Re: [tuning] Re: Inventions and Sinfonias-Aaron

I> 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.

Hello Aaron,

In all good nature, I must disagree. I've included some material already
written that deals with the above.

From "Bach's Tuning" by Johnny Reinhard, unpublished:

In 1698, as an amendment to Die nothwendigsten Ammerckungen und Regeln,
wie der Bassus continuus oder General-Bass wol könne tractiret werden
(Essential annotations and rules concerning the proper realization of the basso
continuo or thorough-bass), Werckmeister published "Short Lesson and Addition, how
one can tune and temper well a clavier." Directed towards the beginner, and in
tacet recognition that the organ will always be tuned by the professional,
Werckmeister attempts to aid the individual tuning the harpsichord, and
afterwards, the clavichord. These individuals are unlikely to consult the monochord
instructions of his work for professionals, "Musical Temperament," or the clear
and authentic mathematical instruction of how, through the analysis of the
monochord, one can tune a keyboard instrument (especially organs, positives,
regals, spinets, and such) in a well-tempered manner, in order that according to
the practice of today, all modi ficti can be accepted in a pleasing and
tolerable harmony; with a preliminary perfection and lesser perfection of the musical
numbers, proportions, and consonants which in the process of setting up the
temperament, are to be seriously considered. In addition, a monochord is
depicted distinctly and completely in a copperplate (Hehr, p. 1).

However, throughout "Essential Annotations…," Werckmeister invites the reader
to consult his Monochordo contained in "Musical Temperament" in order to
"find more exact information throughout the proportional numbers" (Archambault, p.
225).

>
> 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?

Perhaps the "spirit" is like a concept, it is indivisible. You either have
it or you don't, as opposed to an "idea."

>
> It seems awfully misguided to make statements regarding exactitude about
> music that is over 250 years old.

Maybe it is less misguided after years of performances of Bach in
Werckmeister III? Maybe things are revealed in the music that cannot be cajoled into
e-mail, or even words?

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 !!!!

Aaron, a composer having an exact tuning in mind is not absurd. Musicians
having doubt as to where the intonation lies is even more critical. Losing
vibrato makes these issues all the more vital to the power of the music, as well
as revealing a missing dimension in the music's expression.

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 !!!!!!

It would be silly for you or anyone to judge what I am trying to articulate
as "boring." It would just be ignorant of the actual musical results.

> 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.

Faith? No. The surprise is that European history has muddled, hidden, and
offered misinformation at many turns.

> 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 !!!!

It is indeed interesting to discuss whether a composer performs his or her
own music better than another. I don't think this would apply to a virtuoso
like Bach. It certainly doesn't apply to my 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.

Yes, Bach was an improviser, as I am. And yes, classical music has been
relegated to a museum existence all too often. What I am striving for is a reason
to make new recordings. Hearing composers in their preferred tuning is
inimicable to being in the composer's head.

However, Werckmeister III performance does not allow for the variations of
player interpretation that you in the modern age so cherish. It has its own
rules, and thankfully, produces its own virtues.

>
>
> Warmly,
> --
> Aaron Krister Johnson
>

Aaron, I mean "generalist" in the sense that there is more detail available
than the books and the writers tend to emphasize, usually for individual
agendas. If one believes that any old thing will do, then there really is no need
to search further. For me this trek began as a Masters paper in graduate
studies, 25 years ago. I have since written a book that is going through editing.
As a musician, this takes back seat, still.

Below are some tracts from the book regarding Neidhardt. It probably needs
to be cleaned up. But it will point out some important details, notably that
Neidhardt was in no position to influence Bach. I hope you find it of
interest.

Johnny

From "Bach's Tuning" by Johnny Reinhard, unpublished:

That the clavichord should be associated with Bach as his favorite clavier
bespeaks its tuning sensitivities. This quiet instrument was capable of
Bewebungen, a technique that allows for a sharpening of pitch with added arm
pressure. C.P.E. Bach wrote that the clavichord was indeed his father's favorite
instrument. Spitta added, It was possible to play cantabile on it, and this
cantabile style was regarded by Bach as the foundation of all clavier-playing
(Spitta, II:44). This discussion of cantabile, or singing style, can easily refer
to the competition in Jena of Neidhardt and Johann Nicholas Bach regarding the
singability of their respective tuning preferences. Johann Nicholas Bach
(1669-1753), the oldest son of Johann Sebastian Bach's Uncle Johann Christoph
Bach, and an expert on organ building, won the contest handily. He had allowed a
student to tune an organ which was in his charge, and it was found wanting by
all concerned. This may be the first line up of equal tempered versus
well-tempered, with the Bach's championing the unequal.

It is ironic that Claudio Veroli concluded and volunteered that "The famous
tuning contest between Johnann Nikolaus Bach and Neidhardt (Jena, 1706) is not
very relevant to the history of the temperaments" (Veroli, p. 152). He
concluded that because Neidhardt used a monochord which is "most unsatisfactory for
tuning pipe organs" it was no wonder how J.N. Bach won the contest" (Veroli,
pl. 153). Veroli went further to suggest, "Both were aiming at setting a
circular temperament, most probably a similar variant also: something between, say,
Schlick's and Vallotti's temepraments." How odd for Veroli to volunteer an
unknown Francesco Antonio Vallotti (1697-1780) tuning and a Renaissance-era
Arnolt Schlick tuning when Werckmeister's tunings were in vogue. This would
move to a prejudice of Veroli that Werckmeister's tunings were not very good.
("Werckmeister's first (and best) temperament may be considered an imperfect
version of Vallotti's, with no qualities justifying its use instead of the
latter") (Veroli, p. 152). This is again a case of a modern judging past aesthetics
by modern concerns, in this case harmonic justness trumping contrapuntal
distinction in full modulation. But how could he have missed that Neidhardt was
promoting equal temperament in 1706 as described in Neidhardt's first book
Beste und leichteste Temperatur des Monochordi, also published in 1706?

Some have called the Neidhardt tunings "paper temperaments" for their
unlikely perfection in music practice. In 1732 Neidhardt offered his readers a
choice of twenty temperaments. The likelihood of other instruments playing with a
keyboard in cantatas, chamber music, oratorio, passions, etc. would mitigate a
complex tuning with many different sizes of fifths and the inevitable pile of
thirds.

Theorist Johann Georg Neidhardt (1685-1739) suggested a variety of irregular
circular temperaments, but the practical difficulty with which large ensembles
would have to adapt belies its practicalities. Neidhardt's temperament took
advantage of the subtlest differences between keys and may have wor\ked well
for solo keyboard works. But without his endorsing a particular temperament,
there is no way of knowing whether Neidhardt was as practical a musician as
Andreas Werckmeister. It would seem reasonable that the sharper the differences
among the keys as to intervallic structure, the more confident the
performance. All the diatonic keys of Werckmeister III were already in the normal
environment of the Baroque musician of Thuringia since they aurally mirror the
diatonic keys of sixth comma meantone. The most dissonant keys of Werckmeister III
actually mirror equal temperament, such as E major.

The first circulating temperament (1724) of Neidhardt's is made up of four
fifths in each group - pure, tempered by 1/12 comma, and by 1/6 comma.
Neidhardt, like Werckmeister, had all his temperaments measured on a monochord aiding
tuning accuracy through its consultation. There are eight tempered fifths:
four (on Ab, Eb, E and B) are two cents flat (as in equal temperament), four (on
C, G, D, A) are four cents flat.

Circulating Temperament no. 2 (1724) was considered by its designer to be the
best. There are nine tempered fifths: six (on Gb, Db, Bb, F, A, B) are two
cents flat (as in equal temperament), and three (on C, G, D) are four cents
flat.

Neidhardt Model Temperament no. 3 (1732) has six tempered fifths, as follows:
two (on Eb and Bb) are 2 cents flat (as in equal temperament), two (on C and
G) are four cents flat, and two (on D and A) are six cents flat. There are
thus four different sizes of fifths and eight sizes of thirds (Blood,
"'Well-tempering' the clavier: five methods," p. 495).

Rasch points out that only equal temperament was described in his Beste und
leichteste Temperatur (1706) (Rasch, "Does…, p. 14). The finer shades of
differences in the keys occur in the succeeding works. It appears that Neidhardt
was embarrassed by his loss to Johann Nicholas Bach in 1706 and relinquished
equal temperament to Temperament IV with its purview the courts, even though it
was once the best of all tunings in 1706. Neidhardt provided a metaphoric
analysis of the tunings presented.

In my opinion, the first tuning is mostly fit for a village, the second one
for a town, the third one for a city, and the fourth one for the court (Rasch,
"Does…p. 14).

The fourth Neidhardt circular temperament is the 1706 temperament of equal
temperament, was demoted to fourth. This likely means that Neidhardt's losing
competition with Johann Nicholas Bach in Jena was made with equal temperament,
which had been deemed "unsingable."