Re: Ibo Ortgies: Re: [tuning] Re: Evidence: Werckmeister et al.

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

Hi again,

the discussion on pitches (organ pitches etc.) is useless as long as the more modern research (like Haynes) has not been studied.
(For the North German and Dutch organ history the info is condensed in my forth-coming article on Alkmaar, in the next issue of "Het Orgel"). Mendel and Ellis are certainly respected and have gerat merits, but many older results had to be seen differently and to be revised, in the past decades.

Then it is advisable to look into facsimile editions or autograph-microfilms of Bach-cantats etc. You'll see that the scores contain also organ parts in transposition, not reporesenting the pitch of tthe orchstra. The score was not simply representing the sounding result.ach

To the playing techniques of flutes, oboes, bassoons: In historic woodwinds the application depends heavily on "Gabelgriffe" to produce different tones like F# or Gb (for example described in historical oboe methods) and the change of timbre. Why should "enharmonic" notes be played with a different application if they were to produce the same pitch (not even speaking of the claim of 1 cent exactness)?
These techniques are not usable on the modern woodwinds.

...

>>JR: Double reeds are my specialty. ...

Otherwise I conclude the discussion, as I am doing research on the historical evidence - evidence which you have denied, rejected etc.
And I don't want to discuss personal, historically not-founded convictions, however artistic and respectable they are as modern experiences, like yours.

Good success with your work.

Kind regards
Ibo

In a message dated 4/22/03 9:41:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
ibo.ortgies@musik.gu.se writes:

> Hi again,
>
> the discussion on pitches (organ pitches etc.) is useless as
> long as the more modern research (like Haynes) has not been studied.
> (For the North German and Dutch organ history the info is
> condensed in my forth-coming article on Alkmaar, in the next
> issue of "Het Orgel"). Mendel and Ellis are certainly respected
> and have gerat merits, but many older results had to be seen
> differently and to be revised, in the past decades.
>

I am sure we are all going to catch up with Haynes, as well as your article
in "Het Orgel." I'm sure these will be very informative materials.

> Then it is advisable to look into facsimile editions or
> autograph-microfilms of Bach-cantats etc. You'll see that the
> scores contain also organ parts in transposition, not
> reporesenting the pitch of tthe orchstra. The score was not
> simply representing the sounding result.ach

If you could be specific about what the organ in a different tuning means
regarding its pitch basis, it would be appreciated. Personally, I have set
up a Bach Cantata session at the library with my harpsichordist. Together we
will choose a program for next year, and also, take note of continuo pitch
elements.

> To the playing techniques of flutes, oboes, bassoons: In
> historic woodwinds the application depends heavily on
> "Gabelgriffe" to produce different tones like F# or Gb (for
> example described in historical oboe methods) and the change of
> timbre.

I believe you are describing "Forked Fingerings." As it happens, I am am
knowledgeable in a multiplicity of bassoon "grippings" or fingerings. There
was never any doubt that in some music, there is a distinction between an F#
and a Gb. Sometimes the F# is higher and sometime lower. Sometimes they are
the same. It all depends on the particular practice of composers living in
certain geographical areas.

What is important in this discussion is that Bach did not make this
difference and retained enharmonic identities. As you have suggested, modern
instruments will make any pitch distinctions that older music has made.

> application if they were to produce the same pitch (not even
> speaking of the claim of 1 cent exactness)?
> These techniques are not usable on the modern woodwinds.

I would have to respond that these same techniques are usable on modern
woodwinds in all important ways. (Only the bass clarinet has blocked out
open tone holes, and some closed hole flutes, which are not recommended for
microtonal use).

> >>JR: Double reeds are my specialty. ...
>
> Otherwise I conclude the discussion, as I am doing research on
> the historical evidence - evidence which you have denied,
> rejected etc.

What I reject is an exclusive interpretation. I am interested more in what
happened and how that might affect what can happen, and less interested in
how moderns describe it to me. Music historians and musicologists have
failed to pull apart the veils of the period of Bach and as a musician, I
find it necessary to research further and independently. It is unlikely,
Ibo, you will every find anyone as passionate as I am to uncover what is the
true situation for Bach. Knowledge of the organ is just one more challenge
on the road. Thanks you for your barbed wire attention to my interests.

> And I don't want to discuss personal, historically not-founded
> convictions, however artistic and respectable they are as modern
> experiences, like yours.

Not-founded until founded is always the way of the world.

Good luck in your research. I guess you don't even want the recording(s) I
suggested or you would have e-mailed an address. Maybe you consider them a
distraction. Regardles, thanks for sharing and for the leads.

> Good success with your work.
>
> Kind regards
> Ibo

Good luck uncovering new facts. May they continue to be brought to the
public so that then can be enacted upon. It may be to others, though, to
connect the dots.

best, Johnny Reinhard