Re: Evidence: Werckmeister Buxtehude, Bach paper temps

Dear Johnny and list,

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
...
> In a message dated 4/15/03 12:34:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> ibo.ortgies@m... writes:

> This is cute. Maybe "something" I said is getting
> through after all.

Just wanted to say the same ...

>>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"

Seems, that I was not always "sine studio" in this discussion,
but I didn't claim to be wise, anyway.

> It is understood that this has been a big issue in your
> academic life.
> And that now, with a dissertation deadline looming,
> you want everyone to learn your lesson.

It is not understood.
The "academic life" doesn't interest me at all as a end in
itself, except as much as it provides the possibilities and
ressources to carry out research (hopefully). Otherwise
"academic life" is too often rooster fight and packed with fat
and slow bureaucracies (Not that I don't see the of a
administrative environment). One wonders often, how research
still can be done. "Academic" or not; I do not care for such a
categorization and I do not respect degrees/positions as an end
in itself. If I could do my work without the requirements to get
a degree "a title" I'd do it. Actually most of my background
came from the time, when I was not affiliated to any academic institution at all.
And I definitely don't want that anyone should learn "my lesson"
and deadlines have nothing to do at all with that. I'm working in a small niche , not regarded by many people as being
important. And everyone could read what I wrote about scepticism
to one's own work. I can contribute only with the knowledge, so
far I have had possibility to accumulate it. As soon as new
evidence pops up, verifying, modifying or falsifying me, I'll
take it in. In this respect, discussions like this help my
research work - claryfing my thoughts. (In any case thanks to
you and everyone taking part)

> I agree, no apologies are necessary. Your careful responses
> more than make up for your passionate piques. After
> printing out "Looong" (oops, did I have enough "o's
> in Looong"?),

How should I know, as you know already, I can't count to three.

> I quite enjoyed the hard hitting reach from the old
> Teutonic traditions.

And I have great respect for the scientific traditions of
"Uncle-sam", when they are applied ...
But actually I don't care at all about such nationalistic or
patriotic attributes, as it has nothing to do with the methods
applied.

> It serves well as a pre-edit. But Jon Szanto is correct,
> I do not agree with Ibo's assumptions.

Would be nice if you would agree to those many parts, where it
was simple (?) "positivistic" facts.

>>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.

> True. You didn't hear any of the concerts. You cannot
> test my ear. You cannot test my results in sound.

(See my previous mail today)

> Whether there is any "scholarship" involved in what I do
> in making these concerts happen is perhaps debatable.

I agree and have stated that before (in diffeent places,
different words): scholarship or science are not necessarily
part of a performance. More so, most of the time they are not,
or even shouldn't.
In our science, we often can't deliver just one result: It is
often two possiblities, or a bunch of possiblities, or an "area"
which can only be defined by narrowing in from the possible
knowledge. And of course, it happens that scientists are wrong.
We all do this or that mistake, sometimes sloppiness comes in
too (and I'm a good example for that).

But performance is "practice", it is an actual situation, in
which the "scientific" knowledge often can't be applied, because
you have to come to a decision, what to do in a given moment.
The scientific "May be" must be turned in a musical "It is" at
that moment. In the next performance your decision might change
due to varying circumstances.

And I think a lot of what we disagreed on (really or virtually)
has to do, that we didn't figure this out, first.

> But the accuracy we reach is recorded for all to hear. Keep
> in mind that the Brandenburg Concerto #2 concert was only
> last March 29th. I could certainly send out an example.

> Btw, it is not possible to hear a continuo and give just
> relationships to the continuo notes in the Brandenburg
> Concerti. They are way too fast, as is most of Bach.

How to deal with the question of 'running basses' is adressed in
sources on continuo-playing. And in-between-situations will
occur of course and make the execution even more prone to
deviations.

> So, your surmise doesn't match the music. This I have
> experienced repeatedly on "free intonating" wind
> instruments. There is a tuning and we are playing it.

Claim! Proof? Will you publish an article with the exact
measurements during a performance?

> Most distressing at times is your tendency to judge a cover
> by a previously read book. ;-) You don't know, so in your
> pique, you flex your muscles. I'm less inclined to follow
> suit. I think you can eventually understand where I
> am coming from, but you will probably need to get your
> degree first.

Don't you have it cheaper? The reader is referred to my above
statement, showing my view of "academic life" and degrees.

> Once you feel comfortable with your credentials, you may
> once again be open to new ideas coming from different
> angles.

Thanks for your allowance. As soon as I need a taskmaster I'll
send a mail.

> Since I am not a scientist, and do now acquire to become
> one, you may consider that musical intelligence through
> performing is a legitimate avenue for discovery

of your or "modern" performance conditions (and I highly
respect that attempt, as I now often stated), but

> early performance practices.

can from that view be approached, when

- using instruments the composer has used, or is
at least likely to have used
- using playing techniques, as close as we can
come to
- evaluating carefully and as much as possible archival
and printed matter about the respective time, musical
culture, thoughts

And since we have only a small part of evidence left from the
past it is already difficult to judge from the performance (with
all the possible prerequisites taken in account) what might be
"historical" or what is "modern" it. We can't escape our
present day - not by any means. And that is in my view the
reason why "historically informed performance practice" is
always a modern thing.

By "past" I mean any past, how distant it might be in time: if
you give all possible evidence (papers, reports, documents,
sound recordings) to a group of historian and ask for an
"exact" reconstruction, you will probalbly have a hard time, to
recognize yourself in the results. Not because the scientific
methods are not applied correctly, but because the evidence is
so scarce. The more pieces of the mosaique will be take in
account, the more likely the original picture can be
reconstructed (and even then pieces might find their way to the
wrng place by misinterpretation or alck of information)

Leaving out one of the three sketched points will reduce your
available mosaiqe-pieces of the puzzle so much, that the
historical reconstruction has way less probability. However, you
might come to some correct conclusin by chance, but how would
you judge? From your "good taste", "experience".

> I can say now that if I can do
> something, it was doable, and imaginable by Bach.

May be to the degree I sketched, if you work taking all
available knowlegde and that is already a fiction for all of us.
And what is "imaginable by Bach" we can't know, especially not
if we think about him as a "genius": who would claim today for
himself to be such a "genius" that s/he could imagine something
as Bach wuld have done?

If you find out that something works on a modern oboe, it might
not be playable on the baroque oboe, and vice versa.
From tools (instruments) which are not representative for the
music you are playing, you can't draw valid conclusions about a
historical situation. And that invalidity includes, that your
way of performing can (and I wish so) have an artistic value to
us today.

> And yes, he does stand out from other German composers of
> his period... imho.

Who couldn't ;-)

>>> 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,

> S'funny, there was over 20 years distance before I announced
> my opinions to this list, since I had written my masters
> thesis at Columbia. But we are shouting past each other,
> unfortunately.

Of course distance must not mean "distance of time" - It was
just in other words:

>>- appropriate scientific scepticism not only to my research
>> which I welcome, but also to your work

> If you have never heard my results, and I am right, where
> does that put my scepticism?

The question is justified. I will answer it, as soon as you
deliver inevitable proof, that your conclusions of the
historical conditions as derived from your modern performances
are "right".
How exactly do you intend to find the missing information to
integrate in your performances (maybe in the magnitude of 99%,
since certainly most of historical sources on performannces and
their circumstances are lost)?

If I only think about much of the compositions from the 1960s,
which included taped recordings. As soon as the plastic has
corroded and the technology will not work anymore, the
reconstruction work will begin. In one century from now,
probably way earlier, you'll have the same situation for Kagel,
Stockhausen, Berio and others. What will musicians make out
their concepåts, what material will musicologist still have to
conclude from about such music.

It is fiction to think, that the composer's intention can be
found back by performance.

> My scepticism is reserved
> for the status quo. This means an American status quo,
> since your's is a bit different. Americans know
> even less about Werckmeister than Europeans.

The geographical origin of valid or accepted methods is
irrelevant. If a applicable method will be delivered by
inhabitants on Mars, showing the same results here, than I
certainly will not call it Marsian.

>>- a wish to take the efforts needed, like learning the
>> language[s] relevant for the topic you are dealing with,

> Actually, I do speak German, feeling quite comfortable
> traveling in Germany.
> And I did pass my German and French translation requirements.

Great, I feel surpassed! I have no degree in German .-), neither in French (some of which I can read through half-lost latin and
pidgin-french).
What I questioned, how you could rely or check any of the
sources or what others tell you about them, without being deeply
rooted in German. How can you rely on translators, without
double-checking? I definitely didn't want to insult, but I
admit, that I didn't believe that you had any knowledge of
German (and related languages), when I read your firm statements
about alleged Dutch in Werckmeister and the too fast drawn
conclusion from the wrong understanding of Mattheson's list of
Werckmeister's publications, plus the Walther-readings.

> My family did not permit my study of German before college.
> Still, I studied German first while in High School for
> several months only. There may be some psycho-analytic
> difficulty in my spelling of German place names that require
> either diacriticals or formalized substitutions.
> Regardless, there is something called Netiquette: one
> should not criticize spelling in e-mail
> posts...it is not polite, and in your case, hardly necessary.

Sorry, but you started the refined "psycho-analytical arguments"
directed towards me.

And concerning the "correct" spelling:
it is not a question of nettiquette:
- there are standards accepted for replacing letters, mainly
so called Umlaut, and also for diacritical signs (which we
don't have in German). With this standards many
misunderstandings can be avoided from the beginning.
So the initial mix of Groeningen and Groningen could have
been avoided, and
- searching for info gets more reliable and user-friendly:
A user, searching for info about Groeningen or Praetorius
will not find it in your mails and we certainly agree,
that you might have to tell something, worth reading which
should be available as long as this electronic dust exists.
Personally, I don't want to waste my time with searching
in 1000s of mails or other documents, forced to
think of "how could anyone get it wrong" in order
to find the info.

And about living persons ? Yes, there I agree with you, that it
is a question of netiquette to use the right spelling. But that
didn't occur.

So much for the nettiquette and necessities which you require
rightly.

>>- 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

> Well, my whole life has been an example of imagining preset
> conceptions. For
> example, this week we are doing the final tweaks on the
> Charles Ives "Universe Symphony" which I realized from
> extant sketches. (Finally, after 3 years of the recording
> project.)

Sounds like a great project. My congratulations!

>>If you want to work in science you have to accept

> I want to present great music. That's what I do.

We agree again!

> Music has more power when it is performed in the
> intonation that is intended by the composer.

I agree - to the degree of our possible knowledge.
Unfortunately, this possible knowledge is way too scarce (for
example regarding Bach).

> You guess

Yes, you know, that's what so many think of research like mine.
think I can live with that. You on the contrary are of
course the one who has the reliable, veryfied information.

> and mix tunings because you have rationalized
> that no one knows, can make the differences, or really
> has the depth of research and insight that you do.

Please tell me, if I can help you misunderstanding me even more
(if that could be possible - I doubt).
I know many people (and there are certainly more) who have
better insight, more knowledge about music history, Bach, Buxtehude etc. than me (quite many American researchers among
them, becasue it doesn't play a role where someone comes from or
where he is doing his research, if it's done well).
But that's not precisely those, who judge from their personal
preferences and come to "safe" conclusions what a composer's
intentions were. And when they formulate hypothesises they will
not sell them as mere facts.

> I have found things in the music that is performed in
> Werckmeister III that sets it apart from paper tunings
> or later tunings.

hmm - good argument!
But correct me, if I'm wrong: Wasn't Werckmeister III published
in his time always on paper (and furtheron until the computer
age)? Parchment wasn't used in his time anymore (may be one
could find medieval "parchment tunings"!)

What exactly are paper tunings by others as opposed to
Werckmeister's (several) paper temperaments?

Or, if you regard Werckmeister III, despite it's being rendered
on paper, not as a paper tuning, what about the other
Werckmeister temperaments, especially the one for "regular
modos" in 1/3rd-p.c.
And also Bendeler's temperaments? - Bendeler, who was a known
friend and colleague of Werckmeister. Why are those paper
temperaments, while Werckmeister III only should not?

> It is now late. I hope to present my idea

"my idea": that's a perfect and valid approach to which I agree,
as you make clear that it is not to be claimed as Bach's idea,
because we can't know it (and neither of us could speak for him).

And: Herbert Anton Kellner's life long experience lets him speak with greatest conviction that Bach's temperament is
Kellner's 1/5-p.c.temperament, too.

I wonder who of both of you will be finally able to prove that
just his concept (or may be "his just concept") is the one and
only, and that Bach actually applied it.

Anyway, I recommend to try and to use Kellner's temperament,
too. It has, however, no historical record proving it to be
Bach's temperament - like Werckmeister III.

"Kellner-Bach" is "practical", sounds on many instruments well.
and easy to adjust, also easy to change. One advantage is that
tempered fifths are way better in "Kellner", than
Werckmeister-III-fifths (even worse than meantone fifths).

Kellner's method of beat rate proportion is also practical,
however beat proportions can't be shown to have played a role in
any historical record I have seen, so far (may be Kellner has
still some unedited historical info, which might prove his case).

> of Bach's use of particular intervals

which also is on paper
May be therefore we couldd use your terminology:
"Bach's paper intervals" and "Werckmeister's paper tunings"

> as a source of Bach's expectation that certain interval
> distinctions would appear between particular keys of
> the keyboard.

And who knows and proves what expectation Bach exactly had in
mind, as Bach didn't leave the tiniest hint on this?

> best, Johnny Reinhard

Kind regards
Ibo Ortgies