Wolves, a bit of a stretch(was piano tuning)

<< If you have a standard stretch pattern available, as I understand
>piano tuners have had for some time, why not simply superimpose such
>a standard stretch on top of your scale?

Carl asks:
>>It's my understanding that there normally isn't any stretch in the
central 3 octaves. Ed Foote, where are you? >>

Greetings,
I am in shock. The 48 in rolling meantone? Palpitations, sweats, blurred
vision and vertigo; I probably need a hospital bed, with an IV in my arm,
and probably a I and a V to go along with it......
To the stretch question, first. There is stretch in all piano octaves,
simply because of the inharmonic value of the partials emanating from a string.
Do we notice it in the middle three octaves? No, not as a rule. However, if
you are bringing the fundamental of a note into agreement with the first
partial of the note one octave below,(what we call a 2:1), you will have an octave
that is slightly wider than what you would get by simply doubling the lower
note's fundamental frequency. These octaves are heard as beatless, but
technically, they are "stretched". Organs and synths do not do exhibit this quality
unless intentionally expanded.
Doing an entire piano this way will stretch it out, but it will sound
relatively lifeless to many listeners. Common tastes influence those of us that
produce tunings for money, and most of us cater to the market by finding some
way to sharpen the treble as we go up. Keeping the 2:1 arrangement for the
middle of the piano, and then beginning to widen the octaves even more as we
approach the ends,(in both directions), is a common treatment among tuners. It
brings the pitches closer to the non-linear way that human hearing seems to
expect and produces more marketable product.
Many of us, (especially those who were taught by Bill Garlick) prefer to
slightly increase the width of the temperament octave so that there is a smooth
progression from center to end. How much? It is very hard to assign a
numerical value, since different pianos require different amounts, but it tends to
be somewhere between the 2:1 and a 4:2. This allows all the intervals to be
tempered in such a fashion that the soon-to-be stretching is already begun and
no noticeable departure point will show itself. While Bill's tuning is about
as elegant as one can hope for, the differences between the above two
approaches are almost academic.
Then there are those that lay the bearings of their temperament within a
really wide octave. The cumulative result is that the stretching compounds
from a wide starting point and can get very wide in rapid order. These tunings
have a characteristic sound. The fifths are pure, the thirds are busier, the
octaves are wide enough to slowly beat,(though the triple or quadruple octave
may be pure).
Width (stretch) is a matter of taste. What really makes a piano cook in
a high energy jazz bar might seem a bit churlish in a Mozart recital, and what
sounds solid and harmonious for a Beethoven sonata might sound anemic for a
Rachmaninoff concerto. Strings are weird, it is no surprise that those of us
that wrestle with them daily form what might be called idiosyncratic feelings
about their proper placement.

Now, to the idea of the WTC as meaning "wolves to consider", I have to
say that that sounds like a loony idea to me. Titling the piece in reference to
a tuning style certainly tells us that he had a particular genre of tuning in
mind. I think it is plausible that Bach simply assumed the use of the then
up-and-coming non-restrictive, Werckmeister ideas. But if he had in mind a
system of adaptive tuning from piece to piece, it makes no sense that he would not
to have included information about such a radical idea. Even more
implausible would be the idea he wanted everything to be Just.
We know that Bach employed dissonance as a compositional tool, (not just
as a jibe at Silberman's 1/6 C organ tuning when he got the chance). The use
of it as a contrasting element in the WTC makes perfect musical sense. The
prelude in C# sounds dead as Tuesday night when transposed to C on a
well-tempered tuning. The JI advocates that believe total consonance was the aim of all
tuning are, I think, fishing on the wrong side of the boat. In Classical and
later music, the harmonic contrast is where the hook lies. Composers that
used m2's in their harmonic construction were certainly not looking for
consonance, regardless of what tuning is in place.
A meantone approach to the WTC is an interesting theory, but doesn't come
with much musical logic, to me. Play it like you like it, but don't be
surprised if it doesn't sell.
Regards,

Ed Foote RPT
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
<A HREF="http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/399/six_degrees_of_tonality.html">
MP3.com: Six Degrees of Tonality</A>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:

> I am in shock. The 48 in rolling meantone? Palpitations,
sweats, blurred
> vision and vertigo; I probably need a hospital bed, with an IV in
my arm,
> and probably a I and a V to go along with it......

So far it seems to be working.

> To the stretch question, first.

Of course if you use saxophone and bassoon soundfonts, this doesn't
matter.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:

> Now, to the idea of the WTC as meaning "wolves to consider", I
have to
> say that that sounds like a loony idea to me. Titling the piece in
reference to
> a tuning style certainly tells us that he had a particular genre of
tuning in
> mind. I think it is plausible that Bach simply assumed the use of
the then
> up-and-coming non-restrictive, Werckmeister ideas.

well, i agree so far.

> But if he had in mind a
> system of adaptive tuning from piece to piece, it makes no sense
>that he would not
> to have included information about such a radical idea.

this is where i disagree with you. far from being a radical idea, the
practice of retuning a meantone keyboard according to the tuning of
the piece was *standard operating procedure* in most of europe for
the preceding two centuries. have you been to many renaissance
recitals lately?

> Even more
> implausible would be the idea he wanted everything to be Just.

who said anything like that?

>Composers that
> used m2's in their harmonic construction were certainly not looking
for
> consonance, regardless of what tuning is in place.

you can't make generalizations like that. ji chords like 12:15:16:20
are dripping with consonance, despite (or perhaps, paradoxically,
because of) the dissonant m2 in there.

In a message dated 7/20/03 4:11:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
perlich@aya.yale.edu writes:

> > But if he had in mind a
> > system of adaptive tuning from piece to piece, it makes no sense
> >that he would not
> > to have included information about such a radical idea.
>
> this is where i disagree with you. far from being a radical idea, the
> practice of retuning a meantone keyboard according to the tuning of
> the piece was *standard operating procedure* in most of europe for
> the preceding two centuries. have you been to many renaissance
> recitals lately?
>
>

Some on this list are playing the part of petty gods: they aim to make a
tuning in their own image. Paul speaks of adaptive tuning but it is just not
possible to do so for Bach, and yet he continues to speak of earlier traditions.
Ibo did the same thing. Others speak of "justifying" Bach to more consonance,
although this was a man whose reputations was built upon the dissonances and
his temperings of consonances.

Bach's music is fast so it is not possible to tune up triads. His music is
chromatic, often using all 12 notes in a single piece, so just harmonies are
not his dream for music. It is not possible to practice adaptive tuning with
it. What's more, with any experience in performing this music, one soon
realizes that playing apart of what the harpsichord is playing in a music like Bach's
which ALWAYS has a harpsichord or organ creates a muddy sound that is ugly.

Changing the composition to fit modern perspectives is the tail wagging the
dog. Theorists have one angle, musicologists another, historians, another.
Musicians don't seem to count on this list. I hope someday to put all the
evidence together into a single book and that it sees the light of day. In the
meantime, my gut feeling is that people are spinning their intellectual wheels,
often to the detriment of the music itself. It is nothing personal, but
scholarly honesty that propels me to respond at this time. I hope no one takes this
personally, but instead reexamines their prerogatives.

Anyone is free to say anything at anytime about anything. But it doesn't
make it right. Johnny Reinhard

on 7/20/03 2:55 PM, Afmmjr@aol.com <Afmmjr@aol.com> wrote:

> Some on this list are playing the part of petty gods: they aim to make a
> tuning in their own image. Paul speaks of adaptive tuning but it is just not
> possible to do so for Bach, and yet he continues to speak of earlier
> traditions.
> Ibo did the same thing. Others speak of "justifying" Bach to more consonance,
> although this was a man whose reputations was built upon the dissonances and
> his temperings of consonances.
>
> Bach's music is fast so it is not possible to tune up triads. His music is
> chromatic, often using all 12 notes in a single piece, so just harmonies are
> not his dream for music. It is not possible to practice adaptive tuning with
> it. What's more, with any experience in performing this music, one soon
> realizes that playing apart of what the harpsichord is playing in a music like
> Bach's
> which ALWAYS has a harpsichord or organ creates a muddy sound that is ugly.
>
> Changing the composition to fit modern perspectives is the tail wagging the
> dog. Theorists have one angle, musicologists another, historians, another.
> Musicians don't seem to count on this list.

Please realize that my response here is not just a direct response to what
Johnny has just said, so do not submit it to a point-by-point analysis in
the current context. However, I hope that on the whole what follows is an
appropriate response to some of the issues Johnny is touching on.

Just to offer another angle on this, a musician (I would assume most
musicians, eventually) may be compelled to experience something new. In
this case by "new" I don't mean a modern perspective so much, because any
perspective already recognized as modern is already somewhat less than "new"
in a person's experience. Instead I refer to a spontaneous spark of
absolute newness, and this is the very life of the musician (or historian,
etc.). Others can agree or disagree with such a spark, but there it is, and
it becomes the musicians responsibility to give more life to that spark.

So to me a very helpful question when sorting these things out is to what
degree the musician (or theorist, or historian) is in contact with what
inspires them, and (or) to what degree they are compelled to carry out some
process which will prove them in world. I suspect it is usually some of
both, and for myself it is an ongoing "art" to try to sort these two out
from each other.

For myself, I have considerable interest in hearing Bach in ways that are
close to what Bach heard himself. I am also not compelled to ONLY hear Bach
in this way, when I am inspired in other directions. However I don't mind
being clear when I am doing one and when I am doing the other, and
clarifying that to my audience also strikes me as a good thing. It strikes
me as one possibility that some of the appearances of conflict that occur in
the discourse on this list are actually misinterpretations of the angle of
experience which inspires another persons approach, because another person's
direction can be so different as to be entirely foreign and ultimately not
even explainable. In most cases I suspect it remains a mystery to each of
us how just we are so different, and the need to justify or explain can
baffle the very process of creation which is trying to happen.

I believe I see a lot of inspiration working in everyone on this list
(certainly everyone I can think of off-hand). Respect must include a
respect for the irrational, for the spark of life that each of us sees in
each other. This kind of respect is awesome, i.e. it is an awesome
experience of another person to feel this respect for their life, and it
brings to rest my intellectual and academic considerations when I have this
awesome respect. With such non-academic (but not entirely anti-academic)
respect as a starting point we can help each other to further clarify what
each of us is after. This will look a little different from a discourse
rooted in an academic sort of respect. It will be broader, deeper, more
flexible.

To play a composition in a way in which it was not originally played is for
many of us a growing edge and a requirement of our own lives. Such might be
the case for "justifying" Bach to more consonance, if it is not done as a
historical statement, may be someone's true calling, because that is the
call they hear when they hear Bach and when that meets their own experience
of just tunings.

To say something is "not possible" often turns out to be somewhat less to
the point than something else that could be said. For example I might say
that it is not possible for me to do a certain thing (and I might be wrong),
or I might say that I have to the best of my knowledge never known anyonw
who could do a certain thing. Nonetheless amazing things can be achieved
(athletically, musically, technically) that have never been achieved before,
and I think this requires exactly the same kind of development from a human
being as it requires to learn how to enter into a progressively more mature
discourse. It may be impossible to say that word "mature" without someone
hearing a judgement, i.e. "immature", yet maturing is something that does
not have an ending point, and I am acutely aware of the incompleteness of my
own maturing, and how exposed I am in where I am.

So back to the point of "not possible" why not leave it open as to what is
possible? Maybe even leave it open as a matter of principle, to give space
to others who are inspired and mean no harm, and who actually have something
to teach you, something which is almost inexpressible and even more so in a
culture of right and wrong. Academic rightness is only one way. It may
foster some things but it will kill others. Personally I think we have had
enough centuries of it by now that something else can have a turn.

> I hope someday to put all the
> evidence together into a single book and that it sees the light of day. In
> the
> meantime, my gut feeling is that people are spinning their intellectual
> wheels,
> often to the detriment of the music itself. It is nothing personal, but
> scholarly honesty that propels me to respond at this time. I hope no one
> takes this
> personally, but instead reexamines their prerogatives.
>
> Anyone is free to say anything at anytime about anything. But it doesn't
> make it right.

Many more things can be said and much more learned when the barrier of being
right is removed. Rightness in my own experience almost fully prevents any
of my own development which is related to the true force of my own life.
That force is something new and will not survive the experience of being
divided by the blade of right and wrong.

But this is not an argument to justify being unclear. Much more clarity can
emerge when the true force of one's inspiration is recognized and
distinguished. The words will never be perfect, the questions never fully
answered. The fall of judgement is heard with a deep sigh followed by
awesome growth of what life has to offer.

-Kurt Bigler

> Johnny Reinhard
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> this is where i disagree with you. far from being a radical idea,
the
> practice of retuning a meantone keyboard according to the tuning of
> the piece was *standard operating procedure* in most of europe for
> the preceding two centuries. have you been to many renaissance
> recitals lately?

Retuning a 1/4-comma keyboard would be particularly easy, and I'm
doing the WTC right now in that tuning. I don't understand why any
assumption is being made that Bach, if he was retuning, would be
retuning with an irregular temperament, given that 1/4-comma would be
easier. If you are asking if it possible that what Bach meant by
a "well-tempered clavier" was one put into the correct meantone with
his handy tuning wrench, I'd like to know the answer too. If someone
can *disprove* it, I think they should do so.

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

> Paul speaks of adaptive tuning but it is just not
> possible to do so for Bach...

Evidence?

and yet he continues to speak of earlier traditions.
> Ibo did the same thing. Others speak of "justifying" Bach to more
consonance,
> although this was a man whose reputations was built upon the
dissonances and
> his temperings of consonances.

I admit, the 1/4-comma Bach I've been listen to doesn't fit the usual
concept of what WTC is all about, but I don't find that argument in
the least convincing. I'll go put what I've done up and let people
draw their own conclusions, if they like.

> Bach's music is fast so it is not possible to tune up triads.

This has what conceiveable relevance to the WTC?

His music is
> chromatic, often using all 12 notes in a single piece, so just
harmonies are
> not his dream for music.

That point was clearly made, but the claim is that the *harmonies* of
these 12 notes are simply meantone harmonies.

It is not possible to practice adaptive tuning with
> it.

Evidence?

In a message dated 7/20/03 10:15:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Paul speaks of adaptive tuning but it is just not
> > possible to do so for Bach...
>
> Evidence?
>

Have you tried it? Have you ever performed Bach? Do you have any evidence
that adaptive tuning is possible? If your answer is no to all these questions,
then you might want to consider a musician that is familiar enough to know
that it is too quick to make any of the immediate calculations that would be
necessary to adjust tuning for Bach.

> and yet he continues to speak of earlier traditions.
> > Ibo did the same thing. Others speak of "justifying" Bach to more
> consonance,
> > although this was a man whose reputations was built upon the
> dissonances and
> > his temperings of consonances.
>
> I admit, the 1/4-comma Bach I've been listen to doesn't fit the usual
> concept of what WTC is all about, but I don't find that argument in
> the least convincing. I'll go put what I've done up and let people
> draw their own conclusions, if they like.

Here you are in denial of Bach in history. It was well known (as stated by
his theory student Kirnberger and backed up by his son Carl Philipp Emanuel
Bach) that Johann Sebastian insisted that all thirds be sharp from just.

> Bach's music is fast so it is not possible to tune up triads.
>
>
> This has what conceiveable relevance to the WTC?

Real time adjusting to pitch has nothing to do with a solo keyboard work. It
only relates to all other pieces by Bach. However, the shortness of the
Preludes and Fugues would belie a different tuning of the harpsichord each time a
player wanted to go on to the next piece. Besides the fact that the title is
as clear as day in demanding well temperament, and studies of J. Murray
Barbour have evidenced that Bach's tuning was consistently non-meantone throughout
his life time, based on every set of organ works or individual great works,
regular tuning of a harpsichord is painful to a player's hands. No player wants
to retune during a concert if it hurts their hands. Ask them.

> His music is
> > chromatic, often using all 12 notes in a single piece, so just
> harmonies are
> > not his dream for music.
>
> That point was clearly made, but the claim is that the *harmonies* of
> these 12 notes are simply meantone harmonies.

The use of enharmonic identities gives the lie that Bach's use of 12 notes
are simply meantone harmonies.

> It is not possible to practice adaptive tuning with
> > it.
>
> Evidence?
>

Read the above. If you need more, I'll try to oblige. best, Johnny Reinhard

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

> Here you are in denial of Bach in history. It was well known (as
stated by
> his theory student Kirnberger and backed up by his son Carl Philipp
Emanuel
> Bach) that Johann Sebastian insisted that all thirds be sharp from
just.

Insisted with meantone, or with circulating temperaments?

>However, the shortness of the
> Preludes and Fugues would belie a different tuning of the
harpsichord each time a
> player wanted to go on to the next piece.

Do you have evidence this is how they were meant to be played? Could
they not be a compilation of examples for twelve different meantone
tunings? (Perhaps ones with sharp major thirds, though I don't see
the point of insisting on that if you stay inside the circle of
fifths.)

Besides the fact that the title is
> as clear as day in demanding well temperament...

I thought "well-temperament" was a term made up to correspond to
Bach's WTC, not the other way around.

> > That point was clearly made, but the claim is that the
*harmonies* of
> > these 12 notes are simply meantone harmonies.
>
> The use of enharmonic identities gives the lie that Bach's use of
12 notes
> are simply meantone harmonies.

Possibly, but whats-his-name says otherwise.

> > It is not possible to practice adaptive tuning with
> > > it.
> >
> > Evidence?
> >
>
> Read the above. If you need more, I'll try to oblige. best,
Johnny Reinhard

You didn't discuss adaptive tuning in the sense of recent usage on
this list, which is what I thought you were talking about.

Greetings,
I wrote, inre Bachs WTC:

> But if he had in mind a

> system of adaptive tuning from piece to piece, it makes no sense

>that he would not

> to have included information about such a radical idea.

Paul responds:
this is where i disagree with you. far from being a radical idea, the

practice of retuning a meantone keyboard according to the tuning of

the piece was *standard operating procedure* in most of europe for

the preceding two centuries. have you been to many renaissance

recitals lately?<<

No, I haven't, but I am not unfamiliar with the practise. However, we are
talking about 1722, not the preceding centuries. Since tuning the various
meantones by alteration of the enharmonic postion of certain notes is not actually
"tempering", I don't think it probable that Bach intended to pay homage to
thepractice of JI by titling a piece the "Well-tempered" clavier. It seems to
be a stretch to think he intended 24 different tunings for the composition
without saying so.
When I wrote:

> Even more

> implausible would be the idea he wanted everything to be Just.

Paul asks:

>>who said anything like that?

It was inferred, and buttressed by the following to support an unmentioned
adaptive tuning scheme.
ie, when I wrote:

>Composers that

> used m2's in their harmonic construction were certainly not looking

for consonance, regardless of what tuning is in place.

and Paul responds:

>>you can't make generalizations like that. ji chords like 12:15:16:20

are dripping with consonance, despite (or perhaps, paradoxically,

because of) the dissonant m2 in there.

See, this is what I meant, the use of "JI chords dripping with
consonance" to support a WTC with tuning for each piece doesn't make sense, (are there
12:15:16:20 chords throughout the WTC?) Would Bach have referred to an
excercise in JI as "Well Tempered Clavier"? I don't think so, and that is why I
don't think the 24 were intended for a keyboard that was retuned for each one of
them.
Bach's toccato in D uses dissonance as a compositonal element in the
most obvious way. Is there anyway for any JI tuning to make that piece drip
with consonance?
Are you making the case that the WTC was actually an excercise in JI,
thus, the tuning would be expected to be changed with each of the 24 and Bach
decided not to say anything about it? That he assumed people would know to
pick up the wrench and retune for each of them? Seems the mechanism to make that
work would have been mentioned.
Theory is fine, but I prefer to listen to the plausible alternatives for
a piece and make the decision on what seems to work musically. Compare the
prelude in C# using the normal 1/4 comma meantone moved over 1/2 step with
what it sounds like on a Werckmeister or Kellner,(or even a Kirnberger, if you
like). The piece goes dead as a mackerel without the wider thirds in the
harmony.

Ed Foote RPT

In a message dated 7/20/03 10:53:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
>
> > Here you are in denial of Bach in history. It was well known (as
> stated by
> > his theory student Kirnberger and backed up by his son Carl Philipp
> Emanuel
> > Bach) that Johann Sebastian insisted that all thirds be sharp from
> just.
>
> Insisted with meantone, or with circulating temperaments?

Circulating: I have included a section from something I am working on which
quotes Barbour to this effect.

J. Murray Barbour (1897-1970), in his article "Bach and the Art of
Temperament," clearly and emphatically demonstrated that the great majority of Bach's
works require a keyboard tuning capable of playing in a full circle of keys or a
"circular temperament."

So persistent is the legend that Bach still clung to meantone tuning for
organ that it will be well to cite examples of his freer practice. But, although
the great majority of Bach's organ works contain notes excluded from the
meantone compass, the diehards are not convinced easily (Barbour, The Musical
Quarterly 33, 1946, p. 81)

Barbour gave numerous examples of works that exceeded the meantone compass.
Barbour wrote:

Conceivably in the third inversion of a dominant-seventh on D-flat in an F
major Toccata, there would be room for considerable imperfections in the tuning.
But when Bach calmly modulated to-sharp minor and made a cadence there, or
wrote a prelude and fugue in F minor, we can be sure he knew that his organ was
tuned so that these rare keys would be 'possible' ones (Barbour, MQ 33, 1946,
p. 81).
Johann Sebastian Bach certainly was aware of the Musicum Andreas

After offering example upon example, Barbour concluded:

But why continue? The evidence is over-whelming that Bach could not have
used the meantone tuning for the organ (Barbour, MQ 33, p. 87).

> >However, the shortness of the
> > Preludes and Fugues would belie a different tuning of the
> harpsichord each time a
> > player wanted to go on to the next piece.
>
> Do you have evidence this is how they were meant to be played? Could
> they not be a compilation of examples for twelve different meantone
> tunings? (Perhaps ones with sharp major thirds, though I don't see
> the point of insisting on that if you stay inside the circle of
> fifths.)

There is evidence by witnesses that Bach would often play Preludes and Fugues
for his students and for guests, one after another. It was a major teaching
tool for him as well. There is no specific ordering for them, though they are
listed chromatically.

> Besides the fact that the title is
> > as clear as day in demanding well temperament...
>
> I thought "well-temperament" was a term made up to correspond to
> Bach's WTC, not the other way around.

Well temperament is a term first used by Andreas Werckmeister (at least by
1685 the year of Bach's birth), fully acknowledged by Bach in his title. JS had
Werckmeister's Orgel-Probe in his library as well.

> > > That point was clearly made, but the claim is that the
> *harmonies* of
> > > these 12 notes are simply meantone harmonies.
> >
> > The use of enharmonic identities gives the lie that Bach's use of
> 12 notes
> > are simply meantone harmonies.
>
> Possibly, but whats-his-name says otherwise.
>

You'll have to explain who "whats-his-name" is. I am at a loss here.

> > > It is not possible to practice adaptive tuning with
> > > > it.
> > >
> > > Evidence?
> > >
> >
> > Read the above. If you need more, I'll try to oblige. best,
> Johnny Reinhard
>
> You didn't discuss adaptive tuning in the sense of recent usage on
> this list, which is what I thought you were talking about.

Could you define the term as you would like me to use it? Thank you. Johnny
Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:
x
Compare the
> prelude in C# using the normal 1/4 comma meantone moved over 1/2
step with
> what it sounds like on a Werckmeister or Kellner,(or even a
Kirnberger, if you
> like). The piece goes dead as a mackerel without the wider thirds
in the
> harmony.

Complete rubbish. I'll have it up soon and people are invited to take
a listen.

>>> Paul speaks of adaptive tuning but it is just not
>>> possible to do so for Bach...
>>
>>Evidence?
>
>Have you tried it?

I've tried it, with John deLaubenfels' software, and it works
beautifully. I'm sure Bach intended well temperament, but he
probably didn't know about adaptive tuning. Who can say how
he'd feel about it?

Early music buffs often assume that composers prefer exactly
what they had. Who among us does not have ambition for more?
'Follow not in the footsteps of great men, but seek what they
sought', and friend of mine says.

>Real time adjusting to pitch has nothing to do with a solo
>keyboard work.

It might if you have a keyboard capable of hermode tuning!

>the shortness of the Preludes and Fugues would belie a different
>tuning of the harpsichord each time a player wanted to go on to
>the next piece.

There's no evidence the WTC was meant to be performed as a
complete work. In fact, it was most likely thought of by the
master as teaching material.

-Carl

>I thought "well-temperament" was a term made up to correspond to
>Bach's WTC, not the other way around.

That's was I thought, as you can see from my 1999 post. However,
Kellner claims Bach came up with "woltempiert", or some such (on
his website).

-Carl

>Compare the prelude in C# using the normal 1/4 comma meantone moved
>over 1/2 step with what it sounds like on a Werckmeister or Kellner,
>(or even a Kirnberger, if you like). The piece goes dead as a
>mackerel without the wider thirds in the harmony.

This is the example you used in the 1999 thread, when I was arguing
for the Scalatron thesis. But which C# prelude? You apparently
mean the C#maj prelude from the 1st book -- which is the same
example of composition following key given by Tevor Stephenson at
a concert I saw Friday. But I wonder if this sort of analysis holds
up when all 96 works are considered. I doubt it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/20/03 4:11:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> perlich@a... writes:
>
>
> > > But if he had in mind a
> > > system of adaptive tuning from piece to piece, it makes no
sense
> > >that he would not
> > > to have included information about such a radical idea.
> >
> > this is where i disagree with you. far from being a radical idea,
the
> > practice of retuning a meantone keyboard according to the tuning
of
> > the piece was *standard operating procedure* in most of europe
for
> > the preceding two centuries. have you been to many renaissance
> > recitals lately?
> >
> >
>
> Some on this list are playing the part of petty gods: they aim to
make a
> tuning in their own image. Paul speaks of adaptive tuning but it
is just not
> possible to do so for Bach, and yet he continues to speak of
earlier traditions.
> Ibo did the same thing. Others speak of "justifying" Bach to more
consonance,
> although this was a man whose reputations was built upon the
dissonances and
> his temperings of consonances.
>
> Bach's music is fast so it is not possible to tune up triads. His
music is
> chromatic, often using all 12 notes in a single piece, so just
harmonies are
> not his dream for music. It is not possible to practice adaptive
tuning with
> it. What's more, with any experience in performing this music, one
soon
> realizes that playing apart of what the harpsichord is playing in a
music like Bach's
> which ALWAYS has a harpsichord or organ creates a muddy sound that
is ugly.
>
> Changing the composition to fit modern perspectives is the tail
wagging the
> dog. Theorists have one angle, musicologists another, historians,
another.
> Musicians don't seem to count on this list. I hope someday to put
all the
> evidence together into a single book and that it sees the light of
day. In the
> meantime, my gut feeling is that people are spinning their
intellectual wheels,
> often to the detriment of the music itself. It is nothing
personal, but
> scholarly honesty that propels me to respond at this time. I hope
no one takes this
> personally, but instead reexamines their prerogatives.
>
> Anyone is free to say anything at anytime about anything. But it
doesn't
> make it right. Johnny Reinhard

what did i actually say that you disagree with, johnny?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
> > this is where i disagree with you. far from being a radical idea,
> the
> > practice of retuning a meantone keyboard according to the tuning
of
> > the piece was *standard operating procedure* in most of europe for
> > the preceding two centuries. have you been to many renaissance
> > recitals lately?
>
> Retuning a 1/4-comma keyboard would be particularly easy, and I'm
> doing the WTC right now in that tuning. I don't understand why any
> assumption is being made that Bach, if he was retuning, would be
> retuning with an irregular temperament, given that 1/4-comma would
be
> easier.

who made that assumption? not hafner, who envisions 31-equal as a
possibility for book 1. nb johnny: i never said i agreed with hafner's
conclusions.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/20/03 10:15:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > > Paul speaks of adaptive tuning but it is just not
> > > possible to do so for Bach...
> >
> > Evidence?
> >
>
> Have you tried it? Have you ever performed Bach? Do you have any
evidence
> that adaptive tuning is possible? If your answer is no to all these
questions,
> then you might want to consider a musician that is familiar enough
to know
> that it is too quick to make any of the immediate calculations that
would be
> necessary to adjust tuning for Bach.

i don't get it, johnny. we were talking about hafner's proposal, which
i never agreed with by the way, which was to use a fixed 12-tone
meantone chain, extending two fifths flatwise and three fifths
sharpwise beyond the diatonic key, for each piece in book 1. of which
immediate calculations do you speak? the keyboard is tuned before the
piece is played, and remains in tune (hopefully) for the duration of
the piece.

> Real time adjusting to pitch has nothing to do with a solo keyboard
work.

exactly.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, a440a@a... wrote:

> No, I haven't, but I am not unfamiliar with the practise. However,
we are
> talking about 1722, not the preceding centuries. Since tuning the
various
> meantones by alteration of the enharmonic postion of certain notes
is not actually
> "tempering", I don't think it probable that Bach intended to pay
homage to
> thepractice of JI by titling a piece the "Well-tempered" clavier.

who said anything about the practice of ji??

>It seems to
> be a stretch to think he intended 24

12

> different tunings for the
composition
> without saying so.
> When I wrote:
>
> > Even more
>
> > implausible would be the idea he wanted everything to be Just.
>
> Paul asks:
>
> >>who said anything like that?
>
> It was inferred, and buttressed by the following to support an
unmentioned
> adaptive tuning scheme.

that's your interpretation, and isn't what i meant.

> ie, when I wrote:
>
>
> >Composers that
>
> > used m2's in their harmonic construction were certainly not
looking
>
> for consonance, regardless of what tuning is in place.
>
> and Paul responds:
>
> >>you can't make generalizations like that. ji chords like
12:15:16:20
>
> are dripping with consonance, despite (or perhaps, paradoxically,
>
> because of) the dissonant m2 in there.
>
> See, this is what I meant, the use of "JI chords dripping with
> consonance" to support a WTC with tuning

no, this was an unrelated point.

> for each piece doesn't make
sense, (are there
> 12:15:16:20 chords throughout the WTC?)

G-B-c-e? i wouldn't be surprised . . .

> Would Bach have referred to
an
> excercise in JI as "Well Tempered Clavier"?

no, you're reading this into what i said but i didn't say it.

> Bach's toccato in D uses dissonance as a compositonal
element in the
> most obvious way. Is there anyway for any JI tuning to make that
piece drip
> with consonance?

again, just to be sure we have it straight, i would be the *last*
person to advocate a ji tuning for it, and i don't think anyone here
would either. but yes, many chords in this piece *do* drip with
consonance on a well-tuned organ (werckmeister iii included of course,
d minor is quite nice).

> Are you making the case that the WTC was actually an excercise
in JI,

nonononono. not even hafner was saying this.

> thus, the tuning would be expected to be changed with each of the 24
and Bach
> decided not to say anything about it? That he assumed people would
know to
> pick up the wrench and retune for each of them? Seems the mechanism
to make that
> work would have been mentioned.

my only point was that for the most part, in 1500-1700, keyboard
instruments were tuned in *meantone* and the accidentals were retuned
according to the key of the piece to be played in. this part of
hafner's argument has a lot of weight, i feel, though the others may
not.

> Theory is fine, but I prefer to listen to the plausible
alternatives for
> a piece and make the decision on what seems to work musically.
Compare the
> prelude in C# using the normal 1/4 comma meantone moved over 1/2
step with
> what it sounds like on a Werckmeister or Kellner,(or even a
Kirnberger, if you
> like). The piece goes dead as a mackerel without the wider thirds
in the
> harmony.

are you doing this experiment on any instruments similar to those that
existed in bach's day?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> This is the example you used in the 1999 thread, when I was arguing
> for the Scalatron thesis. But which C# prelude? You apparently
> mean the C#maj prelude from the 1st book -- which is the same
> example of composition following key given by Tevor Stephenson at
> a concert I saw Friday. But I wonder if this sort of analysis holds
> up when all 96 works are considered. I doubt it.

A moot point, since it doesn't even hold for the C#maj prelude from
the 1st book.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:

> are you doing this experiment on any instruments similar to those
that
> existed in bach's day?

I did my C#maj with soundfonts for trumpet, trombone and flugelhorn,
and jazzed it up a little. This may not have been what Bach had in
mind. Do you think it is cheating?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

> You apparently
> mean the C#maj prelude from the 1st book -- which is the same
> example of composition following key given by Tevor Stephenson at
> a concert I saw Friday. But I wonder if this sort of analysis holds
> up when all 96 works are considered. I doubt it.

Anyone who wants to check on how lively the mackerel are can take a
look; I've got the beginning of Book I up now, with more to come:

http://66.246.86.148/~xenharmo/wtc.html

In a message dated 7/21/03 12:56:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> I've tried it, with John deLaubenfels' software, and it works
> beautifully. I'm sure Bach intended well temperament, but he
> probably didn't know about adaptive tuning. Who can say how
> he'd feel about it?
>
>

Thanks, Carl. But I wasn't addressing electronics while thinking about Bach.
Re the performability of WTC, I agree it was largely for teaching. Can you
imagine a short lesson with valuable time taken up by retuning of the
instrument? I can't. Johnny

In a message dated 7/21/03 12:58:57 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ekin@lumma.org
writes:

> That's was I thought, as you can see from my 1999 post. However,
> Kellner claims Bach came up with "woltempiert", or some such (on
> his website).
>
>

But it does not make it correct. Johnny

In a message dated 7/21/2003 12:47:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, perlich@aya.yale.edu writes:

> > practice of retuning a meantone keyboard according to the tuning
> of
> > > the piece was *standard operating procedure* in most of europe
> for
> > > the preceding two centuries. have you been to many
> renaissance
> > > recitals lately

Paul, I am not criticizing you especially. But I do think it was onerous for harpsichord tuners to retune during concerts. Have you heard of any accounts where this was done? My harpsichordists refuse to retune even during intermission claiming it hurts the hands and desensitizes them, possibly impairing the performance.

How many pianists do you know who tune their own pianos? None in my case. And yet I enjoy tuning them. Same problem, the tuning puts strain on the hands that the players feel there is risk involved, if not simple distraction for the action of playing.

I think it is a bit too glib an answer to say "it has always been so" and then to apply it to WTC. It is not the same thing as Carl pressing a button to retune an electronic instrument.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/21/2003 12:47:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
perlich@a... writes:
>
> > > practice of retuning a meantone keyboard according to the
tuning
> > of
> > > > the piece was *standard operating procedure* in most of
europe
> > for
> > > > the preceding two centuries. have you been to many
> > renaissance
> > > > recitals lately
>
> Paul, I am not criticizing you especially. But I do think it was
>onerous for harpsichord tuners to retune during concerts. Have you
>heard of any accounts where this was done?

yes, again this was standard practice in the years 1500-1700
approximately, and is done today for authentic early music
performances. usually this would only involve tuning three or four
just major thirds, or a single major third and two or three octaves,
and you're done. for example, if the previous piece called for an Eb,
and the next piece calls for a D#, simply lower all the Ebs on the
keyboard to be just major thirds above the Bs (hence D#s). unless you
have a keyboard with split keys, there is simply no alternative.

> My harpsichordists refuse to retune even during intermission
>claiming it hurts the hands and desensitizes them, possibly
>impairing the performance.

the entire procedure takes 30 seconds or less.

> How many pianists do you know who tune their own pianos? None in
>my case.

in the 16th-18th centuries, things were quite different.

>But I do think it was onerous for harpsichord tuners to retune
>during concerts. Have you heard of any accounts where this was
>done?

I haven't heard accounts of doing so during a concert, but
certainly before, it was the harpsichordist's responsibility to
tune his instrument.

Wendy Carlos says it was not uncommon for Bach to reach in and
retune a few notes during a performance.

>How many pianists do you know who tune their own pianos?

It's a totally different thing. Pianos are much harder to tune
than harpsichords. Pianos stay in tune much longer than
harpsichords. There was no profession of tuners in Bach's day.
Every harpsichordist I know tunes his own instrument.

-Carl

In a message dated 7/21/03 2:53:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
perlich@aya.yale.edu writes:

> the entire procedure takes 30 seconds or less.
>
>

Have you timed the procedure? And the audience enjoyed the experience and
waited quietly? I'm a bit incredulous. I would say that if only 1 note is
changed for 5 octaves it would be much more than 30 seconds. 2 notes much more,
and so on.

Paul, I'm wondering if there is a specific report of this "retuning" during a
performance, but you have returned with a generality. Now it may be true
that there were no "concerts" as such in the Renaissance and people had all the
time in the world. I've even imagined that assistants might be employed to
jump into service. But the actual "tuning" would be a distraction to listeners
and a drain on the concert's energy. I am doubting that this generalism of the
"doability" of retuning was in actuality a practice of the past. I hope I am
being clear.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/21/03 2:53:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> perlich@a... writes:
>
>
> > the entire procedure takes 30 seconds or less.
> >
> >
>
> Have you timed the procedure? And the audience enjoyed the
experience and
> waited quietly? I'm a bit incredulous. I would say that if only 1
note is
> changed for 5 octaves it would be much more than 30 seconds. 2
notes much more,
> and so on.

i've been to plenty of renaissance concerts where this was done. not,
of course, in the renaissance. :)

> Paul, I'm wondering if there is a specific report of
>this "retuning" during a
> performance, but you have returned with a generality.

ok, you got me. the documentation from the time, though, is clear
that keyboards without split keys were to be retuned according to the
piece to be performed. and certain suites and operas would have thus
required retuning during a performance using such keyboards. not a
smoking gun, but i really see no alternative.

> Now it may be true
> that there were no "concerts" as such in the Renaissance and people
had all the
> time in the world. I've even imagined that assistants might be
employed to
> jump into service. But the actual "tuning" would be a distraction
to listeners
> and a drain on the concert's energy. I am doubting that this
generalism of the
> "doability" of retuning was in actuality a practice of the past. I
hope I am
> being clear.
>
> best, Johnny Reinhard

string players tune up *during* extended concerts (even between
movements of a single long piece) even today. i've seen this
countless times for the violin family, not to mention guitars where i
know the experience first hand. one develops a feel for tuning and
can adjust almost instantaneously. the process of tuning a couple of
just major thirds for a renaissance keyboardist would have been
extremely familiar and very quick indeed.

>string players tune up *during* extended concerts (even between
>movements of a single long piece) even today.

Il Giardino Armonico spent a good minute tuning before *every*
piece when I saw them.

-Carl

Well, I was holding this back until I could hear the "mackarel" on a good
set of speakers, but require ogg capability under OS X for that, which I
have not arranged yet. So I'll go ahead and send this now...

(I'm confused as to how this thread got to be 2 different threads with no
apparently common origins.)

on 7/21/03 12:04 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...> wrote:
>
>> are you doing this experiment on any instruments similar to those
> that
>> existed in bach's day?
>
> I did my C#maj with soundfonts for trumpet, trombone and flugelhorn,
> and jazzed it up a little. This may not have been what Bach had in
> mind. Do you think it is cheating?

This is regarding P&F #1.

It was a little hard for me to sort out the parts the way I am used to
hearing them. Things were in the foreground that are usually more in the
background. Do you think you got the parts balanced right? Of course it is
hard to account for the effects of the different instruments on this.

Maybe you could do a non-inharmonic harpsichord version, so you wouldn't
have to worry about the stretch?

Of course part of the problem is that I'm listening on a computer with
crummy speakers (and mono actually).

-Kurt

How many people are able to hear dolby 5.1, or any greater-than-stereo
internet-deliverable format on their system? If you can playback dolby 5.1
etc., then via what file formats are you able to receive such material that
allows you to play it directly? (I'm talking about actually hearing all the
channels, not just a stereo fallback mode.)

I'm used to listening to my own organ synth in a large-number-of-channels
format in my living room, with essentially no mixing, with the result that
more mixing happens in the air rather than in the electronics and speakers.
This results in a greatly improved listening experience, as confimed by
quite a number of different listeners at this point.

So I would appreciate input about what >2 channel formats might work for
people on this list. I would offer stereo versions as well, but would like
to supplement that for people who can do better.

This is thinking a bit into the future (few months maybe), so feel free to
respond with the future in mind.

Thanks,
Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> Well, I was holding this back until I could hear the "mackarel" on
a good
> set of speakers, but require ogg capability under OS X for that,
which I
> have not arranged yet.

Why not download Audacity (it's free) and convert to wav?

> It was a little hard for me to sort out the parts the way I am used
to
> hearing them. Things were in the foreground that are usually more
in the
> background. Do you think you got the parts balanced right?

P&F2 isn't right, and for P&F1 I should rebalance a little. The
trumpet may be too loud for some tastes on P&F3.

> Maybe you could do a non-inharmonic harpsichord version, so you
wouldn't
> have to worry about the stretch?

What about just a plain old-fashioned harpsichord version? :)

I'm going to start with some of Carl's suggestions from Book II.

> Of course part of the problem is that I'm listening on a computer
with
> crummy speakers (and mono actually).

(1) Get headphones

http://www.headphone.com/layout.php

http://www.goodcans.com/

(2) If your computer is like mine, it can't drive your headphones
very well, so cut a CD and listen to that

on 7/22/03 10:31 PM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>> Well, I was holding this back until I could hear the "mackarel" on
> a good
>> set of speakers, but require ogg capability under OS X for that,
> which I
>> have not arranged yet.
>
> Why not download Audacity (it's free) and convert to wav?

I feel that I have so little time that I hate any extra steps. There is
probably a trivial solution for playing ogg directly under OS X, so I just
need to find it. Someone else had iTunes working for them, so I should be
able to do that too.

>> It was a little hard for me to sort out the parts the way I am used
> to
>> hearing them. Things were in the foreground that are usually more
> in the
>> background. Do you think you got the parts balanced right?
>
> P&F2 isn't right, and for P&F1 I should rebalance a little. The
> trumpet may be too loud for some tastes on P&F3.
>
>> Maybe you could do a non-inharmonic harpsichord version, so you
> wouldn't
>> have to worry about the stretch?
>
> What about just a plain old-fashioned harpsichord version? :)

That would be cool - but I thought you were indicating that doing a properly
stretched tuning of a synthesized harpsichord was going to be a problem?
Are soundfonts sophisticated enough to deal with this issue, assuming the
person creating it knows enough?

> I'm going to start with some of Carl's suggestions from Book II.
>
>> Of course part of the problem is that I'm listening on a computer
> with
>> crummy speakers (and mono actually).
>
> (1) Get headphones
>
> http://www.headphone.com/layout.php
>
> http://www.goodcans.com/

Something is wrong with me. I can't stand headphones of any kind. I'd
rather have needles under my fingernails than listen through headphones for
more than 60 seconds or so. I've tried all kinds.

> (2) If your computer is like mine, it can't drive your headphones
> very well, so cut a CD and listen to that

If necessary, yes.

-Kurt

>That would be cool - but I thought you were indicating that doing
>a properly stretched tuning of a synthesized harpsichord was going
>to be a problem?

On the one harpsichord I've done this with, the octaves I tuned
beatless by ear were exactly 1200 cents according to my digital
strobe tuner.

Any good soundfont should reproduce the harmonicity (or lack thereof)
of the instrument. The problem is doing stretched tunings with MIDI.
But one can test his soundfont/tuning by simply rendering sustained
octave dyads in different registers and listening for beats. Compare
to an organ or reed patch to make sure you aren't hearing 768-et errors.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:

> I feel that I have so little time that I hate any extra steps.
There is
> probably a trivial solution for playing ogg directly under OS X, so
I just
> need to find it. Someone else had iTunes working for them, so I
should be
> able to do that too.

Have you tried Audion 3, MacAmp Lite, Mint Audio, Unsanity Echo or
Whamb?

> > (1) Get headphones
> >
> > http://www.headphone.com/layout.php
> >
> > http://www.goodcans.com/
>
> Something is wrong with me. I can't stand headphones of any kind.

Any kind? Are you sure you know all of the various physical kinds--
four, at least.

In a message dated 7/22/2003 3:29:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, perlich@aya.yale.edu writes:

> ok, you got me. the documentation from the time, though, is clear
> that keyboards without split keys were to be retuned according to the
> piece to be performed. and certain suites and operas would have thus
> required retuning during a performance using such keyboards. not a
> smoking gun, but i really see no alternative.

Suites are all in a single key. How often are multiple suites heard in performance, back to back? And with retuning, too? How many different operas were heard back-to-back? 2, or 3, or more? Isn't it more likely that music within a cultural area played music that was consistent with the tuning of that area so that retuning for numerous pieces in a given musical session was unneccessary? Just because people like Bach studied Vivaldi doesn't mean that Bach or his fellow Thuringians performed Vivaldi much, if at all. How much JS Bach was performed in Italy and France? Did they retune to Werckmeister III? Sorry, I don't buy the idea of regular retuning, regardless of contemporary practice.

> string players tune up *during* extended concerts (even between
> movements of a single long piece) even today. i've seen this
> countless times for the violin family, not to mention guitars where i
> know the experience first hand.

And it is painful to listen to. The opening of Beethoven's 9th is a musical way to incorporate the first tuning sounds into a piece, all in the guise of universal friendship. Out of tuneness needs repair in the least obvious way possible. Timpanists are really good at doing this quietly, pulling their ear to the membranes.

However, even the time between movements is part of the full presentation. Too much scratching around does not help keep the imagination captivated. Telling everyone to suspend their involvement while everything is retuned, and several times, is contrary to a good experience. More likely, a second harpsichord already tuned would be available. Maybe even a third.

> one develops a feel for tuning and
> can adjust almost instantaneously.

Really? Tuning is a process over time. The longer the time, the better the tuning. (again, not applicable to electronics.) The better the players, the greater the command of the tuning, but also the determination to be in tune.

the process of tuning a couple of
> just major thirds for a renaissance keyboardist would have
> been
> extremely familiar and very quick indeed.

Maybe you are right, maybe not. Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 7/22/2003 3:29:42 PM Eastern Standard Time,
perlich@a... writes:
>
> > ok, you got me. the documentation from the time, though, is clear
> > that keyboards without split keys were to be retuned according to
the
> > piece to be performed. and certain suites and operas would have
thus
> > required retuning during a performance using such keyboards. not
a
> > smoking gun, but i really see no alternative.
>
> Suites are all in a single key.

operas, then.

>Isn't it more likely that music within a cultural area played music
>that was consistent with the tuning of that area so that retuning
>for numerous pieces in a given musical session was unneccessary?

in some areas, this may have been the case.

>Did they retune to Werckmeister III?

that's irrelevant, i explicitly said i was discussing the *meantone*
practice here.

>Sorry, I don't buy the idea of regular retuning, regardless of
>contemporary practice.

it's well documented, and for those without split keys, simply
necessary. there was simply no possible alternative (except having an
extra harpsichord, as you say -- i guess you got me again) . . .

> > string players tune up *during* extended concerts (even between
> > movements of a single long piece) even today. i've seen this
> > countless times for the violin family, not to mention guitars
where i
> > know the experience first hand.
>
> And it is painful to listen to. The opening of Beethoven's 9th is
>a musical way to incorporate the first tuning sounds into a piece,
>all in the guise of universal friendship. Out of tuneness needs
>repair in the least obvious way possible. Timpanists are really
>good at doing this quietly, pulling their ear to the membranes.

exactly.

> > one develops a feel for tuning and
> > can adjust almost instantaneously.
>
> Really? Tuning is a process over time. The longer the time, the
>better the tuning. (again, not applicable to electronics.) The
>better the players, the greater the command of the tuning, but also
>the determination to be in tune.

yup!

> the process of tuning a couple of
> > just major thirds for a renaissance keyboardist would have
> > been
> > extremely familiar and very quick indeed.
>
> Maybe you are right, maybe not. Johnny Reinhard

on 7/23/03 1:02 AM, Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org> wrote:

>> That would be cool - but I thought you were indicating that doing
>> a properly stretched tuning of a synthesized harpsichord was going
>> to be a problem?
>
> On the one harpsichord I've done this with, the octaves I tuned
> beatless by ear were exactly 1200 cents according to my digital
> strobe tuner.
>
> Any good soundfont should reproduce the harmonicity (or lack thereof)
> of the instrument. The problem is doing stretched tunings with MIDI.
> But one can test his soundfont/tuning by simply rendering sustained
> octave dyads in different registers and listening for beats. Compare
> to an organ or reed patch to make sure you aren't hearing 768-et errors.

I have never gotten into sampling but it occurs to me the problem of a
sample of an inharmonic instrument is a potentially big problem when it
comes to looping - though perhaps standard looping tricks deal with it
graciously. But ideally you would want a sample so long that the periods of
the primary partials would all divide evenly into the sample length. I just
have never heard of anyone talking about DOING this, and it makes me suspect
it is either ignored or a well-kept secret.

-Kurt

>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - unsubscribe from the tuning group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - put your email message delivery on hold for
> the tuning group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to daily digest mode.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - change your subscription to individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

on 7/23/03 3:20 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

>>> (1) Get headphones
>>>
>>> http://www.headphone.com/layout.php
>>>
>>> http://www.goodcans.com/
>>
>> Something is wrong with me. I can't stand headphones of any kind.
>
> Any kind? Are you sure you know all of the various physical kinds--
> four, at least.

Well, after that comment I went and looked at your links, so indeed I
probably haven't tried all possible kinds. Can you make a recommendation
for what is the most physically comfortable while putting the least physical
pressure on the head or ear, and also with a transducer that has the minimum
possible ear strain? I've tried some really lightweight headphones that
rest on foam that rests on the ear, and I get strange tensions/pains around
the ear after a fairly short time, which seems to be "physical" in origin
(i.e. due to the physical headphones rather than the sound), but on the
other hand I sometimes get deeper ear pain such as I associate with metal
cone tweeters.

-Kurt

on 7/23/03 3:20 AM, Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>
>> I feel that I have so little time that I hate any extra steps.
>> There is probably a trivial solution for playing ogg directly under OS X, so
>> I just need to find it. Someone else had iTunes working for them, so I
>> should be able to do that too.
>
> Have you tried Audion 3, MacAmp Lite, Mint Audio, Unsanity Echo or
> Whamb?

If necessary, but I'd rather avoid installing anything unnecessary (partly
because I am the "sys admin" for 5 computers in this house) unless there is
a real advantage over using iTunes, and perhaps there is but I am nieve in
this area.

I just did a web search and found info about ogg capability for OS X iTunes.
Haven't tried it yet, but here is the article I found:

http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=20021103065300430

So from this article I see it will require a plug-in, which is installing
something extra after all. But unless I hear reason not to, I will try to
do it in iTunes, since I need to learn how to use iTunes anyway, and
virtually "everybody" (on the Mac) uses iTunes.

-Kurt

>I have never gotten into sampling but it occurs to me the problem of
>a sample of an inharmonic instrument is a potentially big problem
>when it comes to looping - though perhaps standard looping tricks
>deal with it graciously. But ideally you would want a sample so long
>that the periods of the primary partials would all divide evenly into
>the sample length.

I thought about the looping problem when I posted that. I think
good harpsichord soundfonts have complete notes from start to finish.
There are soundfonts for the piano that do this, and the piano's
envelope is a lot longer than the harpsicord's.

-Carl

>>>> http://www.goodcans.com/

Funny, this guy happens to like and sell all the cans he reviews.

>Well, after that comment I went and looked at your links, so indeed
>I probably haven't tried all possible kinds.

Definitely not Grados. They're like Inquisition torture devices.

I had problems with headphone discomfort too, until I got the
Sony MDR-F1s in 1998. You can come over and try them out sometime.
They don't touch your ears at all, and they have fantastic sound.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_45674.html#45803
> (1) Get headphones
>
> http://www.headphone.com/layout.php
>
> http://www.goodcans.com/
>

***Thanks, Gene, for the links. They came at a good time since my
headphones just died... or one side did, anyway...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Thanks, Gene, for the links. They came at a good time since my
> headphones just died... or one side did, anyway...

Here's another useful link:

http://www.pricegrabber.com

I took a look, and Sennheiser HD 280 Pro's seem to be available at
bargain prices just now. I'm sure other bargains are out there.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >>>> http://www.goodcans.com/
>
> Funny, this guy happens to like and sell all the cans he reviews.
>
> >Well, after that comment I went and looked at your links, so indeed
> >I probably haven't tried all possible kinds.
>
> Definitely not Grados. They're like Inquisition torture devices.
>
> I had problems with headphone discomfort too, until I got the
> Sony MDR-F1s in 1998. You can come over and try them out sometime.
> They don't touch your ears at all, and they have fantastic sound.
>
> -Carl

Some fifteen years ago I bought some Swiss made hearphones
recommended by a sound engineer friend of mine. Having to wear
headphone all day long, he was looking for comfort and sound quality.
The name was something like JetLink Float: I am not sure, and I
cannot find any reference of such a name on the web :-(. Probably
bankrupted many years ago)

Those headphones had a very peculiar design: it was a sort of large U
shape that was in balance on the top of your head. It didn't touch
your ears, not even the sides of your head. Not only it was extremely
good and comfortable, but it was the only headphones I ever get that
featured a true stereophonic image in front of you (not giving you
the impression of two distinct sources located inside of your head).

Seemingly the MDR-F1 is the same kind of idea except that the design
make them look like headphones (which was definitely not the case of
the JetLink Float or whatever was the name).

François Laferrière

It's Jecklin Float.

Manuel

>> ***Thanks, Gene, for the links. They came at a good time since my
>> headphones just died... or one side did, anyway...
>
>Here's another useful link:
>
>http://www.pricegrabber.com

While we're on the topic of cans, I haven't tried these, but I have
it from multiple and diverse and respectable sources that everything
these guys make totally rocks...

http://www.etymotic.com/

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_45674.html#45857

> >> ***Thanks, Gene, for the links. They came at a good time since
my
> >> headphones just died... or one side did, anyway...
> >
> >Here's another useful link:
> >
> >http://www.pricegrabber.com
>
> While we're on the topic of cans, I haven't tried these, but I have
> it from multiple and diverse and respectable sources that
everything
> these guys make totally rocks...
>
> http://www.etymotic.com/
>
> -Carl

***I'm seeing they call them "cans" which is a humorous name for
them. Is it just because of the shape, or is there some "deeper
meaning" that I'm missing?... (probably not). Hope to buy a
replacement set today. Manufacturers Grado, Koss and Sennheiser
seem to come highly recommended...

J. Pehrson

>***I'm seeing they call them "cans" which is a humorous name for
>them. Is it just because of the shape, or is there some "deeper
>meaning" that I'm missing?... (probably not). Hope to buy a
>replacement set today. Manufacturers Grado, Koss and Sennheiser
>seem to come highly recommended...

JP,

Don't buy cans online. Go down to J&R Music World and try them
out. Then you can really get something you know you'll like.
They have (or had) everything there. It's how I wound up with my
MDR-F1s.

-C.