Sault Dodekaphonic

From Sault's website I gleaned this; it differs from the Ellis
Duodene by having a 16/9 in place of a 9/5. It is not the same as any
scale in Manuel's collection, at least in the version of it I have.

! dodek.scl
!
Sault Dodekaphonic
12
!
16/15
9/8
6/5
5/4
4/3
45/32
3/2
8/5
5/3
16/9
15/8
2

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> From Sault's website I gleaned this; it differs from the Ellis
> Duodene by having a 16/9 in place of a 9/5. It is not the same as
any
> scale in Manuel's collection, at least in the version of it I have.
>
> ! dodek.scl
> !
> Sault Dodekaphonic
> 12
> !
> 16/15
> 9/8
> 6/5
> 5/4
> 4/3
> 45/32
> 3/2
> 8/5
> 5/3
> 16/9
> 15/8
> 2

Firstly I must confess to ignorance of the 'Ellis duodene'. I have
been working in virtual isolation for the best part of the last 30
years and have only, with the advent of the Internet, recently come
into contact with alternative musicological developments. I have also
been deterred in the past because much musicology that I have seen
has been 'ufological', pseudo-mathematical nonsense.

Now with regard to the 7th, I understand there are two defined,
the 'minor' 7th of 5:9 and the 'grave' 7th of 9:16. My reason for
working with the ratio 9:16 is that it is the reciprocal of the tone
of 8:9, which is the 'official' tone as defined by Pythagoras, being
the interval between pitches 5 and 7, i.e.

2:3 / 3:4 = 2:3 x 4:3 = 8:9

The reciprocal of the 'minor' 7th of 5:9 is a 'tone' (whole step) of
9:10, i.e.

1:2 / 5:9 = 1:2 x 9:5 = 9:10

There are two reasons that I insist that each interval be
arithmetically paired with its complement. Firstly so that their
product is a true octave, in the case of the tone and diminished 7th

1:2 / 8:9 = 1:2 x 9:8 = 9:16

Secondly so that the reciprocal view also holds true, the reciprocal
of frequency being wavelength. Thus in terms of frequency, the tone
of 8:9 translates to a tone of 9:16 in terms of wavelength.

Similarly, a diminished (or dominant) 7th with frequency ration 9:16
converts to a wavelength ratio of 8:9.

All I have done is to make the tone (which I give primacy by virtue
of its being the interval from pitch 5 to pitch 7) and 7th follow the
same rules as every other complementary pair of intervals.

There is another reason, higher than Pythagoras' arbitration in the
matter, for using a dim 7th of 9:16 and this is what is demonstrated
easily by the computer program about which I have spoke in a previous
post and which may be downloaded from
http://www.odeion.org/atlantis/natural2.html

This higher reason is that inclusion of the pair 8:9 and 9:16
maximizes the number of correlative intervals and thereby the
inherent aesthetic of the system. Substitution of any other vibration
ratio in any position reduces the number. At its maximum, the number
of correlative intervals is exactly 2/3 of the total number of
relative intervals, which is sublimely poetical in view of the fact
that dodekaphony is itself based upon the node (closest point of
approach) of the two series of powers of 2 and powers of 3.

I have also realized that Pythagoras himself had acquired only a
faulty understanding of dodekaphony. Dodekaphony is older than
civilization itself (i.e. it is from before 4000BC) and this is the
central theme of my work - that 'civilization' is not the continuous
progression that has been painted by historians. Now I realize that I
myself here risk accusations of being a 'ufologist', however, I can
demonstrate that dodekaphony is itself only a part of a much wider
integrated system of measures and if you would read Chapter 2, on the
subject of the Parthenon, you will see exactly what I am talking
about.

Therefore I feel quite justified in correcting the textbooks.

>From Sault's website I gleaned this; it differs from the Ellis
>Duodene by having a 16/9 in place of a 9/5.

Whoops, maybe I should retire!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:
>
> There are two reasons that I insist that each interval be
> arithmetically paired with its complement. Firstly so that their
> product is a true octave, in the case of the tone and diminished 7th
>
> 1:2 / 8:9 = 1:2 x 9:8 = 9:16

> Secondly so that the reciprocal view also holds true, the
reciprocal
> of frequency being wavelength. Thus in terms of frequency, the tone
> of 8:9 translates to a tone of 9:16 in terms of wavelength.
>
> Similarly, a diminished (or dominant) 7th with frequency ration
9:16
> converts to a wavelength ratio of 8:9.

These considerations are not practical ones, though -- rather they
seem purely numerological in the context of a fixed 12-tone scale.
I'd prefer to focus on considerations that are actually
musical/audible/practical, for example I agree that 4:5:6 is the most
concordant tuning for a major triad.

> All I have done is to make the tone (which I give primacy by virtue
> of its being the interval from pitch 5 to pitch 7) and 7th follow
the
> same rules as every other complementary pair of intervals.

Except the diminished 5th and augmented 4th . . .

>These considerations are not practical ones, though

Holdonaminute, Paul. Correlations is a practical concept,
especially in light of Peter's algocomp scheme. Now, 12-tET
does provide the maximum number of correlations, but if we
want pure JI, maybe the best scales do have inversion
symmetry.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >These considerations are not practical ones, though
>
> Holdonaminute, Paul. Correlations is a practical concept,
> especially in light of Peter's algocomp scheme.

There was no mention of correlations in the passage I was replying to.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >These considerations are not practical ones, though
>
> Holdonaminute, Paul. Correlations is a practical concept,
> especially in light of Peter's algocomp scheme. Now, 12-tET
> does provide the maximum number of correlations, but if we
> want pure JI, maybe the best scales do have inversion
> symmetry.
>
> -Carl

It is possible that, from a musical point of view, the Ellis scale
may provide equal or even superior melodic progressions. It is,
however, an untested scenario. I would have to modify my software to
allow such testing. Built into ODEION, the melodic generator, is an
earlier version of Natural 2.00 (i.e. it is version 1.xx) - using a
DOS panel. It's a good thing I have kept my old 486 and all my DOS
HDDs.

As for ET, *all* intervals are correlative, by definition. Thus there
is no preferred path through the pitches. Only Just Intonation
possesses an inherent aesthetic, so far as I can tell. I can produce
both ET and 'manual' melodies with ODEION, for comparison, and you
will find that ET gives a fair rendition of a cat on a hot keyboard.
No one would call it music. I will produce an example, using the
parameter Natural No.1 but replacing JI with ET. Then you will see. I
already know what it will sound like - the word is 'ugly'. *Manual*
path programming can produce some nice-sounding stuff - it tends to
be arpeggiations of chord-scales. However, it will auto-modulate,
providing a little more interest than a single-key arpeggiation.

If anybody out there possesses a pure DOS machine, I'd be pleased to
supply a copy of ODEION to him/her. It will *not* work in a DOS
window under Winduhs. One of the nice things about ODEION is that it
will loop endlessly and seamlessly. No - it cannot be converted to
Winduhs. Bill made sure of that - most of the action takes place in
assembly language routines.

I also have another program called ODEIONPC, also DOS-only. ODEIONPC
does not produce MIDI files but plays the PC speaker. This was (and
still is) the only way that I can dynamically retune a JI scale
relative to the bridge note during a modulation, giving complete
freedom to modulate to any key. Maybe I'll record something with a
mike to demo it for you.

Peter

>Thus there
>is no preferred path through the pitches.

Fascinating.

>Only Just Intonation
>possesses an inherent aesthetic, so far as I can tell.

...within your particular algorithmic composition regime, that is.

>I can produce
>both ET and 'manual' melodies with ODEION, for comparison, and you
>will find that ET gives a fair rendition of a cat on a hot keyboard.
>No one would call it music. I will produce an example, using the
>parameter Natural No.1 but replacing JI with ET. Then you will see.

No need, I can see it immediately.

>If anybody out there possesses a pure DOS machine, I'd be pleased to
>supply a copy of ODEION to him/her. It will *not* work in a DOS
>window under Winduhs. One of the nice things about ODEION is that it
>will loop endlessly and seamlessly. No - it cannot be converted to
>Winduhs. Bill made sure of that - most of the action takes place in
>assembly language routines.

Who's Bill? Gates? By not providing a sound API in DOS? Didn't
you use the SoundBlaster API (which is supported by DirectSound in
Windows, isn't it?)?

>I also have another program called ODEIONPC, also DOS-only. ODEIONPC
>does not produce MIDI files but plays the PC speaker. This was (and
>still is) the only way that I can dynamically retune a JI scale
>relative to the bridge note during a modulation, giving complete
>freedom to modulate to any key. Maybe I'll record something with a
>mike to demo it for you.

Awesome.

-Carl

>
> Who's Bill? Gates? By not providing a sound API in DOS? Didn't
> you use the SoundBlaster API (which is supported by DirectSound in
> Windows, isn't it?)?
>

Yes - Bill Gates. You don't know about the politics of Creative
SoundBlaster? They quite deliberately made them impossible
for 'little people' to address directly in software. Their MPU-
401 'emulation' was a fraud. I always knew it but the truth did not
emerge generally until quite recently. Back then they wanted *big*
money for the information, so only the big boys got it. How to screw
the public in one easy lesson.

> >I also have another program called ODEIONPC, also DOS-only.
ODEIONPC
> >does not produce MIDI files but plays the PC speaker. This was
(and
> >still is) the only way that I can dynamically retune a JI scale
> >relative to the bridge note during a modulation, giving complete
> >freedom to modulate to any key. Maybe I'll record something with a
> >mike to demo it for you.
>
> Awesome.
>
> -Carl

Ok - I'll definitely record something this weekend. I'll have to hook
the machine up and find the right disks...

While I am at it I'll produce some ET 'counter-examples'.

Peter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...> wrote:
>
> >
> > Who's Bill? Gates? By not providing a sound API in DOS? Didn't
> > you use the SoundBlaster API (which is supported by DirectSound in
> > Windows, isn't it?)?
> >
>
> Yes - Bill Gates. You don't know about the politics of Creative
> SoundBlaster? They quite deliberately made them impossible
> for 'little people' to address directly in software. Their MPU-
> 401 'emulation' was a fraud. I always knew it but the truth did not
> emerge generally until quite recently. Back then they wanted *big*
> money for the information, so only the big boys got it. How to screw
> the public in one easy lesson.

I suggest in the future you not make things so hardware specific. You
might consider switching to Linux. Bill Gates is always going to be
Bill Gates, whatever the Federal judges try to do.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Who's Bill? Gates? By not providing a sound API in DOS?
Didn't
> > > you use the SoundBlaster API (which is supported by DirectSound
in
> > > Windows, isn't it?)?
> > >
> >
> > Yes - Bill Gates. You don't know about the politics of Creative
> > SoundBlaster? They quite deliberately made them impossible
> > for 'little people' to address directly in software. Their MPU-
> > 401 'emulation' was a fraud. I always knew it but the truth did
not
> > emerge generally until quite recently. Back then they wanted
*big*
> > money for the information, so only the big boys got it. How to
screw
> > the public in one easy lesson.
>
> I suggest in the future you not make things so hardware specific.
You
> might consider switching to Linux. Bill Gates is always going to be
> Bill Gates, whatever the Federal judges try to do.

So I'm to blame because Creative committed a fraud? How do you work
that one out?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:

> So I'm to blame because Creative committed a fraud? How do you work
> that one out?

No one is responsible for what Creative does except Creative; ditto
Gates. Having discovered Gates is a pirate, you are now responsible
for what you choose to do about it, if anything.

On Friday 05 December 2003 07:49 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...> wrote:
> > > Who's Bill? Gates? By not providing a sound API in DOS? Didn't
> > > you use the SoundBlaster API (which is supported by DirectSound in
> > > Windows, isn't it?)?
> >
> > Yes - Bill Gates. You don't know about the politics of Creative
> > SoundBlaster? They quite deliberately made them impossible
> > for 'little people' to address directly in software. Their MPU-
> > 401 'emulation' was a fraud. I always knew it but the truth did not
> > emerge generally until quite recently. Back then they wanted *big*
> > money for the information, so only the big boys got it. How to screw
> > the public in one easy lesson.
>
> I suggest in the future you not make things so hardware specific. You
> might consider switching to Linux. Bill Gates is always going to be
> Bill Gates, whatever the Federal judges try to do.

!!!!!! Gene, I just saw this message after I sent a pro-Linux reply to the
same message!!!! Good to hear that you like Linux, too.

FYI, I use Gentoo...rock sollid, stable, and easy to use. Build programs by
auto-resolving depencies. Always up to date.....try it!

BTW, Linux/Python has been the basis for most of my music making/experimenting
on computers....

-Aaron.

On Friday 05 December 2003 07:43 pm, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
> > Who's Bill? Gates? By not providing a sound API in DOS? Didn't
> > you use the SoundBlaster API (which is supported by DirectSound in
> > Windows, isn't it?)?
>
> Yes - Bill Gates. You don't know about the politics of Creative
> SoundBlaster? They quite deliberately made them impossible
> for 'little people' to address directly in software. Their MPU-
> 401 'emulation' was a fraud. I always knew it but the truth did not
> emerge generally until quite recently. Back then they wanted *big*
> money for the information, so only the big boys got it. How to screw
> the public in one easy lesson.

Peter-

You ought to consider re-implementing your application in Linux. You ought to
use Linux if you don't like corporate software politics.

Better yet, write in in Python. It would be quick and easy to do....

Hell, give me the algorithms, and I'll do it when I get time....

-Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:
> On Friday 05 December 2003 07:43 pm, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
> > > Who's Bill? Gates? By not providing a sound API in DOS?
Didn't
> > > you use the SoundBlaster API (which is supported by DirectSound
in
> > > Windows, isn't it?)?
> >
> > Yes - Bill Gates. You don't know about the politics of Creative
> > SoundBlaster? They quite deliberately made them impossible
> > for 'little people' to address directly in software. Their MPU-
> > 401 'emulation' was a fraud. I always knew it but the truth did
not
> > emerge generally until quite recently. Back then they wanted *big*
> > money for the information, so only the big boys got it. How to
screw
> > the public in one easy lesson.
>
> Peter-
>
> You ought to consider re-implementing your application in Linux.
You ought to
> use Linux if you don't like corporate software politics.
>

I don't know which I like less, corporate politics or the 'C'
language (and associated worthless programming snobs). Truly I am
caught between Scylla and Charybdis. I am an assembly-language
programmer and ever more shall be so. I read machine code.

> Better yet, write in in Python. It would be quick and easy to do....

Oh not another language, please. What's wrong with BASIC (repeat all
the arguments and I will give you all the refutations)? At least with
the IBM BASIC Compiler I could link my assembly routines. Can I do
that with Python? Oh and please - don't repeat Bill Gates bullshit
about "Beginner's Amateur Simple Idiot Crap". BASIC was defined by
the US Naval College and the acronym (before Bill Gates got his
grubby little hands on it) stood for Business And Scientific
Instruction Code. And object-orientation is a function of the
programmer not the programming language. But hey - I've only been
doing it for 30 years so what would I know? You really will have to
forgive me if I sound a little jaundiced with it all.

>
> Hell, give me the algorithms, and I'll do it when I get time....
>
> -Aaron.

Do you grok assembly-language? I'd love for you to do it.

Peter

on 12/5/03 4:12 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

> If anybody out there possesses a pure DOS machine, I'd be pleased to
> supply a copy of ODEION to him/her. It will *not* work in a DOS
> window under Winduhs. One of the nice things about ODEION is that it
> will loop endlessly and seamlessly. No - it cannot be converted to
> Winduhs. Bill made sure of that - most of the action takes place in
> assembly language routines.

While your program in its current form can not be "converted" to Windows, it
no doubt can be rewritten for another platform, and that may be a worthy
thing to consider either doing or finding someone to do, because it will
allow what you have done to move forward through time and spread out in the
world more readily. (Not that those criteria are absolutes either.)

> I also have another program called ODEIONPC, also DOS-only. ODEIONPC
> does not produce MIDI files but plays the PC speaker. This was (and
> still is) the only way that I can dynamically retune a JI scale
> relative to the bridge note during a modulation, giving complete
> freedom to modulate to any key.

So I think you mean it is the only way it can be done on the hardware you
are currently using?

The main problem with modern platforms and anything besides sample-by-sample
real-time approaches (which modern platforms do *not* support) is the
latency which results from the buffering required by a modern OS to move
audio around. But that latency (and the buffer size) can be pushed *very*
low (e.g. to perhaps 16 samples, maybe less) at the expense of reduced
performance. However a modern machine will still perform better with this
restriction than an older machine that allows direct access to the speaker.

-Kurt

> Maybe I'll record something with a
> mike to demo it for you.
>
> Peter

on 12/5/03 10:52 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

> I don't know which I like less, corporate politics or the 'C'
> language (and associated worthless programming snobs). Truly I am
> caught between Scylla and Charybdis. I am an assembly-language
> programmer and ever more shall be so. I read machine code.

Most development platforms support assembly language don't they? Most of us
just prefer to use it only when necessary. Perhaps only inline assembly is
available on some platforms (assembly in the middle of a C function for
example).

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 12/5/03 4:12 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@c...> wrote:
>
> > If anybody out there possesses a pure DOS machine, I'd be pleased
to
> > supply a copy of ODEION to him/her. It will *not* work in a DOS
> > window under Winduhs. One of the nice things about ODEION is that
it
> > will loop endlessly and seamlessly. No - it cannot be converted to
> > Winduhs. Bill made sure of that - most of the action takes place
in
> > assembly language routines.
>
> While your program in its current form can not be "converted" to
Windows, it
> no doubt can be rewritten for another platform, and that may be a
worthy
> thing to consider either doing or finding someone to do, because it
will
> allow what you have done to move forward through time and spread
out in the
> world more readily. (Not that those criteria are absolutes either.)
>
> > I also have another program called ODEIONPC, also DOS-only.
ODEIONPC
> > does not produce MIDI files but plays the PC speaker. This was
(and
> > still is) the only way that I can dynamically retune a JI scale
> > relative to the bridge note during a modulation, giving complete
> > freedom to modulate to any key.
>
> So I think you mean it is the only way it can be done on the
hardware you
> are currently using?
>

I am no longer using that particular hardware except when I need it
for that purpose. It is an old 486 with a swappable boot HDD. I can
tell you right now that I am not going to muck about with
calculations of so many 'cents' up or down from ET concert vibration
numbers. Go tell the idiots who make synthesizers to make one which
is quite simply vibration number addressable and I will consider
writing a program to work it. While you're at it tell them to dump
MIDI and get on with something a little less amateurish, not to say
pathetically clunky. MIDI makes even Winduhs look professional.

> The main problem with modern platforms and anything besides sample-
by-sample
> real-time approaches (which modern platforms do *not* support) is
the
> latency which results from the buffering required by a modern OS to
move
> audio around. But that latency (and the buffer size) can be pushed
*very*
> low (e.g. to perhaps 16 samples, maybe less) at the expense of
reduced
> performance. However a modern machine will still perform better
with this
> restriction than an older machine that allows direct access to the
speaker.

I have just built a beautiful 2.4GHz P4 with 800MHz FSB, 1Gb dual
channel PC3200 (400MHz) RAM and 160Gb SATA HDD with a built-in
Terratec 8-channel 24x96 digitizer. The computer is not the problem.
One of the problems is childish software developers to whom 'clever'
graphics is seemingly more important than basic functionality.

>
> -Kurt
>
> > Maybe I'll record something with a
> > mike to demo it for you.
> >
> > Peter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 12/5/03 10:52 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@c...> wrote:
>
> > I don't know which I like less, corporate politics or the 'C'
> > language (and associated worthless programming snobs). Truly I am
> > caught between Scylla and Charybdis. I am an assembly-language
> > programmer and ever more shall be so. I read machine code.
>
> Most development platforms support assembly language don't they?
Most of us
> just prefer to use it only when necessary. Perhaps only inline
assembly is
> available on some platforms (assembly in the middle of a C function
for
> example).
>
> -Kurt

I already wasted money on VC++. The so-called 'inline assembler' is a
crappy little emulator that is riddled with bugs and simply doesn't
work. I really can't imagine what kind of million dollar per year
moron they put to work on it but he/she could not even get a simple
LOOP instruction to work properly. How many products am I supposed to
buy before I find one that actually does what it is supposed to do?
MASM 1.00 worked but that was before Bill Gates and his crew got
their mitts on it. They are the kiss of death - they couldn't program
a friggin abacus!

I have better things to do with my life than learn a new programming
language - one that doesn't even work - every three months. It takes
years and hundreds of thousands of lines of code to master a
programming language.

hello again Peter,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:

> Firstly I must confess to ignorance of the 'Ellis duodene'.
> I have been working in virtual isolation for the best part
> of the last 30 years and have only, with the advent of the
> Internet, recently come into contact with alternative
> musicological developments.

welcome to the tuning cyber-world! i did the same myself,
working in almost total isolation until going online in 1998.

Ellis's 1875 translation of Helmholtz's _On The Sensations
of Tone..._ is one of the standard works in the tuning literature.
you might want to read it.

> I have also realized that Pythagoras himself had acquired
> only a faulty understanding of dodekaphony. Dodekaphony is
> older than civilization itself (i.e. it is from before 4000BC)
> and this is the central theme of my work - that 'civilization'
> is not the continuous progression that has been painted by
> historians. Now I realize that I myself here risk accusations
> of being a 'ufologist', however, I can demonstrate that
> dodekaphony is itself only a part of a much wider integrated
> system of measures and if you would read Chapter 2, on the
> subject of the Parthenon, you will see exactly what I am
> talking about.
>
> Therefore I feel quite justified in correcting the textbooks.

ah, *now* you've really caught *my* interest!

i've done a huge study of the Sumerians, and am convinced
(unfortunately, with no evidence whatsoever ... it's pure
speculation) that they invented 12-tET/12edo. see
http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/sumerian/simplified-sumeriantuning.htm
http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/sumerian/sumeriantuning.htm

-monz

On Saturday 06 December 2003 12:52 am, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
>
> wrote:
> > On Friday 05 December 2003 07:43 pm, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
> > > > Who's Bill? Gates? By not providing a sound API in DOS?
>
> Didn't
>
> > > > you use the SoundBlaster API (which is supported by DirectSound
>
> in
>
> > > > Windows, isn't it?)?
> > >
> > > Yes - Bill Gates. You don't know about the politics of Creative
> > > SoundBlaster? They quite deliberately made them impossible
> > > for 'little people' to address directly in software. Their MPU-
> > > 401 'emulation' was a fraud. I always knew it but the truth did
>
> not
>
> > > emerge generally until quite recently. Back then they wanted *big*
> > > money for the information, so only the big boys got it. How to
>
> screw
>
> > > the public in one easy lesson.
> >
> > Peter-
> >
> > You ought to consider re-implementing your application in Linux.
>
> You ought to
>
> > use Linux if you don't like corporate software politics.
>
> I don't know which I like less, corporate politics or the 'C'
> language (and associated worthless programming snobs). Truly I am
> caught between Scylla and Charybdis. I am an assembly-language
> programmer and ever more shall be so. I read machine code.

Well, OK, but you are limiting yourself to 40-year old technology, ignoring
the evolution and innovations in language design that have taken place since.
If you are still using a pure-DOS system, that gives away where you are coming
from...!!!

> > Better yet, write in in Python. It would be quick and easy to do....
>
> Oh not another language, please. What's wrong with BASIC (repeat all
> the arguments and I will give you all the refutations)? At least with
> the IBM BASIC Compiler I could link my assembly routines. Can I do
> that with Python? Oh and please - don't repeat Bill Gates bullshit
> about "Beginner's Amateur Simple Idiot Crap". BASIC was defined by
> the US Naval College and the acronym (before Bill Gates got his
> grubby little hands on it) stood for Business And Scientific
> Instruction Code. And object-orientation is a function of the
> programmer not the programming language. But hey - I've only been
> doing it for 30 years so what would I know? You really will have to
> forgive me if I sound a little jaundiced with it all.

I'm not interested in starting a language flame-war, so I won't take your bait
about BASIC.

I do want to say Python is very easy to learn, and very, very flexible and
powerful, esp. it's libraries. It should take no time for you to learn. In
fact, it's a great language for first-time programmers, as well as being
powerful enough for professional mission critical stuff. Try the tutorial at
http://www.python.org/doc/current/tut/tut.html

....And you can link precompiled executables (C foreign functions). I, too,
dislike C, but am pragmatic enough to consider it a fact of computing life. I
don't use it but for speed--most of my programming can be done without
Python, and is not speed-critical. Lie I said, I rely on it daily for
experimentation with tuning-math, MIDI scripts, etc.

But whatever---use whatever modern language you like--or not!!!

But, you really ought not attack something you know nothing about...you only
reveal your narrow-mindedness, or that you are stuck in your own little box.
When you've absorbed and understood whatever modern language you want to rant
about, then tell me why you think it sucks!!!

>
> Do you grok assembly-language? I'd love for you to do it.
>

A pseudo-code description of the algorithms will be sufficient for me to whip
up a Python script--unless you don't remember the algorithms. No-I don't read
assembly.

Best,
Aaron.

>Ok - I'll definitely record something this weekend. I'll have to hook
>the machine up and find the right disks...
>
>While I am at it I'll produce some ET 'counter-examples'.

Great!

-C.

>I suggest in the future you not make things so hardware specific.

Didn't have a choice back then. There weren't any common sound
APIs. Even today it's tough.

>You
>might consider switching to Linux. Bill Gates is always going to be
>Bill Gates, whatever the Federal judges try to do.

If you don't make things hardware specific, the platform shouldn't
matter either!

-Carl

Aaron K. Johnson wrote:

> A pseudo-code description of the algorithms will be sufficient for me to whip > up a Python script--unless you don't remember the algorithms. No-I don't read > assembly.

I know assembly, but not x86, so I decided to poke around for references. This is a good hub page:

http://www.programming-x.com/programming/x86.html

I've downloaded "Gavin's Guide to 80x86 Assembly"

http://devlib.virtualave.net/dir/files/guide.zip

and it looks like you might be able to learn from scratch using it. Assembly's easy to learn but very difficult to write practical software in. And x86 in particular has a notoriously bloated instruction set. So I don't know what I'll make of this music code, but may as well have a look at it. Algorithms would be much easier.

I also have some references for Soundblaster cards.

Oh, yes, Aaron -- I'd like to see what you're doing with Python as well. Does it work with ALSA?

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>

/tuning/topicId_49100.html#49105
> I have also realized that Pythagoras himself had acquired only a
> faulty understanding of dodekaphony. Dodekaphony is older than
> civilization itself (i.e. it is from before 4000BC) and this is the
> central theme of my work - that 'civilization' is not the
continuous
> progression that has been painted by historians. Now I realize that
I
> myself here risk accusations of being a 'ufologist', however, I can
> demonstrate that dodekaphony is itself only a part of a much wider
> integrated system of measures and if you would read Chapter 2, on
the
> subject of the Parthenon, you will see exactly what I am talking
> about.
>
> Therefore I feel quite justified in correcting the textbooks.

***I believe I will have to take this with a grain of Sault...

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hello again Peter,
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
> wrote:
>
> > Firstly I must confess to ignorance of the 'Ellis duodene'.
> > I have been working in virtual isolation for the best part
> > of the last 30 years and have only, with the advent of the
> > Internet, recently come into contact with alternative
> > musicological developments.
>
>
> welcome to the tuning cyber-world! i did the same myself,
> working in almost total isolation until going online in 1998.
>
> Ellis's 1875 translation of Helmholtz's _On The Sensations
> of Tone..._ is one of the standard works in the tuning literature.
> you might want to read it.
>
>
>
> > I have also realized that Pythagoras himself had acquired
> > only a faulty understanding of dodekaphony. Dodekaphony is
> > older than civilization itself (i.e. it is from before 4000BC)
> > and this is the central theme of my work - that 'civilization'
> > is not the continuous progression that has been painted by
> > historians. Now I realize that I myself here risk accusations
> > of being a 'ufologist', however, I can demonstrate that
> > dodekaphony is itself only a part of a much wider integrated
> > system of measures and if you would read Chapter 2, on the
> > subject of the Parthenon, you will see exactly what I am
> > talking about.
> >
> > Therefore I feel quite justified in correcting the textbooks.
>
>
>
> ah, *now* you've really caught *my* interest!
>
> i've done a huge study of the Sumerians, and am convinced
> (unfortunately, with no evidence whatsoever ... it's pure
> speculation) that they invented 12-tET/12edo. see
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/sumerian/simplified-sumeriantuning.htm
> http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/sumerian/sumeriantuning.htm
>
>

You seem to be to be saying the same thing as Ernest McClain - that
we have dodekaphony because the Sumerians counted in 60s. In which
case, like McClain, you are entirely missing the point not to say
turning the truth upon its head. Dodekaphony and the sexagesimal
counting system are both derived from the same source, which is the
patterns which occur in the set of natural numbers.

>
> -monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >I suggest in the future you not make things so hardware specific.
>
> Didn't have a choice back then. There weren't any common sound
> APIs. Even today it's tough.
>
> >You
> >might consider switching to Linux. Bill Gates is always going to be
> >Bill Gates, whatever the Federal judges try to do.
>
> If you don't make things hardware specific, the platform shouldn't
> matter either!
>
> -Carl

Don't confuse him, you naughty man!

P.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <graham@m...> wrote:
> Aaron K. Johnson wrote:
>
> > A pseudo-code description of the algorithms will be sufficient
for me to whip
> > up a Python script--unless you don't remember the algorithms. No-
I don't read
> > assembly.
>
> I know assembly, but not x86, so I decided to poke around for
> references. This is a good hub page:
>
> http://www.programming-x.com/programming/x86.html
>
> I've downloaded "Gavin's Guide to 80x86 Assembly"
>
> http://devlib.virtualave.net/dir/files/guide.zip
>
> and it looks like you might be able to learn from scratch using it.
> Assembly's easy to learn but very difficult to write practical
> software in.

A bit like writing music without an auto-chord accompaniment
generator, in fact.

>And x86 in particular has a notoriously bloated instruction set.

I'm not even going there.

> So I don't know what I'll make of this music code, but may as well
have
> a look at it. Algorithms would be much easier.
>
> I also have some references for Soundblaster cards.
>
>
> Oh, yes, Aaron -- I'd like to see what you're doing with Python as
well.
> Does it work with ALSA?
>
>
> Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_49100.html#49105
> > I have also realized that Pythagoras himself had acquired only a
> > faulty understanding of dodekaphony. Dodekaphony is older than
> > civilization itself (i.e. it is from before 4000BC) and this is
the
> > central theme of my work - that 'civilization' is not the
> continuous
> > progression that has been painted by historians. Now I realize
that
> I
> > myself here risk accusations of being a 'ufologist', however, I
can
> > demonstrate that dodekaphony is itself only a part of a much
wider
> > integrated system of measures and if you would read Chapter 2, on
> the
> > subject of the Parthenon, you will see exactly what I am talking
> > about.
> >
> > Therefore I feel quite justified in correcting the textbooks.
>
>
> ***I believe I will have to take this with a grain of Sault...
>
> J. Pehrson

I'm glad you didn't try taking it with a pinch of Sault - I react
badly to that kind of thing.

Try reading it - http://www.odeion.org/atlantis/chapter-2.html

hi Peter,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:

> > [me, monz:]
> >
> > ah, *now* you've really caught *my* interest!
> >
> > i've done a huge study of the Sumerians, and am convinced
> > (unfortunately, with no evidence whatsoever ... it's pure
> > speculation) that they invented 12-tET/12edo. see
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/sumerian/simplified-sumeriantuning.htm
> > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/sumerian/sumeriantuning.htm
> >
> >
>
> You seem to be to be saying the same thing as Ernest McClain

in fact, when i discovered McClain's work a few years ago
i recognized that our efforts have much in common.

> - that we have dodekaphony because the Sumerians counted in 60s.
> In which case, like McClain, you are entirely missing the
> point not to say turning the truth upon its head. Dodekaphony
> and the sexagesimal counting system are both derived from
> the same source, which is the patterns which occur in the set
> of natural numbers.

yes, that's a good point that you make. 12 and 60 were used
as bases of counting very early on precisely because they can
be divided evenly so many different ways, thus avoiding the
use of fractions for many calculations.

but you're misreading my webpage a bit. i'm not claiming
that dodekaphony was a result of base-60 counting, i'm
simply presenting the fact that Sumerian base-60 math is
accurate enough to produce a very good approximation of
12edo tuning.

anyway, my point in putting it into my last post was that
i was in agreement with you that the "Pythagorean" scale
is *far* older than Pythagoras.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:
> hi Peter,
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
> wrote:
>
> > > [me, monz:]
> > >
> > > ah, *now* you've really caught *my* interest!
> > >
> > > i've done a huge study of the Sumerians, and am convinced
> > > (unfortunately, with no evidence whatsoever ... it's pure
> > > speculation) that they invented 12-tET/12edo. see
> > > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/sumerian/simplified-
sumeriantuning.htm
> > > http://sonic-arts.org/monzo/sumerian/sumeriantuning.htm
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You seem to be to be saying the same thing as Ernest McClain
>
>
> in fact, when i discovered McClain's work a few years ago
> i recognized that our efforts have much in common.
>
>
> > - that we have dodekaphony because the Sumerians counted in 60s.
> > In which case, like McClain, you are entirely missing the
> > point not to say turning the truth upon its head. Dodekaphony
> > and the sexagesimal counting system are both derived from
> > the same source, which is the patterns which occur in the set
> > of natural numbers.
>
>
> yes, that's a good point that you make. 12 and 60 were used
> as bases of counting very early on precisely because they can
> be divided evenly so many different ways, thus avoiding the
> use of fractions for many calculations.

Wrong again. That is the current dogma because modern academics do
not wish to admit that pre-Sumerians were cleverer than them - so
they indulge in theological teleologies. The reasons are far more
sophisticated than the ones you cite, which are incidental benefits,
not causal imperatives.

>
> but you're misreading my webpage a bit. i'm not claiming
> that dodekaphony was a result of base-60 counting, i'm
> simply presenting the fact that Sumerian base-60 math is
> accurate enough to produce a very good approximation of
> 12edo tuning.
>

The sexagesimal notation system was dual-radix. Odd-numbered columns
were base-10 and even-numbered columns were base-6.

> anyway, my point in putting it into my last post was that
> i was in agreement with you that the "Pythagorean" scale
> is *far* older than Pythagoras.
>

Indeed it is. *Far far far* older.

>
> -monz

hi Peter,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:

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

> > ... 12 and 60 were used
> > as bases of counting very early on precisely because they can
> > be divided evenly so many different ways, thus avoiding the
> > use of fractions for many calculations.
>
> Wrong again. That is the current dogma because modern
> academics do not wish to admit that pre-Sumerians were
> cleverer than them

i'll admit that in a heartbeat.

as far as i'm concerned, the *only* thing that has changed
in human civilization since the Sumerians is the advance
of technology.

please note my emphasis -- technology is the *only* thing
that has changed. other than that, our modern society is
every bit the same as Sumerian society. they were the
most amazing culture to have ever appeared in the history
of humanity.

> - so they indulge in theological teleologies. The reasons
> are far more sophisticated than the ones you cite, which
> are incidental benefits, not causal imperatives.

yes, well, that sounds *very* interesting ... but i'm
now getting the feeling that you're just stringing me
along, and i'm interested in knowing exactly what you're
trying to say. please post more.

if it's off-topic, then please, feel free to email me
privately or to post to metatuning, which is the Yahoo
forum which we here have created for off-topic stuff that
interests us tuning folk.

> > but you're misreading my webpage a bit. i'm not claiming
> > that dodekaphony was a result of base-60 counting, i'm
> > simply presenting the fact that Sumerian base-60 math is
> > accurate enough to produce a very good approximation of
> > 12edo tuning.
> >
>
> The sexagesimal notation system was dual-radix. Odd-numbered
> columns were base-10 and even-numbered columns were base-6.

altho it's possible to view it that way, i doubt *very*
strongly that the Sumerians themselves viewed it that way.
i think they simply thought in terms of base-60 ... and
anyway, it was only the scribes who were fluent in base-60
math. the ordinary people counted in base-10, just like
all the rest of us.

but anyway, yes, i see your point. it was not really a
"pure" base-60 system, but rather a mixture of 10 and 60.

-monz

>
> yes, well, that sounds *very* interesting ... but i'm
> now getting the feeling that you're just stringing me
> along, and i'm interested in knowing exactly what you're
> trying to say. please post more.
>
>

Not stringing you. The subject is *deep* and therefore almost
impossible to express satisfactorily. The main obstacle is the
simplicity of it all. We are looking for complexity and can't find it
because it's not there. The answer is right there in front of our
noses but we can't see it. And if we can we can't describe it. It is
as though we are looking at a mirror - in a mirror. What you must
understand is that consciousness itself is an acquired skill. It
requires development. Undeveloped human consciousness is like a
dreamstate - best typified by that of the Australian Aboriginal prior
to the arrival of Europeans. Music encapsulates the development of
consciousness, enabling it to be passed down the line. Music is the
indirect perception of numerical contrasts (ratios). Those ratios
which we find most attractive, the most consonant,

Here I really must define my terms for you. By 'music' I narrowly
mean the art of the Muses, as practiced in the Temple of Musaeus
founded by Pythagoras - which he brought back from Babylon. You may
extend this to include Indian and Chinese systems. Anything else I
call 'phonic art', which is everything from the didgeridoo to Klaus
Voorman's 'Electric Storm in Hell'. I am not applying aesthetic value
judgments here, but only music in this narrow sense brings a
continuous heritable development of consciousness. Put simple, we are
more conscious than Telemann, who was more conscious than Pythagoras.
We start where they left off because of the musical legacy which they
have left us.

Our society is in a state of denial over its antecedents. We credit
J.S.Bach with breaking through the pythagorean tuning barrier but
that is wrong. Not only was ET first proposed by Eudoxus in 430BC but
it was the guitar makers of Andalusia who first realized it from the
15th century onwards - because it was the Saharan Bedouin who had
preserved the writings and wisdom of the Greeks. It is because of
them that we know about Plato.

When I was a teenager I had a menial job as a porter at London's
Victoria and Albert Museum. My day started with a vacuum cleaner - in
the musical instrument gallery. I distinctly remember stopping and
staring, every day, at a collection of guitars spanning the period
from the 13th to the 16th centuries. Beautiful instruments covered in
intricate inlaid mother-of-pearl mosaics. What struck me was the
transition from pythagorean fretting to ET fretting. It seemed
anachronistic in view of the accepted thinking that the developments
in tuning were a consequence of the European Renaissance. Gradually I
came to realize that the truth had been turned upon its head. For,
you see, Andalusia was a Moorish culture, not European and was
eventually conquered and ethnically cleansed by the Roman Catholic
Church for its impudence. The fact is that we owe to the Moors of
Andalusia everything that took place in the Renaissance. Without them
we would still be living in the Dark Ages. Now I have transferred
bits and pieces of Bach's clavier music onto the guitar - and guess
what? I discovered that Bach had transferred guitar music onto the
clavier. All of the melodic patterns and modulations employed by Bach
derive from what comes naturally to the fingers on a guitar - an ET
guitar. And the fingerings on the ET guitar are themselves
developments of pythagorean fingerings.

The system of music is intrinsic to phenomenal reality in a way that
just defies description. Our contemporary consciousness is a
consequence of having been seeded countless millenia ago, before
Sumer. Sumer itself, like the Renaissance, was a consequence of this
seeding. You yourself put your finger right on it. The Sumerians did
not have the technology to measure geodetic and lunar dimensions with
the degree of precision reflected in certain ancient monuments and
associated units of measure. So they must have inherited and
preserved, as sacred, the units of measure which reflect these
measurements. It is only because *we* have the technology to make
similarly precise measurements that the geodetic nature and precision
of the ancient units of measure is revealed. Moreover, the manner of
dividing the ancient units into smaller sub-units follows the same
ratios that we see in our tunings. Forget all the academic nonsense
about the degree of angle being derived from the 360-day solar year.
*What* 360-day solar year I have to ask. Our solar year is 365 days,
not 360. The employment of a 360-day calendar, with or without
intercalary, derives from the fact that 360 is a *magic* number. As I
have demonstrated, it is the lowest common denominator of the
frequency ratios of the natural dodekaphonic intervals and they are
the derivation of the Babylonian unit of rotation, the degree of
angle.

Now this begs the question - who did the seeding? That is a subject
which I may continue with you in private.

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

> please note my emphasis -- technology is the *only* thing
> that has changed. other than that, our modern society is
> every bit the same as Sumerian society.

So which theorems had they proven?

On Tuesday 09 December 2003 03:12 pm, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
> > yes, well, that sounds *very* interesting ... but i'm
> > now getting the feeling that you're just stringing me
> > along, and i'm interested in knowing exactly what you're
> > trying to say. please post more.
>
> Not stringing you. The subject is *deep* and therefore almost
> impossible to express satisfactorily. The main obstacle is the
> simplicity of it all. We are looking for complexity and can't find it
> because it's not there. The answer is right there in front of our
> noses but we can't see it. And if we can we can't describe it. It is
> as though we are looking at a mirror - in a mirror. What you must
> understand is that consciousness itself is an acquired skill. It
> requires development. Undeveloped human consciousness is like a
> dreamstate - best typified by that of the Australian Aboriginal prior
> to the arrival of Europeans.

Hi Peter,

I would argue that the 'dream state' is integral to all good art and music and
creativity....we need the Dionysian and the Apollonian.

Just my gut instinct talking here.

> Music encapsulates the development of
> consciousness, enabling it to be passed down the line. Music is the
> indirect perception of numerical contrasts (ratios). Those ratios
> which we find most attractive, the most consonant,
>
> Here I really must define my terms for you. By 'music' I narrowly
> mean the art of the Muses, as practiced in the Temple of Musaeus
> founded by Pythagoras - which he brought back from Babylon. You may
> extend this to include Indian and Chinese systems. Anything else I
> call 'phonic art', which is everything from the didgeridoo to Klaus
> Voorman's 'Electric Storm in Hell'. I am not applying aesthetic value
> judgments here, but only music in this narrow sense brings a
> continuous heritable development of consciousness. Put simple, we are
> more conscious than Telemann, who was more conscious than Pythagoras.
> We start where they left off because of the musical legacy which they
> have left us.

Maybe you and I are 'more conscious' than Telemann (but not Bach, at least
musically few in history have been as acutely talented-hence conscious-as
Bach), but I think that Western culture, at least what I see in America, is
in a state of decline. Britney Spears. Spice Girls (Britain). Puff Daddy.

Whiter the Golden age of music? Only the elite few, mostly wealthy, know or
care. The young people who know of it are educated, mostly wealthy.

Anyway, I don't the other part of this argument. There is no progress in art,
just variation. I don't see Stravinsky as better than Ockeghem or Josquin.
Plus, this is the fallacy of "Argumentum ad Novitatem"....

>
> Our society is in a state of denial over its antecedents. We credit
> J.S.Bach with breaking through the pythagorean tuning barrier but
> that is wrong. Not only was ET first proposed by Eudoxus in 430BC but
> it was the guitar makers of Andalusia who first realized it from the
> 15th century onwards - because it was the Saharan Bedouin who had
> preserved the writings and wisdom of the Greeks. It is because of
> them that we know about Plato.
>
> When I was a teenager I had a menial job as a porter at London's
> Victoria and Albert Museum. My day started with a vacuum cleaner - in
> the musical instrument gallery. I distinctly remember stopping and
> staring, every day, at a collection of guitars spanning the period
> from the 13th to the 16th centuries. Beautiful instruments covered in
> intricate inlaid mother-of-pearl mosaics. What struck me was the
> transition from pythagorean fretting to ET fretting. It seemed
> anachronistic in view of the accepted thinking that the developments
> in tuning were a consequence of the European Renaissance. Gradually I
> came to realize that the truth had been turned upon its head. For,
> you see, Andalusia was a Moorish culture, not European and was
> eventually conquered and ethnically cleansed by the Roman Catholic
> Church for its impudence. The fact is that we owe to the Moors of
> Andalusia everything that took place in the Renaissance. Without them
> we would still be living in the Dark Ages. Now I have transferred
> bits and pieces of Bach's clavier music onto the guitar - and guess
> what? I discovered that Bach had transferred guitar music onto the
> clavier. All of the melodic patterns and modulations employed by Bach
> derive from what comes naturally to the fingers on a guitar - an ET
> guitar. And the fingerings on the ET guitar are themselves
> developments of pythagorean fingerings.

1) Bach's WTC was for a well-temperament, not 12-tet.
2) If you play the 'Fitzwilliam's virginal Book', a renaissance manuscript, on
a 'sichord in 12-tet, it sounds awful. It sounds beautiful in 1/4 comma
meantone. It no accident that those pieces are written to revel in just major
thirds.....

Best,
Aaron..

>
> 1) Bach's WTC was for a well-temperament, not 12-tet.
> 2) If you play the 'Fitzwilliam's virginal Book', a renaissance
manuscript, on
> a 'sichord in 12-tet, it sounds awful. It sounds beautiful in 1/4
comma
> meantone. It no accident that those pieces are written to revel in
just major
> thirds.....
>
> Best,
> Aaron..

Aaron - you, and apparently everyone else in this group, have been
labouring under a misapprehension. Bach's 'Well-temper' *is* ET. I
will give you the whole text from the article on 'Temperament' in
the 'Oxford Companion to Music':-

"4. The Only Practical Solution... ...The system just outlined is
that called, for obvious reasons, 'Equal Temperament'.
"5. Bach's Support of the Solution. Because Bach tuned his domestic
clavichords and harpsichords in this way [ET] and wrote two series of
preludes and fugues, each series including all the twelve major and
all the twelve minor keys, and because he made these two series a
sort of public manifesto for the system by calling them (or, at any
rate, the first of the two, 1722) 'The Well-tempered Clavier', many
peopl have a vague idea that Bach himself invented the system; indeed
this is sometimes stated by musical writers of good standing. It is,
however, said to have been proposed by Aristoxenus (c. 350 B.C.) and
to have been in actual use in China centuries before this (a
difficult statement, however, in view of the fact that even in our
day Chinese music uses the primitive pentatonic scale). The Spaniards
seem to have used it in the placing of the frets on their guitars at
least two centuries before Bach was born - to judge by the
instructions in the 'Musica Practica' of Ramos de Pareja, 1482; and
the Italian Zarlino in the late sixteenth century, explains its
application to the lute. Moreover, amongst the virginal works of the
English Elizabethan composers, roughly a century before Bach, will be
found two or three (notably by John Bull) that go so far afield in
modulation as to show that some of these composers, too, must have
used a tuning system on the same lines. The celebrated organist
J.C.Kerll (1627-93) wrote a duet on a ground bass, passing through
every key; this certainly seems to imply a use of equal temperament,
and that such temperament was in considerable use at this period is
proved by a reference in Mersenne (1636). In the harpsichord works of
Bach's contemporary, Handel, will be found some little use of extreme
keys, showing that he, too, must have had his domestic instruments
tuned in something the same way. Mattheson in his 'Organistenprobe'
(1719) has a piece in every key. A little later than Bach's first
book, the earliest pianforte music ever published, Giustini's Sonatas
(1732), modulate to such remote keys as G sharp minor, so implying
that their composer's instrument was tuned on the equal temperament
system.
"Bach was not even the only one to write a set of preludes and fugues
called a 'Well-tempered Clavier', and taking in all the major and
minor keys. An early eighteenth-century composer called Bernhard
Christian Weber did the same thing (for modern instances see Huber
and Klengel, A.A.; also cf. Ashton, Algernon); and Beethoevn, in
1803, published his op. 39, being 'Two Preludes through the twelve
major keys', for piano or organ.
"As soon as instrumental music began to be developed and the modern
scheme of twelve tonalities, all exactly similar in their intervals,
to be dimly perceived as a convenient thing, the system of equal
temperament became inevitable. The Flemish composer, Willaert, as
early as 1550, had pleaded for such a system.
"It will doubtless shock some readers to learn that despite all this
propaganda on behalf of equal temperament from 1550 onwards some
great English piano-making firms of nearly three centuries later had
not adopted it. Broadwoods did so only in 1846 (see Hipkins,
in 'Musical Times', Sept. 1898), so that one may take it that up to
that date none of their clients, if keen-eared, could play through
Bach's '48' with any satisfaction, to say nothing of Beethoven and
Chopin, with their many keys and free modulations."

>Maybe you and I are 'more conscious' than Telemann

Oh, I highly doubt that.

-Carl

hi Peter,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:

> >
> > 1) Bach's WTC was for a well-temperament, not 12-tet.
> > 2) If you play the 'Fitzwilliam's virginal Book', a
> > renaissance manuscript, on a 'sichord in 12-tet, it
> > sounds awful. It sounds beautiful in 1/4 comma meantone.
> > It no accident that those pieces are written to revel
> > in just major thirds.....
> >
> > Best,
> > Aaron..
>
> Aaron - you, and apparently everyone else in this group, have been
> labouring under a misapprehension. Bach's 'Well-temper' *is* ET. I
> will give you the whole text from the article on 'Temperament' in
> the 'Oxford Companion to Music':-
>
> "4. The Only Practical Solution... ...The system just outlined is
> that called, for obvious reasons, 'Equal Temperament'.
> "5. Bach's Support of the Solution. Because Bach tuned his
> domestic clavichords and harpsichords in this way [ET] and
> wrote two series of preludes and fugues, <etc. etc., snip>

*PLEASE* do not post anything else about Bach's "Well-Tempered
Clavier" and 12-tone equal-temperament until *after* you have
read the many posts on this subject which are in the archives
of this list.

Bach did not intend for the WTC to be tuned to 12edo, as
is commonly stated. this idea arose from an erroneous
statement in the 1898 (i think that's the correct date)
edition of Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians.

it has by now been quite firmly established that Bach
intended for these two books of harpsichord pieces to be
tuned in some type of 12-tone "circulating temperament",
which we today generally call "well-temperament" in honor
of this work.

*exactly* what tuning he intended is still a matter of
hot debate. Johnny Reinhard, who has gone to Germany
several times to study the works of Andreas Werckmeister,
is convinced that Bach intended to use Werckmeister III
tuning.

Hans Anton Kellner has devised his own unique tuning
which he feels was intended by Bach, and he gives a
compelling argument for *that* tuning.

... and there are other candidates as well: Valotti & Young,
Niedhardt, Kirnberger, etc.

-monz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:

> "5. Bach's Support of the Solution. Because Bach tuned his domestic
> clavichords and harpsichords in this way [ET] and wrote two series
of
> preludes and fugues, each series including all the twelve major and
> all the twelve minor keys, and because he made these two series a
> sort of public manifesto for the system by calling them (or, at any
> rate, the first of the two, 1722) 'The Well-tempered Clavier', many
> peopl have a vague idea that Bach himself invented the system;
indeed
> this is sometimes stated by musical writers of good standing.

We recently were discussing the possibility that Bach intended a
meantone tuning for WTC book I. Whether or not this is true, it is a
fact that they are written in a way which allows for this tuning to
work nicely, so long as the harpsicord is retuned for each P&F. Even
if this is not the case, it hardly means that Bach had an exactly
equal temperament in mind, or ever tuned to such a thing. The most
that would be required would be that all keys are usable.

> The celebrated organist
> J.C.Kerll (1627-93) wrote a duet on a ground bass, passing through
> every key; this certainly seems to imply a use of equal
temperament..

No such implication can be drawn. The author jumps wildly to a
conclusion he evidently favors.

If someone is conceivably anti-semitic and you do not try to clarify that,
you might be acused of something.

If someone is apparently anti-semitic to someone and you refer to them even
indirectly as "conceivably antisemitic" you might be acused of something.

etc. It can get arbitrarily complex, without limit.

This is what happens when things polarize. Polarizing is happening here in
a big way. Can we all recognize this and for the moment see if we can have
a discourse without accusing anyone of anything? Can we all just for a day,
avoid doing *anything* that seems likely to create further polarization,
even if it goes entirely against the grain for us? Why? For the sake of
the experience, to learn what can happen.

Much is possible when things are not polarized.

Please try to read the following without judging it. Keep in mind I am
trying to talk to everyone at once. Many sides are ready to be offended. I
hold a vision in which there do not have to be sides. Even by proclaiming
this, I might be seen as taking a side, merely by *including* someone in my
vision rather than excluding them, as you may wish. If so, can you please
let go of this for a little while?

I have to say these things also in an order. I have to say something first,
something last. This might lead someone to believe I am overall on a
certain side. Please bear with me. Please trust for a moment. It is not
important that you trust me or that you know that I am "trustworthy". Just
trust that you might hear something in this that may be meaningful and
useful to you, and if so trust that you can learn from it even if it is
uncomfortable to you. No one but you can make that choice. Likewise no one
but you is responsible for what you learn now. I can not influence you
wrongly. The choice is all yours.

In particularly please do not judge me for not accusing someone of something
that you feel they deserve. Do not judge me for not accusing. Bear with
me.

These are my beliefs, and other thoughts.

This first item is clearly a belief I have held for some time. It has not
been developed for the current situation. By bringing this up here I am
talking mainly not to Peter, but to everyone else, particularly to anyone
who might think Peter might be antisemitic.

Even if someone *were* antisemitic, it might be a worthy thing to have a
discussion with them rather than attacking them or otherwise dismissing
them. This I am saying mainly to everyone else but Peter, but Peter must
inevitably read it also, so please Peter I am making no accusations. I am
trying to help other people to not polarize against you because of what they
might think that you might be, or even because of what they are sure you
are, whether they have spoken it or not.

If someone *might* be antisemitic based on some association, why are you in
such a hurry to find out more about the person? Here is one example of a
reason why I think you might do that. You want to find out so that you can
pinpoint the person into some label that will allow you to know if you
should consider yourself unsafe. (Recognizing danger is perhaps an
"instinct".) You do not want to have a dialog with such a person and you
want to know whether the person in question is such a person. Instead here
is an alternative: trust your own ability in dialog. Things will come
through, even in discussions of tuning, in which all the essential human
elements will be exposed in the dialog, and at the effect of the dialog. If
the dialog does not polarize then mutual understanding may be possible in
which *both* sides are broadened - yes, even if one side was conceived of as
"bad". My belief is that if we knew not only each others inner minds (which
alone might scare us away) but also our inner hearts, our pain, our injury,
we would all understand each other, and we would let go of the fears which
usually drive us to create our polarities, our categories.

Categories like antisemitism have a lot of flavors. Antisemitism is
particularly involved in a lot of polarity right now and I want to drop it
and instead just talk about "racism", and what it is to be racist.

There are many kinds of racism. For example:

* racism in which the person is proud to be racist, proud to use the
particular term associated with their form of racism

* racism which a person denies but nonetheless still manifests in their
actions, in spite of a conscious belief that they are not racist and
apparently even a genuine desire not to be racist

* racism which a person is aware of and does not want, but finds themselves
involved in, mainly perhaps in the form of fear - not being able to avoid
fearing people of a certain race, because of unfamiliarity of either a
bodily or a cultural nature which triggers fear. Many people declare
themselves to be this kind of racist, and wish to heal from it. This may
include besides fear, unavoiable inability to relate to people of a certain
race.

* subtle flavors of opinions which relate to racism, associated with racism
because of certain common features

* individual variations whose subtleties defy description

* things related to racism which are not racism at all, but which enter
dangerous or controversial territory

I hope the above is somewhat self-evident. I'm not trying to declare myself
an expert on anything. I have no credentials. I have only my own
experience.

So how can you know so much about a racist or even whether a person is a
racist? You can know what they call themselves. You can know other things
that they wish to tell you. Are you so sure of all the rest that you lose
all your trust in your ability to be with them, to understand them, to ever
have a dialog with them?

It may well be that these topics are worthy of discussion, discussion which
can be entered and maintained without perpetuating polarization. It may be
that they are off-topic for the tunings list. It may be that some of them
are not off topic, at least not for now. But perhaps some agreement can be
reached regarding which topics should be discussed where.

I think all of us can do better. If we do not compare our weaknesses to see
which weakness is much worse than which other weakness, we will all realize
that we all have a lot to learn. I include *everyone* in this. I include
myself.

Some things we have to learn will be pointed out by other people. If we can
point things like this out with the minimum injury, it will greatly aid in
communication and understanding. Please everyone for the moment assume you
have a lesson to learn from this. Even assume you have a lesson that you
have missed. Even assume that by missing it you might have caused
unnecessary pain. And then forgive yourself for that. If you see someone
as behaving badly try to imagine and understand why a person might be driven
to behave that way, so that you can forgive them. Certain things perhaps
can not be forgiven by a health society. But please be very clear: that
that awful line has probably not been crossed by anyone on this list. And
even if it were: can you be so sure you have no such possibility within
yourself, that it could not have been you?

Please move on with me to a more healing ground.

Here is a particular suggestion. For posts concerning these issues,
consider not replying to a previous post. Instead start your own post. Say
where you are. Do not accuse anyone of anything. Do this in spite of what
you believe is deserved, so that you can have the experience of what is
possible when you do that. It is *very* hard to do this via email. If you
fail here please take some of this with you elsewhere in life and try it,
and look for support to get you through the difficulty of it.

Please also try to forgive past grievances. Please ask yourself, regardless
of your previous judgement - is it possible that in some way I brought this
on? Sometimes it is very hard to know. Some of us have been deeply injured
in one way or another - perhaps most of us. In some it shows in different
ways. If you press the right button you may hit a deep injury. Must the
person then be judged for their reaction? Ultimately we are accountable.
But accountability and responsibility are of no consequence if there is not
an opportunity to learn from a mistake. Learning is much harder in an
atmosphere of acusation than one of acceptance.

Please do not think harshly of me for my inclusiveness, for my lack of
acusation. Do not judge me as nieve. I may know more than you imagine
about what is possible. Please be inspired by that possibility, or rather
not by my experience but by what you might experience, if you allow it. I
have been through some things which have led me to my own inpiration.
Perhaps only by enduring much pain can one be inspired to more courage. I
am not suggesting to seek pain, but rather to not avoid feeling it when it
is there. There is much pain to be felt. To do this fully requires more
courage than we can endure, so we must find all the courage we have so we
can endure as much as possible. This is the real world, right here. This
is the whole world, right here. All of our experiences are of value.

Much love,
Kurt

Peter,

Actually, the Oxford Companion is wrong here, simply put. This is an error
that has been circulating in academia for years. It's presence in a so-called
authorative text doesn't make it any more correct. And the companion is
written for blue-haired grannies, not for serious scholars of the subject.

I suggest you catch up on your bibliography of tuning history. Read some
Jorgenson or some such author. There is a tuning bibliography on the net
somewhere...anyone have the link?

That Bach's WTC *can* be played in ET doesn't mean that it was written for it.
In fact the opening statement of your Oxford article quote....:

"4. The Only Practical Solution... ...The system just outlined is
> that called, for obvious reasons, 'Equal Temperament'."

.....is an obvious falsehood. Tune your clavier to Werckmeister, or Sorge, or
Neidhardt's temperaments, or Kellners' reconstruction of Bach's tuning, or
any 18th century well-temperament. The title of Bach's work also says it:
"Das Wohltempiert Clavier"--not "Das gleich-schwebende tempiert Clavier"

Why else would EVERY composer and author in the 18th century refer to each
key's unique color or affect, were it not for the different sizes of thirds
and fifths unique to well-temperaments? Burn your 'Oxford Companion'. You
will get misled if you take it seriously on a subject of which there are many
experts in this forum.

The fact that this article sweeps over centuries of tuning history by not
mentioning meantone or well temperaments is a dead givaway that it was
written for turn-of-the-century aristocrats and modern-day unquestioning
laymen.

-Aaron.

On Wednesday 10 December 2003 12:30 am, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
> > 1) Bach's WTC was for a well-temperament, not 12-tet.
> > 2) If you play the 'Fitzwilliam's virginal Book', a renaissance
>
> manuscript, on
>
> > a 'sichord in 12-tet, it sounds awful. It sounds beautiful in 1/4
>
> comma
>
> > meantone. It no accident that those pieces are written to revel in
>
> just major
>
> > thirds.....
> >
> > Best,
> > Aaron..
>
> Aaron - you, and apparently everyone else in this group, have been
> labouring under a misapprehension. Bach's 'Well-temper' *is* ET. I
> will give you the whole text from the article on 'Temperament' in
> the 'Oxford Companion to Music':-
>
> "4. The Only Practical Solution... ...The system just outlined is
> that called, for obvious reasons, 'Equal Temperament'.
> "5. Bach's Support of the Solution. Because Bach tuned his domestic
> clavichords and harpsichords in this way [ET] and wrote two series of
> preludes and fugues, each series including all the twelve major and
> all the twelve minor keys, and because he made these two series a
> sort of public manifesto for the system by calling them (or, at any
> rate, the first of the two, 1722) 'The Well-tempered Clavier', many
> peopl have a vague idea that Bach himself invented the system; indeed
> this is sometimes stated by musical writers of good standing. It is,
> however, said to have been proposed by Aristoxenus (c. 350 B.C.) and
> to have been in actual use in China centuries before this (a
> difficult statement, however, in view of the fact that even in our
> day Chinese music uses the primitive pentatonic scale). The Spaniards
> seem to have used it in the placing of the frets on their guitars at
> least two centuries before Bach was born - to judge by the
> instructions in the 'Musica Practica' of Ramos de Pareja, 1482; and
> the Italian Zarlino in the late sixteenth century, explains its
> application to the lute. Moreover, amongst the virginal works of the
> English Elizabethan composers, roughly a century before Bach, will be
> found two or three (notably by John Bull) that go so far afield in
> modulation as to show that some of these composers, too, must have
> used a tuning system on the same lines. The celebrated organist
> J.C.Kerll (1627-93) wrote a duet on a ground bass, passing through
> every key; this certainly seems to imply a use of equal temperament,
> and that such temperament was in considerable use at this period is
> proved by a reference in Mersenne (1636). In the harpsichord works of
> Bach's contemporary, Handel, will be found some little use of extreme
> keys, showing that he, too, must have had his domestic instruments
> tuned in something the same way. Mattheson in his 'Organistenprobe'
> (1719) has a piece in every key. A little later than Bach's first
> book, the earliest pianforte music ever published, Giustini's Sonatas
> (1732), modulate to such remote keys as G sharp minor, so implying
> that their composer's instrument was tuned on the equal temperament
> system.
> "Bach was not even the only one to write a set of preludes and fugues
> called a 'Well-tempered Clavier', and taking in all the major and
> minor keys. An early eighteenth-century composer called Bernhard
> Christian Weber did the same thing (for modern instances see Huber
> and Klengel, A.A.; also cf. Ashton, Algernon); and Beethoevn, in
> 1803, published his op. 39, being 'Two Preludes through the twelve
> major keys', for piano or organ.
> "As soon as instrumental music began to be developed and the modern
> scheme of twelve tonalities, all exactly similar in their intervals,
> to be dimly perceived as a convenient thing, the system of equal
> temperament became inevitable. The Flemish composer, Willaert, as
> early as 1550, had pleaded for such a system.
> "It will doubtless shock some readers to learn that despite all this
> propaganda on behalf of equal temperament from 1550 onwards some
> great English piano-making firms of nearly three centuries later had
> not adopted it. Broadwoods did so only in 1846 (see Hipkins,
> in 'Musical Times', Sept. 1898), so that one may take it that up to
> that date none of their clients, if keen-eared, could play through
> Bach's '48' with any satisfaction, to say nothing of Beethoven and
> Chopin, with their many keys and free modulations."
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/

--
OCEAN, n. A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made
for man -- who has no gills. -Ambrose Bierce 'The Devils Dictionary'

>

Hello Peter!
The Dodekaphonic system or the use of intervals of low ratiios is just fine and dandy if that
is what wishes to do. It is my understanding that the great traditions that you seem to undervalue
have their own solution to the problem, that is having each interval in the scale have the same
level of con/dis. this has the advantage of completely freeing up one melodic lines. The structure
of the music in the far east, especially
Indonesia is based around nuclear melodies which basically every one plays at certain points
(down Beats)
which the system of 12 ET would be hopelessly chaotic toi deal with. As someone who uses a
slendro scale taken out to 12 places i can assure you that even playing all 12 tones at once
cannot produce the disonance of many of the chords produced in a strait 5 limit tuning. What you
gain in Cononance you also gain with increase disonance.
As for the Australian Aboriginal, the purpose and intention of this music is quite different
that the say the garbled Heroic Ego alternating with the whimpering nostalgiac sadness of a
Schumann. Their "technology" is far superior to accomplish their goals than any lesson or
technology of counterpoint can approach.

>
>
> On Tuesday 09 December 2003 03:12 pm, Peter Wakefield Sault wrote:
> Undeveloped human consciousness is like a
> > dreamstate - best typified by that of the Australian Aboriginal prior
> > to the arrival of Europeans.

-- -Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island
http://www.anaphoria.com
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU 88.9 FM WED 8-9PM PST

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
<akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> Actually, the Oxford Companion is wrong here, simply put. This
is an error
> that has been circulating in academia for years. It's presence
in a so-called
> authorative text doesn't make it any more correct.
>
> I suggest you catch up on your bibliography of tuning history.
Read some
> Jorgenson or some such author. There is a tuning
bibliography on the net
> somewhere...anyone have the link?
>
> That Bach's WTC *can* be played in ET doesn't mean that it
was written for it.
> In fact the opening statement of your Oxford article quote....:
>
> "4. The Only Practical Solution... ...The system just outlined is
> > that called, for obvious reasons, 'Equal Temperament'."
>
> .....is an obvious falsehood.

Greetings,

It is hard to believe that people still think The WTC was written for
EQ. The enormous body of evidence has not yet filtered through.
Let's hope it will and do our best to help that process.

All best wishes,

Gordon Rumson

>The title of Bach's work also says it:
>"Das Wohltempiert Clavier"--not "Das gleich-schwebende tempiert Clavier"

No, the title says nothing. Well-tempered means a temperament
which can be used in all keys, it doesn't exclude equal temperament
as a special well-temperament.
And really, would you in Bach's position choose "Das gleichschwebend
temperierte Clavier" as the title of a large cycle? Wohltemperierte
Klavier sounds so much better doesn't it.

>Why else would EVERY composer and author in the 18th century refer to each

>key's unique color or affect, were it not for the different sizes of
thirds
>and fifths unique to well-temperaments?

But perception of key affect doesn't disappear when equal temperament is
used.

Manuel

>And really, would you in Bach's position choose "Das gleichschwebend
>temperierte Clavier" as the title of a large cycle? Wohltemperierte
>Klavier sounds so much better doesn't it.

The argument is really very simple. There was no known way to tune
equal temperament accurately back then. Literature of the period
tells us that circulating temperament was the norm -- meantone was
still popular, but definitely falling out of favor, at least in
continental Europe. The title of the work, along with comments
attributed to Bach, clearly show meantone was not intended. If Bach
intended to violate the norm -- circulating temperament -- he would
have given exact instructions.

Similarly, the notion that Bach had *any particular* circulating
temperament in mind is nonsense. Again, he would have given
instructions. Rather, it is clear that whatever circulating you
knew was fine for the work.

Kellner's argument regarding Bach's *personal* tuning seems rather
convincing to me. But to conclude that he meant it for the WTC at
all times is silly. If he had wanted a particular tuning he would
have been more diligent about saying so.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
<manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:
>
> >The title of Bach's work also says it:
> >"Das Wohltempiert Clavier"--not "Das gleich-schwebende tempiert
Clavier"
>
> No, the title says nothing. Well-tempered means a temperament
> which can be used in all keys, it doesn't exclude equal temperament
> as a special well-temperament.
> And really, would you in Bach's position choose "Das gleichschwebend
> temperierte Clavier" as the title of a large cycle? Wohltemperierte
> Klavier sounds so much better doesn't it.
>
> >Why else would EVERY composer and author in the 18th century refer
to each
>
> >key's unique color or affect, were it not for the different sizes
of
> thirds
> >and fifths unique to well-temperaments?
>
> But perception of key affect doesn't disappear when equal
temperament is
> used.
>
> Manuel

I provided a reputable scholarly reference to indicate that "well-
tempered" is synonymous with "equally-tempered". Where is yours to
the contrary?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "rumsong" <rumsong@t...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson"
> <akjmicro@c...> wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > Actually, the Oxford Companion is wrong here, simply put. This
> is an error
> > that has been circulating in academia for years. It's presence
> in a so-called
> > authorative text doesn't make it any more correct.
> >
> > I suggest you catch up on your bibliography of tuning history.
> Read some
> > Jorgenson or some such author. There is a tuning
> bibliography on the net
> > somewhere...anyone have the link?
> >
> > That Bach's WTC *can* be played in ET doesn't mean that it
> was written for it.
> > In fact the opening statement of your Oxford article quote....:
> >
> > "4. The Only Practical Solution... ...The system just outlined is
> > > that called, for obvious reasons, 'Equal Temperament'."
> >
> > .....is an obvious falsehood.
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> It is hard to believe that people still think The WTC was written
for
> EQ. The enormous body of evidence has not yet filtered through.
> Let's hope it will and do our best to help that process.
>
> All best wishes,
>
> Gordon Rumson

Prolixity disproves nothing. You make outrageous statements without
providing any support whatever. I would say "Obvious falsehood" is an
obvious falsehood. Now where is *your* reference? "Read some
Jorgenson or some such author" is a wholly inadequate answer.

Peter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >And really, would you in Bach's position choose "Das
gleichschwebend
> >temperierte Clavier" as the title of a large cycle? Wohltemperierte
> >Klavier sounds so much better doesn't it.
>
> The argument is really very simple. There was no known way to tune
> equal temperament accurately back then. Literature of the period
> tells us that circulating temperament was the norm -- meantone was
> still popular, but definitely falling out of favor, at least in
> continental Europe. The title of the work, along with comments
> attributed to Bach, clearly show meantone was not intended. If Bach
> intended to violate the norm -- circulating temperament -- he would
> have given exact instructions.
>
> Similarly, the notion that Bach had *any particular* circulating
> temperament in mind is nonsense. Again, he would have given
> instructions. Rather, it is clear that whatever circulating you
> knew was fine for the work.
>
> Kellner's argument regarding Bach's *personal* tuning seems rather
> convincing to me. But to conclude that he meant it for the WTC at
> all times is silly. If he had wanted a particular tuning he would
> have been more diligent about saying so.
>
> -Carl

You say "There was no known way to tune equal temperament accurately
back then [in Bach's day]."

Can you prove that? No, of course you cannot. Bach tuned his owned
instruments. Are you claiming to have a better ear than Bach? Even
*I* can tune to ET by ear.

> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > It is hard to believe that people still think The WTC was
written
> for
> > EQ. The enormous body of evidence has not yet filtered
through.
> > Let's hope it will and do our best to help that process.
> >
> > All best wishes,
> >
> > Gordon Rumson
>
> Prolixity disproves nothing. You make outrageous statements
without
> providing any support whatever. I would say "Obvious
falsehood" is an
> obvious falsehood. Now where is *your* reference? "Read
some
> Jorgenson or some such author" is a wholly inadequate
answer.
>
> Peter

Greetings,

For many reasons I'm not interested in debating you. I prefer
merely to share information and leave people on their own.
Please refrain from attacking me. There's no need: I'm not
worth you ire.

Please check the online bibliography about tuning. It will provide
a vast quantity of material. Needless to say, the more recent
articles will have the more informed data. Ed Foote has a web
site that has excellent material and a Google search should get
you there.

Owen Jorgensen is the author of a huge book known as
"Tuning." It has a longer title that I'm not interested in typing. It
has a thorough discussion of temperament issues related to
Bach and almost everything else about piano tuning and is such
a vast compendium of information that I recommend it to all
interested in the subject of historical practice. This is one to
own. The argument that Jorgensen presents is better left to him,
though I could give a weak/feeble synopsis if pressed.

I used to have an article online about the Bach WTC, but it's not
anymore (I closed my website out of boredom:) I wrote it about
12 years ago and it is thus outdated. The basic material I will
stand by, and can comment on what needs improvement. If
you'd like I could send you a copy.

Al best wishes,

Gordon Rumson

In a message dated 12/10/2003 3:34:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
rumsong@telus.net writes:

> Greetings,
>
> It is hard to believe that people still think The WTC was written for
> EQ. The enormous body of evidence has not yet filtered through.
> Let's hope it will and do our best to help that process.
>
> All best wishes,
>
> Gordon Rumson
>

It please me to say that the first draft of a book dedicated to this issue is
ready for editing. If only the world would slow down so I can begin. ;)
Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "rumsong" <rumsong@t...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Greetings,
> > >
> > > It is hard to believe that people still think The WTC was
> written
> > for
> > > EQ. The enormous body of evidence has not yet filtered
> through.
> > > Let's hope it will and do our best to help that process.
> > >
> > > All best wishes,
> > >
> > > Gordon Rumson
> >
> > Prolixity disproves nothing. You make outrageous statements
> without
> > providing any support whatever. I would say "Obvious
> falsehood" is an
> > obvious falsehood. Now where is *your* reference? "Read
> some
> > Jorgenson or some such author" is a wholly inadequate
> answer.
> >
> > Peter
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> For many reasons I'm not interested in debating you. I prefer
> merely to share information and leave people on their own.
> Please refrain from attacking me. There's no need: I'm not
> worth you ire.
>
> Please check the online bibliography about tuning. It will provide
> a vast quantity of material. Needless to say, the more recent
> articles will have the more informed data. Ed Foote has a web
> site that has excellent material and a Google search should get
> you there.
>
> Owen Jorgensen is the author of a huge book known as
> "Tuning." It has a longer title that I'm not interested in
typing. It
> has a thorough discussion of temperament issues related to
> Bach and almost everything else about piano tuning and is such
> a vast compendium of information that I recommend it to all
> interested in the subject of historical practice. This is one to
> own. The argument that Jorgensen presents is better left to him,
> though I could give a weak/feeble synopsis if pressed.
>
> I used to have an article online about the Bach WTC, but it's not
> anymore (I closed my website out of boredom:) I wrote it about
> 12 years ago and it is thus outdated. The basic material I will
> stand by, and can comment on what needs improvement. If
> you'd like I could send you a copy.
>
> Al best wishes,
>
> Gordon Rumson

An unwillingness to debate the matter indicates a closed mind.

Perhaps one day you will visit the Victoria & Albert Museum in
London. In the musical instruments gallery you will find Equal
Tempered Spanish guitars dating from the 16th century. If you are not
sure what an Equal Tempered guitar looks like walk into any music
shop and look at the guitar necks. The spacing of the frets is quite
unmistakable.

Here is a list of the contents of Jorgensen's work.
http://mmd.foxtail.com/Tech/jorgensen.html
There is not one single mention of Johann Sebastian Bach.

on 12/10/03 6:35 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "rumsong" <rumsong@t...> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greetings,
>>>>
>>>> It is hard to believe that people still think The WTC was
>> written
>>> for
>>>> EQ. The enormous body of evidence has not yet filtered
>> through.
>>>> Let's hope it will and do our best to help that process.
>>>>
>>>> All best wishes,
>>>>
>>>> Gordon Rumson
>>>
>>> Prolixity disproves nothing. You make outrageous statements
>> without
>>> providing any support whatever. I would say "Obvious
>> falsehood" is an
>>> obvious falsehood. Now where is *your* reference? "Read
>> some
>>> Jorgenson or some such author" is a wholly inadequate
>> answer.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> For many reasons I'm not interested in debating you. I prefer
>> merely to share information and leave people on their own.
>> Please refrain from attacking me. There's no need: I'm not
>> worth you ire.
>>
>> Please check the online bibliography about tuning. It will provide
>> a vast quantity of material. Needless to say, the more recent
>> articles will have the more informed data. Ed Foote has a web
>> site that has excellent material and a Google search should get
>> you there.
>>
>> Owen Jorgensen is the author of a huge book known as
>> "Tuning." It has a longer title that I'm not interested in
> typing. It
>> has a thorough discussion of temperament issues related to
>> Bach and almost everything else about piano tuning and is such
>> a vast compendium of information that I recommend it to all
>> interested in the subject of historical practice. This is one to
>> own. The argument that Jorgensen presents is better left to him,
>> though I could give a weak/feeble synopsis if pressed.
>>
>> I used to have an article online about the Bach WTC, but it's not
>> anymore (I closed my website out of boredom:) I wrote it about
>> 12 years ago and it is thus outdated. The basic material I will
>> stand by, and can comment on what needs improvement. If
>> you'd like I could send you a copy.
>>
>> Al best wishes,
>>
>> Gordon Rumson
>
> An unwillingness to debate the matter indicates a closed mind.

This is not always true. There are many conceivable reasons unwillingness
to debate. If you would be more careful in what you state, you would put
people off less than you have been.

I consider the term "debate" to refer to a particular form of discourse.
Essentially as I see it is the very discourse of closed minds: a mechanical
encounter with a mechanical outcome. No minds are changed as a result, and
there is supposedly a winner, according to a judge. Yet no one wins. But
that is just a definition of "debate" and may not relate to your intended
usage.

However, if you actually are interested in more discourse (I will avoid
using the word debate) rather than less, I believe there is an option open
to you that may achieve this. Be more inviting in your approach. You have
a style which puts people off. Please try other ways. I promise that if
you do you will be pleased with the results. You can not find this out for
*yourself* if you do not allow yourself the experience. You need not risk
your integrity if you try this, if you do it for youself, not for anyone
else.

-Kurt

>An unwillingness to debate the matter indicates a closed mind.
>
> This is not always true. There are many conceivable reasons
unwillingness
> to debate. If you would be more careful in what you state, you
would put
> people off less than you have been.
>
> I consider the term "debate" to refer to a particular form of
discourse.
> Essentially as I see it is the very discourse of closed minds: a
mechanical
> encounter with a mechanical outcome. No minds are changed as a
result, and
> there is supposedly a winner, according to a judge. Yet no one
wins. But
> that is just a definition of "debate" and may not relate to your
intended
> usage.
>
> However, if you actually are interested in more discourse (I will
avoid
> using the word debate) rather than less, I believe there is an
option open
> to you that may achieve this. Be more inviting in your approach.
You have
> a style which puts people off. Please try other ways. I promise
that if
> you do you will be pleased with the results. You can not find this
out for
> *yourself* if you do not allow yourself the experience. You need
not risk
> your integrity if you try this, if you do it for youself, not for
anyone
> else.
>
> -Kurt

Thankyou Kurt. Your comments are well-taken. I think you will find
that my attitude is usually reactive. Some people in this group
express themselves with such superciliousness as puts me straight
into attack mode.

With regard to terminology, Jorgensen is far less overbearing in his
words and makes quite clear that many of the expressions used in this
group, such as 'meantone', are inventions of the late 20th century.

As for 'equal temperament', it did not acquire the narrow meaning
which it now has until the 20th century. Until then it was used to
describe many unrestrictive circulating temperaments which are here
called 'well temperaments'. Even if Bach did not tune his domestic
claviers to what we no call 'equal temperament' it is not possible to
reproduce the actual well temperament which he did use so we may as
well stick to playing his work in modern equal temper.

My best evidence that Bach tuned his claviers to equal temper as we
know it is indeed the existence of equal tempered guitars since the
16th century. As I previously stated, such guitars can be viewed at
the Victoria & Albert Museum in London. Many of Bach's melodic
figures actually derive from guitar fingerings, indicating that he
was not only aware of, but played, the guitar. I believe that Bach
truly did innovate true equal temper by tuning his claviers to such
guitars in order that he could reproduce the melodic figures which
had evolved on those instruments. Bear in mind that, as Jorgensen
points out, what everybody here calls 'meantone' is what was simply
called 'keyboard tuning' in past eras (not to say past ears). That is
why he was rejected by so very many of his contemporaries. Bach's
music did not emerge from the shadows until the late 19th century,
mainly as a result of its promotion by Mendelssohn. Jorgensen himself
points out that equal temper as we know it is indeed a form of well
temper. Therefore it is still highly likely that Bach really was 200
years ahead of his time in tuning his clavichords and harpsichords to
true equal temper.

Bach's organ compositions are an entirely different matter. Organs
cannot easily be retuned - the pipes must be replaced to do so.
Therefore they were composed upon particular organs which most
certainly were tuned to some or other 'meantone' system.

> > An unwillingness to debate the matter indicates a closed
mind.
>
> This is not always true. There are many conceivable reasons
unwillingness
> to debate. If you would be more careful in what you state, you
would put
> people off less than you have been.
>
> I consider the term "debate" to refer to a particular form of
discourse.

snip...

> -Kurt

Greetings Kurt,

Thank you for your your reasoned and reasonable response.
The text format seems to permit behavior that would be
unacceptable in face-to-face meetings.

All best wishes,

Gordon Rumson

HI Carl,

I think, was it Margo who pointed out that they could have
tuned to a reasonable approximation to twelve equal by
tuning a lute to twelve equal and then tuning a keyboard
to the lute.

So practically it could be done - but would the
ears of musicians at the time have found it acceptable
and to their taste...

Just a thought, there seems to be a correlation between
how close the tuning is to equal tempered and how
chromatic the music is (if you forget the pytahgorean
tuning as they weren't tuning to thirds in those days,
and if you leave out fretted instruments).

At least, nineteenth century tunings are more equally
tuned than those of Bach's time, and in the C20
that is when the tuning became most even that is
possible with 12-eq, so if you take it one century
at a time...If you draw that graph and plot a likely
tuning for Bach then I'm sure it would be far from
equal. The big transition of his day was
from quarter comma meantone to well temperaments
was it not...?

Thanks,

Robert

on 12/10/03 8:29 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

>> An unwillingness to debate the matter indicates a closed mind.
>>
>> This is not always true. There are many conceivable reasons
> unwillingness
>> to debate. If you would be more careful in what you state, you
> would put
>> people off less than you have been.
>>
>> I consider the term "debate" to refer to a particular form of
> discourse.
>> Essentially as I see it is the very discourse of closed minds: a
> mechanical
>> encounter with a mechanical outcome. No minds are changed as a
> result, and
>> there is supposedly a winner, according to a judge. Yet no one
> wins. But
>> that is just a definition of "debate" and may not relate to your
> intended
>> usage.
>>
>> However, if you actually are interested in more discourse (I will
> avoid
>> using the word debate) rather than less, I believe there is an
> option open
>> to you that may achieve this. Be more inviting in your approach.
> You have
>> a style which puts people off. Please try other ways. I promise
> that if
>> you do you will be pleased with the results. You can not find this
> out for
>> *yourself* if you do not allow yourself the experience. You need
> not risk
>> your integrity if you try this, if you do it for youself, not for
> anyone
>> else.
>>
>> -Kurt
>
> Thankyou Kurt. Your comments are well-taken. I think you will find
> that my attitude is usually reactive. Some people in this group
> express themselves with such superciliousness as puts me straight
> into attack mode.

I feel honored that you are willing to stand together with me on such a
neutral ground. This being honored is not meant to be an offering to your
"ego" but an acknowledgement of the depth of what we are touching on, and
the value of this common ground in the midst of a very polarized atmosphere.

I find that your attitude *has been* very reactive quite often. I wish you
would join me in the past tense description. I also find that you have an
incredible capacity for an almost *formal* graciousness at times. I want to
underline this gift (which is not your only gift) and ask you to look at
things a little differently so that you find more opportunities to make use
of this gift.

When you get triggered by someone I do not suggest that you are limited to
simply putting a cap on it. It is possible for you to acknowledge how it
fired you up without actually firing it back at the other person. But first
of all realize that the slate is not clear. If you experience
superciliousness realize that it may be from a person who believes they have
experienced such from you. It is sometimes hard to trace things back to
their original cause. Sometimes the original cause was unnoticed by the
person in whose expression it was embedded.

Being gracious even where graciousness may possibly not be deserved is one
way to give benefit of the doubt, acknowledging the possibility that it is
actually unknown "who started it" so to speak.

My memory, which is by no means perfect, is that what fired you up
*originally* in many cases was not superciliousness but something else,
something which you have little tolerance for, but which is based on values
which are rather unique to you, if not in fact ideosyncratic, but which in
any case represents a kind of judgement which is certainly *very* unfamiliar
in the culture of this group which please trust me has been for the most
very congenial for quite some time. Please believe this and take seriously
the implications of it, and then please comment on what this might mean to
you, if possible without passing judgement on anyone in this group. The
discomfort around you was well under way before the whole "antisemitic"
thing came up, an event which only served to compound the confusion of the
process of communication here, regardless of its apparent importance to some
people. The fact of that event works against the entire process that I am
hoping for, and I hope you can find ways to make additional allowances for
it, realizing the confusion it has injected and how this has damaged
communication from all sides. Whatever forgiving you can do in relation to
that event will therefore probably also help you to be less reactive, so we
can get down to the business of finding better ways to communicate, which is
by far the more central issue, as I see it. I am suggesting that you can
not hold on to an importance about that event without compromising the
unfolding of communication here, which was an issue prior to that event. If
the communication in general were to clear up fully then the "event" would
shrink in importance, because even if not acted on immediately or on this
particular list, the implications of the *experience* of a good base of
communication would transform the event itself by disarming the very root of
the "antisemitic" polarization, because deeply we all understand that these
things depend on failed communication in order to flourish. That is my
belief in any case. If that is not clear enough to anyone please say so and
I will attempt to clarify it.

So you may have revealed a possible opening into a more pleasant ground for
all of us. Here is my suggestion. If you are willing to set the slate
clear to give this benefit of doubt, and then *as soon* as you are triggered
by anything, before allowing the "attack mode" to go through, simply
acknowledge in your writing as clearly as possible (and more clearly than
you have) what it is that inflamed you. A phrase such as "I felt blah blah"
is probably much more helpful in this context than "You did blah blah".

I would go so far as to suggest that you might use a style like this: "That
really ticked me off, but I do not need to take it personally. Here is what
happenned in me as I read what you just wrote... blah blah blah." Such a
form is very likely not to elicit any further reaction from the other party,
in my experience. There are many possible variations of style of course.
However, I think this is a situation in which agreeing on some possible
"forms" for communication might help things to ease up quite a bit.

Thanks for your consideration.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "rumsong" <rumsong@t...> wrote:
>
> > > An unwillingness to debate the matter indicates a closed
> mind.
> >
> > This is not always true. There are many conceivable reasons
> unwillingness
> > to debate. If you would be more careful in what you state, you
> would put
> > people off less than you have been.
> >
> > I consider the term "debate" to refer to a particular form of
> discourse.
>
> snip...
>
> > -Kurt
>
>
> Greetings Kurt,
>
> Thank you for your your reasoned and reasonable response.
> The text format seems to permit behavior that would be
> unacceptable in face-to-face meetings.
>
> All best wishes,
>
> Gordon Rumson

I love a good old face-to-face. But then again, I have no problem
with public speaking. Facile and glib to a fault, me.

on 12/10/03 10:29 PM, Robert Walker <robertwalker@ntlworld.com> wrote:

> HI Carl,
>
> I think, was it Margo who pointed out that they could have
> tuned to a reasonable approximation to twelve equal by
> tuning a lute to twelve equal and then tuning a keyboard
> to the lute.
>
> So practically it could be done - but would the
> ears of musicians at the time have found it acceptable
> and to their taste...
>
> Just a thought, there seems to be a correlation between
> how close the tuning is to equal tempered and how
> chromatic the music is (if you forget the pytahgorean
> tuning as they weren't tuning to thirds in those days,
> and if you leave out fretted instruments).

Being too ignorant of the literature to judge this myself, I will just pass
on a contrasting view.

A Berkeley organist, David R. Hunsberger, recently did a recital in which he
espoused the view that there was a loss of interest in chromatic
compositions (with consequent decline in their frequency) with the decline
of unequal temperaments. He played several highly chromatic pieces composed
around the time of Bach (I've misplaced the program and can't remember the
details) to demonstrate the interest (much of which for me was in the
melodic domain) that the chromaticism has on a well-tempered organ. Of
course, the same evidence would have a different meaning if it turned out
that organs were tuned to 12et at that time, but I think the evidence in the
case of organs is highly against that.

-Kurt

> At least, nineteenth century tunings are more equally
> tuned than those of Bach's time, and in the C20
> that is when the tuning became most even that is
> possible with 12-eq, so if you take it one century
> at a time...If you draw that graph and plot a likely
> tuning for Bach then I'm sure it would be far from
> equal. The big transition of his day was
> from quarter comma meantone to well temperaments
> was it not...?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert

on 12/10/03 1:15 PM, Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>
wrote:

>
>> The title of Bach's work also says it:
>> "Das Wohltempiert Clavier"--not "Das gleich-schwebende tempiert Clavier"
>
> No, the title says nothing. Well-tempered means a temperament
> which can be used in all keys, it doesn't exclude equal temperament
> as a special well-temperament.
> And really, would you in Bach's position choose "Das gleichschwebend
> temperierte Clavier" as the title of a large cycle? Wohltemperierte
> Klavier sounds so much better doesn't it.
>
>> Why else would EVERY composer and author in the 18th century refer to each
>
>> key's unique color or affect, were it not for the different sizes of
> thirds
>> and fifths unique to well-temperaments?
>
> But perception of key affect doesn't disappear when equal temperament is
> used.

Please clarify this. It appears to me you are then talking about absolute
pitch sensibilities. If there were a useful supportive relationship between
absolute pitch and key center, this would be an important thing to know
about.

-Kurt

>
> Manuel

Peter wrote:
>I provided a reputable scholarly reference to indicate that "well-
>tempered" is synonymous with "equally-tempered". Where is yours to
>the contrary?

Werckmeister for example, a contemporary of Bach.

Manuel

Carl wrote:

>The argument is really very simple. There was no known way to tune
>equal temperament accurately back then.

I don't believe that either. Couldn't a monochord be used to intentionally
tune equal temperament? It might not reproduce it as accurately as we're
used to have it today, but that's not the point.
And it's very hard to prove the absence of something in history.

>Rather, it is clear that whatever circulating you
>knew was fine for the work.

Yes.

Manuel

Peter,

I suggest you read and visit the references given up to this moment,
especially Monzo's Dictionary, which is for our business much richer
than the Oxford Companion or whatever.
Even more, I suggest you to play the actual tunings involved in the
debate, eg. Werckmeister III against 12eq.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...>
wrote:
> With regard to terminology, Jorgensen is far less overbearing in
his
> words and makes quite clear that many of the expressions used in
this
> group, such as 'meantone', are inventions of the late 20th century.
>
> As for 'equal temperament', it did not acquire the narrow meaning
> which it now has until the 20th century. Until then it was used to
> describe many unrestrictive circulating temperaments which are here
> called 'well temperaments'. Even if Bach did not tune his domestic
> claviers to what we no call 'equal temperament' it is not possible
to
> reproduce the actual well temperament which he did use so we may as
> well stick to playing his work in modern equal temper.
>
> My best evidence that Bach tuned his claviers to equal temper as we
> know it is indeed the existence of equal tempered guitars since the
> 16th century. As I previously stated, such guitars can be viewed at
> the Victoria & Albert Museum in London. Many of Bach's melodic
> figures actually derive from guitar fingerings, indicating that he
> was not only aware of, but played, the guitar. I believe that Bach
> truly did innovate true equal temper by tuning his claviers to such
> guitars in order that he could reproduce the melodic figures which
> had evolved on those instruments. Bear in mind that, as Jorgensen
> points out, what everybody here calls 'meantone' is what was simply
> called 'keyboard tuning' in past eras (not to say past ears). That
is
> why he was rejected by so very many of his contemporaries. Bach's
> music did not emerge from the shadows until the late 19th century,
> mainly as a result of its promotion by Mendelssohn. Jorgensen
himself
> points out that equal temper as we know it is indeed a form of well
> temper. Therefore it is still highly likely that Bach really was
200
> years ahead of his time in tuning his clavichords and harpsichords
to
> true equal temper.
>
> Bach's organ compositions are an entirely different matter. Organs
> cannot easily be retuned - the pipes must be replaced to do so.
> Therefore they were composed upon particular organs which most
> certainly were tuned to some or other 'meantone' system.

I think the point is not whether it was possible to tune in 12 equal
or not. Even if possible, would have it been a good choice for the
time of Bach?

The Meantone can be taken as an improvement on the Pytagorian tuning,
which had terrible thirds. So it proposed tempering fifths to 5^(1/4)
so as to reach an acceptable third. However, if you go through a
circle of these temperate fifths, you will notice it never closes.
For instance, take C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-E#-B#, and you can't
assume B# is the same not as C. Such a distance like e# c is what is
called a wolf fifth. It clearly denies the possibility of playing in
all keys.

Bach did want to avoid the wolf's problem, but 12EQ is not the only
solution. Indeed, some well temperament like Werckmeister III will
suffice for the purpose, and it would have clearly sounded nicer than
12 eq to his ears. Of course, well temperaments are not suitable for
a fretted instrument, but what about the rest?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Maximiliano G. Miranda Zanetti"
<giordanobruno76@y...> wrote:

> The Meantone can be taken as an improvement on the Pytagorian
tuning,
> which had terrible thirds. So it proposed tempering fifths to 5^
(1/4)
> so as to reach an acceptable third. However, if you go through a
> circle of these temperate fifths, you will notice it never closes.
> For instance, take C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-E#-B#, and you can't
> assume B# is the same not as C. Such a distance like e# c is what
is
> called a wolf fifth. It clearly denies the possibility of playing
in
> all keys.

It hardly denies it; it depends on what your reaction is to the wolf
fifth. While this hasn't anything to do with actual performance
practice; as I've pointed out, you can even make the wolf an exact
20/13 if you like.

Kurt wrote:
>Please clarify this. It appears to me you are then talking about absolute
>pitch sensibilities. If there were a useful supportive relationship
between
>absolute pitch and key center, this would be an important thing to know
>about.

Possibly yes, I don't know how it works mentally. Here's a nice overview
of the different key characteristics:
http://www.library.yale.edu/~mkoth/keychar.htm

Manuel

Hi Kurt,

Yes, I could believe that Bach was a century or so ahead
of some of his contemporaries such as say Teleman for chromaticism,
and that it is non uniform too, doesn't need to be a continual
progress but a gradual trend with blips up and down.

Maybe that would suggest he would like a more equal tuning
than the ones normal for his day if this correlation idea amounts to
anything at all.

Were there any _near equal_ tunings of his day like the C19th
century ones?

If some at that time played pianos in 12-et you would
expect a spectrum with some others not willing to go
quite that far but who used tempers that were
fairly close to 12-et. At least if the 12-et
ones discussed their ideas and tried to persuade
others of the time to understand their position.

If it was just a single individual who privately
tuned his piano to 12-et and was regarded as
highly eccentric at the time by his few friends who knew
about it, didn't say anything about it to
anyone,and he didn't mind what others
thought and just went aheaad anyway then that is
another matter. Such things can happen
of course and won't appear in the history
books as no-one would talk about it as
it is just so way out of their experience
that they ignore it totally.

But I'm interested to hear from the
experts how close the tempered tunings of his day
went to 12-eq.

Thanks,

Robert

Hi Robert,

>I think, was it Margo who pointed out that they could have
>tuned to a reasonable approximation to twelve equal by
>tuning a lute to twelve equal and then tuning a keyboard
>to the lute.

Well perhaps, but tuning a keyboard instrument to a lute
or guitar will never produce good results no matter what
the tuning. For one thing the level of accuracy expected
of keyboard instruments (clavichord excepted) is far greater
than that of fretted strings (which to some extent have
variable intonation depending on how notes are executed).
For another the decay of a lute is quite fast compared
even to a harpsichord. And with pianos other differences
of timbre will come into play. I seriously doubt any
self-respecting keyboardist would do anything other than
the usual procedure of setting the temperament and then
tuning outward by octaves.

>At least, nineteenth century tunings are more equally
>tuned than those of Bach's time, and in the C20
>that is when the tuning became most even that is
>possible with 12-eq, so if you take it one century
>at a time...If you draw that graph and plot a likely
>tuning for Bach then I'm sure it would be far from
>equal. The big transition of his day was
>from quarter comma meantone to well temperaments
>was it not...?

Yes, I think so. But keep in mind that the difference
from something like Werkmeister 3 to ET is not so great
that the novice ear will often fail to detect it.

-Carl

In a message dated 12/11/2003 12:00:49 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sault@cyberware.co.uk writes:

> it is not possible to
> reproduce the actual well temperament which he did use so we may as
> well stick to playing his work in modern equal temper.

Hi Peter,

My practice has indicated otherwise. Modern performances of Bach in
Werckmeister III tuning improve the music when it is compared to equal temperament.
Try comparing Bach's "Chromatic Fantasy" in D minor as played by Igor Kipnis in
Werckmeister III and then someone else in ET and the difference is
remarkable.

>
> My best evidence that Bach tuned his claviers to equal temper as we
> know it is indeed the existence of equal tempered guitars since the
> 16th century.

While the pedigree of ET goes way back in history, it is more likely that
different tunings were used in different musical contexts. ET guitar would have
little to no bearing on Bach.

As I previously stated, such guitars can be viewed at
> the Victoria &Albert Museum in London. Many of Bach's melodic
> figures actually derive from guitar fingerings, indicating that he
> was not only aware of, but played, the guitar. I believe that Bach
> truly did innovate true equal temper by tuning his claviers to such
> guitars in order that he could reproduce the melodic figures which
> had evolved on those instruments.

Interesting theory. However, the organ made a much greater impression on JS
Bach and the use of ET on an organ is most noticeable when compared to either
a meantone or a well-temperament. As Werckmesiter hit the stage exactly one
generation before JS Bach, it is most reasonable to look in this direction
rather than the direction of fretted guitars in ET.

Bear in mind that, as Jorgensen
> points out, what everybody here calls 'meantone' is what was simply
> called 'keyboard tuning' in past eras (not to say past ears).

England (and The Netherlands) did not parlay in the well-temperaments as much
as Germany, or even France. Keyboard tuning was quite variegated (a Johann
Philipp Kirnberger designation, a Bach disciple).

That is > why he was rejected by so very many of his contemporaries. Bach's
> music did not emerge from the shadows until the late 19th century,
> mainly as a result of its promotion by Mendelssohn.

Ah, but Papa Bach was quite important in Europe before 1740. It's just that
music began to be created in a more vertical concentration, as melody against
chords. It might be proper to say that Europe actually waited for Papa Bach
to die in 1750 so that music could officially be allowed to progress onwards.
Rather than rejected, I might prefer neglected, but you are correct that it
was young Mendelssohn that brought the St. Matthew's Passion to life in Leipzig,
thus resurrecting the Bach spirt of music.

Jorgensen himself > points out that equal temper as we know it is indeed a
> form of well
> temper.

This is true indeed.

Therefore it is still highly likely that Bach really was 200 >
> years ahead of his time in tuning his clavichords and harpsichords to
> true equal temper.
>

This makes more sense looking backwards from the present than it does seeing
the advances in the tuning of keyboards from the Renaissance until Bach's
time.

> Bach's organ compositions are an entirely different matter. Organs
> cannot easily be retuned - the pipes must be replaced to do so.
> Therefore they were composed upon particular organs which most
> certainly were tuned to some or other 'meantone' system.

Much research has already been done, even by such an equal temperamentalist
as J. Murray Barbour, that Bach's organ works require well-temperament. They
do not suffer meanone as you have surmized.

best, Johnny Reinhard

>> But perception of key affect doesn't disappear when equal temperament
>> is used.
>
>Please clarify this. It appears to me you are then talking about
>absolute pitch sensibilities. If there were a useful supportive
>relationship between absolute pitch and key center, this would be an
>important thing to know about.

Great strides have recently been made in the neurophysical origin of
absolute pitch. While only a few learn to refine this sensation into
what is known as "perfect pitch", there's very strong evidence that
everyone has this perception. One experiment involved asking novices
to hum popular tunes, which they did in the correct key far more often
than chance would allow. Visit Martin Braun's site for more info.

-Carl

>My best evidence that Bach tuned his claviers to equal temper as we
>know it is indeed the existence of equal tempered guitars since the
>16th century. As I previously stated, such guitars can be viewed at
>the Victoria & Albert Museum in London.

Guitars, yes. Maybe other list members can help me here, but I
believe a near-et method based on the interval 18/17 ~ 1 semitone
was known to Galileo.

In general, because it's easy to make frets go straight across the
neck, it's easy to get ET to the level of accuracy expected for
guitars.

>Bach's organ compositions are an entirely different matter. Organs
>cannot easily be retuned - the pipes must be replaced to do so.
>Therefore they were composed upon particular organs which most
>certainly were tuned to some or other 'meantone' system.

Indeed. According to Bosanquet, Bach put not a single organ work
in Ab (where the wolf is usually placed in meantone).

-Carl

>Hi Kurt,
>
>Yes, I could believe that Bach was a century or so ahead
>of some of his contemporaries such as say Teleman for chromaticism,

Not true. He was simply part of a long tradition of chromatic
keyboard music, which Telemann also produced a fair share of.
Bach did create some of the most awe-inspiring music of any
composer, and when he did chromaticism there was no exception.

I don't know why Telemann is so often derided. He is in my mind
a composer of incredible importance who wrote some of the best
chamber music ever, who was more prolific than Vivaldi plus the
average quality of the works is much higher.

>If some at that time played pianos in 12-et you would
>expect a spectrum with some others not willing to go
>quite that far but who used tempers that were
>fairly close to 12-et. At least if the 12-et
>ones discussed their ideas and tried to persuade
>others of the time to understand their position.
>
>If it was just a single individual who privately
>tuned his piano to 12-et and was regarded as
>highly eccentric at the time by his few friends who knew
>about it, didn't say anything about it to
>anyone,and he didn't mind what others
>thought and just went aheaad anyway then that is
>another matter. Such things can happen
>of course and won't appear in the history
>books as no-one would talk about it as
>it is just so way out of their experience
>that they ignore it totally.

Of course. And keep in mind that people did not then do
as we do, identifying a scale by name, knowing the cents
values, etc. Even piano tuners today vary from an exact
ET quite often. And these were musicians, not professional
tuners. Most probably learned a bearing plan as kids and
practiced it their whole lives. Who knows what they were
doing? The best we can say is that circulating temperaments
such as Werkmeister 3 are probably representative.

-Carl

In a message dated 12/11/2003 1:56:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ekin@lumma.org writes:

> Indeed. According to Bosanquet, Bach put not a single organ work
> in Ab (where the wolf is usually placed in meantone).
>
> -Carl
>

But his uncle/father-in-law did. J

>A Berkeley organist, David R. Hunsberger, recently did a recital in
>which he espoused the view that there was a loss of interest in
>chromatic compositions (with consequent decline in their frequency)
>with the decline of unequal temperaments.

For those of you listening, I was at that concert, though I missed
this remark (I came in late). As it is given here, I do not think
it is a correct remark. What was happening around the time of
Bach was that modal music was giving way to tonal music. In modal
music there was a long tradition of *highly* chromatic works, esp.
in the North German toccata style from which Bach descends, and also
notably in France and Italy. The early tonal music was very much
less chromatic, and it took until Chopin until the new style evolved
its own chromaticism (though check out Mozart's Minuet No. 6 in D,
K355 sometime!). I don't really think this has much to do with
tuning.

-Carl

>>The argument is really very simple. There was no known way to tune
>>equal temperament accurately back then.
>
>I don't believe that either. Couldn't a monochord be used to
>intentionally tune equal temperament?

Yes, I suppose so, but it would have been far from the norm, and
note my earlier remarks about tuning a keyboard to a guitar.

>It might not reproduce it as accurately as we're
>used to have it today, but that's not the point.
>And it's very hard to prove the absence of something in history.

True enough, but the bearing plans for setting ET, to the best
of my knowledge, did not exist. Certainly they were not widely
known or practiced.

-Carl

>>Indeed. According to Bosanquet, Bach put not a single organ
>>work in Ab (where the wolf is usually placed in meantone).
>
>But his uncle/father-in-law did. J

I have no doubt that "well tempered" organs were available
to Bach and his contemporaries, if they were perhaps in the
minority. In fact in a draft of my message (above), I said
so, but I don't have any ready references so I took it out.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
wrote:
> HI Carl,
>
> I think, was it Margo who pointed out that they could have
> tuned to a reasonable approximation to twelve equal by
> tuning a lute to twelve equal and then tuning a keyboard
> to the lute.
>
> So practically it could be done - but would the
> ears of musicians at the time have found it acceptable
> and to their taste...
>
> Just a thought, there seems to be a correlation between
> how close the tuning is to equal tempered and how
> chromatic the music is (if you forget the pytahgorean
> tuning as they weren't tuning to thirds in those days,
> and if you leave out fretted instruments).
>
> At least, nineteenth century tunings are more equally
> tuned than those of Bach's time, and in the C20
> that is when the tuning became most even that is
> possible with 12-eq, so if you take it one century
> at a time...If you draw that graph and plot a likely
> tuning for Bach then I'm sure it would be far from
> equal. The big transition of his day was
> from quarter comma meantone to well temperaments
> was it not...?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Robert

Hi Robert

J.S.Bach was in a class of his own and was largely rejected by his
contemporaries. I don't think you can judge him, or his personal
tunings (not forgetting that he did his own), according to what the
common herd was doing.

Peter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Maximiliano G. Miranda Zanetti"
> <giordanobruno76@y...> wrote:
>
> > The Meantone can be taken as an improvement on the Pytagorian
> tuning,
> > which had terrible thirds. So it proposed tempering fifths to 5^
> (1/4)
> > so as to reach an acceptable third. However, if you go through a
> > circle of these temperate fifths, you will notice it never
closes.
> > For instance, take C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-D#-A#-E#-B#, and you
can't
> > assume B# is the same not as C. Such a distance like e# c is what
> is
> > called a wolf fifth. It clearly denies the possibility of playing
> in
> > all keys.
>
> It hardly denies it; it depends on what your reaction is to the
wolf
> fifth.

That might indeed vary according to degree of tone deafness.

>
> I would go so far as to suggest that you might use a style like
this: "That
> really ticked me off, but I do not need to take it personally.
Here is what
> happenned in me as I read what you just wrote... blah blah blah."
Such a
> form is very likely not to elicit any further reaction from the
other party,
> in my experience. There are many possible variations of style of
course.
> However, I think this is a situation in which agreeing on some
possible
> "forms" for communication might help things to ease up quite a bit.
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
>
> -Kurt

Kurt

Thankyou again for taking the time and making an such an inordinate
effort to mediate. You are of course quite right and it is true that
my emotions sometimes gain the upper hand, especially in matters
which are dear to me. I will try to do as you suggest and in future,
whenever I encounter snide remarks, ad hominems and so forth
replacing reasoned argument, I will simply identify the fallacy.
Please don't hesitate to haul me up if you think it appropriate.
Insofar as you have shown yourself to be balanced and fair (and no
sophist) I will submit to your judgment. Will that do?

Peter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >> But perception of key affect doesn't disappear when equal
temperament
> >> is used.
> >
> >Please clarify this. It appears to me you are then talking about
> >absolute pitch sensibilities. If there were a useful supportive
> >relationship between absolute pitch and key center, this would be
an
> >important thing to know about.
>
> Great strides have recently been made in the neurophysical origin of
> absolute pitch. While only a few learn to refine this sensation
into
> what is known as "perfect pitch", there's very strong evidence that
> everyone has this perception. One experiment involved asking
novices
> to hum popular tunes, which they did in the correct key far more
often
> than chance would allow. Visit Martin Braun's site for more info.
>
> -Carl

I think it's generally agreed nowadays that such terms as 'absolute
pitch' or 'perfect pitch' are misnomers. There is no division of the
ten-octave range of audible sound comparable to the colours that we
see in the single octave of visible light. Moreover, it is not a case
of black and white as those faulty terms imply but more a matter of
*degree of pitch memory*, varying from abysmal to excellent. Pitch
memory is a matter only of training and practice and like everything
else to do with music, best acquired at an early age - the earlier
the better. There is no genetic basis to pitch memory. Some people do
have defective hearing, much as others are colour-blind, but these
are exceptions and in a very small minority. The tone-deaf, however,
do not usually seek careers in music (vocoded pop biz muzak freaks
excepted). Concert pitch is an entirely arbitrary specification.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
<manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:
>
> Peter wrote:
> >I provided a reputable scholarly reference to indicate that "well-
> >tempered" is synonymous with "equally-tempered". Where is yours to
> >the contrary?
>
> Werckmeister for example, a contemporary of Bach.
>
> Manuel

Thankyou Manuel.

Jorgensen has identified the source of the confusion for me. Until
the 20th century the term 'equal temperament' meant something other
than what we now understand by it.

Jorgensen: "Therefore the Schreiber Pythagorean Temperament has been
called meantone temperament and also equal temperament. It is an
example of the equal type of temperaments that were used on lutes and
viols in the sixteenth century."

So the Oxford Companion is not 'wrong' but is nowadays
terminologically outmoded and therefore misleading to a contemporary
musician. What were indeed 'equalized' in Bach's particular
wohltemperirt were the beats of the tonic, major 3rd and 5th and that
is why it has been called 'equal tempered'.

Now why couldn't someone have just told me that?

on 12/11/03 4:51 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

>> However, I think this is a situation in which agreeing on some
>> possible "forms" for communication might help things to ease up quite a bit.
>>
>> Thanks for your consideration.
>>
>> -Kurt
>
> Kurt
>
> Thank you again for taking the time and making an such an inordinate
> effort to mediate. You are of course quite right and it is true that
> my emotions sometimes gain the upper hand, especially in matters
> which are dear to me. I will try to do as you suggest and in future,
> whenever I encounter snide remarks, ad hominems and so forth
> replacing reasoned argument, I will simply identify the fallacy.
> Please don't hesitate to haul me up if you think it appropriate.

> Insofar as you have shown yourself to be balanced and fair (and no
> sophist) I will submit to your judgment. Will that do?

If I were to take you up on an offer of absolute power I would undermine a
bit of what I am hoping for, right?

However, I will go ahead and offer feedback as it comes naturally to me.
But I'd rather not even depend on the expectation that you would accept
anything I suggest, because my inclinations would become immediately a
little "corrupt".

We'll see how it goes. It goes without saying that feedback may go in any
direction.

I shortened the subject of the message and added the emphasis to remind
myself of the irony of my having created a little podium for myself.

-Kurt

>
> Peter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
<manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:
>
> Kurt wrote:
> >Please clarify this. It appears to me you are then talking about
absolute
> >pitch sensibilities. If there were a useful supportive
relationship
> between
> >absolute pitch and key center, this would be an important thing to
know
> >about.
>
> Possibly yes, I don't know how it works mentally. Here's a nice
overview
> of the different key characteristics:
> http://www.library.yale.edu/~mkoth/keychar.htm
>
> Manuel

Which makes it very clear that the matter is highly subjective.
Rimsky-Korsakov saw the differences in terms of colours, describing,
for example, F# as "bronzy". It worked for him but anyone else trying
to follow the same highly personal impressions would not get very far.
---------------------------------------------
"Know thyself and to thine own self be true."

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Carl Lumma [mailto:ekin@lumma.org]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2003 18:39
An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [tuning] Re: Sault Dodekaphonic - Aaron

>A Berkeley organist, David R. Hunsberger, recently did a recital in
>which he espoused the view that there was a loss of interest in
>chromatic compositions (with consequent decline in their frequency)
>with the decline of unequal temperaments.

For those of you listening, I was at that concert, though I missed
this remark (I came in late). As it is given here, I do not think
it is a correct remark. What was happening around the time of
Bach was that modal music was giving way to tonal music. In modal
music there was a long tradition of *highly* chromatic works, esp.
in the North German toccata style from which Bach descends, and also
notably in France and Italy. The early tonal music was very much
less chromatic, and it took until Chopin until the new style evolved
its own chromaticism (though check out Mozart's Minuet No. 6 in D,
K355 sometime!). I don't really think this has much to do with
tuning.

-Carl

Indeed, and this discussion seems to me too much fixed on "keyboard
philosophy". String and wind
instrument players are not fixed to MT or WT or ET, nevertheless they are
almost better
"in tune" than all traditional keyboards. Can anyone imagine that all
these composers didn't write music "for a tuning model"? Tuning and
temnperament was and is only a "tool".
- Werner

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Afmmjr@aol.com [mailto:Afmmjr@aol.com]
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 11. Dezember 2003 21:20
An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [tuning] Re: Well/Equal Temper - Kurt

In a message dated 12/11/2003 1:56:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
ekin@lumma.org writes:

Indeed. According to Bosanquet, Bach put not a single organ work
in Ab (where the wolf is usually placed in meantone).

-Carl

But his uncle/father-in-law did. J

May I add that well educated harpsichord players at that time (and still
today) are not fixed on a
meantone tuning model beginning with Eb and ending with G#. When
performing music written in Ab-major they tune upwards the G# to an Ab and
the C# to a Db.
And we don't know whether all organs have been tuned to the "standard
model" Eb to G#.

-Werner

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT

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 the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

You seem to have several misconceptions. You would do well to read
Martin Braun's site and follow his links on absolute pitch:

http://w1.590.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Wakefield Sault" <sault@c...> >
I think it's generally agreed nowadays that such terms as 'absolute
> pitch' or 'perfect pitch' are misnomers. There is no division of
the
> ten-octave range of audible sound comparable to the colours that we
> see in the single octave of visible light. Moreover, it is not a
case
> of black and white as those faulty terms imply but more a matter of
> *degree of pitch memory*, varying from abysmal to excellent. Pitch
> memory is a matter only of training and practice and like
everything
> else to do with music, best acquired at an early age - the earlier
> the better. There is no genetic basis to pitch memory.

on 12/11/03 5:44 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
> <manuel.op.de.coul@e...> wrote:
>>
>> Peter wrote:
>>> I provided a reputable scholarly reference to indicate that "well-
>>> tempered" is synonymous with "equally-tempered". Where is yours to
>>> the contrary?
>>
>> Werckmeister for example, a contemporary of Bach.
>>
>> Manuel
>
> Thankyou Manuel.
>
> Jorgensen has identified the source of the confusion for me. Until
> the 20th century the term 'equal temperament' meant something other
> than what we now understand by it.
>
> Jorgensen: "Therefore the Schreiber Pythagorean Temperament has been
> called meantone temperament and also equal temperament. It is an
> example of the equal type of temperaments that were used on lutes and
> viols in the sixteenth century."
>
> So the Oxford Companion is not 'wrong' but is nowadays
> terminologically outmoded and therefore misleading to a contemporary
> musician. What were indeed 'equalized' in Bach's particular
> wohltemperirt were the beats of the tonic, major 3rd and 5th and that
> is why it has been called 'equal tempered'.
>
> Now why couldn't someone have just told me that?

Well I don't think anyone realized that was the source of the confusion.
And it's still not clear to me that that was exactly it. Mind you some
faults have also been found with Jorgensen by others on this list, although
it is an incredibly important work. But I don't know enough to say more on
this myself.

However, some months back there were discussions of "gleichschwebenden
temperatur" in which it came out that this German phase may mean either
"equal temperament" or "equal beating temperament". However, I was not ever
aware of the english phrase "equal temperament" ever having but one meaning.

-Kurt

hi Kurt and Peter,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 12/11/03 5:44 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@c...> wrote:
>
> > Jorgensen has identified the source of the confusion for
> > me. Until the 20th century the term 'equal temperament'
> > meant something other than what we now understand by it.
> >
> > Jorgensen: "Therefore the Schreiber Pythagorean Temperament
> > has been called meantone temperament and also equal
> > temperament. It is an example of the equal type of
> > temperaments that were used on lutes and viols in the
> > sixteenth century."
> >
> > So the Oxford Companion is not 'wrong' but is nowadays
> > terminologically outmoded and therefore misleading to
> > a contemporary musician. What were indeed 'equalized'
> > in Bach's particular wohltemperirt were the beats of
> > the tonic, major 3rd and 5th and that is why it has been
> > called 'equal tempered'.
> >
> > Now why couldn't someone have just told me that?
>
>
> Well I don't think anyone realized that was the source
> of the confusion. And it's still not clear to me that
> that was exactly it. Mind you some faults have also been
> found with Jorgensen by others on this list, although
> it is an incredibly important work. But I don't know
> enough to say more on this myself.
>
> However, some months back there were discussions of
> "gleichschwebenden temperatur" in which it came out that
> this German phase may mean either "equal temperament" or
> "equal beating temperament". However, I was not ever
> aware of the english phrase "equal temperament" ever
> having but one meaning.
>
> -Kurt

i suggest consulting these just a little bit more info:

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/gleichschwebende.htm

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/eqtemp.htm

(the "gleichscwebende" entry was simply excerpted from
the much longer "eqtemp" entry, where it appears in context.)

-monz

>> Great strides have recently been made in the neurophysical origin of
>> absolute pitch. While only a few learn to refine this sensation
>> into what is known as "perfect pitch", there's very strong evidence
>> that everyone has this perception. One experiment involved asking
>> novices to hum popular tunes, which they did in the correct key far
>> more often than chance would allow. Visit Martin Braun's site for
>> more info.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>I think it's generally agreed nowadays that such terms as 'absolute
>pitch' or 'perfect pitch' are misnomers. There is no division of the
>ten-octave range of audible sound comparable to the colours that we
>see in the single octave of visible light. Moreover, it is not a case
>of black and white as those faulty terms imply but more a matter of
>*degree of pitch memory*, varying from abysmal to excellent. Pitch
>memory is a matter only of training and practice and like everything
>else to do with music, best acquired at an early age - the earlier
>the better. There is no genetic basis to pitch memory. Some people do
>have defective hearing, much as others are colour-blind, but these
>are exceptions and in a very small minority. The tone-deaf, however,
>do not usually seek careers in music (vocoded pop biz muzak freaks
>excepted). Concert pitch is an entirely arbitrary specification.

I agree with all of this, and didn't mean to imply otherwise.

-Carl

>Now why couldn't someone have just told me that?

Sometimes it's hard to figure out just what's missing
that needs explaining. Also, we're maybe experiencing
newbie burnout. This sort of thing would be in our FAQ,
which we never quite got around to writing. Joe Monzo
put together the tuning dictionary, which usually helps.
But if it doesn't help we've got no backup. Other than
of course, somebody chimed in Jorgenson.

-Carl

Hi Carl,

> Well perhaps, but tuning a keyboard instrument to a lute
> or guitar will never produce good results no matter what
> the tuning. For one thing the level of accuracy expected
> of keyboard instruments (clavichord excepted) is far greater
> than that of fretted strings (which to some extent have
> variable intonation depending on how notes are executed).

Rightio I see. Though as far as tuning of strings with
each other I wonder if guitarists ever try using fine tune
adjustments at the bridge end. Lets you tune far more
finely at least on 'cello. I remember when I once went
to a concert of Bach 'cello suites played by Rostropovitch, he had
fine tuning adjustments on every string of his 'cello,
not just the A string where it is normal to have them.

Though - the way the strings are tuned with each other
wouldn't matter, as one can tune from just a single
string. Indeed use a monochord as Manuel suggested,
one which you make especially for the purpose, maybe
a large one with carefully positioned frets.
You only need twelve of them to map out a single
octave.

And in those days they didn't need to be concerned about
the high tensions of the strings so I suppose octave
stretching is less of a problem.

> For another the decay of a lute is quite fast compared
even to a harpsichord. And with pianos other differences
> of timbre will come into play.

Well there I wonder, you wouldn't need to use beats to tune to it
perhaps.

I'm just talking in theory as I haven't had
to tune a stringed instrument for ages, then
only the A of my 'cello to a tuning fork.

But I have tried this kind of thing tuning a
note in software to a recording of an audio file
as a way to transcribe its pitch.

Just play a comparison note on the monochord, remember it,
and then adjust the tuning to the note heard.

That may only get it to within maybe 4 or 5 cents +-
if one has good (but not extraordinary) pitch acuity
but you can do a bit better than that. Tune up as far as you can
go before you hear a difference of pitch between
the note on the monochord and the one on your instrument.
Then tune down, in the same fashion, then find
the mid-point of those two positions to your
best approximation. Best if the tuning
key turns quite a way between the two positions
I suppose, fine tuning adjustment.

I haven't measured to see how accurately I can
tune that way but it probably can be done
fairly accurately. Maybe I'll experiment and
see.

Someone like Johnny Newton perhaps could
use such a method to get within
a tiny fraction of a cent that way I wonder...

BTW another thought about ET - to modern ears
then the tunings aren't so very easily
distinguishable from 12-eq for a newbie.

But in those days they wouldn't be used to hearing
12-eq all the time as we are. Only on lutes and
guitars. Who can know what effect there is of
ones entire culture using well tempered keyboards.
Perhaps musiians develop greater sensitivity
to pitch insuch a situation, to the qualities
of instruments in various temperaments.

Perhaps if they then heard a keybord in 12-eq then it might
be quite noticeable after an entire lifetime of
never ever hearing a keyboard played in that
tuning.

Robert

> If I were to take you up on an offer of absolute power I would
undermine a
> bit of what I am hoping for, right?
>
> However, I will go ahead and offer feedback as it comes naturally
to me.
> But I'd rather not even depend on the expectation that you would
accept
> anything I suggest, because my inclinations would become
immediately a
> little "corrupt".
>
> We'll see how it goes. It goes without saying that feedback may go
in any
> direction.
>
> I shortened the subject of the message and added the emphasis to
remind
> myself of the irony of my having created a little podium for myself.
>
> -Kurt

Are you a student of Chuang Tzu, by any chance?
P.

>However, some months back there were discussions of "gleichschwebenden
>temperatur" in which it came out that this German phase may mean either
>"equal temperament" or "equal beating temperament". However, I was not
>ever aware of the english phrase "equal temperament" ever having but
>one meaning.

In the 19th century it was apparently all the same term in English.
Bosanquet speaks of either meantone or equal temperament. He's aware
of the circulating temperaments but sticks them with equal temperament
in the terminology (and doesn't have the therm well temperament).

-Carl

Actually Peter's right on the money here -- he's apparently agreeing
with Braun and his colleagues in musician's terms.

Of course Martin's site is a good one, and even better is this one:

http://ww2.mcgill.ca/psychology/levitin/

-Carl

>You seem to have several misconceptions. You would do well to read
>Martin Braun's site and follow his links on absolute pitch:
>
>http://w1.590.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm
>
>Gabor
>
>> I think it's generally agreed nowadays that such terms as 'absolute
>> pitch' or 'perfect pitch' are misnomers. There is no division of
>> the ten-octave range of audible sound comparable to the colours that
>> we see in the single octave of visible light. Moreover, it is not a
>> case of black and white as those faulty terms imply but more a matter
>> of *degree of pitch memory*, varying from abysmal to excellent.
>> Pitch memory is a matter only of training and practice and like
>> everything else to do with music, best acquired at an early age - the
>> earlier the better. There is no genetic basis to pitch memory.

>Indeed, and this discussion seems to me too much fixed on "keyboard
>philosophy". String and wind instrument players are not fixed to MT
>or WT or ET, nevertheless they are almost better "in tune" than all
>traditional keyboards. Can anyone imagine that all these composers
>didn't write music "for a tuning model"? Tuning and temnperament was
>and is only a "tool".

True enough. Interestingly, many of the orchestral instruments of
the baroque period (esp. brass) were not scored outside of a
particular key! Chromaticism was therefore very limited. Also
because of its abstract/esoteric nature the keyboard tends to invite
more chromaticism. Even into the romantic period this persisted,
though brass players were expected to have more than one horn
available, and of course valved instruments were coming about. Even
today many brass instruments come in "double" versions, with a special
"key" that switches them to another key -- it was originally like
carrying two horns in one. Even today, valveless trombones, for
example, play much better than valved ones, and some performers do go
to the trouble of carrying horns in different keys. A gigging trumpet
player must have C, Eb/Db, Piccolo, and Flugelhorn trempets in his
keep. And he almost certainly has a Bb horn for wind band gigs.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
<alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> You seem to have several misconceptions. You would do well to read
> Martin Braun's site and follow his links on absolute pitch:
>
> http://w1.590.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm
>
> Gabor
>

Thankyou for identifying the precise nature of what you percieve as
my "misconceptions".

I followed your link to find an inscrutable diagram on a dead-end
webpage. Please do let me know when your reference can get his
website working.

Peter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >Now why couldn't someone have just told me that?
>
> Sometimes it's hard to figure out just what's missing
> that needs explaining. Also, we're maybe experiencing
> newbie burnout.

Nothing to do with me, I hope...

Peter

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Walker" <robertwalker@n...>
wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> > Well perhaps, but tuning a keyboard instrument to a lute
> > or guitar will never produce good results no matter what
> > the tuning. For one thing the level of accuracy expected
> > of keyboard instruments (clavichord excepted) is far greater
> > than that of fretted strings (which to some extent have
> > variable intonation depending on how notes are executed).
>
> Rightio I see. Though as far as tuning of strings with
> each other I wonder if guitarists ever try using fine tune
> adjustments at the bridge end. Lets you tune far more
> finely at least on 'cello. I remember when I once went
> to a concert of Bach 'cello suites played by Rostropovitch, he had
> fine tuning adjustments on every string of his 'cello,
> not just the A string where it is normal to have them.
>
> Though - the way the strings are tuned with each other
> wouldn't matter, as one can tune from just a single
> string. Indeed use a monochord as Manuel suggested,
> one which you make especially for the purpose, maybe
> a large one with carefully positioned frets.
> You only need twelve of them to map out a single
> octave.
>
> And in those days they didn't need to be concerned about
> the high tensions of the strings so I suppose octave
> stretching is less of a problem.
>

I am acutely aware of the difficulties of tuning older instruments.
Rigid steel-framed harps in claviers are a modern development. I once
owned an antique timber-framed Broadwood piano and had to retune it
every day. Such fine tunings as the modern musician expects as a
matter of course are simply not possible on a timber-framed
instrument since the slightest change to the tension of one string
affects every other string on the harp. One must be satisfied with
simply minimizing out-of-tuneness - or risk driving oneself mad.

However, the sound was beautiful.

on 12/12/03 5:43 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
> <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
>> You seem to have several misconceptions. You would do well to read
>> Martin Braun's site and follow his links on absolute pitch:
>>
>> http://w1.590.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm
>>
>> Gabor
>>
>
> Thankyou for identifying the precise nature of what you percieve as
> my "misconceptions".
>
> I followed your link to find an inscrutable diagram on a dead-end
> webpage. Please do let me know when your reference can get his
> website working.
>
> Peter

I used the "when in doubt, click" rule and it served me well here.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 12/12/03 5:43 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@c...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
> > <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> >> You seem to have several misconceptions. You would do well to
read
> >> Martin Braun's site and follow his links on absolute pitch:
> >>
> >> http://w1.590.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm
> >>
> >> Gabor
> >>
> >
> > Thankyou for identifying the precise nature of what you percieve
as
> > my "misconceptions".
> >
> > I followed your link to find an inscrutable diagram on a dead-end
> > webpage. Please do let me know when your reference can get his
> > website working.
> >
> > Peter
>
> I used the "when in doubt, click" rule and it served me well here.
>
> -Kurt

You must have a magic mouse, Kurt. I click. And I click. And I click
again. I double-click. I right-click. I throw the mouse in the air.
No way do I get anything but the same inscrutable diagram. I guess I
just don't have your touch.

on 12/13/03 12:19 AM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
>> on 12/12/03 5:43 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@c...> wrote:
>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
>>> <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
>>>> You seem to have several misconceptions. You would do well to
> read
>>>> Martin Braun's site and follow his links on absolute pitch:
>>>>
>>>> http://w1.590.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm
>>>>
>>>> Gabor
>>>>
>>>
>>> Thankyou for identifying the precise nature of what you percieve
> as
>>> my "misconceptions".
>>>
>>> I followed your link to find an inscrutable diagram on a dead-end
>>> webpage. Please do let me know when your reference can get his
>>> website working.
>>>
>>> Peter
>>
>> I used the "when in doubt, click" rule and it served me well here.
>>
>> -Kurt
>
> You must have a magic mouse, Kurt. I click. And I click. And I click
> again. I double-click. I right-click. I throw the mouse in the air.
> No way do I get anything but the same inscrutable diagram. I guess I
> just don't have your touch.

Yes, I'm quite a clicker.

Ah, ok. I forgot where I clicked. I clicked on the little flag below that
represented my language choice. Try that.

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> on 12/13/03 12:19 AM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@c...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@b...> wrote:
> >> on 12/12/03 5:43 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@c...> wrote:
> >>
> >>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
> >>> <alternativetuning@y...> wrote:
> >>>> You seem to have several misconceptions. You would do well to
> > read
> >>>> Martin Braun's site and follow his links on absolute pitch:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://w1.590.telia.com/~u57011259/index.htm
> >>>>
> >>>> Gabor
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thankyou for identifying the precise nature of what you percieve
> > as
> >>> my "misconceptions".
> >>>
> >>> I followed your link to find an inscrutable diagram on a dead-
end
> >>> webpage. Please do let me know when your reference can get his
> >>> website working.
> >>>
> >>> Peter
> >>
> >> I used the "when in doubt, click" rule and it served me well
here.
> >>
> >> -Kurt
> >
> > You must have a magic mouse, Kurt. I click. And I click. And I
click
> > again. I double-click. I right-click. I throw the mouse in the
air.
> > No way do I get anything but the same inscrutable diagram. I
guess I
> > just don't have your touch.
>
> Yes, I'm quite a clicker.
>
> Ah, ok. I forgot where I clicked. I clicked on the little flag
below that
> represented my language choice. Try that.
>
> -Kurt

Hey! Whaddya know? He's even got an explanation for my chronic
tinnitus (continuous 12KHz @ 40db, brought on by influenza 10 years
ago - and incurable, so get your flu shots, everybody). Fascinating.
However, I do not think it has anything to do with pitch memory
because cerebral/auditory resonances have nothing to do with concert
pitch.

Peter

on 12/11/03 11:10 PM, Peter Wakefield Sault <sault@cyberware.co.uk> wrote:

>> If I were to take you up on an offer of absolute power I would
> undermine a
>> bit of what I am hoping for, right?
>>
>> However, I will go ahead and offer feedback as it comes naturally
> to me.
>> But I'd rather not even depend on the expectation that you would
> accept
>> anything I suggest, because my inclinations would become
> immediately a
>> little "corrupt".
>>
>> We'll see how it goes. It goes without saying that feedback may go
> in any
>> direction.
>>
>> I shortened the subject of the message and added the emphasis to
> remind
>> myself of the irony of my having created a little podium for myself.
>>
>> -Kurt
>
> Are you a student of Chuang Tzu, by any chance?
> P.

Haven't heard of the person. Still living, as "student" perhaps (but not
necessarily) implies?

Life teaches these things (whatever "things" these are) ultimately, although
having strong input from particular individuals at various times has been
helpful to me. That "help" at the time may have seemed like something I
needed like a hole in the head, but I appreciate it in retrospect. It would
be hard to enumerate the teachers, most of whom were not "teachers" at all,
but regular people with fortunate doses of wisdom and with real things to
say. And often I did appreciate the help immediately, even once when it
came in the form of mildly-contained rage which I inspired.

I think we are being granted special permission to be a little off-topic,
but we should keep the bandwidth within reasonable limits.

-Kurt

>
> I think we are being granted special permission to be a little off-
topic,
> but we should keep the bandwidth within reasonable limits.
>
> -Kurt

Even moderators have to sleep. And it is arguable that we are talking
about being in tune...

...with something

Peter

Aaron K. Johnson wrote . .

<< . . . There is a(n excellent) **tuning bibliography** on the net
somewhere...anyone have the link?>>

Most of you have this link already, but for those who do not:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.html .

Cheers,

Mark Johnson