 0.4 cents, not 0.1 cent.

You're right - my mistake in giving the number, sorry!

The theoretical maxima should be
107.5 and 108.49

Question to Johnny: did you mean it that exact? Do you have measurements of the practical result of one of your Bach-performances to show that the exactness of +/- 0.5 cent is actually reached by everyone in the ensemble? How consistent is the exactness reached for the different occuring intervals. Interesting would especially be to get such measurements from a part of the music which modulates and employs augmented or diminished intervals.

> now it is true that such intervals cannot even be defined for
> arbitrary sound signals that last for a very short period of time. > but invoking the drift of wind instruments with respect to air > pressure is certainoly no argument here, as johnny and his players do > not rely on fixed fingerings for each cent value -- i think he's said > that fingerings get you within a 25-cent zone at best -- they rely on > their *ears* and make moment-to-moment adjustments as necessary. > the claim of 1 cent accuracy, when johnny is pressed hard
> enough, becomes a worthwhile goal rather than a verifiable
> result,

which seems to express my opinion, it is an approximation.
One tries to reach perfection, knowing that it is impossible, but anyway trying.

> but nothing *you* said speaks against the acheivability
> of this goal, ibo.

I disgree, because I think the "chaotic" factors in a "practical" situation (I sketched a few) outweigh the other factors

> i wish i had time to read and comment on the rest of
> the discussion.
> i've just glanced around a bit. while it's been clear for some time > that johnny boldly comes to conclusions about the intended tunings of > certain composers based on speculative leaps and without anything > like scientific evidence, i don't think that ibo's position is > anything like "science" either. perhaps more reasoned, yes -- and his > bringing to light the writings of primary sources, etc. is certainly > invaluable. > but as a physicist, i see nothing resembing "science"
> here,

Some natural sciences methods might in humaniora be sniffed at as "positivistic" (the big club). And on the contrary natural sciences might look down at methods applied by humaniora as not being "science". I don't agree with both views. I see the necessity learn from each other, take and refine the methods to narrow in - at least respect them, not saying from the other scientific branch, this is not "science" (which involves gaining knowledge, skill, insight, science).

> and as a musician, i know the importance of confidence and
> boldness and how these can outweigh many other factors in
> producing a convincing performance.

I fully agree, and have stated that before.

> personally, i hope for a world where different groups
> of musicians can perform bach in strict werckmeister
> iii, in adaptive just intonation where only a rare pitch
> deviates more than +/- 3 cents from a keyboard extended
> meantone model,

and the historical approach as represented in the sources around Bach, in which it can deviate quite much more between the fixed pitch-continuo instruments (in any of the described or practised temperaments) and the free intonating musicians (often explained and described now ...)

This is represented for example in organs tuned in many temperaments. An example: the fifths in meantone chords are already (theoretically) 5.4 cents deviating from the pure fifths in a mixture or a quint-stop. It has some nucleus of "truth" that the organ is called "queen/king of instruments" - as it matches in one instrument, historical description of ensemble intonation (including the voice).

> in
> kellner bach tuning, barnes bach tuning, etc. the world will be a > richer place for all the options, which hopefully would lead to a new > generation of more intonation-sensitive musicians.

Fully agreed!

> certainly the liberties that have been taken, to good
> effect, with performances of bach's music are far more
> striking to the average listener than these subtle
> shadings of intonation would be. nevertheless, i hope the
> tuning debate rages on, it's healthy . . .

dito

kind regards
Ibo

In a message dated 4/17/03 7:54:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se writes:

> Question to Johnny: did you mean it that exact? Do you have
> measurements of the practical result of one of your
> Bach-performances to show that the exactness of +/- 0.5 cent is
> actually reached by everyone in the ensemble?

There are factors that can mitigate against any scientific tuning. There is
vibrato, there is a burp, there is a mistake. The AFMM Ensemble plays in all
sorts of tunings, and to critical acclaim. Can you not see that playing Bach
in another tuning is just that, another tuning. No can measure it later to
your heart's content. I don't doubt it is a better performance than Bach was
likely to receive (if he hear BC #2 at all in his lifetime).

And yes, I can play, vocalize, and hear cents. Even itty-bitty single cents.
On February 8th I did a piece called "Hearing a Cent" as part of an AFMM
concert. I am sorry you could not attend.

How consistent is >
> the exactness reached for the different occuring intervals.
> Interesting would especially be to get such measurements from a
> part of the music which modulates and employs augmented or
> diminished intervals.
>

It's only 12 notes, that's it. The harpsichord tunes it in 15 minutes (much
as Bach was reputed to do) and then each string players tunes to the open
strings of the harpsichord. The recorder and oboe match as previously
described. My concerts are open to the public and the Bach got great reviews
both last year (in The New York Times), and this year (un reviewed in print).

Paul added:

> > now it is true that such intervals cannot even be defined for
> > arbitrary sound signals that last for a very short period of time.
> > but invoking the drift of wind instruments with respect to air
> > pressure is certainoly no argument here, as johnny and his players do
> > not rely on fixed fingerings for each cent value -- i think he's said
> > that fingerings get you within a 25-cent zone at best -- they rely on
> > their *ears* and make moment-to-moment adjustments as necessary.
>

Paul, you are confusing my comments about doing Renaissance a capella vocal
music in just intonation (and drift) with the Bach performances in Werck
meister III. WIII requires exact fingerings for each of the 12 tones. On
the winds there is only 1 single fingering (other than some virtuosic
involvement, e.g. trills, monophonic alternates, alternate fingering).

Where did you get this about relying on ears for a 25-cent zone? Perhaps you
are thinking about violins. We always use our ears, and maybe, as in the
second movement I took a liberty to accenuate the tuning in a solo turn.

> > the claim of 1 cent accuracy, when johnny is pressed hard
> > enough, becomes a worthwhile goal rather than a verifiable
> > result,
>
> which seems to express my opinion, it is an approximation.
> One tries to reach perfection, knowing that it is impossible,
> but anyway trying.
>

It is not impossible. (he says for nteenth time)

> > but nothing *you* said speaks against the acheivability
> > of this goal, ibo.
>
> I disgree, because I think the "chaotic" factors in a
> "practical" situation (I sketched a few) outweigh the other factors
>
>

Chaotic factors in old organs? You mean the temperature and the elements?
Man, I hope you don't suffer a stroke when you finally get to hear WIII
performed accurately in a composition by Bach. What else do you expect to
uncover about early performance practice that will "help" modern
performances, or is it more like the study of ancient Greek, forever
theorized in pronunciation and music, but never realized.

> personally, i hope for a world where different groups
> > of musicians can perform bach in strict werckmeister
> > iii, in adaptive just intonation where only a rare pitch
> > deviates more than +/- 3 cents from a keyboard extended
> > meantone model,
>

JR: Which I abhor, because I think it takes us further from the integrity of
the composer's intentions.

> and the historical approach as represented in the sources around
> Bach, in which it can deviate quite much more between the fixed
> pitch-continuo instruments (in any of the described or practised
> temperaments) and the free intonating musicians (often explained
> and described now ...)
>

This is just plain wrong. You can't tell me what I can do on an alto
recorder. You have no idea what you are saying. It's baloney. A violinist
can play in any tuning once they understand it and everyone is playing along
in the same tuning. I have no idea what kind of inferior music or with what
kinds of insecure players you have associated with, but the situation is not
the same over on this side of the pond.

> > certainly the liberties that have been taken, to good
> > effect, with performances of bach's music are far more
> > striking to the average listener than these subtle
> > shadings of intonation would be. nevertheless, i hope the
> > tuning debate rages on, it's healthy . . .
>
> dito
>
> kind regards
> Ibo
>
>
Too bad you weren't there, Paul. You, too, Ibo. But there is a recording.

best, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

> Paul, you are confusing my comments about doing Renaissance a
capella vocal
> music in just intonation (and drift) with the Bach performances in
Werck
> meister III.

no i'm not. why would you think that? there's a clear difference
between the two, they're almost opposite is some ways.

> On
> the winds there is only 1 single fingering

well then you're open to ibo's objections. no wind instrument holds
its pitch to nearly a 1 cent accuracy in a real performance
situation. this is a daily problem for me, in fact . . .

> Where did you get this about relying on ears for a 25-cent zone?

relying on *fingerings* for a 25-cent zone, and the ear for finer
gradations . . . i thought you had said something like that on
woodwinds, or else it was some other woodwind virtuoso . . .

> > > personally, i hope for a world where different groups
> > > of musicians can perform bach in strict werckmeister
> > > iii, in adaptive just intonation where only a rare pitch
> > > deviates more than +/- 3 cents from a keyboard extended
> > > meantone model,
> >
>
> JR: Which I abhor, because I think it takes us further from the
integrity of
> the composer's intentions.

it's too bad you abhor alternate views when your own are based on so
subjective a view of the evidence. ibo obviously knows the literature
as well as you do yet seems to come up with quite a different
interpretation of the composer's intentions.

>
> > and the historical approach as represented in the sources around
> > Bach, in which it can deviate quite much more between the fixed
> > pitch-continuo instruments (in any of the described or practised
> > temperaments) and the free intonating musicians (often explained
> > and described now ...)
> >
>
> This is just plain wrong. You can't tell me what I can do on an
alto
> recorder.

what does ibo's statement above have to do with telling you what you
can do on an alto recorder? i must be missing something.

> You have no idea what you are saying. It's baloney. A violinist
> can play in any tuning once they understand it and everyone is
playing along
> in the same tuning. I have no idea what kind of inferior music or
with what
> kinds of insecure players you have associated with, but the
situation is not
> the same over on this side of the pond.

i look forward to your book, johnny, where the performance
measurements are documented that back up the beliefs behind this
extraordinarily insulting remark.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

>> JR: Which I abhor, because I think it takes us further from
>> the integrity of the composer's intentions.

> it's too bad you abhor alternate views when your own are
> based on so subjective a view of the evidence. ibo obviously
> knows the literature as well as you do yet seems to come up
> with quite a different interpretation of the composer's intentions.

Thanks for the polite statement.
Though I think that you certainly know, I would anyway like to clarify):
I do not try to reach an interpretation of the composer's intention.
At least in the case of Bach, the intentions are impossible to know or
to find out since Bach himself left no remark about what or how he
wanted to perform (or have performed) his music concerning temperament
or intonation. It would be haughty from me, if I would claim that I
could come close to intentions wich are not described or reported (and
it would be haughty from anyone else who would claim that it is possible).

...
>> You have no idea what you are saying. It's baloney. A violinist
>> can play in any tuning once they understand it and everyone is
>> playing along in the same tuning. I have no idea what kind
>> of inferior music or with what kinds of insecure players you
>> have associated with, but the situation is not
>> the same over on this side of the pond.

> i look forward to your book, johnny, where the performance
> measurements are documented that back up the beliefs behind this
> extraordinarily insulting remark.

Thanks, may be Johnny wasn't aware that Mr. Kreeftmeijer lives also on
this "side of the pond", playing his baroque oboe only here, not in
the Brandenburg performance we have heard so much good about since
several days.

Best
Ibo Ortgies

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:

>> JR: Which I abhor, because I think it takes us further from
>> the integrity of the composer's intentions.

> it's too bad you abhor alternate views when your own are
> based on so subjective a view of the evidence. ibo obviously
> knows the literature as well as you do yet seems to come up
> with quite a different interpretation of the composer's intentions.

JR: Unfortunately, I did not get this original response from Paul (<
wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wroteJ )

Paul?: You sound a bit angry. Yes, I disagree....please resend since I don't
know what you are responding to.

Yes, I am passionate about altering a composer's intentions, if we know them.
Now, I have damn good reasons for saying what I am saying. Ibo has a great
knowledge of much of the standard literature and he has definite skills. It
is a good thing for us to lock up and thrash this stuff about.

But distorting composers knowingly, as in a game, irritates me no end.
Sorry.

Ibo: Thanks for the polite statement.
Though I think that you certainly know, I would anyway like to clarify):
I do not try to reach an interpretation of the composer's intention.

JR: This is an important distinction. In my world of making concerts, it is
a primary concern.

Ibo: At least in the case of Bach, the intentions are impossible to know or
to find out since Bach himself left no remark about what or how he
wanted to perform (or have performed) his music concerning temperament
or intonation. It would be haughty from me, if I would claim that I
could come close to intentions wich are not described or reported (and
it would be haughty from anyone else who would claim that it is possible).

JR: I'm sure you will find our concerts haughty as well (whatever that
means).
...
>> You have no idea what you are saying. It's baloney. A violinist
>> can play in any tuning once they understand it and everyone is
>> playing along in the same tuning. I have no idea what kind
>> of inferior music or with what kinds of insecure players you
>> have associated with, but the situation is not
>> the same over on this side of the pond.

Paul?:
> i look forward to your book, johnny, where the performance
> measurements are documented that back up the beliefs behind this
> extraordinarily insulting remark.

JR: Paul, it was said tongue in cheek. There are great players on both sides
of the pond, and no doubt Ibo is associating with them. Is this really you?

Besides, I had to reach for Bram because there was no one better in all of
New York City.

Ibo: Thanks, may be Johnny wasn't aware that Mr. Kreeftmeijer lives also on
this "side of the pond", playing his baroque oboe only here, not in
the Brandenburg performance we have heard so much good about since
several days.

Best
Ibo Ortgies

Best, Johnny Reinhard