Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Evidence: Werckmeister et al.

Dear Ibo and list,

I don't want to get too far behind, so here is a response:

> 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.

Ibo: It is not understood.
The "academic life" doesn't interest me at all as a end in

JR: Fine. For most in this "academic setting" a "university=universe" mind
set is quite common.

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

JR: Of course, I love when you have new information. I even like it when you
state baldly a particular point of view, making it plastic and potentially
reusable.

Ibo: 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).

JR: In the case of the 3/29/03 performance of Brandenburg Concerto #2, there
are 2 performances for comparison. We did a repeat as an encore.
And yes, it will become available (as there is a third party).
Ibo: 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.

JR: We are not doing the deviations that your devious mind is divining. ;-)

> 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.

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

JR: I am writing it as a book. I have just finished a book now looking for a
publisher ("The Ives Universe"). It went through many edits and corrections,
and will surely endure more. To me it is cruel for you to beat up the guy
that just did the concert and has put all the performances together at his
own expense (though with a great team and the support of New York State
Council on the Arts).

> Ibo: 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

JR: We satisfied all three conditions. We used alto recorder rather than a
flute. We used a harpsichord rather than a piano. We used a double bass
rather than an electric bass. However, we did use a piccolo trumpet with
pistons and a modern oboe.

You may be surprised that Bram (please allow me the chance not to spell his
last name yet again) is an early music specialist and often plays baroque
oboes in Nederland. And besides the Gelders Orchestra being the third
largest in the country, Bram has been substituting as principle oboe in the
Concertgebouw Orchestra this past year. (He's really good.)

Ibo: 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.

JR: I believe there is information available from other sources and you will
have to be patient for me to outline it, or send it, or publish it, etc.

Ibo: 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".

JR: I think you have hit this point hard enough by now, no? Yes, you think I
judge exclusively (or some degree close) to my "good taste." And I think you
have seen yourself too much into my situation.

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

Ibo: May be to the degree I sketched, if you work taking all
available knowlegde and that is already a fiction for all of us.

JR: What is "a fiction for all of us"? Are you speaking here for someone
else?

Ibo: And what is "imaginable by Bach" we can't know, especially not
if we think about him as a "genius":

JR: You misunderstood. I am saying that "if" I can hear something in Bach's
music, than he surely heard it for himself. And I am saying that he heard
specific microtonal differences in melodic intervals which are identifiable
in Werckmeister III.

For the moment, I say "forget the title 'Werckmeister III' as the name of the
tuning we have performed." What else can we call it so that it is not tied
exclusively to one man. I do believe it is a "natural consequence" of
meantone. By this I mean, it's derived from the very same process of
flattening pure fifths, but in this manner only 4 fifths need to be tuned a
quarter comma flat. It is so logical that it is in actuality a "pre-paper"
temperament. Werckmeister admits to this himself.

Ibo: If you find out that something works on a modern oboe, it might
not be playable on the baroque oboe, and vice versa.

JR: Double reeds are my specialty. I am a virtuoso on the bassoon. The
principles I work with are ancient principles. They are in some part
transmitted through the centuries. The open hole principles of these winds
are the basis for the addition of keys. Keys added to the oboe and bassoon
are because of equal temperament. Really, it's true! The manipulation of
the keys become quite clear when you move between the 2 tunings of
meantone/just and ET. Werckmeister III, or this "natural consequence of
meantone" is built into the wooden instruments. Really, it's true. If fact,
if I blow sharp on a bassoon reed with a thick spine, it goes into a pretty
good Werckmeister III tuning.

Ibo: 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.

JR: You are attempting to invalidate my way of experiencing music. Shame on
you. Science is your religions, so be it. But I'm the guy that will bring
you the best accuracy in tuning. Why would you be so bullheaded that you
know that I must be invalidated.

There is such a thing as "musical intelligence" which was formalized in
Howard Gardner's "Frames of Mind." It is a different way "some" human beings
gain intelligence from the world. Through this "musical intelligence," I
gain knowledge of the world. I recognize that you have your share of musical
intelligence. Not all scholars/historians/musicologists have musical
intelligence. And there is a vast chasm between the practice and its theory.
It has always been so. The musical intelligence of what we microtonally
trained musicians can focus on a piece opens up new historical issues. A
recent example is the relationship between a tuning and its temp.
Performance shows up that ET is played faster because there is nothing new to
offer in sequences, a prominent element in Baroque writing.

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

Ibo: 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)?

JR: We are already incorporating a pool of early music people and virtuoso
microtonalists to get pitch accurate performances. Considering that a period
person of the Baroque could not hear recordings, sharp and hard listening
would be advisable. Well, we do it. But you say that it proves nothing of
the past. Except it does show what could be possible.

One more thing, I'm not on trial. Demanding evidence and chirping about
evidence is at the least impatient of you.

Ibo: 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 concepts, 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.

JR: What about Jazz? Modern Jazz players use the grooves of LP's still to
get their first hand knowledge of Bebop. Kagel, Stockhausen and Berio will
do well to have great recordings of their music to go with their printed
paper scores.

Ibo: 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.

JR: Yes, there was Dutch in Werckmeister. I saw it myself and it was not
"komma," etc. And what should be more infuriating is that Werckmeister and
Mattheson have not been translated and made available. We should not feel
obliged to trust secondary sources, even if these are scholars, or
self-declared scientists.

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

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

JR: It's in Bach's paper intervals. If one can accept, for a moment-without
sarcasm-that Bach intended Werckmeister III for the Brandenburgs (and maybe
most all of his compositions), then the intervalic distinctions of the tuning
would be manifest in the writing.

My idea: I picked up a paperback copy of the Bach Werke Verzeichnis in
Amsterdam with the intention to analyze the opening melodic interval of each
prominent work by Bach. All this to look for patterns in the usage of
melodic intervals.

My rationale is that because Bach is horizontal or melodic music, the opening
melodic interval would have more importance in musically laying out the
sentiment of the melody. With 39 distinct melodic intervals each 6 cents
apart from its nearest neighbor, it is possible to determine which intervals
are chosen and if there are patterns, based on the tablature nature of
specifically notated intervals. Werckmeister III really aids in helping the
audience's ear distinguish lines from each other.

With Bach, the subject is stated with the opening interval setting the mood
for the movement, independent of the key. For example, I was able to
discover that The Well-Tempered Clavier Book II has half of its Preludes and
Fugues using opening melodic intervals that were not used to open up
movements from WTC Book I.

Previously I mentioned, that yes, Bach only opens a movement with a LARGE
semitone of 108 cents. That is what opens the second movement of Brandenburg
#2, an A up to Bb. All the soloists play it in turn. There are three other
semitones, but Bach does not choose them. In 4 different Brandenburgs there
are 4 opening semitones, and each is-by virtue of the tablature (always
starting the tuning on a C), the largest at 108 cents. And absolutely yes I
can hear this… and sing it aloud right now…and you could check it. And all
of Bach's perfect fifths are not so perfect at 696 cents. Why? Because it
is more melodically satisfying most likely.

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

Ibo: 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"!)

JR: Werckmeister claimed his chromatic tuning was already in practice. This
tuning works with the instruments that were written for. A "paper
temperament" might be something that looked good on paper but never received
the necessary supporters. Or worse, it would be so mathematically based and
complex, that musicians could not make use of it.

Now, I know of your belief that keyboard temperament must not be confused
with that of winds, but in Werckmeister III, it works! Your gloom and doom
predictions of our results are grey clouds. Really, it's no different
playing microtonally in Werckmeister III than it is in any other of the
myriad of tunings that I have played in over three decades.

Ibo: 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?

JR: The diatonic Werckmeister tunings are worth a look, though they are not
the "natural consequence" as much as the "paper temperament" idea, at least
based on my experiences. I look forward to checking out Bendeler, thanks to
your lead.
Ø It is now late. I hope to present my idea

Ibo: "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.

JR: Herbert Anton Kellner is a friend of mine through the Internet. He
joined this list several years ago. As it turned out we worked through
everything together. His tuning is really quite Werckmeister III except that
the A is significantly higher. There are other mathematical differences, but
rather insignificant ones. This was our mutual conclusion. He was, of
course, deep into Gemantria.

Ibo: "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).

JR: I can send you a quote from him on this subject if you like. Really
there is little difference except one note between Kellner-Bach and
Werckmeister III.

> of Bach's use of particular intervals

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

JR: You know, this is a good idea! It could come in handy when
differentiating more subtle shades of meaning.

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

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

JR: It's in Bach's paper intervals.

> best, Johnny Reinhard

Kind regards
Ibo Ortgies

best, Johnny Reinhard
Director
American Festival of Microtonal Music

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗friederich_stellwagen <ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/18/03 11:56:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> alternativetuning@y... writes:

>>> Yes. I do not think Werckmeister should ever be transposed.

Why not?

>> What to do when some of the instruments are at Kammerton and
>> others at low pitch? Sometimes the organ's A was around a m3
>> below Kammerton A. I'm no expert, but I do know that there
>> are cases where scores and parts are in different keys to make
>> up for this difference.

Yes, thanks abor for bringing this important topic! There are many
scores from Bach which take account of that discrepancy.

> Strings can tune to make the difference. Wind players
> had instruments a whole tone apart for just these situations.

> (This is why there are instruments in Bb today, as well
> as families of instruments based on the Bb.)

The pitch of a' ca. 415 Hz would be a modern instrument in B, not
B-flat.
Seen from the "(principal) chorton" (a' ca. 465 Hz) in which the
organs where usually tuned in Bach's area, you would actually be
right. (then we have also the organs at high chorton (a' ca. 494 Hz)
and the development in some organs by Silbermann which were
However, if we assume a Werckeister III-temperament in an organ -
which Silbermann to our knowledge didn't use (he probably can't have
had ears, or?) - which is in a' ca. 465 Hz and the oboes play in C,
then the organ has to accompany in D.

Involving other instruments forms alos a tricky problem like natural
trumpets in chorton-D (i.e. modern E-flat) to the organ and oboes.
The trumpets play C-e (pure), accompanied by the D-f# of the organ and
the oboes have to play E-g# - or if the play at lower french pitch (
a'- 392 Hz) they could play F-a. Now if they all play or are tuned in
Werckmeister III - untransposed of course - then they arrive at three
different major thirds at the same time.

Johnny, how do you explain this?
You say that you use modern trumpets (from the other instrument types
you mentioned, the description was so vague like alto recorder, taht
it was not possible to find out whether you uuse historical
instruments, or not - and what kind of harpsichord, according to which
historical model etc.)

For the pitch-question Bruce Haynes' dissertation from 1995 is basic
reading. His article on pitch in the New New Grove gives an excellent
summary (still to the pint and even as a summary exact)

> Continuo players were trained to transpose to different keys
> by Werckmeister's time (as says W.).

Yes, they used to transpose for several reasons since a long time
before W.

> Sometimes Bach transposed because of a different instrumentation
> (like when going to F Major to have more resonance in a
> harpsichord solo).

Why would he then transpose harpsichord solo pieces from C to C#, if
resonance would play a role in that?

> I'm not sure, Gabor, I know which cases you are speaking of.

I don't kknow either - but please explain why he would transpose pieces

>> Any thesis about Bach and his Tonarten (Eng.=key?) preferences must
>> explain Bach's transpositions of his own works, which are frequent.

Gabor is perfectly right

>> Gabor

> Yes, as above, it follows the instrumentation, allow the best
> keys for particular instruments.

Ok, why would Bach transpose pieces when the instrumentation doesn't
change - like pieces for organ alone or for harpsichord alone. And in
keyboard pieces theb temperament should be somehow most important, or?

A small list of transpositions of Bach free organ works during the
18th ct. I published here, some time ago
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9904&L=hpschd-l&P=R10762

And just for the record: we have also manuscripts, for example from
Thuringia, in which the same pieces (not by Bach) occur in two
different keys in the same ms.
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0104&L=hpschd-l&P=R8893

And quite many of Bach's harpsichord pieces are transposed - often by
Bach himself (several cases documented for the WTC!). That is even
more a question "why?", because a harpsichord could be retuned easily.
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9904&L=hpschd-l&P=R5426

> Johann Philipp Kirnberger, Bach's most accomplished theory
> student,

If Kirnberger was so accomplished (and certainly he was!), why didn't
he report faithfully if his master Bach tempered according to
Werckmeister?
Why did he and others from the Bach-circle got involved into a
Temperaturen-Streit and everyone failed to remark that W III was
Bach's muscal temperament?

May be Bach wasn't that good a pedagogue?

> spoke of quadrants of keys for which it was forbidden to
> transpose.

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi

or what Kirnberger (and others past Bach) did, Bach can't be held
responsible for.
Again: Bach transposed solistic keyboard compsoitions (not changing
instrumentation) by halftone, whole tone, minor third, major third,
fourth...

> Closer keys yield a less distinctive difference between keys.

If this is so, why did Bach transpose a C-major prelude to C#-major
for his WTC? Why D-major to E-flat-major? In Werckmeister these are
highly distinctive?

> If Bach were to transpose for a different instrumentation
> (or possibly a tessitura, likely for a vocal change), then it
> should be honored.

Yes, but what with all the other cases?

> But bear in mind that the difference the
> transposition made to the sentiment of the
> piece was fully calculated for by Bach.

Transpositions C - > C#, C - > B-flat, F -> A-flat
What sentiments are so exactly defined and expressed in these keys?

> best, Johnny Reinhard

Best

Ibo Ortgies

🔗friederich_stellwagen <ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se>

Hi again,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Dear Ibo and list,

> I don't want to get too far behind, so here is a response:
...

> > Ibo: 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

> JR: We satisfied all three conditions.

To start with the last item: archival research and evaluation of
contemporary source material has not been contributed until now from
your side. I think that sort evidence has been covered more by me in
this discussion - however contradicting your assumtions - and seems to
be largely absent from your attempt to find (or to confirm your
understanding of) Bach's practice.

And the prerequisite of using instruments is not fulfilled as much as
your vague description allows to "reconstruct:

> We used alto recorder

There are many different:

type, historical model builder, relevance to Bach?

> rather than a flute.

> We used a harpsichord rather than a piano.

Of course, again

type of harpsichord (German, Flemish, flemish with ravalement ...),
historical model builder, relevance to Bach?

> We used a double bass

In Bach's time violones were used (not double basses). 16' or 8' (8'
is may be more the older tradition)

> rather than an electric bass.

> However, we did use a piccolo trumpet with
> pistons

Why?
Historical trumpets do not use pistons, instead the partial row is
what the player has to use (see previous mails on pitch etc.)
Also the timbre (and thus mainly partial structure) of the modern
piston instruments is so different from what a baroque trumpet does,
that I don't understand why you don't include this aspect in your
exploring "Bach".

So what is the relevance of using this modern instrument - and in the
Brandenburg Concerto 2 it plays an important role in the balance for
the concertino in both outer movements.

> and a modern oboe.

Again, timbre etc. ? And ...

> You may be surprised that Bram (please allow me the chance not
> to spell his last name yet again) is an early music specialist
> and often plays baroque oboes in Nederland.

... as Mr. Kreeftmeijer is such an outstanding virtuoso on the
baroque obe, why did you miss the chance of using his skills on an
instrument especially important and left it out from your
Bach-performance?

> And besides the Gelders Orchestra being the third
> largest in the country,

Size doesn't count to me

> Bram has been substituting as principle oboe in the
> Concertgebouw Orchestra this past year. (He's really
> good.)

I don't doubt his excellence - but that had nothing to do with the
arguments.

Summary up to here is: you use at best a mix of instruments - modern,
or partly modern, may be even a few historical models according to
what is standard knowledge and use of the in HIP practice (to name a
few: Parrott, Rifkin, McCreesh, Leonhardt, Goebel, Alessandrini,
Kuijken etc.).
In terms of instrumentation any possible relevance to Bach is
therefore until know not sufficiently supported by your performances.
And with the modern instruments you can't use historical playing
techniques, sometimes already for reasons of mechanics: that
prerequisite also is not fulfilled.

But again: I don't deny the artistic value as such in your approach.

...

> JR: I believe there is information available from other sources

Why do you only believe that?
Don't you have evidence for your point that you "reconstruct" Bach's
temperament practice? You announced even in subject line that you have
evidence.

> and you will have to be patient for me to outline it, or
> send it, or publish it, etc.

I always can wait until evidence about the historical situation in
BAch's time is published. Archival and source based work needs time
and effort.

> Ibo: 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".

> JR: I think you have hit this point hard enough by now, no? Yes,
> you think

You can't even imagine, what I think - and neither do I imagine what
you think.

> I judge exclusively (or some degree close) to my "good taste."
> And I think you have seen yourself too much into my situation.

No, certainly not, How could I (even if I wanted to)?

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

> Ibo: May be to the degree I sketched, if you work taking all
> available knowlegde and that is already a fiction for all of us.

> JR: What is "a fiction for all of us"? Are you speaking here for
> someone else?

Yes, to all those like me, who are more or less patiently waiting for
the evidence, you announced.

> Ibo: And what is "imaginable by Bach" we can't know, especially not
> if we think about him as a "genius":

> JR: You misunderstood. I am saying that "if" I can hear
> something in Bach's music, than he surely heard it for
> himself.

No, he had no modern oboe or piston trumpet.
But we might agree that, if Bach were alive today, he would be able to
hear, what you hear, too, in your modern performance of his works. But
whether he would agree to you or to me is not known at all.

He might have composed differntly if he had had a modern oboe, a
steinway ... to explore the specific timbre of such modern
instruments. How could anyone know. And mainly in his ensemble music,
he was highly practical as numerous reworkings, transpositions,
parodies etc. show.

> And I am saying that he heard specific microtonal
> differences in melodic intervals which are identifiable
> in Werckmeister III.

Sure, if he tuned his harpsichord, or unfretted Clavichord to W III
(and then until the next day) and as practitioner, he would probably
not touch up the instrument everyday
The story of his tuning the instrument in 15 minutes is also not just
taken literally. t doesn't say something about the event when tat is
supposed to have happened, nothing about the quality of tuning, not
even which type of temperament it could have been.
The anecdote might even be an exaggeration, to call down Bach's
authority in support of a later statement.

> For the moment, I say "forget the title 'Werckmeister III'
> as the name of the tuning we have performed." What
> else can we call it so that it is not tied
> exclusively to one man.

It doesn't matter - if we know and agree on what W III stands for we
can use the name or abbreviation.

> I do believe it is a "natural consequence" of meantone. By
> this I mean, it's derived from the very same process of
> flattening pure fifths, but in this manner only 4 fifths
> need to be tuned a quarter comma flat. It is so logical

to you

> that it is in actuality a "pre-paper" temperament.
> Werckmeister admits to this himself.

What does he admit? what are you referring to?

> Ibo: If you find out that something works on a modern oboe,
> it might not be playable on the baroque oboe, and vice versa.

> JR: Double reeds are my specialty. I am a virtuoso on the
> bassoon. The principles I work with are ancient principles.
> They are in some part transmitted through the centuries.
> The open hole principles of these winds are the basis for
> the addition of keys. Keys added to the oboe and bassoon
> are because of equal temperament. Really, it's true!

Really? (The c#-Klappe was not invented for any temperament).

By the way, concerning traverse flutes: if W III or some similar
temperament would have been used by free intonating instruments, why
did Quantz invent the d#-Klappe to have both a e-flat and d# available
on the flute? Let us remember that he and Bach's son CPE cooperated
for years in the same ensemble (!) ath the court in Berlin.

> The manipulation of the keys become quite clear when you
> move between the 2 tunings of meantone/just and ET.
> Werckmeister III, or this "natural consequence of
> meantone" is built into the wooden instruments.
> Really, it's true.

>If fact, if I blow sharp on a bassoon reed with a thick spine, it
> goes into a pretty good Werckmeister III tuning.

Pretty good is not good enough: According to the standards you have
claimed, it means that you must constantly produce degrees of
exactidude of 0.5 cents. How do you cope with the diffrences in
temperature inside the tube, for example after a break of several
minutes? And do you always have an measuring tool at hand for all
players?

> Ibo: 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.

> JR: You are attempting to invalidate my way of experiencing music.

If you read my mails carefully you could find quite many places where
I speak with respect about your modern approach for its artistic value.

> Shame on you. Science is your religions,

At first I should state something that might have caused
misunderstandings: "Wissenschaft" - science - in German inludes all:
natural sciences, humaniora. soemone else pointed me to the dichotomy
of terms in English: "schientific" or "scholarly" - in German both are
"wissenschaftlich".
In this sense I write and mean all methods which establish and develop
knowledge, by proving, checking, counter-checking etc. This contrary
to religion, belief. Religion, belief are personal matters and it is
the task of science to exclude such factors as much as possible. To
tis aim scientifc methods are constantly developed and refined.
Science is no religion. But, on the other hand you are constantly
asking for belief in your unproven claims.

> so be it. But I'm the guy that will bring you the best
> accuracy in tuning.

I can only repeat, that after so many years of tuning and tempering
private, for concerts and records, I really look forward to get the
professional lessons I always have missed.

> Why would you be so bullheaded
> that you know that I must be invalidated.

What exactly are you asking?

> There is such a thing as "musical intelligence" which was
> formalized in Howard Gardner's "Frames of Mind." It is a
> different way "some" human beings gain intelligence from
> the world. Through this "musical intelligence," I
> gain knowledge of the world. I recognize that you have your
> share of musical intelligence. Not all scholars/historians/
> musicologists have musical intelligence.
> And there is a vast chasm between the practice and its
> theory.
> It has always been so. The musical intelligence

To the benevolent reader:
Please "intelligence" and "knowledge" in the previous 10 lines
(starting with "There is such ...") by "belief" and read it again.

This club is too well known to be taken serious:
"scholars/historians/musicologists are only
sometimes "musically intelligent"."

Hmmm - I frequently hear musicians, whose "musical intelligence" I
have reason to doubt...

> of what
> we microtonally trained musicians can focus on a piece
> opens up new historical issues.

Yes agreed, like your honorable performance of Bachs Brandenburg
Concerto 2 is already a part of preformance history, though still
rather new. Whether it might have to do with the history or
historical situation of ca. 1720 is however always in question.

> A recent example is the
> relationship between a tuning and its temp.
> Performance shows up that ET is played faster because there
> is nothing new to offer in sequences, a prominent element
> in Baroque writing.

Again (see previous mail): why did Bach himself transpose organ pieces
and harpsichord pieces if the sequence included where so important.

And historically your arguent is not correct at all, since the playing
of Baroque music in the 20th century unti now shows that the tendency
to faster tempi has strongly grown by HIP practiced, which applies
keyboard temperaments (also often Werckmeister or of course other
historical models, even ET) in the continuo instruments.
It has probably not to do with temperament at all. As much as we can
generalize, tempi in Quantz' time (and until long into the 19th
century) tended to be way faster than in the performance tradition of
the 20th century. And as frequently stated, Quantz and oher important
authors explain and ask for the as pure as possible intonation. (in
many manuals you find explained the different ratios of natural
intervals extensively)

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

> Ibo: 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)?

> JR: We are already incorporating a pool of early music people

Why not for example with th oboe and the trumpet, etc.?

> and virtuoso microtonalists to get pitch accurate
> performances. Considering that a period person of
> the Baroque could not hear recordings, sharp and hard
> listening would be advisable. Well, we do it. But
> you say that it proves nothing of
> the past. Except it does show what could be possible.

Not with irrelevant modern instruments on which old playing techniques
can't be explored.

> One more thing, I'm not on trial. Demanding evidence
> and chirping about evidence is at the least impatient of you.

You wrote that subject line "evidence" in messages Nr. 43329 and 43330

> Ibo: 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 concepts, 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.

> JR: What about Jazz? Modern Jazz players use the grooves of
> LP's still to get their first hand knowledge of Bebop.
> Kagel, Stockhausen and Berio will do well to have great
> recordings of their music to go with their printed
> paper scores.

I didn't speak of just recordings of performances, but composition.

I said "compositions from the 1960s, which included taped
recordings" and that means tape recordings as part of the performance
(pieces for "Chor und Tonband" etc.)

Also of course electronical music which needs certain technical
equipment, will be subject to the same aging process, because some
techniques might not be reconstructable in an appropriate way in some
decades (In computers we see the monkey race all the time, updating
etc. - who can still read floppy disks?)

> Ibo: 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.

> JR: Yes, there was Dutch in Werckmeister. I saw it myself
> and it was not "komma," etc.

Ok, which word used by Werckmeister was a Dutch word? And not one
being used in German in his time - since it might have come into Dutch
later.

> And what should be more infuriating is that Werckmeister and
> Mattheson have not been translated and made available. We
> should not feel obliged to trust secondary sources, even if
> these are scholars, or self-declared scientists.

...and not trust judgements from performance with instruments Bach
didn't use, to be what Bach wanted or might have wanted, even if that
is self-declared by the performers (unregarding their appreciated
"musical intelligence")

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

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

> JR: It's in Bach's paper intervals. If one can accept, for
> a moment-without sarcasm-that Bach intended Werckmeister III
> for the Brandenburgs (and maybe most all of his compositions),
> then the intervalic distinctions of the tuning would be
> manifest in the writing.

No, not even then it is not, since the intervals written do not
represent a temperament.

> My idea: I picked up a paperback copy of the Bach Werke
> Verzeichnis in Amsterdam with the intention to analyze the
> opening melodic interval

of which part or voice?
If I think of the first movement of the Brandenb. Concerto 2, in which
all instruments start at the same time, with four or five motives at
the same time, all arund the F-major chord, what is "the opening
melodical interval" in that?

And what about the intervals in the baroque trumpet (in F!) which you
didn't have in your performance?

> of each prominent work by Bach. All this to look for patterns
> in the usage of melodic intervals.

For the Brandenburg Concerti that has been done (cf. also the recent
study by Peter Schleuning)

> My rationale is that because Bach is horizontal or melodic
> music,

Bach was already in his time adressed as great harmonist, and his
counterpoint is harmonically based. Another reason to apply "harmonic
intonation" (as sketched by the 18th century sources..) to Bach and
not a keyboard temperament concept.

> the opening melodic interval would have more importance
> in musically laying out the sentiment of
> the melody. With 39 distinct melodic intervals each 6 cents
> apart from its nearest neighbor,

And still the question of transposition lurks in the back

> it is possible to determine which intervals are chosen and
> if there are patterns, based on the tablature nature of
> specifically notated intervals.

Bach notated this in staff notation, and used tablature only seldom
when running out of space.

> Werckmeister III really aids in helping the
> audience's ear distinguish lines from each other.

It is a matter of using the instruments of the time, has not to with
temperament then.
Since you use modern instruments in your performance you will get
balance problems, and it may well be, that as much as you approach a
rendering in Werckmeister III, it might help to overcome the balance
problems. If creates good muic, why not.

> With Bach, the subject is stated with the opening interval
> setting the mood for the movement, independent of the
> key. For example, I was able to discover that The
> Well-Tempered Clavier Book II has half of its Preludes and
> Fugues using opening melodic intervals that were not used
> to open up movements from WTC Book I.

How do explain, that bach used in both collections (not "cycles") many
older compositions, transposed, reworked etc.

> Previously I mentioned, that yes, Bach only opens a movement
> with a LARGE semitone of 108 cents.

Some openings in WTC I which would have intervals smaller than 108
cent (WIII)

PR-prelude
FU-fugue

WTC I,
c#-FU c# - b#
E-flat-PR g - a-flat
f-FU c - d-flat
A-flat PR a-flat - g
g#-FU g# - f##
B-PR/FU b - a#

in WTC II it goes on wit ca. 5 or 6 prominent examples.

> That is what opens the second movement of
> Brandenburg #2, an A up to Bb. All the soloists play it
> in turn. There are three other semitones, but Bach
> does not choose them. In 4 different Brandenburgs there
> are 4 opening semitones, and each is-by virtue of the
> tablature (always starting the tuning on a C), the
> largest at 108 cents. And absolutely yes I can hear
> thisâ¦ and sing it aloud right nowâ¦and you could
> check it.

You can do the measuring, to bring proof.

> And all of Bach's perfect fifths are not so perfect
> at 696 cents. Why? Because it
> is more melodically satisfying most likely.

But the trumpet in BC 2, #3 opens with a fifth (sounding F-C) and
according to your claim that Werckmeister III should not be transposed
it should produce a Werckmeister C-G (as transposing instrument)

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

> Ibo: 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"!)

> JR: Werckmeister claimed his chromatic tuning was already
> in practice.

Amazing what people not do to sell their new products. But, on the
contrary he complains and defends himself, ... Indon't need top repaet
things over and over ...

> This
> tuning works with the instruments that were written for.

So, if that is so, why don't you use such instruments? Like for
example Kreeftmeijers baroque oboe.

> A "paper temperament" might be something that looked good
> on paper but never received the necessary supporters.

Ah, like W III in organ building -
and Bach's famous Lorenz Mizler (in whose "Sozietät" Bach was a
member) wrote that Werckmeister's temperament were a good try, but
that Niedhardt improved the temperament greatly

> Or worse, it would be so mathematically based and
> complex, that musicians could not make use of it.

> Now, I know of your belief that keyboard temperament must
> not be confused with that of winds,

No, you don't know my belief! This is only stated in the contemporary
sources.

> but in Werckmeister III, it works! Your gloom and doom
> predictions of our results are grey clouds.

This shows only that you read selectively.
I have politely spoken good about the possible high artistic value
your performances. More I can't do since I didn't hear them.

> Really, it's no different playing microtonally in
> Werckmeister III than it is in any other of the
> myriad of tunings that I have played in over three decades.

> Ibo: 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?

> JR: The diatonic Werckmeister tunings are worth a look, though
> they are not the "natural consequence" as much as the
> "paper temperament" idea, at least based on my experiences.
> I look forward to checking out Bendeler, thanks to
> your lead.

...

> JR: ...
> Really there is little difference except one note between
> Kellner-Bach and Werckmeister III.

Tuning a harpschord to the one or the other can make a important
difference. Due to the different beats and beat rates the behave quite
different

> > of Bach's use of particular intervals

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

> JR: You know, this is a good idea! It could come in handy when
> differentiating more subtle shades of meaning.

Agreed, when do you start?

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

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

> JR: It's in Bach's paper intervals.

If you think that intervals "express" some meaning, ...
(but, however, transposition by Bach himself ...)

Kind regards
Ibo Ortgies

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/18/03 11:56:41 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> alternativetuning@y... writes:

>>> Yes. I do not think Werckmeister should ever be transposed.

Ibo: Why not?

JR: The tuning of Werckmeister III already has a world of tuning in it. If a
composer (like Bach) transposes it is for a reason. I cannot know every
reason. Maybe one player preferred playing a black keys. Maybe, besides
instrumentation, there were different sentiments that could be expressed
without the need of writing any new music! That's the most likely idea for
the WTC changes from C to C# major. It's another way to have a new piece for
a certain situation….and in Werckmeister III it may actually "sound" like a
different piece to audiences (who likely never head the first versions of the
piece).

There is no absolute pitch attached to Werckmeister III, but it must start on
C so that the flatted fifths are in the designated places. Otherwise, the
plan is interrupted (sort of like a case of car sickness to me). I believe
there was a kind of Thuringian Perfect Pitch, in that one could tell one
Werckmeister III from another purely by its melodic shape.

Ibo: Yes, thanks abor for bringing this important topic! There are many
scores from Bach which take account of that discrepancy.

JR: I agree this is an important topic. When speaking at Indiana University
several months ago, the director of the Graduate Choral Department, Jan
Harrington, asked me specifically about this. I had just put Ab major on the
blackboard in cents so that I could help the conductors/vocalists how to sing
the key correctly in Werckmeister III without a keyboard, or other aiding
instrument. (Much was based on 204 cents.) As it turned out, they were
preparing for a St. Matthew's Passion performance with the new organ, tuned
to Werckmeister III.

And the opening has the 2 organs, one a whole step below. I've been thinking
about this a lot. The subject of chor and kammer pitch is confusing,
especially since Kuhnau changed their relationships in Leipzig before Bach
arrived there. After some thought, I still think the score would be
different than a part in this case. The score must show all the
relationships in tune, but the organist could transpose to the closest key.
It might even add to the colorings. But other than ET, I believe there is no
way to match exactly every note to the transposed key (a whole step apart).

> Strings can tune to make the difference. Wind players
> had instruments a whole tone apart for just these situations.

> (This is why there are instruments in Bb today, as well
> as families of instruments based on the Bb.)

Ibo: The pitch of a' ca. 415 Hz would be a modern instrument in B, not
B-flat. Seen from the "(principal) chorton" (a' ca. 465 Hz) in which the
organs where usually tuned in Bach's area, you would actually be
right. (then we have also the organs at high chorton (a' ca. 494 Hz)
and the development in some organs by Silbermann which were

JR: Since the research of Mendel and Ellis, it has been recognized that there
was no single Hz center for tuning organs in Thuringia. Are you reversing
this historical understanding? I would be surprised. An "A" could be
pitched most anywhere in the Baroque period. The sub-categories of chor,
tief-chor, kammer, with a whole step separation is what makes for a Bb to C
relationship.

Ibo: However, if we assume a Werckeister III-temperament in an organ -
which Silbermann to our knowledge didn't use (he probably can't have
had ears, or?) - which is in a' ca. 465 Hz and the oboes play in C,
then the organ has to accompany in D.

JR: Silbermann was not a Thuringian. His tuition (from his relatives)
required that he work a different German area than they did. So, he took his
non-Thuringian ears to the Saxons and put out the meantone he was most
comfortable with, and for which there was still demand.

Ibo: Involving other instruments forms alos a tricky problem like natural
trumpets in chorton-D (i.e. modern E-flat) to the organ and oboes.
The trumpets play C-e (pure), accompanied by the D-f# of the organ and
the oboes have to play E-g# - or if the play at lower french pitch (
a'- 392 Hz) they could play F-a. Now if they all play or are tuned in
Werckmeister III - untransposed of course - then they arrive at three
different major thirds at the same time.

JR: Lets talk about trumpets. You don't tune the physical trumpet to
Werckmeister III, you tune the trumpet player's mind to signal to his or her
embouchure. The modern trumpeter can play on average a minor third band
width (a whole step below and a half-step above a given note). The
Thuringian versions were straight, quieter, but likely had the same large
bandwidth for the embouchure. There is no controversy here.

Ibo: Johnny, how do you explain this?
You say that you use modern trumpets (from the other instrument types
you mentioned, the description was so vague like alto recorder,

JR: I use a Dolmetch alto recorder which retains ivory trims. It was
reputed to be among the last of the master instrument maker's last
instruments before he died. And it was the only one "in tune" in ET, a
beautifully centered sound which spoke with great ease. (It was from a
Scotsman working a double reed festival in Rotterdam, and having taken the
serial number, I purchased the instruments several years later.) I did not
inspect the trumpet, but I will check on it and on the harpsichord if you
like.

Ibo: taht
it was not possible to find out whether you uuse historical
instruments, or not - and what kind of harpsichord, according to which
historical model etc.)
For the pitch-question Bruce Haynes' dissertation from 1995 is basic
reading. His article on pitch in the New New Grove gives an excellent
summary (still to the pint and even as a summary exact)

JR: Thank you for this direction. Haynes' name is familiar to me but I have
not seriously explored his ideas.

> Continuo players were trained to transpose to different keys
> by Werckmeister's time (as says W.).

Ibo: Yes, they used to transpose for several reasons since a long time
before W.

> Sometimes Bach transposed because of a different instrumentation
> (like when going to F Major to have more resonance in a
> harpsichord solo).

Why would he then transpose harpsichord solo pieces from C to C#, if
resonance would play a role in that?

> I'm not sure, Gabor, I know which cases you are speaking of.

Ibo: I don't kknow either - but please explain why he would transpose pieces

JR: I don't know for any particular piece either, but I have tried to outline
some probabilities at the top of this post.

Ibo:…And quite many of Bach's harpsichord pieces are transposed - often by
Bach himself (several cases documented for the WTC!). That is even more a
question "why?", because a harpsichord could be retuned easily.
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-in/wa?A2=ind9904&L=hpschd-l&P=R5426

JR: etc. Yes, a composer would transpose their music. It is BECAUSE there
is a difference that a composer transposes a piece. Bach transposed Vivaldi
early enough. Most often violins to keyboards. Bach would add more
chromaticism and more virtuosity, along with shifting the keys. Bach's
tuning made a difference in a particular key.

Vivaldi was an extended meantone (how else to explain the E# in the E Minor
Bassoon Concerto in the solo). It makes all the sense in the world for Bach
to borrow ideas from a 10-year older Vivaldi and shift them from Venice to
Thuringia. Each transposition likely has a specific story. Historians, get
thee to the stories themselves! (But, not necessarily Ibo, who probably
wants and deserves a vacation….hey! I wouldn't mind.)

> Johann Philipp Kirnberger, Bach's most accomplished theory
> student,

Ibo: If Kirnberger was so accomplished (and certainly he was!), why didn't he
report faithfully if his master Bach tempered according to
Werckmeister?

JR: At last: a trick question! (If, and he was, hmmn….) (this is really
great fun on a another warry day)

Kirnberger clearly lost some credibility when he wrote the 1776 "Art of
Strict Composition" but his devotion to Bach is beyond question. What
appears to have happened is that music itself had changed.

Music was now thought of as primarily vertical. Some had suggested that the
world had been waiting for Bach to die since at least 1740, but out of
respect waited until the proper time of 1750 for the counterpoint master to
pass.

26 years later, at the same time as the U.S.A. was being founded, Kirnberger
tried to push his own temperament ahead of all others, because MUSIC CHANGED.
Now was the time to focus on the pure qualities of harmonies and Kirnberger
was a big fan of just intonation (unlike Bach). Kirnberger even used the
harmonic 7/4 ratio in his flute sonata, using the notation of the letter "i"
before a Bb.

I have done a study, however, comparing Kirberger II to Werckemeister III in
order to see if the purer keys of one correspond to the other, and to see if
they continue to variegate (a Kirnberger term) along a similar route to the
more dissonant keys). They do. So when Kirnberger says one shouldn't
transpose outside of the nearest quadrant of keys because of the change of
meaning that it incurs, we should believe him.

Ibo: Why did he and others from the Bach-circle got involved into a
Temperaturen-Streit and everyone failed to remark that W III was
Bach's muscal temperament?

JR: It's more about people, and families, and pride. Kirnberger could not
mention it if Bach did not want to expose it baldly. Bach would not write
back to Mattheson in the same manner. However, Bach did use the Werckmeister
term "Wohl-temperirt" for his books of Preludes and Fugues.

There are a number of personal attacks that occur back then, some explained
better than others. Of particular interest to me is the one against J.G.
Walther. He phased out in Weimar under some kind of scandal, yet
unexplained. Marpurg bombed Kirnberger, even though Kirnberger got Marpurg
his job at the Berlin lottery. Even W.F. Bach tried to take Kirnberger's job
from his at the end of their lives…because Friedemann was so desperate
(alcoholic and impoverished).

Ibo: May be Bach wasn't that good a pedagogue?

> spoke of quadrants of keys for which it was forbidden to
> transpose.

Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi

or what Kirnberger (and others past Bach) did, Bach can't be held
responsible for.

JR: Exactly.

Ibo: Transpositions C - > C#, C - > B-flat, F -> A-flat
What sentiments are so exactly defined and expressed in these keys?

JR: Much can be written here. (I just noticed responses to e-mail from Paul
I did not get.) C-C# is a move to a huge difference in relationships, one
that is bright and Christmassy to one that is Pythagorean in basis (great for
the noble melody and with reams of tradition among central Europeans).

> best, Johnny Reinhard

Best

Ibo Ortgies

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Hi again,

> JR: We satisfied all three conditions.

Ibo: To start with the last item: archival research and evaluation of
contemporary source material has not been contributed until now from
your side. I think that sort evidence has been covered more by me in
this discussion - however contradicting your assumptions - and seems to
be largely absent from your attempt to find (or to confirm your
understanding of) Bach's practice.

JR: It need not be a competition. I don't see it that way. Yes, I am
getting new thoughts and new facts and potentially new evidence. At the same
time, I have had different experiences and with different skills.

Ibo: And the prerequisite of using instruments is not fulfilled as much as
your vague description allows to "reconstruct:

JR: (explained and/or described elsewhere)

Ibo: In Bach's time violones were used (not double basses). 16' or 8' (8'
is may be more the older tradition)

JR: We had determined the instrument was unfretted which is the significant
factor. "Violone" became synonymous with fretted and, in some areas,
non-fretted.

> However, we did use a piccolo trumpet with
> pistons

Ibo: Why?
Historical trumpets do not use pistons, instead the partial row is
what the player has to use (see previous mails on pitch etc.)
Also the timbre (and thus mainly partial structure) of the modern
piston instruments is so different from what a baroque trumpet does,
that I don't understand why you don't include this aspect in your
exploring "Bach".

JR: The one person in NYC who could have pulled off the piece on a period
instrument was out of town for the concert. Besides, we were going for a
sound that modern instrument could in fact give, and whose modern
incarnations do not trip up what was possible with their ancestors.

Ibo: So what is the relevance of using this modern instrument - and in the
Brandenburg Concerto 2 it plays an important role in the balance for
the concertino in both outer movements.

> and a modern oboe.

Ibo: Again, timbre etc. ? And ...

Actually, the balance was quite good with this trumpeter. The oboist,
likewise, had the right sense of appropriate balance as he is, himself, a
specialist. The recorder was right in front of the microphone so that the
recording would reflect better than what the audience could actually hear.
Bram, the oboist, says there are specific "Bach recorders" which are known
for their volume.

> You may be surprised that Bram (please allow me the chance not
> to spell his last name yet again) is an early music specialist
> and often plays baroque oboes in Nederland.

Ibo: ... as Mr. Kreeftmeijer is such an outstanding virtuoso on the
baroque obe, why did you miss the chance of using his skills on an
instrument especially important and left it out from your
Bach-performance?

JR: The principle of taping keys to alter pitch made more sense when there
were keys to tape. All the instruments were the best that evolution has
provided as per pitch control.

Ibo: Summary up to here is: you use at best a mix of instruments - modern,
or partly modern, may be even a few historical models according to
what is standard knowledge and use of the in HIP practice (to name a
few: Parrott, Rifkin, McCreesh, Leonhardt, Goebel, Alessandrini,
Kuijken etc.).

JR: Actually, we may have better tuning results. Many of the players last
century had trouble playing in tune with their period replicas. Leonhardt,
for all the great things he has brought out, has some horrendous horn playing
on some of the Cantatas that he approved for release. Likewise, the
trumpeter in Ton Koopman's "Brandenburg Concerto #2" does not play in tune
with the Werckmeister III tuning of the harpsichord of the well known
Amsterdam recordings.

Ibo: In terms of instrumentation any possible relevance to Bach is
therefore until know not sufficiently supported by your performances.
And with the modern instruments you can't use historical playing
techniques, sometimes already for reasons of mechanics: that
prerequisite also is not fulfilled.

JR: Do you have any examples of this? What is impossible for reasons of
mechanics? Which historical techniques couldn't I use?
But again: I don't deny the artistic value as such in your approach.

...

> JR: I believe there is information available from other sources

Ibo: Why do you only believe that?
Don't you have evidence for your point that you "reconstruct" Bach's
temperament practice? You announced even in subject line that you have
evidence.

JR: The evidence of the choice of particular intervals for the opening
subjects of famous pieces of music is evidence of Bach's consciousness of
what he was doing.
Of course, I can now match these up in WIII with all possible other WTs to
see if the same intervals would be chosen. In ET, this would be impossible
as a pattern.

> and you will have to be patient for me to outline it, or
> send it, or publish it, etc.

Ibo: I always can wait until evidence about the historical situation in
BAch's time is published. Archival and source based work needs time
and effort.

JR: I am curious, do you prefer the Bach "Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue in D
Minor" in ET or Werckmeister III? Have you ever heard the difference? With
Bach using the word "chromatic" only once in a title, this is evidence of
interest by the composer in a chromatic circular tuning. How could you
possibly stuff up your ears to listen to this piece in ET when it is world's
apart in WIII.
Ibo: May be to the degree I sketched, if you work taking all
> available knowlegde and that is already a fiction for all of us.

> JR: What is "a fiction for all of us"? Are you speaking here for
> someone else?

Ibo: Yes, to all those like me, who are more or less patiently waiting for
the evidence, you announced.

JR: There is no fiction, there is only the inability to see things in a
different way. It has to do with the strength of the imagination to believe
that things might be done differently. I admit it is an artistic ability,
but it needn't be only pure speculation. Missing the points that history
might have provided makes a "scientific" history of the period less true than
it might actually have been if the imagination could allow for input from new
directions. The use of opening intervals by Bach is significant evidence of
Bach's choice of tunings and of his interests in transposition. Performances
offer different angles, more for checking things were possible than in
determining what, in fact, was done.

> And I am saying that he heard specific microtonal
> differences in melodic intervals which are identifiable
> in Werckmeister III.

Ibo: Sure, if he tuned his harpsichord, or unfretted Clavichord to W III
(and then until the next day) and as practitioner, he would probably
not touch up the instrument everyday
The story of his tuning the instrument in 15 minutes is also not just
taken literally. t doesn't say something about the event when tat is
supposed to have happened, nothing about the quality of tuning, not
even which type of temperament it could have been.
The anecdote might even be an exaggeration, to call down Bach's
authority in support of a later statement.

JR: Our harpsichordist does take 15 minutes to tune WIII for a concert.
We've seen it several times. All the world over bowed to the Master's ear.
"No one could tune to his satisfaction" crowed CPE Bach. In fact, it is the
natural consequence factor of WIII to meantone that allows for the speed. 8
pure fifths are easiest to tune, and the 4 flatted fifths are the SAME
flatted fifths (in terms of size) to the usual, traditional meantone fifths.
Nothing is new to tune.

> For the moment, I say "forget the title 'Werckmeister III'
> as the name of the tuning we have performed." What
> else can we call it so that it is not tied
> exclusively to one man.

Ibo: It doesn't matter - if we know and agree on what W III stands for we
can use the name or abbreviation.

JR: I'm not so sure.

Ibo: to you

JR: Thank you.

> that it is in actuality a "pre-paper" temperament.
> Werckmeister admits to this himself.

What does he admit? what are you referring to?

> Ibo: If you find out that something works on a modern oboe,
> it might not be playable on the baroque oboe, and vice versa.

Ibo: Really? (The c#-Klappe was not invented for any temperament).

JR: The single key on an instrument, or even a second, are the exceptions
that prove the rule of what I said.

Ibo: By the way, concerning traverse flutes: if W III or some similar
temperament would have been used by free intonating instruments, why
did Quantz invent the d#-Klappe to have both a e-flat and d# available
on the flute? Let us remember that he and Bach's son CPE cooperated
for years in the same ensemble (!) ath the court in Berlin.

JR: Quantz did not use Werckmeister III, regardless of who he knew and who
his friends were. It is clear enough from his writings.

>If fact, if I blow sharp on a bassoon reed with a thick spine, it
> goes into a pretty good Werckmeister III tuning.

Ibo: Pretty good is not good enough: According to the standards you have
claimed, it means that you must constantly produce degrees of
exactidude of 0.5 cents. How do you cope with the diffrences in
temperature inside the tube, for example after a break of several
minutes? And do you always have an measuring tool at hand for all
players?

JR: Good enough to show the naturalness of WIII on bassoons! Once the
instrument is warmed up, it is essentially tuned to itself. All the fine
tunings on the instrument I do myself. My embouchure can always accommodate
whatever natural fluctuations chance puts before me in performance. And
there is also circular breathing for emergencies. It is all relative, as I
though you realized. The bassoon has a "resonance pocket" for each musical
tone, and this "resonance pocket" is free floating enough to position in
pitch height, referenced to a tuning system. Physical memory keeps the
height relationships cogent, along with fingerings, and other detailed
machinations.

> of what
> we microtonally trained musicians can focus on a piece
> opens up new historical issues.

Ibo: Yes agreed, like your honorable performance of Bachs Brandenburg
Concerto 2 is already a part of preformance history, though still
rather new. Whether it might have to do with the history or
historical situation of ca. 1720 is however always in question.

JR: This is true. I am glad you finally came around to the above.

Ibo: Again (see previous mail): why did Bach himself transpose organ pieces
and harpsichord pieces if the sequence included where so important.

JR: Answered elsewhere, different post.

Ibo: And historically your arguent is not correct at all, since the playing
of Baroque music in the 20th century unti now shows that the tendency
to faster tempi has strongly grown by HIP practiced, which applies
keyboard temperaments (also often Werckmeister or of course other
historical models, even ET) in the continuo instruments.

JR: Historically only in the sense of the performances you just outlined. I
think they are wrong, HIP or no HIP. When there are distinctions in the
intervals the tempo might as well reflect it. What is there to hide? A
dissonance is played harder, not lighter. And the intonation is an after
thought, not even mentioned directly in the liner notes. It's more of an
abstractions: hmn, the keyboard is in Werckmeister III…I wonder, do all the
instruments do this, or only the harpsichord, or …? Silly).

Ibo: It has probably not to do with temperament at all. As much as we can
generalize, tempi in Quantz' time (and until long into the 19th
century) tended to be way faster than in the performance tradition of
the 20th century. And as frequently stated, Quantz and oher important
authors explain and ask for the as pure as possible intonation. (in
many manuals you find explained the different ratios of natural
intervals extensively)

JR: Tempo is an interesting topic here, though a bit a field. Still, I read
in Spitta somewhere about an organ auditioner for a job in Leipzig. He was
turned down for the "dishonesty" his speed engendered in the jury. Any
comments?

Re: Speed, there is always going to be, and always were, the macho players
trying to impress. Guys like Bach were above that for the most part. It's
like Miles Davis kickin' a younger Wynton Marsallis off the stage. Duels he
flared up with swords between Handel and Mattheson…with Handel saved by a
button!

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

> JR: We are already incorporating a pool of early music people

Ibo: Why not for example with th oboe and the trumpet, etc.?

JR: I explained with the trumpet player: there is no current player who has
mastered the tuning of WIII on a replica who was available to us. The
trumpet player already gets the high $300 for the performance.

You can ask Bram why he wanted to use the modern instrument. I'm sure you
can find him. Perhaps, once the trumpet was modern, the oboe might as well
be. For me an oboe is a conical bore treble instruments with holes in it for
different pitches.

Ibo: Not with irrelevant modern instruments on which old playing techniques
can't be explored.

JR: Where are your examples? Which old playing techniques could not be
explored? Which?

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

I didn't speak of just recordings of performances, but composition.

I said "compositions from the 1960s, which included taped
recordings" and that means tape recordings as part of the performance
(pieces for "Chor und Tonband" etc.)

> JR: Yes, there was Dutch in Werckmeister. I saw it myself
> and it was not "komma," etc.

Ibo: Ok, which word used by Werckmeister was a Dutch word? And not one
being used in German in his time - since it might have come into Dutch
later.

JR: At the risk of embarrassment, it was something like "schniptzel". I will
find it again, but not this week (4 concerts to produce this week, guitar and
piano).

Ibo: ...and not trust judgements from performance with instruments Bach
didn't use, to be what Bach wanted or might have wanted, even if that
is self-declared by the performers (unregarding their appreciated
"musical intelligence")

JR: What? You are screwing this up. The modern performance demonstrates
what could have been possible in Bach's day. What were we limited to by not
having the museum pieces in our hands?
]
>> Music has more power when it is performed in the
>> intonation that is intended by the composer.

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

Ibo: No, not even then it is not, since the intervals written do not
represent a temperament.

JR: I disagree. The written intervals are indicative of a knowledge of a
particular temperament's distinctiveness.

> My idea: I picked up a paperback copy of the Bach Werke
> Verzeichnis in Amsterdam with the intention to analyze the
> opening melodic interval

Ibo: of which part or voice?
If I think of the first movement of the Brandenb. Concerto 2, in which
all instruments start at the same time, with four or five motives at
the same time, all arund the F-major chord, what is "the opening
melodical interval" in that?

JR: I see this as a falling perfect fourth of 498 cents, F-C, clear cut.

Ibo: And what about the intervals in the baroque trumpet (in F!) which you
didn't have in your performance?

JR: This is a fiction. You play Marpurg to my Kirnberger.

> of each prominent work by Bach. All this to look for patterns
> in the usage of melodic intervals.

Ibo: For the Brandenburg Concerti that has been done (cf. also the recent
study by Peter Schleuning)

JR: Let me guess, it was not done with a reference to Werckmeister III, but
to something else, like ET? Regardless, my interest is not in what is done,
so I will be curious to see what Peter Schleuning has come up with.

> My rationale is that because Bach is horizontal or melodic
> music,

Ibo: Bach was already in his time adressed as great harmonist, and his
counterpoint is harmonically based. Another reason to apply "harmonic
intonation" (as sketched by the 18th century sources..) to Bach and
not a keyboard temperament concept.

JR: That is only true because of his circular temperament. However, it is
with his melodies that he begins his composition. It is with his distinction
of voices that he is renown. It is with the independence of the voices that
he is moving through a subject which is always melody first, harmony second.
Bach is reputed to compose out of his head, not at an instrument. He likely
chose an opening interval even before he chose a key. This is because there
are several keys that one could choose to accommodate a particular interval,
like say "300 cents" (which is a common interval to both WIII and ET).
Bach's choice of opening melodic interval when seen from a microtonal
perspective yields more knowledge about Bach's compositional process than
here-to-fore discussed in the literature.

> the opening melodic interval would have more importance
> in musically laying out the sentiment of
> the melody. With 39 distinct melodic intervals each 6 cents
> apart from its nearest neighbor,

Ibo: And still the question of transposition lurks in the back

JR: To alter the mood, to develop a sentiment, to change a personality…there
are multiple reasons to transpose, including: technical concerns, personal
favorites by players, enhancement of different instruments, a bid to create a
new piece out of old, etc.

> it is possible to determine which intervals are chosen and
> if there are patterns, based on the tablature nature of
> specifically notated intervals.

Ibo: Bach notated this in staff notation, and used tablature only seldom
when running out of space.

JR: I mean tablature in the sense of putting one's fingers in a particular
appointed place. If we always tune from C and build WIII from here, then the
opening interval of the first movement of Brandenburg Concerto #2 is always a
falling perfect fourth of C to f. How appropriate, is it not? F Major is
the most just of the keys of WIII.

> Werckmeister III really aids in helping the
> audience's ear distinguish lines from each other.

Ibo: It is a matter of using the instruments of the time, has not to with
temperament then.
Since you use modern instruments in your performance you will get
balance problems, and it may well be, that as much as you approach a
rendering in Werckmeister III, it might help to overcome the balance
problems. If creates good muic, why not.

JR: All who I know who have heard WIII closely hear the ability of the
temperament to distinguish between the melodic lines that is the counterpoint
of Bach. Period instrument would help this further because of their likely
pungent sounds. Using modern instruments, it becomes even clearer that it is
the temperament that does the heavy work in distinguishing the voices from
each other.
Ø With Bach, the subject is stated with the opening interval
> setting the mood for the movement, independent of the
> key. For example, I was able to discover that The
> Well-Tempered Clavier Book II has half of its Preludes and
> Fugues using opening melodic intervals that were not used
> to open up movements from WTC Book I.

How do explain, that bach used in both collections (not "cycles") many
older compositions, transposed, reworked etc.

> Previously I mentioned, that yes, Bach only opens a movement
> with a LARGE semitone of 108 cents.

Ibo: Some openings in WTC I which would have intervals smaller than 108
cent (WIII)

PR-prelude
FU-fugue

WTC I,
c#-FU c# - b#
E-flat-PR g - a-flat
f-FU c - d-flat
A-flat PR a-flat - g
g#-FU g# - f##
B-PR/FU b - a#

in WTC II it goes on wit ca. 5 or 6 prominent examples.

JR: You are right that there are different starting semitones in the WTC
books one and two. I was confused. It is in the 6 Brandenburg Concerti that
only 4 semitones are used in 4 different movement and that in each case it is
the largest semitone of 108 cents.

> That is what opens the second movement of
> Brandenburg #2, an A up to Bb. All the soloists play it
> in turn. There are three other semitones, but Bach
> does not choose them. In 4 different Brandenburgs there
> are 4 opening semitones, and each is-by virtue of the
> tablature (always starting the tuning on a C), the
> largest at 108 cents. And absolutely yes I can hear
> thisâ€¦ and sing it aloud right nowâ€¦and you could
> check it.

Ibo: You can do the measuring, to bring proof.

JR: I already did the measuring in the concert.

> And all of Bach's perfect fifths are not so perfect
> at 696 cents. Why? Because it
> is more melodically satisfying most likely.

Ibo: But the trumpet in BC 2, #3 opens with a fifth (sounding F-C) and
according to your claim that Werckmeister III should not be transposed
it should produce a Werckmeister C-G (as transposing instrument)

JR: An F trumpet will play the G in Werckmeister III tuning with the
harpsichord and everyone else playing the same exact pitch. Only in this way
will everything really work.

> JR: Werckmeister claimed his chromatic tuning was already
> in practice.

Ibo: Amazing what people not do to sell their new products. But, on the
contrary he complains and defends himself, ... Indon't need top repaet
things over and over ...

JR: I think Werckmeister does this from humbleness. Otherwise he would have
given the tuning a definite name.

> This
> tuning works with the instruments that were written for.

Ibo: So, if that is so, why don't you use such instruments? Like for
example Kreeftmeijers baroque oboe.

JR: Please tell me, Ibo, what is so special about this baroque oboe? Please
fill me in.

> A "paper temperament" might be something that looked good
> on paper but never received the necessary supporters.

Ibo: Ah, like W III in organ building -
and Bach's famous Lorenz Mizler (in whose "Sozietät" Bach was a
member) wrote that Werckmeister's temperament were a good try, but
that Niedhardt improved the temperament greatly

JR: Mizler was generations away from Werckmeister. Mizler's society was for
the living. Werckmeister as a person was an anachronism to him. In his day,
Werckmeiser was merely publishing for his own financial success (who can
blame him) the tuning that was now plastered throughout Thuringia and the
Harz region. It was the Bachs who made the great music with it, after all.

> Or worse, it would be so mathematically based and
> complex, that musicians could not make use of it.

> Now, I know of your belief that keyboard temperament must
> not be confused with that of winds,

Ibo: No, you don't know my belief! This is only stated in the contemporary
sources.

JR: Good. Then I don't have to be concerned with your feelings when I say it
is flat out wrong. (sorry for the idiom) The keyboards were intertwined
with the winds and vice versa. Decisions had to be made, like your organ
decisions. Even the harpsichordist doesn't want to retune the instrument all
the time (it hurts the hand if done during a performance).

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

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

> JR: It's in Bach's paper intervals.

If you think that intervals "express" some meaning, ...
(but, however, transposition by Bach himself ...)

JR: Yes. I think intervals express meanings.

Kind regards
Ibo Ortgies

-----------
Your most welcome, Johnny Reinhard

Evidence: Werckmeister et al.

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗alternativetuning <alternativetuning@yahoo.com>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗friederich_stellwagen <ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se>

🔗friederich_stellwagen <ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se>

🔗friederich_stellwagen <ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗friederich_stellwagen <ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>