Bach WTC

Yo...I asked this a few years ago, thought I'd try again and see if there's anything new...are there any versions of the Well Tempered Clavier that are actually played in a well temp? I'm wanting to buy the CD, so if anybody knows of anything, much appreciated...best...HHH
PS...hey Reinhard...is the Ives on CD yet, can it be bought? Love to get a copy...
microstick.net

Ton Koopman plays in Werckmeister III (A=415)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick" <microstick@m...>
wrote:
> Yo...I asked this a few years ago, thought I'd try again and see
if
> there's anything new...are there any versions of the Well Tempered
Clavier
> that are actually played in a well temp? I'm wanting to buy the CD,
so if
> anybody knows of anything, much appreciated...best...HHH
> PS...hey Reinhard...is the Ives on CD yet, can it be bought? Love to
get a
> copy...
> microstick.net

In a message dated 8/14/2005 11:59:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
microstick@msn.com writes:
PS...hey Reinhard...is the Ives on CD yet, can it be bought? Love to get a
copy...
microstick.net
Hey Neil!

Get the Charles Ives "Universe Symphony" (a largest mature microtonal piece
in music making history, I think) at: www.stereosociety.com

For Bach, yes, Ton Koopman is wonderful...when he is in Werckmeister III
tuning.

If you haven't hear the AFMM's PITCH CD Early, it is entirely in Werckmeister
III, but it only has 4 Preludes and Fuges, 2 each for each set of WTC.

Johnny Reinhard

On Monday 15 August 2005 7:51 am, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/14/2005 11:59:20 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> microstick@msn.com writes:
> PS...hey Reinhard...is the Ives on CD yet, can it be bought? Love to get a
> copy...
> microstick.net
> Hey Neil!
>
> Get the Charles Ives "Universe Symphony" (a largest mature microtonal piece
> in music making history, I think) at: www.stereosociety.com

By the way, the Ives was an impressive project, Johnny! Kudos to you and all
the AFMM!

> For Bach, yes, Ton Koopman is wonderful...when he is in Werckmeister III
> tuning.

All the evidence points to the fact that Werckmeister III is really an organ
tuning, and was designed as such because of the relative ease of changing
organs from meantone. While it *can* be used for the harpsichord, and
arguably works as a common well-temperament solution, it is neither most
subtle, nor the most authentic Baroque *harpsichord* tuning. CPE Bach said of
his and his father's tuning that *most* of the fifths are tempered, which
puts Werckmeister III out of the running for an authentic Bach tuning.

Brad Lehman's argument in his reconstruction of Bach's temperament is very
convincing, at least more so than any others tha have been done. I will say
that I think he goes far in saying that this is the only temperament the
Bach's music 'works' in, although I understand his excitement about his
discovery.

For those who want an alternative published tuning from that era (1724) close
to Bach's ideal, I recommend Neidhardt I,II, or III, and in particular, I,
for its ease and subtlety and beauty. My piano at home is tuned to it, and it
sounds magnificent. Furthermore, it can be used for any music as a stand in
for 12-equal.

Marpurg and Sorge also published tunings from that era. Sorge published his
tunings after Bach's death, but only the die-hard doubter would question the
connection to Bach--they were both members of the same music society.
Besides, many people publish tuning solutions well after they are used for
years in practice. This same reason can be applied to Neidhardt for Bach for
Bach's pre-1724 music. In fact since Neidhardt published his first writing in
1706, and was known to Bach, it stands to reason that his whole tuning ethos
in general (since he never uses more than four pure fifths) serves as a
healthy alternative to Werckmeister III.

Thank you, Aaron, for your compliments on the Ives project. However, with
Bach, I must disagree.
All the evidence points to the fact that Werckmeister III is really an organ
tuning, and was designed as such because of the relative ease of changing
organs from meantone. While it *can* be used for the harpsichord, and
arguably works as a common well-temperament solution, it is neither most
subtle, nor the most authentic Baroque *harpsichord* tuning.

One must be very clear and not general in this discussion. Determining
whether J.S. Bach is in Werckmeister III is not a discussion on "the most authentic
Baroque" anything, but a very specific match of composer and tuning.
Secondly, Werckmeister III tuning's origins with the organ does not preclude the
tuning's general use as the first easy to tune chromatic well temperament. And
thirdly, issues of its subtlety are at best irrelevant to the time and at worst,
perhaps the opposite intention of the period. In other worlds, the ability
for contrapuntal lines to stand out would be best served by less subtlety.

CPE Bach said of
his and his father's tuning that *most* of the fifths are tempered, which
puts Werckmeister III out of the running for an authentic Bach tuning.

Nope. CPE was describing his tuning, not his father's. Even Kirnberger
described his own tuning rather than that of JS Bach's, even while proposing to be
propogating JS Bach's full philosophy of music.

Brad Lehman's argument in his reconstruction of Bach's temperament is very
convincing, at least more so than any others tha have been done. I will say
that I think he goes far in saying that this is the only temperament the
Bach's music 'works' in, although I understand his excitement about his
discovery.

Nope. After having read both of Brad's articles, I am struck that Early
Music would publish it at all, and with peer review, and in two parts. I have
already read the letters to the editor, and I have earlier posted after reading
the first article. The second installment offered nothing new, mostly rehash
of the first article. What Lehman "discovered" was a conveneience, a way of
force-fitting a tuning from a wild interpretation of a single page of music's
graphic noodling. And with a suggestion to read it upside down, drawing wild
conclusions upon the wiggles, and then to consider it as an audition for his
Leipzig job with a coded set of direction for tuning its contents. Please.

Regardless, Bach 'works in' 12tET and will work in Just (Ezra Sims), and will
work in Lehman I. The point is not that Bach works in different tunings.

JS Bach grew up in a melieu that was discovering chromatic organ playing.
Wohl-temperirt (Well-temperament) is a Werckmeister anchor to Bach.
The families were practically neighbors. My ears demonstrates that JS Bach
is in a great relationship to Werckmeister III tuning in musical performance.

Please listen to the CD for yourselves. Some of it can be heard on the CD
Baby website.

For those who want an alternative published tuning from that era (1724) close
to Bach's ideal, I recommend Neidhardt I,II, or III, and in particular, I,
for its ease and subtlety and beauty. My piano at home is tuned to it, and it
sounds magnificent. Furthermore, it can be used for any music as a stand in
for 12-equal.

I see, you represent a lobby effort for Mr. Neidhardt. Hmnn. Didn't he lose
to a Bach favoring unequal well temperament? In fact, JS's uncle Johann
Christoph Bach's oldest son publicly rebuked Neidhardt's unmusical tuning, reputed
to have been equal temperament. As a result, Neidhardt comes up with some
new tunings and some switching around of Roman numerals that designate them.
Too much activity too late...and not for J.S. Bach, like keeping his tuning from
his strong familial training.

Marpurg and Sorge also published tunings from that era. Sorge published his
tunings after Bach's death, but only the die-hard doubter would question the
connection to Bach--they were both members of the same music society.

Here I agree. And yet, it is the possible of plurality that keeps a
commitment of Bach in an authentic tuning from being taken seriously. Brad Lehman has
just added new layers.

Even if the organ was an original reason for Werckmeister III tuning,
keyboards for Bach needed to be in a like tuning. Both Werckmeister III and Bach's
tuning are reportedly tuned in 15 minutes. Neidhardt needs a monochord, no?

Besides, many people publish tuning solutions well after they are used for
years in practice. This same reason can be applied to Neidhardt for Bach for
Bach's pre-1724 music. In fact since Neidhardt published his first writing in
1706, and was known to Bach, it stands to reason that his whole tuning ethos
in general (since he never uses more than four pure fifths) serves as a
healthy alternative to Werckmeister III.

Until you can arrange for a Brandenburg Concerto in Neidhardt tuning(s), I
think you are not as healthy in your analysis as you hope to be.

Sorry to disagree, not meaning to be disagreeable, certainly in tone. It's
just these general comments proporting to a done deal that JS Bach is not in
Werckmeister III need to be confronted.

best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick" <microstick@m...>
wrote:

> Yo...I asked this a few years ago, thought I'd try again and see
if
> there's anything new...are there any versions of the Well Tempered
Clavier
> that are actually played in a well temp?

According to Manuel, Gustav Leonhardt's are. Anthony Newman's
recordings are too, as well as Ton Koopman's.

In a message dated 8/15/2005 12:17:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:
Anthony Newman's
recordings are too
Actually, they Newman's WTC recroding (which I have) is described as
Aron-Neidhardt II, an Owen Jorgensen invention. It is supposed to be another name for
Kirnberger III. Johnny

>Subject: Bach WTC
>
> Yo...I asked this a few years ago, thought I'd try again and see if
>there's anything new...are there any versions of the Well Tempered Clavier
>that are actually played in a well temp? I'm wanting to buy the CD, so if
>anybody knows of anything, much appreciated...best...HHH

Yes, there is indeed. My own recording of five of the preludes/fugues (book 1) is planned for release within the next month, we hope. It's in the stage of finalizing the packaging. Details and samples are here:
http://www.larips.com/
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/samples.html
Those five preludes/fugues are on harpsichord, and a sixth one is in my 3-CD organ set for release at that same time.
Hpsi: C major, F minor, F# minor, Bb minor, B major. Organ: Eb major.

Another harpsichordist--Richard Egarr--has already recorded the Goldberg Variations in this tuning, for release soon. I haven't heard that recording myself yet.

A BBC Radio 3 feature is scheduled for broadcast later this month. It has pre-release excerpts from those Egarr Goldbergs, and likewise several tracks from my organ album. It is an hour-long program hosted by Andrew Manze. Details will be at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/earlymusicshow/

Another harpsichordist is planning to record all of book 1 in September. That's all I can say about that, at this point.

As for some older sets of WTC already available in more extreme unequal temperaments: the Parmentier and Verlet sets are both in Werckmeister.

=====

As for assessing my article and website contents, for which J Reinhard and several others have no kind words: please see, at least, my FAQ page 2
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/faq2.html
where I suggested an empirical investigation in Bach's music. That's what I've been doing for more than a year, playing through the repertoire at
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/testpieces.html
and listening to it played by other people in other temperaments, too.

Bradley Lehman

> Yo...I asked this a few years ago, thought I'd try again and
> see if there's anything new...are there any versions of the
> Well Tempered Clavier that are actually played in a well temp?
> I'm wanting to buy the CD, so if anybody knows of anything, much
> appreciated...best...HHH

Hiya Neil,

As I said last time you asked, you would be hard pressed to find
a single harpsichord recording of the WTC from the last 30 years
that's *not* in some kind of well temperament.

But my favorite WTC is still Glenn Gould's, on equal-tempered
piano! Not historically accurate according to bookworms, and in
many ways rigidly unmusical, but if you put a gun to my head and
told me one recording out there surpassed Bach's own ability,
I'd guess it was Gould's.

An interesting harpsichord performer to check out is
Zuzanna Ruzickova -- she's put out three recordings of the WTC
to date. Her Goldberg variations is still the best I've heard
on harpsichord.

-Carl

On Monday 15 August 2005 10:13 am, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> Thank you, Aaron, for your compliments on the Ives project. However, with
> Bach, I must disagree.

>> All the evidence points to the fact that Werckmeister III is really an
>> organ tuning, and was designed as such because of the relative ease of
>> changing organs from meantone. While it *can* be used for the harpsichord,
>> and arguably works as a common well-temperament solution, it is neither
>> most subtle, nor the most authentic Baroque *harpsichord* tuning.
>
> One must be very clear and not general in this discussion. Determining
> whether J.S. Bach is in Werckmeister III is not a discussion on "the most
> authentic Baroque" anything, but a very specific match of composer and
> tuning. Secondly, Werckmeister III tuning's origins with the organ does not
> preclude the tuning's general use as the first easy to tune chromatic well
> temperament. And thirdly, issues of its subtlety are at best irrelevant to
> the time and at worst, perhaps the opposite intention of the period.

All the evidence is against this idea. Marpurg attacked Kirnberger *precisely*
because of its clunky lack of subtlety! And, equal temperament was attacked
because it also lacked subtlety! They were seeking out the happy medium,
clearly...

You forget all the modified meantones of Europe, more of a common practice
than Werck III for sure...plus we should really point out that it's possible
that the temperament for WTC might have been different than what Bach used
for common practice meantone-derived music. The Art of Fugue works in
Silbermann's temperament, for sure.

> In
> other worlds, the ability for contrapuntal lines to stand out would be best
> served by less subtlety.

The clarity of contrapuntal aspect has nothing to do with the tuning, as far
as I can hear.

>> CPE Bach said of
>> his and his father's tuning that *most* of the fifths are tempered, which
>> puts Werckmeister III out of the running for an authentic Bach tuning.
>
> Nope. CPE was describing his tuning, not his father's. Even Kirnberger
> described his own tuning rather than that of JS Bach's, even while
> proposing to be propogating JS Bach's full philosophy of music.

Nope. CPE Bach was describing his family's tuning. He was a preserver of his
father's line, in spite of his practice of a newer Galant style, he kept up
the 'Stilo Antico' thinking, and his family tradition. Kirnberger is right
out, as Marpurg thought Kirnberger an inept tuning theorist. And Mizler, a
Bach pupil, praised Neidhardt for instance over Werckmeister.

There is nothing ever anywhere to suggest that Werck-III was a common-practice
tuning for anything other than organs. If that were true, there wouldn't be
these tuning contests and such, for what beginner can't set Werckmesiter III
quite accurately? Everything about J.S. Bach indicates that he would have
favored a more sophisticated temperament for his music, and everything about
his students and contemporaries indicates that they thought Kirnberger and
Werckmeister were simple-minded, unsophisticated temperaments.

And, we know Bach used Silbermann 1/6 comma temperament, at least on organs,
at one point, not even using Werckmeister III on organs, a fact that you seem
to be unaware of, or ignoring.

>
> Brad Lehman's argument in his reconstruction of Bach's temperament is very
> convincing, at least more so than any others tha have been done. I will say
> that I think he goes far in saying that this is the only temperament the
> Bach's music 'works' in, although I understand his excitement about his
> discovery.
>
>
> Nope. After having read both of Brad's articles, I am struck that Early
> Music would publish it at all, and with peer review, and in two parts. I
> have already read the letters to the editor, and I have earlier posted
> after reading the first article. The second installment offered nothing
> new, mostly rehash of the first article. What Lehman "discovered" was a
> conveneience, a way of force-fitting a tuning from a wild interpretation of
> a single page of music's graphic noodling. And with a suggestion to read
> it upside down, drawing wild conclusions upon the wiggles, and then to
> consider it as an audition for his Leipzig job with a coded set of
> direction for tuning its contents. Please.

To each his own...the Leipzig connections, I admit, is a stretch. But c'mon,
11 squiggles? It seems highly unlikely that that was by chance, especially
given the beat rates align to produce a compelling temperament. If it's a
fluke, it's a miracle of a fluke.

> Regardless, Bach 'works in' 12tET and will work in Just (Ezra Sims), and
> will work in Lehman I. The point is not that Bach works in different
> tunings.

Bach's music is clearly designed for temperament, not JI. And clearly it
works, and is moving, in many different temperaments. (Even so, aren't you
contradicting yourself when you say that some tuning 'bring out the
counterpoint' better than others? (your claim, not mine))

> JS Bach grew up in a melieu that was discovering chromatic organ playing.
> Wohl-temperirt (Well-temperament) is a Werckmeister anchor to Bach.
> The families were practically neighbors. My ears demonstrates that JS Bach
> is in a great relationship to Werckmeister III tuning in musical
> performance.

I used to live next door to gangsta rappers, does that make me a gangsta
rapper practitioner?

> Please listen to the CD for yourselves. Some of it can be heard on the CD
> Baby website.
>
>
> For those who want an alternative published tuning from that era (1724)
> close to Bach's ideal, I recommend Neidhardt I,II, or III, and in
> particular, I, for its ease and subtlety and beauty. My piano at home is
> tuned to it, and it sounds magnificent. Furthermore, it can be used for any
> music as a stand in for 12-equal.
>
> I see, you represent a lobby effort for Mr. Neidhardt. Hmnn. Didn't he
> lose to a Bach favoring unequal well temperament? In fact, JS's uncle
> Johann Christoph Bach's oldest son publicly rebuked Neidhardt's unmusical
> tuning, reputed to have been equal temperament.

That would be Neidhardt IV, not Neidhardt I, which is extremely easy to set.
The contest was to see who could set mathematical equal temperament.
Neidhardt's was more accurate, but judged 'less musical' than the Bach
tuning, which was easier for the singer(s). Nevertheless, this is a moot
point: I was talking about Neidhardt I, not Neidhardt IV!

> As a result, Neidhardt
> comes up with some new tunings and some switching around of Roman numerals
> that designate them. Too much activity too late...and not for J.S. Bach,
> like keeping his tuning from his strong familial training.

I fail to see your point here. The fact is we don't know directly what J.S.
Bach preferred, only what his students have said. None of them said he used
Werckmeister conclusively, so my only argument is that if you are arguing for
Werckmeister based on historical considerations, there is more indirect
evidence for the others (Neidhardt, Sorge, Silbermann, Bach's own tuning).

> Marpurg and Sorge also published tunings from that era. Sorge published his
> tunings after Bach's death, but only the die-hard doubter would question
> the connection to Bach--they were both members of the same music society.
>
> Here I agree. And yet, it is the possible of plurality that keeps a
> commitment of Bach in an authentic tuning from being taken seriously. Brad
> Lehman has just added new layers.
>
> Even if the organ was an original reason for Werckmeister III tuning,
> keyboards for Bach needed to be in a like tuning. Both Werckmeister III
> and Bach's tuning are reportedly tuned in 15 minutes. Neidhardt needs a
> monochord, no?

Clearly, again, you don't know the temperament I'm referring to: Neidhardt I,
a very simple temperament, actually. Look it up. Play with it and tell me it
isn't beautiful.

It's obvious that you haven't even tuned up Bradley Lehman's reconstructed
temperament, or Neidhardt, or Sorge, etc., because you wouldn't be so
narrow-minded if you had. You are arguing from a purely 'on-paper' point of
view. Plus, you are clearly attached to Werck III because you seemed to have
gone ahead and made it the default Bach tuning of the AFFM, which I think
would be, um, a bit hasty.

>
> Besides, many people publish tuning solutions well after they are used for
> years in practice. This same reason can be applied to Neidhardt for Bach
> for Bach's pre-1724 music. In fact since Neidhardt published his first
> writing in 1706, and was known to Bach, it stands to reason that his whole
> tuning ethos in general (since he never uses more than four pure fifths)
> serves as a healthy alternative to Werckmeister III.
>
> Until you can arrange for a Brandenburg Concerto in Neidhardt tuning(s), I
> think you are not as healthy in your analysis as you hope to be.

I see--you consider your argument correct because you set up a public
performance. I'm glad you have a successful series. Kudos to you! But I
hardly find it relevant, and it's an insufficient argument. Not only that, we
are talking about keyboard instruments here, ensembles will anchor to the
keyboard but imperfectly anyway.

I've played enough of Bach's music in Neidhardt I (one of many that will
work--I'm not meaning to suggest that this is *the* solution in the same way
you suggest Werck III is the obvious choice) to be convinced that it works
beautifully. If you don't want to consider all of what the evidence suggests
with more weight, your loss.;) And the evidence suggests nothing
conclusively, I might add.

> Sorry to disagree, not meaning to be disagreeable, certainly in tone. It's
> just these general comments proporting to a done deal that JS Bach is not
> in Werckmeister III need to be confronted.

As much as "Done deal....JS Bach is in Werckmeister III" should be confronted!
You clearly haven't considered *all* the available evidence, for if you did,
you wouldn't conclude that Bach considered Werck III his default harpsichord
tuning. In fact, the evidence is so against that possibility (he tended to
use Silbermann on organs, and *not one* mention by a student suggesting J.S.
used Werck III on harpsichords, and *at least one* mention by a student that
it was a rather humble tuning, as well as the fact that all over Europe, the
common practice was to have different variants on a 'modified meantone' idea,
not a quick 1/4-pythagorean comma solution that Werck III is, *and*, you
completely ignore Silbermann, Sorge, Marpurg, Neidhardt, the possibility of
Bach's own tuning) that I'm surprised that you have centered you performances
on this, claiming with authority that it is so. It's too bad, because if you
suggested as such in your program notes, you were really being misleading.

Maybe you should explore the many other possibilities (and not just Neidhardt)
with your resources before committing to the idea that Werck III is the best
or most obvious choice for Bach's more chromatic offerings.

Anyway, no hard feelings, and I did enjoy, and buy your arguments, for the
Ives!

-Aaron.

In a message dated 8/15/2005 7:42:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,
aaron@akjmusic.com writes:
All the evidence is against this idea. Marpurg attacked Kirnberger
*precisely*
because of its clunky lack of subtlety! And, equal temperament was attacked
because it also lacked subtlety! They were seeking out the happy medium,
clearly...

Hi Aaron,

I hope you don't mind if I don't just roll over on this. I really think that
you are unduly influenced by the extant literature. We have read the same
things, somewhat, but have come up with different conclusions.

Marpurg was an ingracous ass. And Kirnberger achieved the most subtle well
temperament of his time. What are you talking about here?

You forget all the modified meantones of Europe, more of a common practice
than Werck III for sure...plus we should really point out that it's possible
that the temperament for WTC might have been different than what Bach used
for common practice meantone-derived music. The Art of Fugue works in
Silbermann's temperament, for sure.

Studies from Barbuor to Lindley conclude that Bach requires a 12-note per
octave well temperament, not a modified meantone, for the great majority of his
organ compositions.

> In
> other worlds, the ability for contrapuntal lines to stand out would be best
> served by less subtlety.

The clarity of contrapuntal aspect has nothing to do with the tuning, as far
as I can hear.

Then there is more to be heard. Akin to the reason for rules about avoiding
parallel fifths and for not having crossing voices, there is indeed a
separation of melodic lines. Werckmeister III gives greater definition between
melodic lines due to its lack of subtlety, unless we are talking about a different
sense of subtlety.

>> CPE Bach said of
>> his and his father's tuning that *most* of the fifths are tempered, which
>> puts Werckmeister III out of the running for an authentic Bach tuning.
>
> Nope. CPE was describing his tuning, not his father's. Even Kirnberger
> described his own tuning rather than that of JS Bach's, even while
> proposing to be propogating JS Bach's full philosophy of music.

Nope. CPE Bach was describing his family's tuning. He was a preserver of his
father's line, in spite of his practice of a newer Galant style, he kept up
the 'Stilo Antico' thinking, and his family tradition. Kirnberger is right
out, as Marpurg thought Kirnberger an inept tuning theorist. And Mizler, a
Bach pupil, praised Neidhardt for instance over Werckmeister.

Let us recheck this. C. Ph. E. Bach wrote in 1753 that the keyboard was to
be tuned by ‘taking away from most of the fifths a barely noticeable amount of
their absolute purity’ so that the keyboards play equally in tune in all
twenty-four tonalities"
but it was about what he thought about music. There is no reference here to
his father.

And CPE thought Marpurg was "detestable" in the way he treated Kirnberger.

Appealing to character assasination is a poor resource. Mizler was quite the
amateur and quite after the fact regarding Bach's tuning. Besides, Mizler
was friends with Neidhardt and had never met Werckmeister.

There is nothing ever anywhere to suggest that Werck-III was a
common-practice
tuning for anything other than organs. If that were true, there wouldn't be
these tuning contests and such, for what beginner can't set Werckmesiter III
quite accurately? Everything about J.S. Bach indicates that he would have
favored a more sophisticated temperament for his music, and everything about
his students and contemporaries indicates that they thought Kirnberger and
Werckmeister were simple-minded, unsophisticated temperaments.

Here I think I would respond that Werckmeister was a pioneer. History had
treated him shabilly and so it continues. However, I think that the organ
origin of the Werckmeister III is a natural as an ideal for the harpsichord. The
lack of anything other than Neidhardt in describing temperament shows a common
practice that was little described. This is indeed the situation with 6th
comma meantone, in practice with little discussion in print.

And, we know Bach used Silbermann 1/6 comma temperament, at least on organs,
at one point, not even using Werckmeister III on organs, a fact that you seem
to be unaware of, or ignoring.

This is simply not true. "We" do not know any such thing. Bach made fun of
Silbermann's 1/6 comma temperament when he would make unannounced visits at
the showroom.

>
> Brad Lehman's argument in his reconstruction of Bach's temperament is very
> convincing, at least more so than any others tha have been done. I will say
> that I think he goes far in saying that this is the only temperament the
> Bach's music 'works' in, although I understand his excitement about his
> discovery.
>
>
> Nope. After having read both of Brad's articles, I am struck that Early
> Music would publish it at all, and with peer review, and in two parts. I
> have already read the letters to the editor, and I have earlier posted
> after reading the first article. The second installment offered nothing
> new, mostly rehash of the first article. What Lehman "discovered" was a
> conveneience, a way of force-fitting a tuning from a wild interpretation of
> a single page of music's graphic noodling. And with a suggestion to read
> it upside down, drawing wild conclusions upon the wiggles, and then to
> consider it as an audition for his Leipzig job with a coded set of
> direction for tuning its contents. Please.

To each his own...the Leipzig connections, I admit, is a stretch. But c'mon,
11 squiggles? It seems highly unlikely that that was by chance, especially
given the beat rates align to produce a compelling temperament. If it's a
fluke, it's a miracle of a fluke.

That should have been the title, "Miracle of a Fluke." This was typical
decoration.

> Regardless, Bach 'works in' 12tET and will work in Just (Ezra Sims), and
> will work in Lehman I. The point is not that Bach works in different
> tunings.

Bach's music is clearly designed for temperament, not JI. And clearly it
works, and is moving, in many different temperaments. (Even so, aren't you
contradicting yourself when you say that some tuning 'bring out the
counterpoint' better than others? (your claim, not mine))

It is the genius of Bach that he works in every single tuning I have ever
heard used. But "works" is a very loose term, much like "interesting" for
describing visual art. And yet, JI Bach is limp. The wrong temperament for Bach
has got to be worse than the use of a right one. That is why this is such a
burning question.

> JS Bach grew up in a melieu that was discovering chromatic organ playing.
> Wohl-temperirt (Well-temperament) is a Werckmeister anchor to Bach.
> The families were practically neighbors. My ears demonstrates that JS Bach
> is in a great relationship to Werckmeister III tuning in musical
> performance.

I used to live next door to gangsta rappers, does that make me a gangsta
rapper practitioner?

No, but it might mean that you have read, and accept, one of the typical
spins on Bach, and have enjoyed playing in different tunings that are recommended.
Hey, that's just fine, in its subjectivity. Only, I do not prefer to accept
these sources at face value.

> Please listen to the CD for yourselves. Some of it can be heard on the CD
> Baby website.
>
>

Please listen to this if you have a chance. Go to www.afmm.org
and follow the Early CD directions to CD Baby and give it a listen. Pretty
please?

That would be Neidhardt IV, not Neidhardt I, which is extremely easy to set.
The contest was to see who could set mathematical equal temperament.

Nope, Neidhardt "used" a monochord for the competition. And Bach won for
being more "singable" which would possibly please Carl listening to Gould in
12tET, but would sound like a vanilla-world of sound to me without any of the
compelling intervallic tensions.

Neidhardt's was more accurate,

I never heard this rendition before. Baloney.
but judged 'less musical' than the Bach
tuning, which was easier for the singer(s). Nevertheless, this is a moot
point: I was talking about Neidhardt I, not Neidhardt IV!

> As a result, Neidhardt
> comes up with some new tunings and some switching around of Roman numerals
> that designate them. Too much activity too late...and not for J.S. Bach,
> like keeping his tuning from his strong familial training.

I fail to see your point here. The fact is we don't know directly what J.S.
Bach preferred, only what his students have said.
We know what was the tradition in that part of the world. The circular use
of music was introduced into Thuringia by Werckmeister regardless of what
Bach's students may or may not say.

None of them said he used
Werckmeister conclusively, so my only argument is that if you are arguing for
Werckmeister based on historical considerations, there is more indirect
evidence for the others (Neidhardt, Sorge, Silbermann, Bach's own tuning).

> Marpurg and Sorge also published tunings from that era. Sorge published his
> tunings after Bach's death, but only the die-hard doubter would question
> the connection to Bach--they were both members of the same music society.
>
> Here I agree. And yet, it is the possible of plurality that keeps a
> commitment of Bach in an authentic tuning from being taken seriously. Brad
> Lehman has just added new layers.
>
> Even if the organ was an original reason for Werckmeister III tuning,
> keyboards for Bach needed to be in a like tuning. Both Werckmeister III
> and Bach's tuning are reportedly tuned in 15 minutes. Neidhardt needs a
> monochord, no?

Clearly, again, you don't know the temperament I'm referring to: Neidhardt I,
a very simple temperament, actually. Look it up. Play with it and tell me it
isn't beautiful.

It's obvious that you haven't even tuned up Bradley Lehman's reconstructed
temperament,
Some harpsichordists told me they do not like it, and some are reputed to
like it. While I have not tuned up a harpsichord in it, it useability for Bach
means too little for its obvious subjectivity.

I would consider doing a Brandenburg in Neidhardt I, do you think this would
be appropriate?

or Neidhardt, or Sorge, etc., because you wouldn't be so
narrow-minded if you had. You are arguing from a purely 'on-paper' point of
view. Plus, you are clearly attached to Werck III because you seemed to have
gone ahead and made it the default Bach tuning of the AFFM, which I think
would be, um, a bit hasty.

If your pruport to think sound important, why wouldn't large ensemble useage
of Werckmeister III and sixth comma tuning and Kirnberger II tuning, etc., on
the highest professional level be akin to "hasty"? It is not a "paper" issue
at all.

>
> Besides, many people publish tuning solutions well after they are used for
> years in practice. This same reason can be applied to Neidhardt for Bach
> for Bach's pre-1724 music. In fact since Neidhardt published his first
> writing in 1706, and was known to Bach, it stands to reason that his whole
> tuning ethos in general (since he never uses more than four pure fifths)
> serves as a healthy alternative to Werckmeister III.
>
> Until you can arrange for a Brandenburg Concerto in Neidhardt tuning(s), I
> think you are not as healthy in your analysis as you hope to be.

I see--you consider your argument correct because you set up a public
performance. I'm glad you have a successful series. Kudos to you! But I
hardly find it relevant, and it's an insufficient argument. Not only that, we
are talking about keyboard instruments here, ensembles will anchor to the
keyboard but imperfectly anyway.

Alas, this is a prejudice, Aaron. Ensembles anchor better when the tuning is
clearly set and understood. Why not listen to our results? You have nothing
to lose. Maybe you'll simply find that it is a good performance and leave it
at that. Sloppy keyboard tuning surely cannot increase the tuning accuracy
of the non-vibrato playing ensemblers.

I've played enough of Bach's music in Neidhardt I (one of many that will
work--I'm not meaning to suggest that this is *the* solution in the same way
you suggest Werck III is the obvious choice) to be convinced that it works
beautifully. If you don't want to consider all of what the evidence suggests
with more weight, your loss.;) And the evidence suggests nothing
conclusively, I might add.

> Sorry to disagree, not meaning to be disagreeable, certainly in tone. It's
> just these general comments proporting to a done deal that JS Bach is not
> in Werckmeister III need to be confronted.

As much as "Done deal....JS Bach is in Werckmeister III" should be
confronted!
You clearly haven't considered *all* the available evidence, for if you did,
you wouldn't conclude that Bach considered Werck III his default harpsichord
tuning. In fact, the evidence is so against that possibility (he tended to
use Silbermann on organs,
Where can you find any such evidence, that Bach used Silbermann 1/6th comma
tuning on organs? A'int so.

and *not one* mention by a student suggesting J.S.
used Werck III on harpsichords,

When Kirnberger, Bach's most famous theory student, tried to trump Bach's
tuning with his own it means Bach could have used any unequal well temperament.

and *at least one* mention by a student that
it was a rather humble tuning,
This has no meaning to me.

as well as the fact that all over Europe, the
common practice was to have different variants on a 'modified meantone' idea,

All too generalist and not specific to Bach.

not a quick 1/4-pythagorean comma solution that Werck III is, *and*, you
completely ignore Silbermann, Sorge, Marpurg, Neidhardt, the possibility of
Bach's own tuning) that I'm surprised that you have centered you performances
on this, claiming with authority that it is so. It's too bad, because if you
suggested as such in your program notes, you were really being misleading.
You should really give the recording a listen. There is nothing that is not
developed positively through its tuning. You merely provide possible
alternative picked in the years after Bach was an accepted superstar. His training
happened earlier, from relatives.

Maybe you should explore the many other possibilities (and not just
Neidhardt)
with your resources before committing to the idea that Werck III is the best
or most obvious choice for Bach's more chromatic offerings.

Anyway, no hard feelings, and I did enjoy, and buy your arguments, for the
Ives!

-Aaron.
I have not committed anything to print as absolute, yet. That's why I like
working these things out over the web. Really, though, while I will gladly
familiarize with different tunings one at a time, history is clearly on the side
of Werckmeister III as a likely Bach tuning for most all of his music.

best, Johnny Reinhard

Johnny, can you please put quote levels on in your response, it's hard to
parse who said what, at least for an outsider.....

On Monday 15 August 2005 7:43 pm, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> Hi Aaron,
>
> I hope you don't mind if I don't just roll over on this. I really think
> that you are unduly influenced by the extant literature. We have read the
> same things, somewhat, but have come up with different conclusions.

Sure have!

> Marpurg was an ingracous ass. And Kirnberger achieved the most subtle well
> temperament of his time. What are you talking about here?

The first statement is ad hominem, the second is an opinion *not* shared by
many of Bach's own contemporaries.

> > You forget all the modified meantones of Europe, more of a common practice
> > than Werck III for sure...plus we should really point out that it's
> > possible that the temperament for WTC might have been different than what
> > Bach used for common practice meantone-derived music. The Art of Fugue
> > works in Silbermann's temperament, for sure.
>
> Studies from Barbuor to Lindley conclude that Bach requires a 12-note per
> octave well temperament, not a modified meantone, for the great majority of
> his organ compositions.

A modified meantone *can* be a well-temperament, if it's a high enough
fractional comma value to allow perfect fifths in the remoter keys. I suppose
this is all semantics, dependant upon how one defines a well-temperament,
though.

>
> > > (Johnny said): In
> > > other worlds, the ability for contrapuntal lines to stand out would be
> > > best served by less subtlety.
>
> > The clarity of contrapuntal aspect has nothing to do with the tuning, as
> > far as I can hear.
> >
> Then there is more to be heard. Akin to the reason for rules about
> avoiding parallel fifths and for not having crossing voices, there is
> indeed a separation of melodic lines. Werckmeister III gives greater
> definition between melodic lines due to its lack of subtlety, unless we are
> talking about a different sense of subtlety.

I'm not sure I follow. How could 7 pure fifths by your argument, lead to
greater definition. Wouldn't a greater diversity of fifths support that
argument better?

> > >> CPE Bach said of
> > >> his and his father's tuning that *most* of the fifths are tempered,
> > >> which puts Werckmeister III out of the running for an authentic Bach
> > >> tuning.
> > >
> > > Nope. CPE was describing his tuning, not his father's. Even Kirnberger
> > > described his own tuning rather than that of JS Bach's, even while
> > > proposing to be propogating JS Bach's full philosophy of music.
> >
> > Nope. CPE Bach was describing his family's tuning. He was a preserver of
> > his father's line, in spite of his practice of a newer Galant style, he
> > kept up the 'Stilo Antico' thinking, and his family tradition. Kirnberger
> > is right out, as Marpurg thought Kirnberger an inept tuning theorist. And
> > Mizler, a Bach pupil, praised Neidhardt for instance over Werckmeister.
>
> Let us recheck this. C. Ph. E. Bach wrote in 1753 that the keyboard was to
> be tuned by ‘taking away from most of the fifths a barely noticeable amount
> of their absolute purity’ so that the keyboards play equally in tune in all
> twenty-four tonalities"
> but it was about what he thought about music. There is no reference here
> to his father.

And no reference to Werckmeister, either. And why would Bach's son's tuning
not be of the same tradition as his father. If it were, it would be
mentioned. He would have said "In an older style, so and so was done to a few
fifths, now we temper more of them" or something.

I'm not convinced.

> And CPE thought Marpurg was "detestable" in the way he treated Kirnberger.

It doesn't mean he didn't agree about the temperament, though.

> Appealing to character assasination is a poor resource. Mizler was quite
> the amateur and quite after the fact regarding Bach's tuning. Besides,
> Mizler was friends with Neidhardt and had never met Werckmeister.

And he was a student of Bach. Students are often under the spell of teacher's
opinions. At least that's what I see all the time.

>
> > And, we know Bach used Silbermann 1/6 comma temperament, at least on
> > organs, at one point, not even using Werckmeister III on organs, a fact
> > that you seem to be unaware of, or ignoring.
> >
>
> This is simply not true. "We" do not know any such thing. Bach made fun
> of Silbermann's 1/6 comma temperament when he would make unannounced visits
> at the showroom.

Perhaps all in good fun? They were friendly. The story goes that he would just
be obnoxious and play an Ab chord. Hardly evidence that he hated the tuning.
We *today* love meantone, and still point out the wolves to people, because
they are fun and obnoxious.

Even so, the story of Bach playing on an organ tuned to Silbermann's
temperament points to the fact that Werck III was hardly even the universal
*organ* tuning it is touted to be.

The evidence, I repeat, points to multiple possible well-temperaments and/or
modified meantones.

> > I used to live next door to gangsta rappers, does that make me a gangsta
> > rapper practitioner?
> >
>
> No, but it might mean that you have read, and accept, one of the typical
> spins on Bach, and have enjoyed playing in different tunings that are
> recommended. Hey, that's just fine, in its subjectivity. Only, I do not
> prefer to accept these sources at face value.

Well, time will tell....tune up one of the alternatives yourself. They really
are quite beautiful in their own right.

> > That would be Neidhardt IV, not Neidhardt I, which is extremely easy to
> > set. The contest was to see who could set mathematical equal temperament.
> >
> Nope, Neidhardt "used" a monochord for the competition. And Bach won for
> being more "singable" which would possibly please Carl listening to Gould
> in 12tET, but would sound like a vanilla-world of sound to me without any
> of the compelling intervallic tensions.

Yes, Neidhardt was more accurate *because* he used a monochord. But he was
tuning 12-equal (Nedihardt IV---not Neidhardt I) (How many times do I have to
repeat that? ;))

> As a result, Neidhardt
> comes up with some new tunings and some switching around of Roman
> numerals that designate them.

You are attributing to Neidhardt a behavior we can hardly objectively
speculate about. In his published scheme, my understanding is that they
represent a graduation into 12-equal from village (I) to town (II) to city
(III) to court (IV). You seem to be stubbornly resistant to trying it, to say
the least! Try them out, pretty please? You don't need to try IV--it's the
same as 12-equal.

> Too much activity too late...and not for
> J.S. Bach, like keeping his tuning from his strong familial training.

And perhaps passing it on to his son, CPE, who describes most of the fifths as
tempered....how could you think J.S. was so traditional and his son was not.
What are your reasons?

> >I fail to see your point here. The fact is we don't know directly what J.S.
> > Bach preferred, only what his students have said.

> We know what was the tradition in that part of the world. The circular use
> of music was introduced into Thuringia by Werckmeister regardless of what
> Bach's students may or may not say.

A general question: what evidence would you admit, if not the circumstantial
direct quotes of his son, and his students, and his cirlce of contemporaries,
none of whom even indirectly suggest Werck III to be his tuning of choice?

> > It's obvious that you haven't even tuned up Bradley Lehman's reconstructed
> > temperament,
>
> Some harpsichordists told me they do not like it, and some are reputed to
> like it. While I have not tuned up a harpsichord in it, it useability for
> Bach means too little for its obvious subjectivity.

Well, shouldn't you judge for yourself?

>
> I would consider doing a Brandenburg in Neidhardt I, do you think this
> would be appropriate?

I like Neidhardt I. I don't want to beat it to death, though. There are
others. But, I would applaud your desire to experiment a bit and see which
other ones compel you and why. It's art after all, not hard science ;)

You might find it nice not to be in such a Werckmeister-box!

I'll tell you what---let's do an experiment. I'll prepare some mp3's of a Bach
prelude of your choice from WTC in a number of temperaments of your choice
(we might start with Werckmeister III, Sorge, Silbermann, Neidhardt, some
Marpurg, Lehman I) and we can see what people respond to and why. There are
no 'right answers' here. Just different beauties. ;)

<snip>
>
> If your pruport to think sound important, why wouldn't large ensemble
> useage of Werckmeister III and sixth comma tuning and Kirnberger II tuning,
> etc., on the highest professional level be akin to "hasty"? It is not a
> "paper" issue at all.

No, I don't mean to say that what you did was 'wrong'...only that there are
other things to explore before picking a pet temperament. We might even say
"who cares what history says, I like this for these qualities" or something.
It's *art* after all. But by your own admission, you've not explored the
other possibles with your group, and it would be a real study to do so, no? I
would take a musician of your calibre seriously who has said "I tried this
this this and this, and I prefer this most of all, here's why....the hhistory
books are almost moot with a strong aesthetic preference like that. If at the
end of the day, Werck III is still your doll, so be it. You won't been any
worse of having tasted the others!

> > Besides, many people publish tuning solutions well after they are used
> > for years in practice. This same reason can be applied to Neidhardt for
> > Bach for Bach's pre-1724 music. In fact since Neidhardt published his
> > first writing in 1706, and was known to Bach, it stands to reason that
> > his whole tuning ethos in general (since he never uses more than four
> > pure fifths) serves as a healthy alternative to Werckmeister III.
> >
> > > Until you can arrange for a Brandenburg Concerto in Neidhardt tuning(s),
> > > I think you are not as healthy in your analysis as you hope to be.
>
> > I see--you consider your argument correct because you set up a public
> > performance. I'm glad you have a successful series. Kudos to you! But I
> > hardly find it relevant, and it's an insufficient argument. Not only that,
> > we are talking about keyboard instruments here, ensembles will anchor to
> > the keyboard but imperfectly anyway.
> >
> Alas, this is a prejudice, Aaron. Ensembles anchor better when the tuning
> is clearly set and understood. Why not listen to our results?

I'll have to do just that!

> You have
> nothing to lose. Maybe you'll simply find that it is a good performance
> and leave it at that. Sloppy keyboard tuning surely cannot increase the
> tuning accuracy of the non-vibrato playing ensemblers.

Well, no tuning that we're talking about here would be 'sloppy'.

<snipped stuff>

> When Kirnberger, Bach's most famous theory student, tried to trump Bach's
> tuning with his own it means Bach could have used any unequal well
> temperament.

Right, several of which you haven't tried! The 'proof' ought to be in the
compelling sound of it, methinks.

> I have not committed anything to print as absolute, yet. That's why I like
> working these things out over the web. Really, though, while I will gladly
> familiarize with different tunings one at a time, history is clearly on the
> side of Werckmeister III as a likely Bach tuning for most all of his music.

Well, just keep an open mind about it, as I will, too. Tune up some of the
others!

While we're discussing this, I came up with my own interpretation of Neidhardt
I which I quite like:

Starting at C, do pure C-F-Bb-Eb-A; you have a resulting ascending C-Ab sixth.
We'll divide that up into two equal beating thirds. So, make C-E beat equal
to E-G#. Now we have a ascending minor sixth E-C that we will repeat the
procedure to, to soften the Ab-C Pythagorean third a bit: so bring G# up a
bit so that E-G# now beats equal to G#-C. (of course, it will no longer beat
equal with C-E). This layout ultimately favors slightly the flat keys in
terms of consonance, because of the equal beating step.

Neidhardt I has C-F-Bb as pure fifths/fourths, so we'll keep that from the
beginning. These are followed by two slightly impure fifths.

So next we retune Eb-Bb ascending fifth to be the same size (a la meantone) as
the ascending fifth Ab-Eb.

The E-G# is divided analogously to Ab-C; two pure, then two impure fifths.

So then we have and G#-C# pure descending fifth
Then C#-F# pure ascending fourth
F#-B descending fifth same size as B-E descending fifth.

Finally, we then distribute C-E a la meantone between C-G-D-A-E.

A nice, subtle well temperament, the distant key signatures not too harsh, and
it's easily done. And it has a large number of subtly, differently-sized
intervals, if you like maximully distinct counterpoint! ;)

Cheers,
Aaron.

In a message dated 8/16/2005 1:22:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
aaron@akjmusic.com writes:
> Marpurg was an ingracous ass. And Kirnberger achieved the most subtle well
> temperament of his time. What are you talking about here?

The first statement is ad hominem, the second is an opinion *not* shared by
many of Bach's own contemporaries.

JR: Hi all. Wellcome to round 3 in this friendly look under rocks and "tuner
fishing."

Marpurg was an ingracious ass because he got his job in the Berlin library
through the good services of Kirnberger, only to turn upon his benefactor
viciously.

As for "subtle" I thought you meant, Aaron, that the keys were not that
noticeably different from each other. In Kirnberger they are not distinctive,
being Just mainly, and Werckmeister is has the opposite, clear gradations between
keys.

> > You forget all the modified meantones of Europe, more of a common practice
> > than Werck III for sure...plus we should really point out that it's
> > possible that the temperament for WTC might have been different than what
> > Bach used for common practice meantone-derived music. The Art of Fugue
> > works in Silbermann's temperament, for sure.
>
> Studies from Barbuor to Lindley conclude that Bach requires a 12-note per
> octave well temperament, not a modified meantone, for the great majority of
> his organ compositions.

A modified meantone *can* be a well-temperament, if it's a high enough
fractional comma value to allow perfect fifths in the remoter keys. I suppose
this is all semantics, dependant upon how one defines a well-temperament,
though.

JR: While keyboard players think this is all about keyboard tuning (some
thinking there is a segregation between organ and keyboard, let alone clavichord),
ALL INSTRUMENTS in Bach play with those keyboards. And there are organs in
St. Matthew's Passion, et al. by Bach. Slight modifications to meantone have
no bearing for the need of only 12 notes to express all of music. Extended
meantone is a great game plan for a later age, when the keyboad is no longer
REQUIRED for every instrumental ensemble. A neat, understandable game plan for
intonation is incumbant for the players to be accurate. That is what
Werckmeister III was, the plan that was on the table for all the musicians playing. The
miricle was that with only 12 notes one could truly master the art of
temperament.

>
> > > (Johnny said): In
> > > other worlds, the ability for contrapuntal lines to stand out would be
> > > best served by less subtlety.
>
> > The clarity of contrapuntal aspect has nothing to do with the tuning, as
> > far as I can hear.
> >
> Then there is more to be heard. Akin to the reason for rules about
> avoiding parallel fifths and for not having crossing voices, there is
> indeed a separation of melodic lines. Werckmeister III gives greater
> definition between melodic lines due to its lack of subtlety, unless we are
> talking about a different sense of subtlety.

I'm not sure I follow. How could 7 pure fifths by your argument, lead to
greater definition. Wouldn't a greater diversity of fifths support that
argument better?
Having only 2 sizes of fifths, pure and 1/4 comma flate (6 cents apart) makes
it possible for non-keyboard players to negotiate between them rather easily.
One gets a 12 note "special" blues scale. IF you have so much diversity,
let's say every fifth is a different size, then players will indeed be
out-of-tune because they won't be on the same page.

>
> Let us recheck this. C. Ph. E. Bach wrote in 1753 that the keyboard was to
> be tuned by ‘taking away from most of the fifths a barely noticeable amount
> of their absolute purity’ so that the keyboards play equally in tune in all
> twenty-four tonalities"
> but it was about what he thought about music. There is no reference here
> to his father.

And no reference to Werckmeister, either. And why would Bach's son's tuning
not be of the same tradition as his father. If it were, it would be
mentioned. He would have said "In an older style, so and so was done to a few
fifths, now we temper more of them" or something.

JR: He did change, and he said so, that is C.P.E. Johann Christian changed,
too. Probably, W.F did not, preferring meantone.

The reason the tuning changed is because music changed. As music went
vertical from its horizontal basis of layered melodies, greater consonance was
needed than Werckmeister tuning. It was the flute-playing King's style, a melody
floating of chords. This was the new Classical era, probably actually begining
10 years BEFORE Bach died. The German world was waiting for his death so
that the old-fashioned Baroque could end.

This is why the tuning was not left to that used by the father, JS. BTW,
ever hear of family jealousies? That was the Bach's and Werckmeister. They just
didn't talk about each other, although both families KNEW of each other quite
well. Each was an exemplor of music at the same time in a very small area of
northwestern Thuringia to include the Harz mountains.

I'm not convinced.

> And CPE thought Marpurg was "detestable" in the way he treated Kirnberger.

It doesn't mean he didn't agree about the temperament, though.

Ever hear or play Marpurg? I bought a CD of Marpurg's music. Although it
mentions the exact tuning that Marpurg wanted for his pieces, the pianist chose
to do them in ET because he thought Marpurg's tuning was detestable.

> This is simply not true. "We" do not know any such thing. Bach made fun
> of Silbermann's 1/6 comma temperament when he would make unannounced visits
> at the showroom.

Perhaps all in good fun? They were friendly. The story goes that he would
just
be obnoxious and play an Ab chord. Hardly evidence that he hated the tuning.
We *today* love meantone, and still point out the wolves to people, because
they are fun and obnoxious.

Sorry, but you are reaching. Why play the obnoxious Ab chord to embarras a
friend if he used the same Ab chord for his tuning? You might as well say the
tortoise is faster than the hare.
Yes, Neidhardt was more accurate *because* he used a monochord. But he was
tuning 12-equal (Nedihardt IV---not Neidhardt I) (How many times do I have to
repeat that? ;))

JR: Doesn't that contradict your previous assertion that the "idea" for the
contest was to tune 12-equal? Using a monochord, Neidhardt should have won.
It was not about equalness. I know this in my gut. I know this from many
visits to the cities Bach lived in, all architecturally rich in non-equalness:
including but not limited to door shapes, window shapes, stones in the street
shapes, heights of stairs (and directions, many curving) differ leading up to
churches, etc.

> As a result, Neidhardt
> comes up with some new tunings and some switching around of Roman
> numerals that designate them.

You are attributing to Neidhardt a behavior we can hardly objectively
speculate about. In his published scheme, my understanding is that they
represent a graduation into 12-equal from village (I) to town (II) to city
(III) to court (IV). You seem to be stubbornly resistant to trying it, to say
the least! Try them out, pretty please? You don't need to try IV--it's the
same as 12-equal.

> Too much activity too late...and not for
> J.S. Bach, like keeping his tuning from his strong familial training.

And perhaps passing it on to his son, CPE, who describes most of the fifths
as
tempered....how could you think J.S. was so traditional and his son was not.
What are your reasons?

JR: Much is explained above in this post. Aaron, have you never heard of a
generation gap? Didn't CPE move out and away ASAP to escape his father's power
over him, musical and otherwise?

A general question: what evidence would you admit, if not the circumstantial
direct quotes of his son, and his students, and his cirlce of contemporaries,
none of whom even indirectly suggest Werck III to be his tuning of choice?

JR: There is lots of evidence within the works of Werckmeister, a prolific
writer and publisher, besides being a good musician. It is understandable that
no one knows his side of the story because his works have either not been
translated out of German, and the little bit that has been "interpreted" is often
from a stated bias (like pro-ET). I have read all the works through with a
native German of Wolfenbuttal (who was also a Ph.D. specialist in the German
language of the area, and my elder) while visiting for research several years
ago. And that is only for starters.

> > It's obvious that you haven't even tuned up Bradley Lehman's reconstructed
> > temperament,
>
> Some harpsichordists told me they do not like it, and some are reputed to
> like it. While I have not tuned up a harpsichord in it, it useability for
> Bach means too little for its obvious subjectivity.

Well, shouldn't you judge for yourself?

>

JR: Eventually I will hear it, but you know what, I have a good imagination
with hearing microtones. It came with directing musicians in playing all
manner of tunings. I already know what the different intervals sound like: ET,
Just, sixth comma meantone, even different abstract cents combinations. It is
what I do.

> I would consider doing a Brandenburg in Neidhardt I, do you think this
> would be appropriate?

I like Neidhardt I. I don't want to beat it to death, though. There are
others. But, I would applaud your desire to experiment a bit and see which
other ones compel you and why. It's art after all, not hard science ;)

JR: If for one momemnt I thought there was one note that didn't work
perfectly for JS Bach in Werckmeister III then I would still be looking. Now I am
more interesting in producing the music.

Aaron: You might find it nice not to be in such a Werckmeister-box!

JR: This is a sarcastic argument at best. The world know nothing about
Werckmeister, not even a biography. At least Kirnberger has been translated and
and an image that has been passed down. Werckmeister is for all intents and
purposes, is invisible.

Aaron: I'll tell you what---let's do an experiment. I'll prepare some mp3's
of a Bach
prelude of your choice from WTC in a number of temperaments of your choice
(we might start with Werckmeister III, Sorge, Silbermann, Neidhardt, some
Marpurg, Lehman I) and we can see what people respond to and why. There are
no 'right answers' here. Just different beauties. ;)

JR: While I would applaud your industry in this endeavor, we are not talking
about polls. But it does help me understand why you chose this line of
beliefs. Honestly, people live with different beliefs (e.g., religions,
non-religions, etc.). But it would be wrong to think there is a "Werckmeister religion."
Gee, I am not even a fraction of the Christian he was, or Bach was.
(Actually, not at all.) ;)

Aaron: No, I don't mean to say that what you did was 'wrong'...only that
there are
other things to explore before picking a pet temperament. We might even say
"who cares what history says, I like this for these qualities" or something.
It's *art* after all. But by your own admission, you've not explored the
other possibles with your group, and it would be a real study to do so, no? I
would take a musician of your calibre seriously who has said "I tried this
this this and this, and I prefer this most of all, here's why....the hhistory
books are almost moot with a strong aesthetic preference like that. If at the
end of the day, Werck III is still your doll, so be it. You won't been any
worse of having tasted the others!

JR: Ah, now we are talking about philosophy in making concerts. In 25 years
of concertizing exclusively microtonal shows I decided never to allow certain
things. The music had to be great music foremost and there would only be
music that would be resplendent. Yes, there are expermiments, most out of
hearing of the audience. Before you go on about what I haven't heard any further,
you should perhaps consider what I have heard, and ellicit. But you are right
to present modern music any way you like. And you can distort earlier music
into 7ET if you like.

Aaron: While we're discussing this, I came up with my own interpretation of
Neidhardt
I which I quite like:

JR: I am glad you are using your research in new works. It is terrific.
However, Neidhardt doesn't make sense as Bach's tuning. JS had been using his
tuning before a Jena-based student named Neidhardt had publicized his "new"
Neidhardt I tuning (since the last one he made public was now to be relegated to
IV). It doesn't work chronologically.

all best, Johnny Reinhard

Hi Aaron (and Johnny, Brad, etc.),

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
wrote:

> On Monday 15 August 2005 10:13 am, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > In other worlds, the ability for contrapuntal lines to
> > stand out would be best served by less subtlety.
>
> The clarity of contrapuntal aspect has nothing to do with
> the tuning, as far as I can hear.

First, Johnny, i'm not sure whether i agree or disagree
with what you wrote, because i'm not totally clear on
what you mean by "less subtlety". To my mind, 12-edo is
pretty much the least subtle tuning around, and i think
contrapuntal technique is served far better by tunings
which have more intervallic variety than 12-edo ... and
i believe you'll agree with that.

Second, Aaron, i realize the discussion here concerns
Bach, but as you can see from what i wrote above, in
general i disagree with what you wrote here. I've begun
the process of redoing my computer-generated Mahler 7th
using 1/4-comma meantone, and i think the complex
counterpoint used by Mahler in this piece works much
better in meantone than in 12-edo.

... also wishing i could be more agreeable ...

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

> JR: If for one momemnt I thought there was one note that didn't
work
> perfectly for JS Bach in Werckmeister III then I would still be
looking. Now I am
> more interesting in producing the music.

Tune Werckmeister III and then play the JSB "Duetto" in F major, BWV
803, at a variety of tempos listening carefully to all the intervals.

Then do it with some other temperaments, likewise.

IMO, that particular Duetto is a Werckmeister-killer _par
excellence_: both melodically (as early as the first bar where you've
got a smallish major third followed by a large leap up to the pure
5th), and harmonically (almost all of the midsection where the themes
are in a series of odd keys, and with the parallel major 10ths that
are such disparate sizes in Werck III).

The web-supplement file for part 2 of the article has more detail
about this, analyzing all four of the Duetti with these issues on the
table. Several other Bach compositions, too.

For the step-by-step instructions to set up my proposed temp, see the
page
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/practical.html
There's a one-page PDF printout there, too, for convenience. And a
small handful of Neidhardts and Sorges--practical instructions for
use by ear--for comparison. It's easy to convert some of those from
one to another, simply by tweaking three or four of the notes. Lots
of family resemblance among these.

p.s. We did a Brandenburg 2 here in June, with my proposed temp. It
sounded beautiful and the orchestra found it easy to play with. I
played the weirdly chromatic concerto in A minor, BWV 1044, as part
of that same concert week; likewise. The color-changes in the middle
movement are especially lovely, and I invite you to play through it
yourself (flute/violin/hpsi) to hear what I mean there. Strong
emotional content there where the melodies slip from naturals to
sharps or flats, during a bar, as a new phrase starts. The last
movement has some strong contrasts in it, too, where it goes swinging
into all the sharps.

Brad Lehman

Johnny,

My last word on this subject was in response to Neil H's post. Please check
there, thanks.

All best,
Aaron.

On Tuesday 16 August 2005 8:36 am, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/16/2005 1:22:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>
> aaron@akjmusic.com writes:
> > Marpurg was an ingracous ass. And Kirnberger achieved the most subtle
> > well temperament of his time. What are you talking about here?
>
> The first statement is ad hominem, the second is an opinion *not* shared by
> many of Bach's own contemporaries.
>
>
> JR: Hi all. Wellcome to round 3 in this friendly look under rocks and
> "tuner fishing."
>
> Marpurg was an ingracious ass because he got his job in the Berlin library
> through the good services of Kirnberger, only to turn upon his benefactor
> viciously.
>
> As for "subtle" I thought you meant, Aaron, that the keys were not that
> noticeably different from each other. In Kirnberger they are not
> distinctive, being Just mainly, and Werckmeister is has the opposite, clear
> gradations between keys.
>
> > > You forget all the modified meantones of Europe, more of a common
> > > practice than Werck III for sure...plus we should really point out that
> > > it's possible that the temperament for WTC might have been different
> > > than what Bach used for common practice meantone-derived music. The Art
> > > of Fugue works in Silbermann's temperament, for sure.
> >
> > Studies from Barbuor to Lindley conclude that Bach requires a 12-note per
> > octave well temperament, not a modified meantone, for the great majority
> > of his organ compositions.
>
> A modified meantone *can* be a well-temperament, if it's a high enough
> fractional comma value to allow perfect fifths in the remoter keys. I
> suppose this is all semantics, dependant upon how one defines a
> well-temperament, though.
>
> JR: While keyboard players think this is all about keyboard tuning (some
> thinking there is a segregation between organ and keyboard, let alone
> clavichord), ALL INSTRUMENTS in Bach play with those keyboards. And there
> are organs in St. Matthew's Passion, et al. by Bach. Slight modifications
> to meantone have no bearing for the need of only 12 notes to express all of
> music. Extended meantone is a great game plan for a later age, when the
> keyboad is no longer REQUIRED for every instrumental ensemble. A neat,
> understandable game plan for intonation is incumbant for the players to be
> accurate. That is what Werckmeister III was, the plan that was on the
> table for all the musicians playing. The miricle was that with only 12
> notes one could truly master the art of temperament.
>
> > > > (Johnny said): In
> > > > other worlds, the ability for contrapuntal lines to stand out would
> > > > be best served by less subtlety.
> > >
> > > The clarity of contrapuntal aspect has nothing to do with the tuning,
> > > as far as I can hear.
> >
> > Then there is more to be heard. Akin to the reason for rules about
> > avoiding parallel fifths and for not having crossing voices, there is
> > indeed a separation of melodic lines. Werckmeister III gives greater
> > definition between melodic lines due to its lack of subtlety, unless we
> > are talking about a different sense of subtlety.
>
> I'm not sure I follow. How could 7 pure fifths by your argument, lead to
> greater definition. Wouldn't a greater diversity of fifths support that
> argument better?
> Having only 2 sizes of fifths, pure and 1/4 comma flate (6 cents apart)
> makes it possible for non-keyboard players to negotiate between them rather
> easily. One gets a 12 note "special" blues scale. IF you have so much
> diversity, let's say every fifth is a different size, then players will
> indeed be out-of-tune because they won't be on the same page.
>
> > Let us recheck this. C. Ph. E. Bach wrote in 1753 that the keyboard was
> > to be tuned by ‘taking away from most of the fifths a barely noticeable
> > amount of their absolute purity’ so that the keyboards play equally in
> > tune in all twenty-four tonalities"
> > but it was about what he thought about music. There is no reference here
> > to his father.
>
> And no reference to Werckmeister, either. And why would Bach's son's tuning
> not be of the same tradition as his father. If it were, it would be
> mentioned. He would have said "In an older style, so and so was done to a
> few fifths, now we temper more of them" or something.
>
>
> JR: He did change, and he said so, that is C.P.E. Johann Christian
> changed, too. Probably, W.F did not, preferring meantone.
>
> The reason the tuning changed is because music changed. As music went
> vertical from its horizontal basis of layered melodies, greater consonance
> was needed than Werckmeister tuning. It was the flute-playing King's
> style, a melody floating of chords. This was the new Classical era,
> probably actually begining 10 years BEFORE Bach died. The German world was
> waiting for his death so that the old-fashioned Baroque could end.
>
> This is why the tuning was not left to that used by the father, JS. BTW,
> ever hear of family jealousies? That was the Bach's and Werckmeister.
> They just didn't talk about each other, although both families KNEW of each
> other quite well. Each was an exemplor of music at the same time in a very
> small area of northwestern Thuringia to include the Harz mountains.
>
> I'm not convinced.
>
> > And CPE thought Marpurg was "detestable" in the way he treated
> > Kirnberger.
>
> It doesn't mean he didn't agree about the temperament, though.
>
> Ever hear or play Marpurg? I bought a CD of Marpurg's music. Although it
> mentions the exact tuning that Marpurg wanted for his pieces, the pianist
> chose to do them in ET because he thought Marpurg's tuning was detestable.
>
> > This is simply not true. "We" do not know any such thing. Bach made fun
> > of Silbermann's 1/6 comma temperament when he would make unannounced
> > visits at the showroom.
>
> Perhaps all in good fun? They were friendly. The story goes that he would
> just
> be obnoxious and play an Ab chord. Hardly evidence that he hated the
> tuning. We *today* love meantone, and still point out the wolves to people,
> because they are fun and obnoxious.
>
>
> Sorry, but you are reaching. Why play the obnoxious Ab chord to embarras a
> friend if he used the same Ab chord for his tuning? You might as well say
> the tortoise is faster than the hare.
> Yes, Neidhardt was more accurate *because* he used a monochord. But he was
> tuning 12-equal (Nedihardt IV---not Neidhardt I) (How many times do I have
> to repeat that? ;))
>
>
> JR: Doesn't that contradict your previous assertion that the "idea" for the
> contest was to tune 12-equal? Using a monochord, Neidhardt should have
> won. It was not about equalness. I know this in my gut. I know this from
> many visits to the cities Bach lived in, all architecturally rich in
> non-equalness: including but not limited to door shapes, window shapes,
> stones in the street shapes, heights of stairs (and directions, many
> curving) differ leading up to churches, etc.
>
> > As a result, Neidhardt
> > comes up with some new tunings and some switching around of Roman
> > numerals that designate them.
>
> You are attributing to Neidhardt a behavior we can hardly objectively
> speculate about. In his published scheme, my understanding is that they
> represent a graduation into 12-equal from village (I) to town (II) to city
> (III) to court (IV). You seem to be stubbornly resistant to trying it, to
> say the least! Try them out, pretty please? You don't need to try IV--it's
> the same as 12-equal.
>
> > Too much activity too late...and not for
> > J.S. Bach, like keeping his tuning from his strong familial training.
>
> And perhaps passing it on to his son, CPE, who describes most of the fifths
> as
> tempered....how could you think J.S. was so traditional and his son was
> not. What are your reasons?
>
>
> JR: Much is explained above in this post. Aaron, have you never heard of a
> generation gap? Didn't CPE move out and away ASAP to escape his father's
> power over him, musical and otherwise?
>
>
> A general question: what evidence would you admit, if not the
> circumstantial direct quotes of his son, and his students, and his cirlce
> of contemporaries, none of whom even indirectly suggest Werck III to be his
> tuning of choice?
>
>
> JR: There is lots of evidence within the works of Werckmeister, a prolific
> writer and publisher, besides being a good musician. It is understandable
> that no one knows his side of the story because his works have either not
> been translated out of German, and the little bit that has been
> "interpreted" is often from a stated bias (like pro-ET). I have read all
> the works through with a native German of Wolfenbuttal (who was also a
> Ph.D. specialist in the German language of the area, and my elder) while
> visiting for research several years ago. And that is only for starters.
>
> > > It's obvious that you haven't even tuned up Bradley Lehman's
> > > reconstructed temperament,
> >
> > Some harpsichordists told me they do not like it, and some are reputed to
> > like it. While I have not tuned up a harpsichord in it, it useability
> > for Bach means too little for its obvious subjectivity.
>
> Well, shouldn't you judge for yourself?
>
>
>
> JR: Eventually I will hear it, but you know what, I have a good
> imagination with hearing microtones. It came with directing musicians in
> playing all manner of tunings. I already know what the different intervals
> sound like: ET, Just, sixth comma meantone, even different abstract cents
> combinations. It is what I do.
>
> > I would consider doing a Brandenburg in Neidhardt I, do you think this
> > would be appropriate?
>
> I like Neidhardt I. I don't want to beat it to death, though. There are
> others. But, I would applaud your desire to experiment a bit and see which
> other ones compel you and why. It's art after all, not hard science ;)
>
>
> JR: If for one momemnt I thought there was one note that didn't work
> perfectly for JS Bach in Werckmeister III then I would still be looking.
> Now I am more interesting in producing the music.
>
>
> Aaron: You might find it nice not to be in such a Werckmeister-box!
>
> JR: This is a sarcastic argument at best. The world know nothing about
> Werckmeister, not even a biography. At least Kirnberger has been
> translated and and an image that has been passed down. Werckmeister is for
> all intents and purposes, is invisible.
>
>
> Aaron: I'll tell you what---let's do an experiment. I'll prepare some mp3's
> of a Bach
> prelude of your choice from WTC in a number of temperaments of your choice
> (we might start with Werckmeister III, Sorge, Silbermann, Neidhardt, some
> Marpurg, Lehman I) and we can see what people respond to and why. There are
> no 'right answers' here. Just different beauties. ;)
>
> JR: While I would applaud your industry in this endeavor, we are not
> talking about polls. But it does help me understand why you chose this
> line of beliefs. Honestly, people live with different beliefs (e.g.,
> religions, non-religions, etc.). But it would be wrong to think there is a
> "Werckmeister religion." Gee, I am not even a fraction of the Christian he
> was, or Bach was. (Actually, not at all.) ;)
>
>
> Aaron: No, I don't mean to say that what you did was 'wrong'...only that
> there are
> other things to explore before picking a pet temperament. We might even say
> "who cares what history says, I like this for these qualities" or
> something. It's *art* after all. But by your own admission, you've not
> explored the other possibles with your group, and it would be a real study
> to do so, no? I would take a musician of your calibre seriously who has
> said "I tried this this this and this, and I prefer this most of all,
> here's why....the hhistory books are almost moot with a strong aesthetic
> preference like that. If at the end of the day, Werck III is still your
> doll, so be it. You won't been any worse of having tasted the others!
>
>
> JR: Ah, now we are talking about philosophy in making concerts. In 25
> years of concertizing exclusively microtonal shows I decided never to allow
> certain things. The music had to be great music foremost and there would
> only be music that would be resplendent. Yes, there are expermiments, most
> out of hearing of the audience. Before you go on about what I haven't
> heard any further, you should perhaps consider what I have heard, and
> ellicit. But you are right to present modern music any way you like. And
> you can distort earlier music into 7ET if you like.
>
>
>
> Aaron: While we're discussing this, I came up with my own interpretation of
> Neidhardt
> I which I quite like:
>
> JR: I am glad you are using your research in new works. It is terrific.
> However, Neidhardt doesn't make sense as Bach's tuning. JS had been using
> his tuning before a Jena-based student named Neidhardt had publicized his
> "new" Neidhardt I tuning (since the last one he made public was now to be
> relegated to IV). It doesn't work chronologically.
>
> all best, Johnny Reinhard

In a message dated 8/16/2005 4:58:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, bpl@umich.edu
writes:
p.s. We did a Brandenburg 2 here in June, with my proposed temp. It
sounded beautiful and the orchestra found it easy to play with. I
played the weirdly chromatic concerto in A minor, BWV 1044, as part
of that same concert week; likewise. The color-changes in the middle
movement are especially lovely, and I invite you to play through it
yourself (flute/violin/hpsi) to hear what I mean there. Strong
emotional content there where the melodies slip from naturals to
sharps or flats, during a bar, as a new phrase starts. The last
movement has some strong contrasts in it, too, where it goes swinging
into all the sharps.

Brad Lehman
Thank you for the ideas to check out WIII in the Duetto. I will check this
out.

How about we exchange recordings so you we can experience each other's
Brandenburg #2? (Though, I thought you felt it was only a keyboad tuning?)

best, Johnny

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
...
> For those who want an alternative published tuning from that era (1724)
close
> to Bach's ideal, I recommend Neidhardt I,II, or III, and in particular, I,
> for its ease and subtlety and beauty. My piano at home is tuned to it, and
it
> sounds magnificent. Furthermore, it can be used for any music as a stand
in
> for 12-equal.
...

Aaron,

How close is Neidhard I to 12-EDO?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/8/05

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> I used to live next door to gangsta rappers, does that make me a gangsta
> rapper practitioner?

So ...., Aaron, you admit to a certain gangsta rap ... *influence*
in your music?! 8-0 LOL

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/8/05

Afmmjr@... (Johnny Reinhard) wrote:

> It is the genius of Bach that he works in every single tuning I have ever
> heard used. But "works" is a very loose term, much like "interesting" for
> describing visual art. And yet, JI Bach is limp. The wrong temperament
for Bach
> has got to be worse than the use of a right one. That is why this is such
a
> burning question.

But Johnny, is it a question we can ever hope to *answer*
definitively? I've seen much argument and much conjecture
on the issue of Bach's tunings over the last long while - but
very few facts.

If the best we can hope to achieve is only some kind of
legalistic "on the balance of the evidence, it seems likely
that ..." - is it worth all the fuss?

I rather like the spirit of Aaron's program - try out all
the contenders, and hear how they sound. Then decide
which are best for *one's own* musical purposes.

And of course the more different tunings that are available
as realised music (not theory), the easier it becomes for
hearers to vote their preferences, and express them through
sales figures.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.10/73 - Release Date: 15/8/05

In a message dated 8/16/2005 10:31:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
yahya@melbpc.org.au writes:
But Johnny, is it a question we can ever hope to *answer*
definitively? I've seen much argument and much conjecture
on the issue of Bach's tunings over the last long while - but
very few facts.

Hi Yahya, it is a question that I do hope to answer. This is why I think a
book is necessary to properly order all the evidence. I think in its entirety,
Werckmeister III will win out. There are many who do not agree with Brad and
Aaron and do think Werckmeister III is the best candidate (e.g., Christoph
Wolff).

If the best we can hope to achieve is only some kind of
legalistic "on the balance of the evidence, it seems likely
that ..." - is it worth all the fuss?

I rather like the spirit of Aaron's program - try out all
the contenders, and hear how they sound. Then decide
which are best for *one's own* musical purposes.

JR: Please understand that this is simply not the way I work. I could never
have worked through the Universe Symphony if trusted others for the musical
information. I do not trust the musical information presently available.

However, if someone has a copy of Beste Temperatur by Neidhardt, I would LOVE
a copy. I thought Rudolf Rasch would get to it in publication, but it has
not come to pass. I would gladly reimburse or trade.

And of course the more different tunings that are available
as realised music (not theory), the easier it becomes for
hearers to vote their preferences, and express them through
sales figures.

JR: We are interested in different things.

Regards,
Yahya
Regards to you, Johnny

Brad,

This is an excellent example. I played through it tonight.

There were admirable things about Werck III in this piece, but problems as
well. In general, I liked how some places produced micro-tension and release
points in Werck III. For example, m.20, which starts with an Eb above middle
C and C above middle C should be played slowly. It's not entirely without
interesting and compelling qualities.

But, at the end of the day, I like my Bach to go down a little smoother. Werck
III is too much of a rough and ready tuning for me.

Just a list of problems I encountered with Werck III in this Duetto:

1) your example of the first unfolded F major triad. It lacks energy and
forward propulsion, for lack of a better description. Unfortunately for Werck
III, this problem persists to my ear at *any* tempo, including fast tempi.
The 'A' in particular. I will say that, like meantone, the vertical chord of
F is lovely in Werck III, but melodically, for a duet, leave a bit to be
desired.
2) Bar 3-the D leading melodically from the Bb to C to D, sounds sour and flat
IMO. Again, the line loses upward flow/propulsion.
3) Bars 10 and following, where there is imitation, have annoying open fifths
that beat too much followed by rather static intervals, all in a haphazard
way that defies the linear logic of the music, IMO. For instance, I don't
care for the vertical coincidence at bar 11, 5 16th notes in, between tenor D
and A above middle C. Caveat; this is all much more noticable at slow tempi.
The effect is much more subtle at full speed, and much less bothersome.
4) Listen to the statement at bar 17, with the arpeggiated left hand coming
upwards in a C7 chord. The leading tone E into F seems dull in Werck III. And
so does the arrival in Bar 18 of the D in the left hand (the one with the tie
coming from it into the next bar). It lacks impetus.
5) The F minor bit at bar 77 sounds rough and raucus and a bit of a throwback
to meantone days.

There are more, but I'll let you all explore and find them!

And thanks for that tip, Brad.

Best,
Aaron.

On Tuesday 16 August 2005 3:57 pm, Brad Lehman wrote:
> > JR: If for one momemnt I thought there was one note that didn't
>
> work
>
> > perfectly for JS Bach in Werckmeister III then I would still be
>
> looking. Now I am
>
> > more interesting in producing the music.
>
> Tune Werckmeister III and then play the JSB "Duetto" in F major, BWV
> 803, at a variety of tempos listening carefully to all the intervals.
>
> Then do it with some other temperaments, likewise.
>
> IMO, that particular Duetto is a Werckmeister-killer _par
> excellence_: both melodically (as early as the first bar where you've
> got a smallish major third followed by a large leap up to the pure
> 5th), and harmonically (almost all of the midsection where the themes
> are in a series of odd keys, and with the parallel major 10ths that
> are such disparate sizes in Werck III).
>
> The web-supplement file for part 2 of the article has more detail
> about this, analyzing all four of the Duetti with these issues on the
> table. Several other Bach compositions, too.
>
> For the step-by-step instructions to set up my proposed temp, see the
> page
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/practical.html
> There's a one-page PDF printout there, too, for convenience. And a
> small handful of Neidhardts and Sorges--practical instructions for
> use by ear--for comparison. It's easy to convert some of those from
> one to another, simply by tweaking three or four of the notes. Lots
> of family resemblance among these.
>
>
> p.s. We did a Brandenburg 2 here in June, with my proposed temp. It
> sounded beautiful and the orchestra found it easy to play with. I
> played the weirdly chromatic concerto in A minor, BWV 1044, as part
> of that same concert week; likewise. The color-changes in the middle
> movement are especially lovely, and I invite you to play through it
> yourself (flute/violin/hpsi) to hear what I mean there. Strong
> emotional content there where the melodies slip from naturals to
> sharps or flats, during a bar, as a new phrase starts. The last
> movement has some strong contrasts in it, too, where it goes swinging
> into all the sharps.
>
>
> Brad Lehman
>
>
>
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Johnny Reinhard wrote variously:

> Hi Yahya, it is a question that I do hope to answer. This is why I
think a
> book is necessary to properly order all the evidence. I think in
its entirety,
> Werckmeister III will win out. There are many who do not agree
with
Brad and
> Aaron and do think Werckmeister III is the best candidate (e.g.,
Christoph
> Wolff).

Well, that's a rather deceptive statement to make! You're quoting
Wolff of at least 5 years ago, before my material was on any table
for discussion. In fact, more recently than you're citing him, Dr
Wolff is excited about my project and he was one last year who
directly recommended to me I take it to Oxford.

> How about we exchange recordings so you we can experience each
other's
> Brandenburg #2? (Though, I thought you felt it was only a keyboad
tuning?)

I'd love to, but ours of Bburg 2 was only a concert--not recorded.
Likewise this spring I did a concert of the Vivaldi/Bach concerto for
four harpsichords (BWV 1065)...with all four hpsis tuned to my
proposed temp, and all the string players tuning all their open
strings to its regular 1/6 comma 5ths (i.e. following Quantz's advice
to string players, narrowing their 5ths slightly to match all four
strings to the keyboard **).

As for "I thought you felt it was only a keyboad tuning", that
assessment (i.e. misrepresentation of my opinion) is based on what?!
I have stated clearly in both the article and at several places on my
web site that I believe it goes far beyond keyboard-solo music, both
in practice and its musical implications. It affects the B Minor
Mass, cantatas, chamber music, et al; and where it's a transposing
organ (from an original Chorton/Cammerton situation) that's all
explicitly worked out and detailed in the article.

It's also been used regularly this summer at the Glyndebourne
Festival in both Rossini(!) and Handel(!) operas. Not because those
gigs have anything to do with Bach, necessarily, but simply because
the performers believe it sounds good/effective/beautiful/flexible in
the music to be played/sung. This temp is an effective all-purpose
solution for tonal music. I've been using it this summer to play
through the Grieg "Lyric Pieces" for piano, and it's marvelous in
those too. I recorded six of the Brahms chorales in my organ set,
and my transcription of Elgar's "Nimrod".... And on the other side
of Bach, the complete book of JKF Fischer's "Ariadne musica" with its
preludes and fugues in 19 different keys. My hypothesis there,
obviously, is to hear those pieces with the same (family-tradition)
tuning I believe Bach used when playing them for himself, as part of
his own inspiration to compose the WTC.

And if you've read any of my material closely, you'll see that it's
in part *based on* the understanding that the open-string 5ths of
violin/viola/cello/bass/vdgamba constrain the keyboard, in turn, to
have *regularly* narrowed 5ths on those particular notes: for the
good of ensemble intonation. (And see also Haynes's and Chesnut's
articles about orchestral standards in the 18th century....) That
is: what's good for group playing--regularity on the naturals
downtown--is also good for keyboard solo work, as the common
constraint that serves both. Melodic smoothness, and predictability
where the notes will be pitched in leaps, due to a basic regularity
of those 5ths downtown.

Contrast that with Werckmeister III, for example: where the string
players must deal with tightly tempered 5ths on C-G-D-A but a pure
5th on A-E. Right there, unless they're ignoring/fighting the
keyboard in their own tuning or playing, the things the violinists do
on their E strings will be too high compared with the rest of their
own instrument.

(**) Quantz's chapter about orchestral playing, subsection 7: "Of the
duties that all accompanying instrumentalists in general must
observe". pp266 ff in the Reilly translation to English.

p.s. While you've got out your copy of Quantz, be sure to play also
through the "Affettuoso di molto" musical example he printed in that
same accompaniment chapter. As I remarked in the article, the
dynamics explicitly marked in that piece correlate well in practice
with the chord tensions that are naturally felt, as that piece goes
along with its specified harmonies. This, to me, is circumstantial
evidence that my proposed temp or something very close to it was in
regular use at Frederick's court at the time of Quantz's writing--
where the court keyboardist was none other than CPE Bach.

Bradley Lehman
http://www.larips.com

In a message dated 8/17/2005 9:38:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, bpl@umich.edu
writes:
Well, that's a rather deceptive statement to make! You're quoting
Wolff of at least 5 years ago, before my material was on any table
for discussion. In fact, more recently than you're citing him, Dr
Wolff is excited about my project and he was one last year who
directly recommended to me I take it to Oxford.

"Hi Brad,

You don't mean I was intentionally deceptive, do you? This would be news to
me, of course. Maybe hyperbole is just too easy to achieve. BTW, I commend
the success you have had in getting your ideas out and about."

> How about we exchange recordings so you we can experience each
other's
> Brandenburg #2? (Though, I thought you felt it was only a keyboad
tuning?)

I'd love to, but ours of Bburg 2 was only a concert--not recorded.

"So was mine 'only a concert.' But these major extravaganza concerts need to
be recorded. With all the investment in getting all the players to play
everything right, it is only another $150 to record. Please consider this."

As for "I thought you felt it was only a keyboad tuning", that
assessment (i.e. misrepresentation of my opinion) is based on what?!
I have stated clearly in both the article and at several places on my
web site that I believe it goes far beyond keyboard-solo music, both
in practice and its musical implications. It affects the B Minor
Mass, cantatas, chamber music, et al; and where it's a transposing
organ (from an original Chorton/Cammerton situation) that's all
explicitly worked out and detailed in the article.

"Excuse me, Brad. I guess it was Aaron saying that Werckmeister was
exclusively a keyboard tuning, and the fact that your only source is in your personal
interpretation of a keyboard work's title page, that lead me this way. If
your tuning is all purpose, and you do call your tuning "Bach's tuning" (no?), I
stand corrected."

To shorten the posts, let me say here that I think it's wonderful for you to
invent a new tuning and to apply it to all the music that you see fit. And I
do agree, as you already know, that there was a Bach family tuning...only I
think it was Werckmeister III, likely used by the Bach family before
Werckmeister's original 1681 publication...which Bach no doubt owned.

Right now I am sad that after producing great music by Bach that happens to
be in Werckmeister III no one on this list thinks it important to listen to.

Yes, Quantz was in extended sixth comma meantone. Not so JS Bach. Maybe
that is why the Musical Offering would never be played by Frederick. Bach knew
this in advance and self-published it with his Kingly dedication and all.

all best, Johnny

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 8:37 am, Brad Lehman wrote:

> I've been using it this [my Bach temperament] summer to play
> through the Grieg "Lyric Pieces" for piano, and it's marvelous in
> those too.

Yes, and you say there is a family resemblance with Neidhardt's temperaments,
to; my 1885 Steinway is tuned to Neidhardt I, and it handles Debussy and
Mompouo just beautifully. It's close enough to 12-equal not to be raucous,
but far enough to give everything an interesting key-color and shimmer.

> And if you've read any of my material closely, you'll see that it's
> in part *based on* the understanding that the open-string 5ths of
> violin/viola/cello/bass/vdgamba constrain the keyboard, in turn, to
> have *regularly* narrowed 5ths on those particular notes: for the
> good of ensemble intonation. (And see also Haynes's and Chesnut's
> articles about orchestral standards in the 18th century....) That
> is: what's good for group playing--regularity on the naturals
> downtown--is also good for keyboard solo work, as the common
> constraint that serves both. Melodic smoothness, and predictability
> where the notes will be pitched in leaps, due to a basic regularity
> of those 5ths downtown.
>
> Contrast that with Werckmeister III, for example: where the string
> players must deal with tightly tempered 5ths on C-G-D-A but a pure
> 5th on A-E. Right there, unless they're ignoring/fighting the
> keyboard in their own tuning or playing, the things the violinists do
> on their E strings will be too high compared with the rest of their
> own instrument.

This is an *excellent* point!

Cheers,
Aaron.

On Tuesday 16 August 2005 9:30 pm, Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
> Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> > I used to live next door to gangsta rappers, does that make me a gangsta
> > rapper practitioner?
>
> So ...., Aaron, you admit to a certain gangsta rap ... *influence*
> in your music?! 8-0 LOL

I suppose in what *not* to do when writing something in meantone?

hehe

Aaron?

On Tuesday 16 August 2005 9:30 pm, Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:

> Aaron,
>
> How close is Neidhard I to 12-EDO?
>
> Regards,
> Yahya

Neidhardt I is given below as a Scala '.scl' file. Hope it clarifies.

! neidhardt1.scl
!
Neidhardt I temperament (1724)
12
!
94.13500
196.09000
296.09000
392.18000
4/3
592.18000
698.04500
796.09000
894.13500
16/9
1092.18000
2/1

Cheers,
Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 August 2005 8:37 am, Brad Lehman wrote:
>
> > I've been using it this [my Bach temperament] summer to play
> > through the Grieg "Lyric Pieces" for piano, and it's marvelous in
> > those too.
>
> Yes, and you say there is a family resemblance with Neidhardt's
temperaments,
> to; my 1885 Steinway is tuned to Neidhardt I, and it handles
Debussy
and
> Mompouo just beautifully. It's close enough to 12-equal not to be
raucous,
> but far enough to give everything an interesting key-color and
shimmer.

I found an interesting bit a couple of days ago, in the old book
_Piano Tuning: A Simple and Accurate Method for Amateurs_. Author J
Cree Fischer. Original publication Theo Presser 1907, available now
as Dover reprint. In chapter 10 the author starts his explanation as
to why equal temperament should now be preferred, and he has a
section on 98 where he lumps all "Unequal Temperament" together into
a straw bin, explaining it briefly, on the way to tossing all of it
into the rubbish. But here's the part that intrigues me:

"In this day, when piano and organ music is written and played in all
the keys, the unequal temperament is, of course, out of the question.
But, strange to say, it is only within the last half century that the
system of equal temperament has been universally adopted, and some
tuners, even now, will try to favor the flat keys because they are
used more by the mass of players who play little but popular music,
which is mostly written in keys having flats in the signature."

So then, by 1907 even though ET is supposedly "universally adopted",
this guy reports that flat-key-favoring is still being done to a
degree that (to him) is alarming, and contemptible, even though it
sounds terrific in the music to be played.......

Of course, to such an argument there couldn't be any sound *musical*
or theoretical reasons to favor sweet flats and highish sharps--even
though the part 2 of my article lays out a detailed theory of exactly
that, by examining how far we are away from C by the spiral of 5ths.
The note A-flat *is* much closer to C (only four positions) than G#
is (eight positions), and that right there is a pretty good reason to
favor it tuned closer to A-flat than to G#. Never mind the dumb
dodos who just want to play piles of trash pop music in flats...what
if that, right there, is an idiom where the vernacular reminds us
what sounds good in practice, in music that is in flats *or* sharps?
Mellow flats, bright/brilliant sharps, smoothly arranged in
modulation around the spiral of 5ths from one key to the next, and
centered on C.

Wasn't it Irving Berlin who played *everything* in deep flats?

Bradley Lehman

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 9:09 am, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> Right now I am sad that after producing great music by Bach that happens to
> be in Werckmeister III no one on this list thinks it important to listen
> to.

Johnny, I hope you didn't read my challenges to your position re:Werckmeister
as an utter dissmissal of your very important work! I can't speak for anyone
else, but I doubt anyone else dismisses your work, either.

I will listen! And consider me a enthusiastic supporter of your cause. I
bought your Ives disk, for instance, and ate it up, excitedly bringing it to
a weekly listening session. And if I lived in NY, I would surely
attend/perform in your series (not to toot my own horn, but I'm an
accomplished pianist).

BTW, Chris Bailey and I are planning a Midwest microtonal thing (festival?
series?). We are going to think big but start small. We have a potential
space interested, and now we need to form an non-profit, etc. and get
funding. I already have some performers interested. Your expertise in these
matters would surely be helpful. Count on me contacting you in the future to
chat about your experiences getting a series started.

In friendship,
Aaron.

P.S. The list is often *not* the most supportive atmosphere. There are a lot
of egos here. I am committed to supporting others, hoping to feel support
when I would like some.....and who doesn't?

We also must remember that no response to a post isn't *always* disinterest.
People could be busy, away, etc.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@u...> wrote:

> Wasn't it Irving Berlin who played *everything*
> in deep flats?

Well ... you *could* call it Gb, but i've always seen
it referred to as F#. It's because Berlin (whose name
was originally Isidore Baline) could not read or write
music, and could only play piano in the key of F#.

(Those of you who don't play piano may wonder why
he learned to play in such a complicated key ... but
actually F#/Gb *is* the easiest key to play in on the
Halberstadt keyboard.)

Here's a link showing his specially-built
"transposing piano":

http://www.concertpitchpiano.com/TinPanAlley.html

A side note:

Berlin became famous because of his hit
"Alexander's Ragtime Band", which bears a resemblance
to "A Real Slow Drag", the closing number from Scott
Joplin's opera _Treemonisha_. Joplin had been playing
_Treemonisha_ for people, trying to generate interest
with no success, and was outraged when he first heard
Berlin's tune, feeling that Berlin had stolen it from him.

Joplin was already entering the third stage of syphillis,
which a few years later killed him after a period of
dementia, and to see Berlin become rich and famous under
these circumstances while Joplin saw his own role as
the "King of Ragtime" fading away and his ambitions for
recognition as a "real" composer being dashed,
certainly didn't help his situation.

Here's a good article about it (delete the line-break):

http://www.nydailynews.com/city_life/big_town/v-bigtown_archive/story/
168855p-147483c.html

Now since this has become totally off-topic, if anyone
has a reply please post it to metatuning.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

Thanks for sharing this, Brad. I have read that Fischer book recently! (I've
owned it for years--first read it many years ago)

I've never thought about the E-major/Ab-major connection in quite the same way
you've outlined it below-interesting! I've always thought, like most, that
the key signature distance being the same, the third size should 'be the same
or similar'. Anyhow, you've given a decent justification for the
equal-beating 'thirds skeleton scheme' I porposed which naturally slightly
favors the flat keys.

I'd be curious to hear your impressions of the Neidhardt-I modification I
proposed....I for one, like your Bach tuning very much. I can't say that it
conclusively *was* Bach's tuning, but your reconstruction is compelling,
which is enough for making music.

Yes, I remember hearing that bit about Irving Berlin. Don't know where or why,
but it's one of the only things anyone ever says about him!

All best,
Aaron.

On Wednesday 17 August 2005 9:37 am, Brad Lehman wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
>
> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 August 2005 8:37 am, Brad Lehman wrote:
> > > I've been using it this [my Bach temperament] summer to play
> > > through the Grieg "Lyric Pieces" for piano, and it's marvelous in
> > > those too.
> >
> > Yes, and you say there is a family resemblance with Neidhardt's
>
> temperaments,
>
> > to; my 1885 Steinway is tuned to Neidhardt I, and it handles
>
> Debussy
> and
>
> > Mompouo just beautifully. It's close enough to 12-equal not to be
>
> raucous,
>
> > but far enough to give everything an interesting key-color and
>
> shimmer.
>
>
> I found an interesting bit a couple of days ago, in the old book
> _Piano Tuning: A Simple and Accurate Method for Amateurs_. Author J
> Cree Fischer. Original publication Theo Presser 1907, available now
> as Dover reprint. In chapter 10 the author starts his explanation as
> to why equal temperament should now be preferred, and he has a
> section on 98 where he lumps all "Unequal Temperament" together into
> a straw bin, explaining it briefly, on the way to tossing all of it
> into the rubbish. But here's the part that intrigues me:
>
> "In this day, when piano and organ music is written and played in all
> the keys, the unequal temperament is, of course, out of the question.
> But, strange to say, it is only within the last half century that the
> system of equal temperament has been universally adopted, and some
> tuners, even now, will try to favor the flat keys because they are
> used more by the mass of players who play little but popular music,
> which is mostly written in keys having flats in the signature."
>
>
> So then, by 1907 even though ET is supposedly "universally adopted",
> this guy reports that flat-key-favoring is still being done to a
> degree that (to him) is alarming, and contemptible, even though it
> sounds terrific in the music to be played.......
>
> Of course, to such an argument there couldn't be any sound *musical*
> or theoretical reasons to favor sweet flats and highish sharps--even
> though the part 2 of my article lays out a detailed theory of exactly
> that, by examining how far we are away from C by the spiral of 5ths.
> The note A-flat *is* much closer to C (only four positions) than G#
> is (eight positions), and that right there is a pretty good reason to
> favor it tuned closer to A-flat than to G#. Never mind the dumb
> dodos who just want to play piles of trash pop music in flats...what
> if that, right there, is an idiom where the vernacular reminds us
> what sounds good in practice, in music that is in flats *or* sharps?
> Mellow flats, bright/brilliant sharps, smoothly arranged in
> modulation around the spiral of 5ths from one key to the next, and
> centered on C.
>
> Wasn't it Irving Berlin who played *everything* in deep flats?
>
>
> Bradley Lehman
>
>
>
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
wrote:
> I'd be curious to hear your impressions of the Neidhardt-I
modification I
> proposed....

Aaron, I don't recall seeing your original explication of it on-list,
other than Yahya's questions today (quoting fragments of it) and your
reply. When/where was it posted, so I can have a look? I hope to
set it up at an early opportunity, but will be traveling soon away
from hpsi and computer.

I saw your Scala layout
/tuning/topicId_59632.html#59676
but am not a Scala user....

Brad Lehman

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

> Regardless, Bach 'works in' 12tET and will work in Just (Ezra Sims),
and will
> work in Lehman I. The point is not that Bach works in different
tunings.

Excellent point. The tuning is underdetermined from the music. I'd be
interested in evidence that Bach used one fixed tuning, and did not
adjust tuning to the piece performed, come to that.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:

> A modified meantone *can* be a well-temperament, if it's a high enough
> fractional comma value to allow perfect fifths in the remoter keys.
I suppose
> this is all semantics, dependant upon how one defines a
well-temperament,
> though.

It wouldn't be a well-temperament according to Manuel's usage with
Scala, at any rate. It would be nice if there were agreed on
standards, I suppose.

> And no reference to Werckmeister, either. And why would Bach's son's
tuning
> not be of the same tradition as his father. If it were, it would be
> mentioned. He would have said "In an older style, so and so was done
to a few
> fifths, now we temper more of them" or something.
>
> I'm not convinced.

I'm certainly not convinced you can find what JS did from what CPE
did. But then, I'm still not convinced of the basic assumption that
Bach treated the harpsichord in the same way as an organ--as if it had
a single, fixed tuning. Is there evidence for this?

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

> Second, Aaron, i realize the discussion here concerns
> Bach, but as you can see from what i wrote above, in
> general i disagree with what you wrote here. I've begun
> the process of redoing my computer-generated Mahler 7th
> using 1/4-comma meantone, and i think the complex
> counterpoint used by Mahler in this piece works much
> better in meantone than in 12-edo.

Of course my inclination would be to tell authenticity to take a
flying leap, and do it all in extended meantone.

In a message dated 8/18/2005 10:51:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:
Of course my inclination would be to tell authenticity to take a
flying leap, and do it all in extended meantone.

And why not extended just?

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

> On Tuesday 16 August 2005 9:30 pm, Yahya Abdal-Aziz wrote:
>
> > Aaron,
> >
> > How close is Neidhard I to 12-EDO?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yahya
>
>
> Neidhardt I is given below as a Scala '.scl' file. Hope it clarifies.

Thanks, Aaron, yes, just seeing it laid out in cents makes it easy
to see how far away 12-EDO & Neidhardt I are from each other.
To that end, I've interpolated cents values below for the fourth
F and double fourth Bb.

> ! neidhardt1.scl
> !
> Neidhardt I temperament (1724)
> 12
> !
> 94.13500
> 196.09000
> 296.09000
> 392.18000
> 4/3 [498.04500]
> 592.18000
> 698.04500
> 796.09000
> 894.13500
> 16/9 [996.09000]
> 1092.18000
> 2/1

If, to borrow Paul Erlich's phrase, we regarded Neidhardt I as
"perceptibly just", then the notes of 12-EDO are all less than 8
cents away from being so.

Interestingly, and unexpectedly, I think, Neidhardt I appears
to abound in 12-EDO intervals between its notes. For example,

C# to G#:
894.13500 - 94.13500 = 800 c;

D to E:
296.09000 - 196.09000 = 100 c;

F to G:
698.04500 - 498.04500 = 200 c;

E to F#:
592.18000 - 392.18000 = 200 c;

F# to B:
1092.18000 - 592.18000 = 500 c.

If so, it's remarkable that a fairly quick rational tuning method
should produce such close agreement to irrational intervals.

> Cheers,
> Aaron.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.12/77 - Release Date: 18/8/05

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@u...> wrote:

> Tune Werckmeister III and then play the JSB "Duetto" in F major, BWV
> 803, at a variety of tempos listening carefully to all the intervals.

I compared 12-equal to Werckmeister III, and I liked W3 better, actually.

> Then do it with some other temperaments, likewise.

I used to have a scl file of your temperament, but I don't know where
it has gotten to or if it is correct, and a scl file for it would be a
nice thing to post here. What else would you suggest? If I run a
comparison I'll add extended meantone to the mix as well.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/18/2005 10:51:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
> Of course my inclination would be to tell authenticity to take a
> flying leap, and do it all in extended meantone.
>
>
> And why not extended just?

Because for common practice music, extended meantone normally works
much better. Of course JI is fine for some pieces.

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

> What else would you suggest? If I run a
> comparison I'll add extended meantone to the mix as well.

BWV 803 sounds really excellent in extended meantone.

In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:07:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:
And why not extended just?

Because for common practice music, extended meantone normally works
much better. Of course JI is fine for some pieces.

It is possible with today's musicians to perform all music in extended Just.
Would this not be a better result if it can indeed be achieved? Johnny

Folks, by inspirational revelation (as well as to put an end to ceaseless speculations), I conclude that J.S. Bach had nothing else in his mind for WTC, but this tuning:

12-tone Well-Temperament from practically 159-tET:
|
0: 1/1 C Dbb unison, perfect prime
1: 90.225 cents C# Db
2: 196.090 cents D Ebb
3: 294.135 cents D# Eb
4: 392.180 cents E Fb
5: 498.045 cents F Gbb
6: 588.270 cents F# Gb
7: 701.955 cents G Abb
8: 792.180 cents G# Ab
9: 898.045 cents A Bbb
10: 996.090 cents A# Bb
11: 1094.135 cents B Cb
12: 2/1 C Dbb

1: 90.225: 12: 90.5660 cents, diff. 0.045187 steps, 0.3410 cents
2: 196.090: 26: 196.2264 cents, diff. 0.018075 steps, 0.1364 cents
3: 294.135: 39: 294.3396 cents, diff. 0.027112 steps, 0.2046 cents
4: 392.180: 52: 392.4528 cents, diff. 0.036150 steps, 0.2728 cents
5: 498.045: 66: 498.1132 cents, diff. 0.009037 steps, 0.0682 cents
6: 588.270: 78: 588.6792 cents, diff. 0.054225 steps, 0.4092 cents
7: 701.955: 93: 701.8868 cents, diff. -0.009037 steps, -0.0682 cents
8: 792.180: 105: 792.4528 cents, diff. 0.036150 steps, 0.2728 cents
9: 898.045: 119: 898.1132 cents, diff. 0.009037 steps, 0.0682 cents
10: 996.090: 132: 996.2264 cents, diff. 0.018075 steps, 0.1364 cents
11: 1094.135: 145: 1094.3396 cents, diff. 0.027112 steps, 0.2046 cents
12: 1200.000: 159: 1200.0000 cents, diff. 0.000000 steps, 0.0000 cents

Total absolute difference : 0.289200 steps, 2.1826 cents
Average absolute difference: 0.024100 steps, 0.1819 cents
Root mean square difference: 0.028816 steps, 0.2175 cents
Highest absolute difference: 0.054225 steps, 0.4092 cents

0: 0.000 cents 0.000 0 0 commas C
7: 701.955 cents -0.000 0 0 commas G
2: 694.135 cents -7.820 -240 -1/3 Pyth. commas D
9: 701.955 cents -7.820 -240 -1/3 Pyth. commas A
4: 694.135 cents -15.640 -480 -2/3 Pyth. commas E
11: 701.955 cents -15.640 -480 -2/3 Pyth. commas B
6: 694.135 cents -23.460 -720 -1 Pyth. commas F#
1: 701.955 cents -23.460 -720 -1 Pyth. commas C#
8: 701.955 cents -23.460 -720 -1 Pyth. commas G#
3: 701.955 cents -23.460 -720 -1 Pyth. commas Eb
10: 701.955 cents -23.460 -720 -1 Pyth. commas Bb
5: 701.955 cents -23.460 -720 -1 Pyth. commas F
12: 701.955 cents -23.460 -720 -Pythagorean comma, ditonic co C
Average absolute difference: 17.5950 cents
Root mean square difference: 20.1452 cents
Maximum absolute difference: 23.4600 cents
Maximum formal fifth difference: 7.8200 cents

Cordially,
Ozan

8=)

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

> It is possible with today's musicians to perform all music in
extended Just.
> Would this not be a better result if it can indeed be achieved?

Can you explain what you mean? If it can be performed in extended
just, you could make a midi file in extended just; what would that be
like? What, for starters, is your definition of "extended just"?

In a message dated 8/19/2005 12:54:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:
Can you explain what you mean? If it can be performed in extended
just, you could make a midi file in extended just; what would that be
like? What, for starters, is your definition of "extended just"?

Extended just would be limitless. Today every instrument can play any pitch.
Even the keyboad is liberated through digital technology. Musicians can
play any "just" relationship a human being can conceive. Would this be
preferable to temperament of any kind?

Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/18/2005 10:51:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
> Of course my inclination would be to tell authenticity to take a
> flying leap, and do it all in extended meantone.
>
>
> And why not extended just?

When we were working on some Bach here with John deLaubenfels,
developing some adaptive tuning algorithms, even 11-cent shifts in
the pitch of a note were disturbing to my ear. They sounded like
performance errors. We eventually improved the algorithm so that it
managed to keep all the shifts to 6 cents or less, which never
bothered me (audible, perhaps, but well within the bounds of normal
expressive pitch shifting). Strict (or extended -- the idea being
that you use whatever ratio is needed to make each chord purely
consonant, but you always use ratios) JI would require 21.5-cent
(syntonic comma) shifts in many places, twice as large and more than
twice as disturbing. So strict (extended) JI is definitely out of the
question for virtually all Bach pieces as far as my ears are
concerned.

Adaptive JI (which uses pure ratios vertically but not horizontally),
such as Vicentino's model based on a 1/4-comma meantone "baseline",
would work fine for Bach, however. It seems, from his recent post,
that Michael Zapf would approve of such an approach.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:

> If, to borrow Paul Erlich's phrase, we regarded Neidhardt I as
> "perceptibly just",

Really?

> If so, it's remarkable that a fairly quick rational tuning method
> should produce such close agreement to irrational intervals.

How do you consider this a 'rational' tuning method?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Folks, by inspirational revelation (as well as to put an end to
ceaseless speculations), I conclude that J.S. Bach had nothing else
in his mind for WTC, but this tuning:
>
> 12-tone Well-Temperament from practically 159-tET:
> |
> 0: 1/1 C Dbb unison, perfect prime
> 1: 90.225 cents C# Db
> 2: 196.090 cents D Ebb
> 3: 294.135 cents D# Eb
> 4: 392.180 cents E Fb
> 5: 498.045 cents F Gbb
> 6: 588.270 cents F# Gb
> 7: 701.955 cents G Abb
> 8: 792.180 cents G# Ab
> 9: 898.045 cents A Bbb
> 10: 996.090 cents A# Bb
> 11: 1094.135 cents B Cb
> 12: 2/1 C Dbb

Ozan, have you actually tried this out on a keyboard? There are only
2 major triads (on C and D) with total error significantly better
than 12-ET, 5 slightly better than 12-ET (on Bb, F, G, A, and E), and
5 with error equal to pythagorean. I seriously wonder whether Bach
would have approved. ;-(

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:07:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
> And why not extended just?
>
> Because for common practice music, extended meantone normally works
> much better. Of course JI is fine for some pieces.
>
> It is possible with today's musicians to perform all music in
extended Just.
> Would this not be a better result if it can indeed be achieved? Johnny

Not to my ears, as I explained before. The frequent 21.5-cent (syntonic
comma) shifts in sustained or repeated notes that this would require in
Bach's music disturb the motivic flow too much. You've claimed that
each note in Bach's music represents a precise pitch (the relevant
pitch in Werckmeister III). I think there's some validity to that, but
it may be valid to introduce a 6-cent "window of flexibility" in that.
A 21.5-cent "window of flexibility", though, is too much, I feel -- it
destroys the integrity of the melodic skeleton of the music. So
extended Just is out of the question for Bach. But adaptive JI, where
all the vertical sonorities are tuned just (while the horizontal
intervals aren't) is certainly a possibility.

In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:45:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com writes:
Not to my ears, as I explained before. The frequent 21.5-cent (syntonic
comma) shifts in sustained or repeated notes that this would require in
Bach's music disturb the motivic flow too much. You've claimed that
each note in Bach's music represents a precise pitch (the relevant
pitch in Werckmeister III). I think there's some validity to that, but
it may be valid to introduce a 6-cent "window of flexibility" in that.
Paul, I was asking Gene if he would prefer non-tempered in all circumstances
for tonal music. Of course, I agree this would be terrible for Bach.

JS Bach is renown for temperament and I get withdrawl sympthoms when I hear
him in just.

But Paul, re your 6-cent "window of flexibility," I would suggest that 3
cents in either direction puts the note in a neutral territory between variants.
This is not a good thing. This is the nauseous feeling I have made note of.
Now 2 cents in either direction is safe. :)

Johnny

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

> But Paul, re your 6-cent "window of flexibility," I would suggest
that 3
> cents in either direction puts the note in a neutral territory
between variants.
> This is not a good thing. This is the nauseous feeling I have made
note of.
> Now 2 cents in either direction is safe. :)

OK -- my point was only that the 21.5-cent "window of flexibility" that
would be required when rendering Bach in strict (extended) JI is
certainly too wide.

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> >
> > In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:07:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> > gwsmith@s... writes:
> > >
> > > And why not extended just?
> >
> > Because for common practice music, extended meantone
> > normally works much better. Of course JI is fine for
> > some pieces.
> >
> > It is possible with today's musicians to perform all
> > music in extended Just.
> > Would this not be a better result if it can indeed
> > be achieved? Johnny
>
> Not to my ears, as I explained before. The frequent 21.5-cent
> (syntonic comma) shifts in sustained or repeated notes that
> this would require in Bach's music disturb the motivic flow
> too much. You've claimed that each note in Bach's music
> represents a precise pitch (the relevant pitch in
> Werckmeister III). I think there's some validity to that,
> but it may be valid to introduce a 6-cent "window of
> flexibility" in that. A 21.5-cent "window of flexibility",
> though, is too much, I feel -- it destroys the integrity of
> the melodic skeleton of the music. So extended Just is out
> of the question for Bach. But adaptive JI, where all the
> vertical sonorities are tuned just (while the horizontal
> intervals aren't) is certainly a possibility.

I picked up a temporary gig this month as substitute
music-director of a church choir, and i've been using
Tonescape to make MIDI files of some of the choir songs,
tuned in Vicentino's adaptive-JI, with wonderful results.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

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

> I picked up a temporary gig this month as substitute
> music-director of a church choir, and i've been using
> Tonescape to make MIDI files of some of the choir songs,
> tuned in Vicentino's adaptive-JI, with wonderful results.

Excellent! Can you post some of these MIDI files somewhere? Of course,
a different format would be preferable, since the result of MIDI files
varies according to the listener's particular sound card . . .

On Friday 19 August 2005 12:05 pm, Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 8/19/2005 12:54:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> gwsmith@svpal.org writes:
> Can you explain what you mean? If it can be performed in extended
> just, you could make a midi file in extended just; what would that be
> like? What, for starters, is your definition of "extended just"?
>
>
> Extended just would be limitless. Today every instrument can play any
> pitch. Even the keyboad is liberated through digital technology. Musicians
> can play any "just" relationship a human being can conceive. Would this be
> preferable to temperament of any kind?

Not if you like temperaments, and beating, etc.

Best,
Aaron.

Hi Paul and Gene,

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> > I picked up a temporary gig this month as substitute
> > music-director of a church choir, and i've been using
> > Tonescape to make MIDI files of some of the choir songs,
> > tuned in Vicentino's adaptive-JI, with wonderful results.
>
> Excellent! Can you post some of these MIDI files somewhere?
> Of course, a different format would be preferable, since
> the result of MIDI files varies according to the listener's
> particular sound card . . .

http://206.225.92.70/downloads/music/halleluya-we-sing-your-
praises_gather-394.mid

(delete the line-break and paste into browser)

... or you could just go to our temporary new domain
(it will be replaced by "tonalsoft.com" in a few days)

http://206.225.92.70/

and click the "Files" menu, then "Free Music", and
you'll see it listed there.

Of course, if you get Tonescape running, i could upload
the .tonescape file of it, and then you can also see
the pitch-height graph and lattice in real time, while
it plays ...

I really like the quality Gene gets when he renders
MIDI into .ogg and .mp3, so Gene, if you're willing
to make the conversion, i'll post the mp3 on our site.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/19/2005 2:45:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> wallyesterpaulrus@y... writes:

> Not to my ears, as I explained before. The frequent 21.5-cent (syntonic
> comma) shifts in sustained or repeated notes that this would require in
> Bach's music disturb the motivic flow too much. You've claimed that
> each note in Bach's music represents a precise pitch (the relevant
> pitch in Werckmeister III). I think there's some validity to that, but
> it may be valid to introduce a 6-cent "window of flexibility" in that.

> Paul, I was asking Gene if he would prefer non-tempered in all
circumstances
> for tonal music. Of course, I agree this would be terrible for Bach.

Obviously, common practice music assumes 81/80 vanishes somehow, so
I'd expect it to be tuned in some way, whether with a fixed or
adaptive tuning, which deals with it. I'm not clear how it could work
in all circumstances for tonal music if it doesn't work for Bach, so
I'm still not clear what the question is. Are you asking about new music?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

> Ozan, have you actually tried this out on a keyboard? There are only
> 2 major triads (on C and D) with total error significantly better
> than 12-ET, 5 slightly better than 12-ET (on Bb, F, G, A, and E), and
> 5 with error equal to pythagorean. I seriously wonder whether Bach
> would have approved. ;-(

It's not same old same old, at any rate. But I don't see the advantage
of alternating pure and very flat fifths, followed by pure.

In a message dated 8/19/2005 6:33:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
gwsmith@svpal.org writes:
Are you asking about new music?

Yes. As Aaron pointed out, some of us like the grit of beatings, if not the
inharmonicity of pianos. Do you think we can do away with temperament and
create all new music in Just?

Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/19/2005 12:54:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> Extended just would be limitless. Today every instrument can play
any pitch.
> Even the keyboad is liberated through digital technology.
Musicians can
> play any "just" relationship a human being can conceive. Would this be
> preferable to temperament of any kind?

I'm in favor of using all kinds of different tuning methods, precisely
because of tuning liberation. But even with sensibly just intonation
tempering often makes sense, and I tend to favor it. When you've got a
scale with a step of 2401/2400 in it, why bother with it?

The advantage of that is obvious. One gets to map a decent Zarlino's diatonical gamut to the white keys.

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 20 Ağustos 2005 Cumartesi 1:33
Subject: [tuning] Re: Bach WTC

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

> Ozan, have you actually tried this out on a keyboard? There are only
> 2 major triads (on C and D) with total error significantly better
> than 12-ET, 5 slightly better than 12-ET (on Bb, F, G, A, and E), and
> 5 with error equal to pythagorean. I seriously wonder whether Bach
> would have approved. ;-(

It's not same old same old, at any rate. But I don't see the advantage
of alternating pure and very flat fifths, followed by pure.

And why would he not dear George? I have tried it out myself and am mightily pleased with it.

----- Original Message -----
From: George D. Secor
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 19 Ağustos 2005 Cuma 21:37
Subject: [tuning] Re: Bach WTC

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Folks, by inspirational revelation (as well as to put an end to
ceaseless speculations), I conclude that J.S. Bach had nothing else
in his mind for WTC, but this tuning:
>
> 12-tone Well-Temperament from practically 159-tET:
> |
> 0: 1/1 C Dbb unison, perfect prime
> 1: 90.225 cents C# Db
> 2: 196.090 cents D Ebb
> 3: 294.135 cents D# Eb
> 4: 392.180 cents E Fb
> 5: 498.045 cents F Gbb
> 6: 588.270 cents F# Gb
> 7: 701.955 cents G Abb
> 8: 792.180 cents G# Ab
> 9: 898.045 cents A Bbb
> 10: 996.090 cents A# Bb
> 11: 1094.135 cents B Cb
> 12: 2/1 C Dbb

Ozan, have you actually tried this out on a keyboard? There are only
2 major triads (on C and D) with total error significantly better
than 12-ET, 5 slightly better than 12-ET (on Bb, F, G, A, and E), and
5 with error equal to pythagorean. I seriously wonder whether Bach
would have approved. ;-(

--George

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

> I really like the quality Gene gets when he renders
> MIDI into .ogg and .mp3, so Gene, if you're willing
> to make the conversion, i'll post the mp3 on our site.

Did you want an ogg or a somewhat larger mp3?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/19/2005 6:33:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> gwsmith@s... writes:
> Are you asking about new music?
>
> Yes. As Aaron pointed out, some of us like the grit of beatings, if
not the
> inharmonicity of pianos. Do you think we can do away with
temperament and
> create all new music in Just?

You can created new music in JI. You can create new music in what
sounds like JI, but is actually tempered. You can create new music in
near-JI, such as miracle tempered. I favor all of the above.

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> > I really like the quality Gene gets when he renders
> > MIDI into .ogg and .mp3, so Gene, if you're willing
> > to make the conversion, i'll post the mp3 on our site.
>
> Did you want an ogg or a somewhat larger mp3?

If you don't mind doing both, i'll take both ... but
if you only want to do one, please make it the mp3.

I'd also really love good mp3's of the Beethoven
"Moonlight" Sonata, and especially the Cavatina
and the Haba quartet.

All of them are under "Files | Free Music" on our
temporary domain:

http://206.225.92.70/

Thanks!

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

> > Excellent! Can you post some of these MIDI files somewhere?
> > Of course, a different format would be preferable, since
> > the result of MIDI files varies according to the listener's
> > particular sound card . . .
>
> http://206.225.92.70/downloads/music/halleluya-we-sing-your-
> praises_gather-394.mid

Great work, monz. I'd like to hear more of this! But I'm
even more excited to know you're using this with a real choir.

-Carl

Hi Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > > Excellent! Can you post some of these MIDI files somewhere?
> > > Of course, a different format would be preferable, since
> > > the result of MIDI files varies according to the listener's
> > > particular sound card . . .
> >
> > http://206.225.92.70/downloads/music/halleluya-we-sing-your-
> > praises_gather-394.mid
>
> Great work, monz. I'd like to hear more of this! But I'm
> even more excited to know you're using this with a real choir.

Ha, that's funny ... the regular choir director sent the
entire ensemble on a forced vacation for August, so the
choir i'm leading is a group of people i recruited myself,
and none of the singers are really musicians.

It's enough effort just to get them to sing within +/- 50 cents
of the written notes ... forget about something as complicated
as Vicentino adaptive-JI!

But considering that it's a totally amateur pick-up group,
we are getting amazingly good results. They credit the
Holy Spirit ... i suppose at least i can say that it's
because of their religious fervor.

(any more comments on this should go to metatuning)

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> > In a message dated 8/19/2005 6:33:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> > gwsmith@s... writes:
> > Are you asking about new music?
> >
> > Yes. As Aaron pointed out, some of us like the grit of beatings, if
> not the
> > inharmonicity of pianos. Do you think we can do away with
> temperament and
> > create all new music in Just?
>
> You can created new music in JI. You can create new music in what
> sounds like JI, but is actually tempered. You can create new music in
> near-JI, such as miracle tempered. I favor all of the above.

There's yet another option -- adaptive JI, where all the vertical
(simultaneous) harmonies are purely tuned, but the horizontal (melodic)
intervals can be tempered. The pure tuning of the verticalities is
acheived through tiny, context-specific adjustments from an underlying
tempered skeleton. This way one can exploit the scalar coherence and
modulational freedom of temperament without any beating or other grit.
Michael Zapf was just talking about this here in the context of
performance practice, and a 1555 version of this strategy is what Monz
used in his latest renditions of some choral music. In both cases, the
underlying skeleton is a meantone one, but in principle it could be
some non-diatonic temperament or some other diatonic one. Barbershop
singing may be an example of 7-limit adaptive JI built on the skeleton
of the temperament that has been named "Dominant".

I thought i would throw a wrench in to this subject by pointing out that one must be sure that one is asking the right question about what Bach ( as in God) would want from a temperment.
If one looks at the fugues especially and compare them to the different inversions that helmholtz illustrates in his book, one will notice that 'BAsilentK ' preferred the more dissonant spacing and inversions of the basic triads more often than not. This would cause a greater independence of the lines and so also with picking a temperment he might of had this as a concern as much as smoothness. In fact we do not know if this might not been his concern at all.

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles