a negative review of Jorgensen's work

by Aleksander Frosztega
http://www.ptg.org/pipermail/pianotech/1995-February/000690.html

---- quoted message ---------

Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 07:58:40 GMT
Reply-To: Early Music List <EARLYM-L%AEARN.bitnet@KSUVM.KSU.EDU>
From: Aleksander Frosztega <froszteg%IX.NETCOM.COM@KSUVM.KSU.EDU>
Subject: Jorgensen (was Tuning problems)
To: Multiple recipients of list EARLYM-L <EARLYM-L@AEARN.BITNET>

Because your arguments seem to rely heavily on the works of Owen
Jorgensen, I should like to address his works and "temperament
revisionism" since Barbour.

Although Barbour's writings are not the first in this century that
addressed the topic of tuning and temperament they have had the most
profound effect on the way scholars thought about the subject.
Barbour's thesis was that the history of musical tuning was an
evolutionary one and that all tunings eventually "evolved" into equal
temperament, which he considered to be the most perfect of tunings and
the yardstick by which all else should be judged. It is this flawed
epistemology and its expression in the form of a "musical Darwinism"
that has engendered a sort of revolt by the protagonists of historically
informed performance led by Mark Lindley. Lindley points out that for
every music, there is a temperament and that equal temperament is
just as appropriate for, say, the virginalists as meantone is to
Schoenberg. He goes a bit too far, however, by implying that equal
temperament is an un-historical temperament and shouldn't be used in the
performance of early music (s.v., Bach and the Das wohltemperirte
Clavier). The result of this revisionist approach was to galvanize
performers into two camps: the 19th-century crowd (which thinks anything
other than ET sounds out of tune) and the early music crowd
(which thinks that ET sounds out of tune and refuses to use it, even
where it could or *should* be used).

Enter Owen Jorgensen. Prof. Jorgensen noticed that there where a great
many performers of early music that had no idea of how to tune their
keyboard instruments so he gather a collection of supposedly historical
temperaments, invented tuning methods for them and published them in his
_Tuning the Historical Temperaments by Ear_ (1977). This monograph,
just as _Tuning, Containing the Perfection... (1993) is based on
methods and, yea, temperaments that didn't exist! For example, he gives
instructions for tuning the "equal-beating well tempered version of the
Francisco Salinas 1/3 comma temperament in the acoustic tonality of c
major." Salinas never described this temperament! Jorgensen goes on to
describe the "Aron-Neidhardt well temperament" - only that neither Aaron
nor Neidhardt ever wrote about it! (Jorgensen's instructions actually
produce a variation of what is normally called Kirnberger III, only that
Jorgensen places the schisma in E-B instead of F# -C# where it belongs).

The whole premise of Prof. Jorgensen's works, that these temperaments
where tuned solely by ear, is wrong: There where two ways to tune in the
18th century, (1) by ear; (2) with a monochord. The primary sources
make this clear. Although the theory of beats (destructive interference)
was talked about by various 17th and 18th-century writers (chiefly
Sauveur and Robert Smith), it wasn't codified until Helmholtz. Thus, to
give instructions for "equal beating" 18th-century temperaments is
un-historical at best and deceptive at worst. Jorgensen doesn't convey
history, he invents it!

Anyone who has read either _Tuning, containing the Perfection_ or
_Tuning the Historical_ knows that they contain other flaws (what is
"well temperament"? ), some just as grave as the above. (Where in God's
Holy Name is the scientific apparatus commonly called documentation in
Jorgensen's work??? Why can't we be given quotes, source names and page
numbers?!?). We "Specialists in Historic Tuning" have even speculated
the un-wisperable: that Jorgensen can't even read the primary sources.
(To my knowledge, there is not *one* quote in any language other
than English in any of his works...) How can you study this field if
you can't read German, French or Italian (minimally)? The whole thesis
of _Tuning, contain the Perfection_, that true ET didn't exist
before the 20th century, is also specious. True ET doesn't exist today!
Any professional piano tuner will tell you that he/she
stretches octaves on the piano and any harpsichord tuner will tell you
that no matter *what* temperament is set, it's all out of tune 5 minutes
after you're done tuning (sometimes *while* you're tuning!). Of all
the harpsichord concerts that I've been to, only 3 have had really
in-tune harpsichords. Jorgensen rejects ET in the performance
of period music on the basis that it was impossible to tune perfectly
before 1917. My point: no temperament is perfectly in tune
(acoustically) "in the field," especially on the harpsichord, so the
"acoustically correct" thesis should be put on the Misthaufen.

"Who can I trust?" you might be asking. Other than the primary sources,
read anything by Mark Lindley, Rudolf Rasch and Dominique Devie. For
instructions on how to tune *real* historical temperaments, see:
Claudio di Veroli. _Unequal Temperaments and their Role in the
Performance of Early Music_. Buenos Aires (?), Argentina, 1978.

The whole point of my ramblings is that in recreating music of the past
we should must not forget the sonorities of the past created by tuning.
Just as we wouldn't use incorrect strings on a violin to play 17th-
century music, we should not use incorrect tunings.

To those reading Jorgensen and Barbour as the Word of God:

It's not.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> by Aleksander Frosztega

> Just as we wouldn't use incorrect strings on a violin to play 17th-
> century music, we should not use incorrect tunings.

What's an incorrect tuning?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:02 AM
Subject: [tuning] Re: a negative review of Jorgensen's work

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > by Aleksander Frosztega
>
> > Just as we wouldn't use incorrect strings on a violin to play 17th-
> > century music, we should not use incorrect tunings.
>
> What's an incorrect tuning?

in the context of the diaglog from which i
extracted the quote i posted, Frosztega is
arguing that Jorgensen simply invented many
of the tunings which his books seem to present
as "historical".

i'm pretty sure that what he meant by "incorrect
tunings" is tunings which are offered as being
historical but which in fact are not.

-monz

One possible example of an incorrect tuning would be Aaron-Neidhardt II, used
by Anthony Newman for his recording of the Well-Tempered Clavier as played on
harpsichord.

best, Johnny

p.s. Monz, I'm digesting the Mozart stuff and will get back on it. Thanks
for the detail.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> Although the theory of beats (destructive interference)
> was talked about by various 17th and 18th-century writers (chiefly
> Sauveur and Robert Smith), it wasn't codified until Helmholtz.
Thus, to
> give instructions for "equal beating" 18th-century temperaments is
> un-historical at best and deceptive at worst. Jorgensen doesn't
convey
> history, he invents it!

i think jorgensen gives the facts pretty clearly on the theory of
beats and what was available knowledge at what time. to accuse
jorgensen of inventing history is to utterly gloss over his writing
and simply take the tunings he presents as historical entities.
however, he's quite clear about what could and couldn't be tuned
accurately at a given point in time (in fact, he's far more sceptical
about such accuracy than, say, johnny). the reviewer probably glanced
over the book quickly, which is understandable since it's quite huge!

> Why can't we be given quotes, source names and page
> numbers?!?).

?? there are plenty of footnotes . . .

> The whole thesis
> of _Tuning, contain the Perfection_, that true ET didn't exist
> before the 20th century, is also specious. True ET doesn't exist
today!

then the thesis is correct!

> Any professional piano tuner will tell you that he/she
> stretches octaves on the piano

jorgensen's book contains *plenty* of infromation about the practice
of stretching octaves!

this reviewer is clearly guilty of what he or she accuses jorgensen
of: not reading the source!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:02 AM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: a negative review of Jorgensen's work
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> > > by Aleksander Frosztega
> >
> > > Just as we wouldn't use incorrect strings on a violin to play
17th-
> > > century music, we should not use incorrect tunings.
> >
> > What's an incorrect tuning?
>
>
>
> in the context of the diaglog from which i
> extracted the quote i posted, Frosztega is
> arguing that Jorgensen simply invented many
> of the tunings which his books seem to present
> as "historical".

have *you* read the book, monz. jorgensen issues caveats up the
wazoo! what more could you ask?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

> > > Just as we wouldn't use incorrect strings on a violin to play
17th-
> > > century music, we should not use incorrect tunings.
> >
> > What's an incorrect tuning?

> i'm pretty sure that what he meant by "incorrect
> tunings" is tunings which are offered as being
> historical but which in fact are not.

This would ruin the music for what reason?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
>
> > > > Just as we wouldn't use incorrect strings on a violin to
play
> 17th-
> > > > century music, we should not use incorrect tunings.
> > >
> > > What's an incorrect tuning?
>
> > i'm pretty sure that what he meant by "incorrect
> > tunings" is tunings which are offered as being
> > historical but which in fact are not.
>
> This would ruin the music for what reason?

the tunings that jorgensen presents in precise quantitative form are
not inconsistent with the historical instructions (which are well-
documented and footnoted), they are simply too precise and "regular"
in various ways to have been achieved with any accuracy in the period
in question -- except by accident. i don't see, though, how such over-
regularity could be said to ruin the music -- and if you don't want
it, just be intentionally sloppy when you set the tuning!

In a message dated 6/24/03 4:23:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> however, he's quite clear about what could and couldn't be tuned
> accurately at a given point in time (in fact, he's far more sceptical
> about such accuracy than, say, johnny).

Paul is incorrect in this general statement. As far as equal temperament is
concerned, I do agree with him that it is likely impossible back then (and
now) without the knowledge of counting beats...and even undesirable in its
perfection. However, I do believe that there is more accuracy than Paul has alluded
to, based on performance experience.

Is Jorgensen is the source of Paul's views? I do know that Jorgensen's views
are not well taken in Europe and that Rasch accused Jorgensen of not having
fully read Werckmeister's writings. In general, I have greatly appreciated his
thoughtful writings.

best, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/24/03 4:23:01 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > however, he's quite clear about what could and couldn't be tuned
> > accurately at a given point in time (in fact, he's far more
sceptical
> > about such accuracy than, say, johnny).
>
> Paul is incorrect in this general statement.
> As far as equal
temperament is
> concerned,

i was talking about the tunings that occupy the bulk of his book,
such as werckmeister iii.

> Rasch accused Jorgensen of
not having
> fully read Werckmeister's writings.

probably a fair criticism, as jorgensen concentrates on the
english-speaking world. what does rasch say about bach's tuning?

In a message dated 6/25/03 2:36:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> . what does rasch say about bach's tuning?
>
>
>

Rasch, like other non-musicians, has presented Bach as ET. Of course, as
those on this list know, I believe he is incorrect. I first wrote of this in my
Masters Thesis in the '80s. I am now 90 pages into a new book on Bach's
tuning. I expect to meet every one of the points Rasch makes. Rudolf Rasch was a
personal friend for years, but we spoke of other things than Bach.

best, Johnny

In a message dated 6/25/03 2:36:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:

> > however, he's quite clear about what could and couldn't be tuned
> > > accurately at a given point in time (in fact, he's far more
> sceptical
> > > about such accuracy than, say, johnny).
> >
> > Paul is incorrect in this general statement.
> > As far as equal
> temperament is
> > concerned,
>
> i was talking about the tunings that occupy the bulk of his book,
> such as werckmeister iii.
>
>

Excuse me, Paul, but you doubted my "claim" to hear and vocalize a single
cent. Now that Patrick came forth with a satisfactory demonstration that I can,
you just drop my name whenever.

At the time of the Baroque there was no concept of a pitch standard. If you
cannot imagine that there was a different focus for the mind, based perhaps on
particular intervals, then you might be missing out on something that is
simply not in the literature. It can be really frustrating to musicians when
others deny their experience. Perhaps playing the part less of devil's advocate,
and more of an outreach to those with different expertise, would be more
positive for all those involved on this list, and for the truth.

Incidentally, next year's AFMM concerts will feature full Bach concerts in
Werckmeister III on March 24 and April 17 at St. Luke in the Field Church on
Hudson St. in NYC. While there will be contemporary music included, we are
focusing on Bach and his tuning.

best, Johnny Reinhard

>Excuse me, Paul, but you doubted my "claim" to hear and vocalize a
>single cent. Now that Patrick came forth with a satisfactory
>demonstration that I can, you just drop my name whenever.

Actually what Patrick said was that both you and he could hear a
difference when playing on a keyboard tuned to consecutive cents.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 6/25/03 2:36:42 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:
>
>
> > > however, he's quite clear about what could and couldn't be
tuned
> > > > accurately at a given point in time (in fact, he's far more
> > sceptical
> > > > about such accuracy than, say, johnny).
> > >
> > > Paul is incorrect in this general statement.
> > > As far as equal
> > temperament is
> > > concerned,
> >
> > i was talking about the tunings that occupy the bulk of his book,
> > such as werckmeister iii.
> >
> >
>
> Excuse me, Paul, but you doubted my "claim" to hear and vocalize a
single
> cent.

that wasn't the issue there, and certainly isn't the issue here.

> Now that Patrick came forth with a satisfactory demonstration that
>I can,
> you just drop my name whenever.

huh? what does this have to do with my claim that jorgensen claims
less historical precision than you do, which you say above is
incorrect? maybe you misunderstood what was at issue above, regarding
tthe critique of jorgensen's book that was posted. it was objected
that jorgensen overestimates the level of tuning accuracy
historically, i was just pointing out that by your judgment, quite
the opposite would be true, at least for many tunings!

In a message dated 6/25/03 1:07:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> Actually what Patrick said was that both you and he could hear a
> difference when playing on a keyboard tuned to consecutive cents.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
Patrick wrote:
Yes, I was resistant in singing single cent increments because I was like
"OK, I get it.

So, yes, I sing them and play them. Keep in mind that I brought this all up
in its recent manifestation because I wanted notation that would account for
cent deviations. It is important that music be detailed enough for those that
make use of the most precise intervals.

best, Johnny