Inventions and Sinfonias

Greetings,

Somewhere Owen Jorgensen suggests the Inventions Sinfonias
of J.S.Bach are playable in meantone tuning.

They are in the following keys:

C Major
c minor
D major
d minor
E Flat Major
E Major
e minor
F Major
f minor
G Major
g minor
A Major
a minor
B Flat Major
b minor

Thus, 15 tonalities.

If I am recalling Jorgensen correctly, and I might NOT be, then
what mean tone would work for these tonalities?

Does anyone know of a performance of the Inventions in
Meantone?

Many thanks in advance,

Gordon Rumson

Greetings,

Somewhere Owen Jorgensen suggests the Inventions Sinfonias
of J.S.Bach are playable in meantone tuning.

They are in the following keys:

C Major
c minor
D major
d minor
E Flat Major
E Major
e minor
F Major
f minor
G Major
g minor
A Major
a minor
B Flat Major
b minor

Thus, 15 tonalities.

If I am recalling Jorgensen correctly, and I might NOT be, then
what mean tone would work for these tonalities?

Does anyone know of a performance of the Inventions in
Meantone?

Many thanks in advance,

Gordon Rumson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "rumsong" <rumsong@t...> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Somewhere Owen Jorgensen suggests the Inventions Sinfonias
> of J.S.Bach are playable in meantone tuning.
>
> They are in the following keys:
>
> C Major
> c minor
> D major
> d minor
> E Flat Major
> E Major
> e minor
> F Major
> f minor
> G Major
> g minor
> A Major
> a minor
> B Flat Major
> b minor
>
> Thus, 15 tonalities.
>
> If I am recalling Jorgensen correctly, and I might NOT be, then
> what mean tone would work for these tonalities?

Any meantone should do.

> Does anyone know of a performance of the Inventions in
> Meantone?

No, but I might take a look at putting it in meantone.

With 12 tones of meantone, a usual tuning is from Eb to G#. That
gives good major triads on Eb, Bb, F, C, G, D, A, E and minor triads
on c, g, d, a, e, b, f#, c#. If you look only at I, IV, V harmonies,
the Bach pieces in Eb and E and c each have one "bad" triad, f has
two. But may be this was actually popular. All of Purcell is
meantone and he liked the key f. (My teacher has his piano in meantone
now, only for playing Purcell).

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "rumsong" <rumsong@t...> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> >
> > Somewhere Owen Jorgensen suggests the Inventions Sinfonias
> > of J.S.Bach are playable in meantone tuning.
> >
> > They are in the following keys:
> >
> > C Major
> > c minor
> > D major
> > d minor
> > E Flat Major
> > E Major
> > e minor
> > F Major
> > f minor
> > G Major
> > g minor
> > A Major
> > a minor
> > B Flat Major
> > b minor
> >
> > Thus, 15 tonalities.
> >
> > If I am recalling Jorgensen correctly, and I might NOT be, then
> > what mean tone would work for these tonalities?
>
> Any meantone should do.
>
> > Does anyone know of a performance of the Inventions in
> > Meantone?
>
> No, but I might take a look at putting it in meantone.

In a message dated 4/16/04 6:50:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:

> With 12 tones of meantone, a usual tuning is from Eb to G#. That
> gives good major triads on Eb, Bb, F, C, G, D, A, E and minor triads
> on c, g, d, a, e, b, f#, c#. If you look only at I, IV, V harmonies,
> the Bach pieces in Eb and E and c each have one "bad" triad, f has
> two. But may be this was actually popular.

I hope you are not implying meantone for Bach. There are loads of examples
that Bach's works are well-tempered and not meantone. Finding an exception in
simple pieces because "it could work in meantone" is to hear Bach out of tune.

Johnny

Johnny,

If you will please follow the thread you will find that I have not
expressed any opinion or implied anything. Mr Rumson asked about
meantone and its applicability to certain pieces. I indicated some
possible problems, nothing more.

I do have a question, though. Is there any evidence that Bach ever
refused to play on an organ because it was tuned in meantone?

Gabor

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 4/16/04 6:50:08 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> alternativetuning@y... writes:
>
>
> > With 12 tones of meantone, a usual tuning is from Eb to G#. That
> > gives good major triads on Eb, Bb, F, C, G, D, A, E and minor triads
> > on c, g, d, a, e, b, f#, c#. If you look only at I, IV, V harmonies,
> > the Bach pieces in Eb and E and c each have one "bad" triad, f has
> > two. But may be this was actually popular.
>
> I hope you are not implying meantone for Bach. There are loads of
examples
> that Bach's works are well-tempered and not meantone. Finding an
exception in
> simple pieces because "it could work in meantone" is to hear Bach
out of tune.
>
> Johnny

> > I hope you are not implying meantone for Bach. There are
loads of
> examples
> > that Bach's works are well-tempered and not meantone.
Finding an
> exception in
> > simple pieces because "it could work in meantone" is to
hear Bach
> out of tune.
> >
> > Johnny

Greetings,
I certainly do not wish to earn your ire. I am a longtime
proponent of Well Tempered tunings for J.S. Bach and have
given lectures and demonstations on the subject numerous
times.

I was following up a suggestion of the researcher Owen
Jorgensen (eminently qualified to make a suggestion of this
sort) that Bach _may_ have intended the Sinfonias for a mean
tone tuning as not all tonalities are used, as in the Well
Tempered Clavier.

I simply do not know as much about Mean tone as I do about
well temperament. So I asked...

I do agree with another post concerning Bach and organs. I was
under the impression that meantone was quite usual in organ
tuning at the time. I would be happy to know of well tempered
applications.

I applaud and support all efforts to have Bach played in tune,
though I must admit what exactly that might be may still be open
to some discussion. I happen to prefer Kirnberger (YIKES!!) as it
has maximal difference in the character of the keys. (Cf. Owen
Jorgensen, Tuning). It is a preference. Nothing more, and yes, I
do know the d-a is harsh!

All BEST wishes,

Gordon Rumson

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "alternativetuning"
<alternativetuning@y...> wrote:

> With 12 tones of meantone, a usual tuning is from Eb to G#. That
> gives good major triads on Eb, Bb, F, C, G, D, A, E and minor triads
> on c, g, d, a, e, b, f#, c#. If you look only at I, IV, V harmonies,
> the Bach pieces in Eb and E and c each have one "bad" triad, f has
> two. But may be this was actually popular.

If you take a meantone in the vicinity of 2/7-comma or 50-equal, you
get "bad" triads which are actually supermajors and subminors. I
would be fascinated to know if anyone in the meantone era made use of
that, but it certainly *can* be made use of.

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

> I hope you are not implying meantone for Bach. There are loads of
examples
> that Bach's works are well-tempered and not meantone. Finding an
exception in
> simple pieces because "it could work in meantone" is to hear Bach
out of tune.

Maybe, but why does Bach stick to a range which works well with a
suitably tuned meantone in WTC I? I've not heard an explanation for
that, but it *is* true, and a curious fact.

Hey,

I think it's fair to say that 'any' well-temperament will work for Bach, more
or less, as we have no documentation, to my knowledge, of Bach preferring a
particular well-temperament above any other.

Kirnberger was criticized, according to Paul Poletti, during Bach's time, as
having a very unsophisticated tuning, considered quite amateurish. Johnny
Reinhard would make the argument for Werkmeister, which is certainly doable,
but I remain more convinced by Poletti's arguments that a Sorge or Neidhardt
temperament would be the more sophisticated choice. Werckmeister seems to
have been primarily an organ temperament, because it is easily tuned from
meantone and vice-versa, saving $$ when an organ was tuned, esp. one with
many ranks. Our early-music culture suffers a myopia: there are only 3
tunings, historically for most so-called 'authentic performances: Kirnberger,
Werckmeister, and Valotti-Young. Yes 1/4 comma meantone is used in
Renaissance music, too.

But like I said, most well-temperaments will work anyway, and capture most of
the spirit of a Baroque work.

As for meantone, it is intriguing that the inventions are in meantone keys.
Apart from the particular sonorities that are harsh sounding, it would seem
workable, and I think the organ tuning argument is a sound one.

Perhaps the ears of the people of the time were well used to f-minor mean tone
triads, for instance. Acculturation certainly plays a role---we are, after
all, used to major thirds which are 14 cents sharp.

Best,
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

>Maybe, but why does Bach stick to a range which works well with a
>suitably tuned meantone in WTC I? I've not heard an explanation for
>that, but it *is* true, and a curious fact.

One explanation, which I offered the last time this came up, is
that it was the style of the time. Why do pop songs stay within
the range from -1 to +1?

-Carl

In a message dated 4/16/04 11:47:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:

> If you will please follow the thread you will find that I have not
> expressed any opinion or implied anything. Mr Rumson asked about
> meantone and its applicability to certain pieces. I indicated some
> possible problems, nothing more.
>

Thank you for pointing this out. I understand this now.

> I do have a question, though. Is there any evidence that Bach ever
> refused to play on an organ because it was tuned in meantone?
>
>

It may well be that the jobs Bach was offered for which he then refused would
fit in this category. I think certainly of Halle, which had a reputation for
its meantone composers.

There is also a famous story of how Bach surprised his friend the organ
builder Silbermann, only to improvise on the instrument within earshot of a
multitude of potential instrument buyers. Once everyone was entranced by the
virtuosity, Bach would lay in on the wolf fifths and make terrible faces to the
listeners.

It was back with J. Murray Barbour that Bach's organ music was analyzed for
its chromatic content, only to conclude Bach required a well temperament for
the majority of his keyboard music. This is information from within the music
itself.

best, Johnny

Hello Gordon, a pleasure to communicate with you. Have no fear.

> Greetings,
> I certainly do not wish to earn your ire. I am a longtime
> proponent of Well Tempered tunings for J.S. Bach and have
> given lectures and demonstrations on the subject numerous
> times.
>
> I was following up a suggestion of the researcher Owen
> Jorgensen (eminently qualified to make a suggestion of this
> sort) that Bach _may_ have intended the Sinfonias for a mean
> tone tuning as not all tonalities are used, as in the Well
> Tempered Clavier.

I understand. I believe it is possible that Bach was sensitive to the
possibility of having a work do double duty in the sense that a piece conceived in
well temperament may also work in sixth comma meantone. Werckmeister III does
help in this regard, mirroring diatonic keys best.

>
> I simply do not know as much about Mean tone as I do about
> well temperament. So I asked... I do agree with another post concerning
> Bach and organs. I was
> under the impression that meantone was quite usual in organ
> tuning at the time. I would be happy to know of well tempered
> applications.
>

The organ used by Bach in Arnstadt and Muhlhausen were built by a certain
Wender, who insisted on using Werckmeister III tuning, according to Kuhnau, based
on a rather recent Bach Archiv article. Kuhnau likely used well temperament
as well. Organist Johann Walther of Weimar, Bach's great friend and cousin,
actually studied with Werckmeister.

> I applaud and support all efforts to have Bach played in tune,
> though I must admit what exactly that might be may still be open
> to some discussion.

Well, not in the sense that whatever the tuning design, one must have
mastered all the nuances within the practice of Werckmeister III. And in that sense,
it is a big deal to get it right.

I happen to prefer Kirnberger (YIKES!!) as it >
> has maximal difference in the character of the keys. (Cf. Owen
> Jorgensen, Tuning). It is a preference. Nothing more, and yes, I
> do know the d-a is harsh!

That's fine. Only from a historical perspective, Bach didn't use
Kirnberger's tuning. I am really trying to be true to Bach's practice. We did use a
metal flute for last month's Brandenburg #5. It was lovely, though some still
scream for wood. I love Kirnberger II for Lou Harrison's Piano Concerto, 2nd
movement. Wow!!

>
> All BEST wishes,
>
> Gordon Rumson

And to you, Gordon.

all best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 4/16/04 1:57:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
akjmicro@comcast.net writes:

> Hey,

Hey-

>
> I think it's fair to say that 'any' well-temperament will work for Bach,
> more
> or less,

as proved well by 12-tET.

as we have no documentation, to my knowledge, of Bach preferring a >
> particular well-temperament above any other.

Ah yes, but I have been collecting documentation for over 20 years. The name
"Well Temperament" or Wohl temperirt is an Andreas Werckmeister coinage.
There were no other published well temperaments for organ when Bach first began
to play or even to compose.

>
> Kirnberger was criticized, according to Paul Poletti, during Bach's time, as
>
> having a very unsophisticated tuning, considered quite amateurish. Johnny
> Reinhard would make the argument for Werkmeister, which is certainly doable,
>
>

Poletti has reached my radar only with you. Aaron, you seem a generalist.
Is this true of Mr. Poletti?
Regardless, Werckmeister tuning is at once amateurish (as it is pioneering)
as it is incredibly brilliant. It was the standard in Thuringia as a result of
Organ tuners, builders, and players. Werckmeister was quite hooked up in his
day, a generation for JS Bach's, judging instruments, writing tutors, writing
the script as he would for being a player, a composer, a devout Christian,
etc.

but I remain more convinced by Poletti's arguments that a Sorge or Neidhardt >
> temperament would be the more sophisticated choice.

But Sorge and Neidhardt came after Bach. He started and continued with
something else. It seems likely that if Bach changed directions in his lifetime,
everyone would hear about it. Rather, he was set within an already existing
tradition, only to master it for the gratification of generations to come.

Werckmeister seems to > have been primarily an organ temperament, because
> it is easily tuned from
> meantone and vice-versa, saving $$ when an organ was tuned, esp. one with
> many ranks.

I have questioned this in the past. BTW, if it is "easily tuned" on the
organ, imagine how easy it is on the harpsichord! Both Bach and Werckmeister are
described as being able to tune a clavier in 15 minutes flat. And yes, a
modern can do this as well (citing harpsichordist Rebecca Pechefsky, before an
audience)

Our early music culture suffers a myopia: there are only 3 > tunings,
> historically for most so-called 'authentic performances: Kirnberger, Werckmeister,
> and Valotti-Young. Yes 1/4 comma meantone is used in
> Renaissance music, too.
>
> But like I said, most well-temperaments will work anyway, and capture most
> of
> the spirit of a Baroque work.

Exactly, except "most of the spirit" is a generalist comment. I aim to
capture the spirit, not most of it. When the exact harmonic language is mastered
over years, the communication of the composition enters a whole new dimension.

> As for meantone, it is intriguing that the inventions are in meantone keys.
>
>
I think this is largely a pedagogic decision. It's easier for beginners to
work within the limited accidentals of the "meantone keys."

best, Johnny

On Friday 16 April 2004 09:43 pm, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 4/16/04 1:57:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
>
> akjmicro@comcast.net writes:
> > Hey,
>
> Hey-
>
> > I think it's fair to say that 'any' well-temperament will work for Bach,
> > more
> > or less,
>
> as proved well by 12-tET.
>
> as we have no documentation, to my knowledge, of Bach preferring a >
>
> > particular well-temperament above any other.
>
> Ah yes, but I have been collecting documentation for over 20 years. The
> name "Well Temperament" or Wohl temperirt is an Andreas Werckmeister
> coinage. There were no other published well temperaments for organ when
> Bach first began to play or even to compose.

In 1706, Neidhardt published his first circulating temperament. Bach would
have been 21, early on in his composing years. In fact, it's an error to say
that Neidhardt was after Bach--they were both born in 1685, and Neidhardt
died in 1736. A pupil of Bach, Lorenz Mizler, is purported to have said that
he considered Neidhardt the greatest master of temperament theory of the
times.

> > Kirnberger was criticized, according to Paul Poletti, during Bach's time,
> > as
> >
> > having a very unsophisticated tuning, considered quite amateurish. Johnny
> > Reinhard would make the argument for Werkmeister, which is certainly
> > doable,
>
> Poletti has reached my radar only with you. Aaron, you seem a generalist.
> Is this true of Mr. Poletti?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'generalist'...besides, if you haven't heard
something, that doesn't make it invalid or low quality. Bach himself wasn't
'on the radar' for most of the listening public 100 years after his death.
There were, however, connisseurs who kept his music alive (Mozart knew of
Bach through such a connisseur, Baron von Swieten...). Conlon Nancarrow
wasn't on the radar, the list goes on......

> Regardless, Werckmeister tuning is at once amateurish (as it is pioneering)
> as it is incredibly brilliant. It was the standard in Thuringia as a
> result of Organ tuners, builders, and players. Werckmeister was quite
> hooked up in his day, a generation for JS Bach's, judging instruments,
> writing tutors, writing the script as he would for being a player, a
> composer, a devout Christian, etc.
>
>
> but I remain more convinced by Poletti's arguments that a Sorge or
> Neidhardt >
>
> > temperament would be the more sophisticated choice.
>
> But Sorge and Neidhardt came after Bach.

I looked again, and I stand corrected-- Sorge does come after Bach, however,
this is NOT true of Neidhardt, as stated above.

>> He started and continued with
> something else. It seems likely that if Bach changed directions in his
> lifetime, everyone would hear about it. Rather, he was set within an
> already existing tradition, only to master it for the gratification of
> generations to come.

This is simply unestablished speculation, and cannot stand the test of truth
anymore than my statements. There are no direct quotes or evidence.

In fact, there is as much, if not more, to suggest that Werckmeister III was
not Bach's standard for harpsichord in particular...even Werckmeister himself
published a separate harpsichord tuning in a thouroughbass manual--the tuning
is not Werck III....so if Bach was part of the Werckmeister tradition in a
strict sense (hardly something that one would expect from a universalist mind
like Bach's, who would have certainly known of other tuning systems besides
Werckmeisters), it wouldn't be Werck III on the harpsichord.

> Werckmeister seems to > have been primarily an organ temperament, because
>
> > it is easily tuned from
> > meantone and vice-versa, saving $$ when an organ was tuned, esp. one with
> > many ranks.
>
> I have questioned this in the past. BTW, if it is "easily tuned" on the
> organ, imagine how easy it is on the harpsichord! Both Bach and
> Werckmeister are described as being able to tune a clavier in 15 minutes
> flat. And yes, a modern can do this as well (citing harpsichordist Rebecca
> Pechefsky, before an audience)

The point of being easily tunable on the organ is that organ tuning is by
nature a lengthlier procedure.

Neidhardt, for instance, is equally fast---it's not any harder to tune, just
more subtle, as there are only 4 pure fifths in the circle.

A master like Bach could have learned both well, and been able to tune either
up in short order. This proves nothing.

> Our early music culture suffers a myopia: there are only 3 > tunings,
>
> > historically for most so-called 'authentic performances: Kirnberger,
> > Werckmeister, and Valotti-Young. Yes 1/4 comma meantone is used in
> > Renaissance music, too.
> >
> > But like I said, most well-temperaments will work anyway, and capture
> > most of
> > the spirit of a Baroque work.
>
> Exactly, except "most of the spirit" is a generalist comment. I aim to
> capture the spirit, not most of it. When the exact harmonic language is
> mastered over years, the communication of the composition enters a whole
> new dimension.

I meant to say 'the spirit', not 'most of the spirit'. i don't know what I put
that clause 'most of' there, but I did ! ;)

But on second thought, maybe I did mean most...can any self-respecting
musician claim he captured 'all' (whatever that means) of what there is to be
captured in interpreting a composition of a master?

It seems awfully misguided to make statements regarding exactitude about
music that is over 250 years old. The landscape of the authenticity movement
itself is an evolving style...what else could it be? Some absolutist dogma
about the absolute truth of this music? Absurd !!!! As if we could freeze its
ever changing image, which itself is a product of what we are today, and how
we see ourselves. Every interpretation is a mirror reflecting the values and
thoughts of the interpreter, and there's more to it that simply being
historically informed, important as that is. If what I'm saying is NOT true,
then all historically informed players have given up playing with any stamp
of personality, and I don't want to hear music played without personality.
Boring !!!!!!

I have faith that we would both be surprised by the way Bach himself actually
played his music. We know much less than we don't know. Admit that you are
guided by faith and your taste, and we agree. But 'exact harmonic language'?
What on earth could you possibly mean by that? There's a generalist
statement, if I'm to understand what you mean by generalist.

This is not to take away your contributions as an artist, Johnny, which are
widely respected, but put them in their proper perspective: the result of
your love for the music, and your dialog with it, and study of it's history.
That's all we've got as interpreters, plus, of course, and most importantly,
flashes of CREATIVE insight. Every interpretation is and should be, a
CREATION, not a re-creation. Boring !!!!

And these 'creations' -- you have them in your way, I have them in my way, and
others in their way. No 'truth', but 'truths'....surely you agree, no? :)

Many times modern composers are excited when interpreters open doors in
performance that even the composer themsleves hadn't opened. This is why I
think the whole authenticity thing is (partially) dead and (partially)
misguided--Bach himself is not the be all and end all interpreter of Bach's
music !!!! The moment we believe that is the moment classical music dies as a
living tradition, and the sorry news is that in many ways, it already has
become like going to the museum. The most brilliant interpreters are not the
scholars, but the people who combine scholarship with the open-ended
non-uptightness of a great jazz players.

> > As for meantone, it is intriguing that the inventions are in meantone
> > keys.
>
> I think this is largely a pedagogic decision. It's easier for beginners to
> work within the limited accidentals of the "meantone keys."

Yes, that makes sense, but surely Bach knew he was writing for the 15 meantone
keys.

Plus, as any good teacher reminds their students, keys with many black notes
are as easy as keys with many white notes--instead of remembering F# and C#
as the only blacks for D major, you remember B and E as the only whites for B
major...

Warmly,
--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

on 4/16/04 10:31 AM, Aaron K. Johnson <akjmicro@comcast.net> wrote:

> Perhaps the ears of the people of the time were well used to f-minor mean tone
> triads, for instance. Acculturation certainly plays a role---we are, after
> all, used to major thirds which are 14 cents sharp.

Yes, indeed. One days "sour" can be the next days "interesting" or
"strong". I didn't like beer until I was almost 30 because it was too
bitter. Drinking chinese herbs regularly for a few months changed that
completely.

And today I'm loving all the "leftover" intervals in a just scale that was
not particularly designed for those intervals. Difference becomes interest
becomes strength, etc.

-Kurt

on 4/16/04 7:06 PM, Afmmjr@aol.com <Afmmjr@aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 4/16/04 11:47:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> alternativetuning@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>> If you will please follow the thread you will find that I have not
>> expressed any opinion or implied anything. Mr Rumson asked about
>> meantone and its applicability to certain pieces. I indicated some
>> possible problems, nothing more.
>>
>
> Thank you for pointing this out. I understand this now.
>
>> I do have a question, though. Is there any evidence that Bach ever
>> refused to play on an organ because it was tuned in meantone?
>>
>>
>
> It may well be that the jobs Bach was offered for which he then refused would
> fit in this category. I think certainly of Halle, which had a reputation for
> its meantone composers.
>
> There is also a famous story of how Bach surprised his friend the organ
> builder Silbermann, only to improvise on the instrument within earshot of a
> multitude of potential instrument buyers. Once everyone was entranced by the
> virtuosity, Bach would lay in on the wolf fifths and make terrible faces to
> the
> listeners.
>
> It was back with J. Murray Barbour that Bach's organ music was analyzed for
> its chromatic content, only to conclude Bach required a well temperament for
> the majority of his keyboard music. This is information from within the music
> itself.

In what sense was it within the music? I have my suspicion (but I'm not
sure) that interpretation was involved in obtaining that information, and
that the interpretation depended on assumptions of some sort. If so it
would be really great to be able to say "if you assume the following then
blah" because then the information would be available to everyone in its
freest context, useful to those who make that assumption and to those who
are not committed to it. I just love freeing information in that way, when
it is possible. And then when people disagree it is clearer specifically
what they disagree about.

-Kurt

>
> best, Johnny
>

on 4/16/04 7:43 PM, Afmmjr@aol.com <Afmmjr@aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 4/16/04 1:57:43 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> akjmicro@comcast.net writes:

>> Werckmeister seems to have been primarily an organ temperament, because
>> it is easily tuned from
>> meantone and vice-versa, saving $$ when an organ was tuned, esp. one with
>> many ranks.
>
> I have questioned this in the past. BTW, if it is "easily tuned" on the
> organ, imagine how easy it is on the harpsichord!

It is also interesting to me that "easy" means something different in these
two contexts. Easy for organ is retuning rarely, only when necessary, and
only what really needs it. Easy for harpsichord has to be something you can
do frequently and quickly because you will be retuning every note all the
time anyway, almost the opposite scenario in a way.

And in spite of that difference, for that harpsichord kind of ease
Werkmeister III certainly wins out over most possibilities (at least for me
as a novice harpsichord tuner) because of all the pure fifths. The only
thing easier (excluding pythagorean) would be if the 4 non-pure fifths were
consecutive. Of course getting to Werkmeister III from the 4-consecutive
scenario only requires retuning 2 fifths pure (A-E and E-B), unless someone
has a way to get there more directly. I haven't read up on it. So far I've
been tuning my harpsichord by intuitive methods, since that's the way I like
to start out.

But this makes me wonder if the 4-consecutive non-pure scale might not have
been Werkmeister I or II since I have no reference for what I and II were.

-Kurt

In a message dated 4/17/04 1:38:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kkb@breathsense.com writes:

> > It was back with J. Murray Barbour that Bach's organ music was analyzed
> for
> > its chromatic content, only to conclude Bach required a well temperament
> for
> > the majority of his keyboard music. This is information from within the
> music
> > itself.
>
> In what sense was it within the music? I have my suspicion (but I'm not
> sure) that interpretation was involved in obtaining that information, and
> that the interpretation depended on assumptions of some sort. If so it
> would be really great to be able to say "if you assume the following then
> blah" because then the information would be available to everyone in its
> freest context, useful to those who make that assumption and to those who
> are not committed to it. I just love freeing information in that way, when
> it is possible. And then when people disagree it is clearer specifically
> what they disagree about.
>
>

Hi Kurt,

Very simple. For example, if an organ score has a D# written, it is well
temperament. Organ tuning would have an Eb and in meantone, a D# would be a
different pitch. Please read Bach and the Art of Temperament by Barbour for all
the detail. The use of accidentals foreign to meantone, a very distinct set of
12 notes, is an example "within the music" of the inappropriateness of
meantone for these works of Bach.

best, Johnny Reinhard

best, Johnny

In a message dated 4/17/04 2:04:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kkb@breathsense.com writes:

> But this makes me wonder if the 4-consecutive non-pure scale might not have
> been Werkmeister I or II since I have no reference for what I and II were.
>
> -Kurt
>
>

Werckmeister I is Just Intonation, or at least a specific gamut chosen to be
represented by Werckmeister. Werckmeister II is quarter comma meantone
(Praetorian tuning), and discussed as "incorrect" (unrichtige) by him. Intuition is
a fine thing, but there is much more material available on this subject than
you have made yourself subject to reviewing.

best, Johnny

Hi to both.

but I know many well educated harpsichord players who like to perform
music - if ever possible - in meantone temperament.
If the music is written in D#, they tune down the Eb to a D#, the
Bb to an A# and the F to an E#.

If it is written in Eb, the tune the G# upwards to an Ab.

This could be done within 5 minutes
and the result is convincing.

Therefore it is only allowed to say "An organ in traditional meantone
temperament (tuned in the line from Eb to G#) cannot perform
music written in this key".

All other statements are basing in speculations.

Best

Werner

-----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
Von: Afmmjr@aol.com [mailto:Afmmjr@aol.com]
Gesendet: Samstag, 17. April 2004 16:46
An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Betreff: Re: [tuning] Re: Inventions and Sinfonias

In a message dated 4/17/04 1:38:11 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
kkb@breathsense.com writes:

> It was back with J. Murray Barbour that Bach's organ music was
analyzed for
> its chromatic content, only to conclude Bach required a well
temperament for
> the majority of his keyboard music. This is information from within
the music
> itself.

In what sense was it within the music? I have my suspicion (but I'm not
sure) that interpretation was involved in obtaining that information,
and
that the interpretation depended on assumptions of some sort. If so it
would be really great to be able to say "if you assume the following
then
blah" because then the information would be available to everyone in its
freest context, useful to those who make that assumption and to those
who
are not committed to it. I just love freeing information in that way,
when
it is possible. And then when people disagree it is clearer
specifically
what they disagree about.

Hi Kurt,

Very simple. For example, if an organ score has a D# written, it is well
temperament. Organ tuning would have an Eb and in meantone, a D# would be a
different pitch. Please read Bach and the Art of Temperament by Barbour for
all the detail. The use of accidentals foreign to meantone, a very distinct
set of 12 notes, is an example "within the music" of the inappropriateness
of meantone for these works of Bach.

best, Johnny Reinhard

best, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
wrote:

> There were, however, connisseurs who kept his music alive (Mozart
knew of
> Bach through such a connisseur, Baron von Swieten...).

Mozart had some knowledge of Bach before that. In fact, both Mozart
and Beethoven were not only admirers of Bach, they were strongly
influenced by him.

Every interpretation is a mirror reflecting the values and
> thoughts of the interpreter, and there's more to it that simply
being
> historically informed, important as that is.

There's more to tuning than being historically informed; there is
also appropriateness to the score. That a piece by Bach would
certainly not have been written with 69-equal in mind does not mean
it could not be performed and sound just fine that way.

On Saturday 17 April 2004 12:58 pm, Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
>
> wrote:
> > There were, however, connisseurs who kept his music alive (Mozart
>
> knew of
>
> > Bach through such a connisseur, Baron von Swieten...).
>
> Mozart had some knowledge of Bach before that. In fact, both Mozart
> and Beethoven were not only admirers of Bach, they were strongly
> influenced by him.

Jeez, every composer worth anything was influenced by Bach !!!

Anyway, Beethoven was legendary for playing the WTC as a young
composer/pianist--in fact that's how he made his reputation in Vienna.
And obviously, in late Beethoven, he's obsessed with neo-Bachian counterpoint.

Mozart didn't have a full knowledge of Bach's works--probably a few keyboard
works only--before Baron von Sweiten introduced him to other things at
soirees. At least that's what the bios of Mozart say.

> Every interpretation is a mirror reflecting the values and
>
> > thoughts of the interpreter, and there's more to it that simply
>
> being
>
> > historically informed, important as that is.
>
> There's more to tuning than being historically informed; there is
> also appropriateness to the score. That a piece by Bach would
> certainly not have been written with 69-equal in mind does not mean
> it could not be performed and sound just fine that way.

I agree; that's why I said that an interpretation is also a *creation*.

Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.dividebypi.com
http://www.akjmusic.com

> -----Urspr�ngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Gene Ward Smith [mailto:gwsmith@svpal.org]
> Gesendet: Samstag, 17. April 2004 19:59
> An: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Betreff: [tuning] Re: Inventions and Sinfonias

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron K. Johnson" <akjmicro@c...>
> wrote:

> > There were, however, connisseurs who kept his music alive (Mozart
knew of
> > Bach through such a connisseur, Baron von Swieten...).

> Mozart had some knowledge of Bach before that. In fact, both Mozart
> and Beethoven were not only admirers of Bach, they were strongly
> influenced by him.

> Every interpretation is a mirror reflecting the values and
> > thoughts of the interpreter, and there's more to it that simply
being
> > historically informed, important as that is.

> There's more to tuning than being historically informed; there is
> also appropriateness to the score. That a piece by Bach would
> certainly not have been written with 69-equal in mind does not mean
> it could not be performed and sound just fine that way.

This is an aesthetic approach to this subject
and this is much more worth than a view reduced
to (only) historical aspects.

Werner

on 4/17/04 7:49 AM, Afmmjr@aol.com <Afmmjr@aol.com> wrote:

> In a message dated 4/17/04 2:04:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
> kkb@breathsense.com writes:
>
>
>> But this makes me wonder if the 4-consecutive non-pure scale might not have
>> been Werkmeister I or II since I have no reference for what I and II were.
>>
>> -Kurt
>>
>>
>
> Werckmeister I is Just Intonation, or at least a specific gamut chosen to be
> represented by Werckmeister. Werckmeister II is quarter comma meantone
> (Praetorian tuning), and discussed as "incorrect" (unrichtige) by him.
> Intuition is
> a fine thing, but there is much more material available on this subject than
> you have made yourself subject to reviewing.

By intuition I was referring to my self-developed methods of tuning (e.g.
1/4-comma fifths) by ear. Not knowing about Werkmeister I and II is mere
ignorance, but I'm glad I asked.

-Kurt

>
> Jeez, every composer worth anything was influenced by Bach
!!!
>

Greetings,

This seems so true and amazing. I suppose there are
exceptions ( Berlioz maybe?) but Bach has meant so much to so
many.

Clementi owned the manuscript of the WTC 2 as I recall and he
wrote some excellent fugues and a 4 voice canon.

Bach has so much which I think that many views are possible.
Various tunings can be tried and I think what will happen is our
understanding will only increase.

All best wishes,

Gordon Rumson