Ozan and Bach

It hasn't been possible to participate the way I used to due to time
constraints, but:

A well temperament like Werckmeister III which still stands up as the most
likely tuning used by JS Bach for a majority of his music will have a key or two
that mirrors Pythagorean tuning...you know, pure fifth and a really sharp
major third or ditone. It is a characteristic of the tuning of the time to
include Pythagorean tuning. Music that ventures into a C# major will make the
organ forbidding and will necessitate a lack of sustained harmonies. And yet, in
polyphony, it is easily done, due in large part because of the melodic nature
of the compositional writing.

best, Johnny

In a message dated 10/4/2005 4:47:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tuning@yahoogroups.com writes:
Yes, I agree to that. I just do not agree that Bach could have composed his
terrific music in Pythagorean tuning, that's all.

Johnny, I meant Pythagorean tuning per se, not Pythagorean ratios that arise as a result of 12-tone temperament.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 2:14
Subject: [tuning] Ozan and Bach

It hasn't been possible to participate the way I used to due to time constraints, but:

A well temperament like Werckmeister III which still stands up as the most likely tuning used by JS Bach for a majority of his music will have a key or two that mirrors Pythagorean tuning...you know, pure fifth and a really sharp major third or ditone. It is a characteristic of the tuning of the time to include Pythagorean tuning. Music that ventures into a C# major will make the organ forbidding and will necessitate a lack of sustained harmonies. And yet, in polyphony, it is easily done, due in large part because of the melodic nature of the compositional writing.

best, Johnny

< Music that ventures into a C# major will
make the organ forbidding and will necessitate a lack
of sustained harmonies. >

It may be interesting to note that earlier versions of
the C#major fugue from the WTC II were composed in
plain C major (BWV 872 a/1&2). For the '48, Bach
simply put seven accidentals at the stave beginning
and adjusted the other accidentals within the piece.
Which means he thought in Cmaj but had a temperament
which allowed the shift by a semitone.
Michael

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Zapf <zapfzapfzapf@y...> wrote:
>
> < Music that ventures into a C# major will
> make the organ forbidding and will necessitate a lack
> of sustained harmonies. >
>
> It may be interesting to note that earlier versions of
> the C#major fugue from the WTC II were composed in
> plain C major (BWV 872 a/1&2). For the '48, Bach
> simply put seven accidentals at the stave beginning
> and adjusted the other accidentals within the piece.
> Which means he thought in Cmaj but had a temperament
> which allowed the shift by a semitone.
> Michael

It could equally well mean he was willing to retune C# to be like C,
could it not?

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

> It could equally well mean he was willing to retune C# to be like C,
> could it not?

That would just be a pitch shift. And he was used to those of course
in his orchestral composing when he had to watch about the presence of
instruments (winds usually) in differing pitches. Thus, he could
compose an A for a bassoon whose lowest note was Bb but who was a
semitone low in French pitch. So for the Bassoon, he would notate a
Bb, but the sounding note for the rest of the orchestra was A. There
are lots of works from his early Leipzig time which differ in their
keys only because he had the one or other oboe at his disposition.
That said, here we are talking keyboard works, and we are talking a
work where the notes are supposed to be well-tempered which orchestra
instruments are not, definitively not the winds, so this is a
different temperament game. The only point I was making in response to
the previous post was that the man didn't bother to think in C# maj
and about complexities of tone relationships in that key, at least not
for this particular fugue.
Michael

Michael, that's not a pitch-shift in Gene's example, but the retuning of C# major to the intervals of the previously tuned C Major. It is simply Key Transposition in the liberal sense of the word.
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Zapf
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 13:23
Subject: [tuning] Re: Ozan and Bach

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

> It could equally well mean he was willing to retune C# to be like C,
> could it not?

That would just be a pitch shift. And he was used to those of course
in his orchestral composing when he had to watch about the presence of
instruments (winds usually) in differing pitches. Thus, he could
compose an A for a bassoon whose lowest note was Bb but who was a
semitone low in French pitch. So for the Bassoon, he would notate a
Bb, but the sounding note for the rest of the orchestra was A. There
are lots of works from his early Leipzig time which differ in their
keys only because he had the one or other oboe at his disposition.
That said, here we are talking keyboard works, and we are talking a
work where the notes are supposed to be well-tempered which orchestra
instruments are not, definitively not the winds, so this is a
different temperament game. The only point I was making in response to
the previous post was that the man didn't bother to think in C# maj
and about complexities of tone relationships in that key, at least not
for this particular fugue.
Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael Zapf <zapfzapfzapf@y...> wrote:
> >
> > < Music that ventures into a C# major will
> > make the organ forbidding and will necessitate a lack
> > of sustained harmonies. >
> >
> > It may be interesting to note that earlier versions of
> > the C#major fugue from the WTC II were composed in
> > plain C major (BWV 872 a/1&2). For the '48, Bach
> > simply put seven accidentals at the stave beginning
> > and adjusted the other accidentals within the piece.
> > Which means he thought in Cmaj but had a temperament
> > which allowed the shift by a semitone.
> > Michael
>
> It could equally well mean he was willing to retune C# to be like C,
> could it not?

If you really think that the meaning of 'Well-Tempered Clavier' is
that you have to spend more time retuning the instrument than playing
the pieces... and you'd end the WTC about a semitone and a half above
the starting pitch! Actually people who knew Bach's harpsichord
playing testified that he was able to modulate freely to any key, and
that the instrument sounded good in every key.

Now, Ozan's original point was about the *organ* where there are
indeed no works in C# major and very few which modulate anywhere near
that key.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Zapf" <zapfzapfzapf@y...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> > It could equally well mean he was willing to retune C# to be like C,
> > could it not?
>
> That would just be a pitch shift.

No, because C# would stay where it is.

> The only point I was making in response to
> the previous post was that the man didn't bother to think in C# maj
> and about complexities of tone relationships in that key, at least not
> for this particular fugue.

Which would mean it would hardly be surprising if retuning to center
the good thirds at C# made sense.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:

> If you really think that the meaning of 'Well-Tempered Clavier' is
> that you have to spend more time retuning the instrument than playing
> the pieces... and you'd end the WTC about a semitone and a half above
> the starting pitch!

Only if you assume Bach was incompetent.

Actually people who knew Bach's harpsichord
> playing testified that he was able to modulate freely to any key, and
> that the instrument sounded good in every key.

Which would prove it was a circulating temperament of some kind, but
not that Bach was unwilling to move the goalposts.

> Now, Ozan's original point was about the *organ* where there are
> indeed no works in C# major and very few which modulate anywhere near
> that key.

Which suggests he was not so willing to experiment with keys in an
instrument with a fixed tuning. That makes sense if in other cases he
sometimes adjusted the tuning.

<That makes sense if in other cases he
sometimes adjusted the tuning.>

This is circular. Why should he want to adjust tunings in a work aimed
for one temperament which didn't need tuning adjustments. My point was
completely different: His mode of composing in Cmaj and then shifting
the piece to C#maj needed a temperament that was able to cope with
this shift, without him thinking about C#maj tone relationships.
Michael

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Zapf" <zapfzapfzapf@y...> wrote:
> <That makes sense if in other cases he
> sometimes adjusted the tuning.>
>
> This is circular. Why should he want to adjust tunings in a work aimed
> for one temperament which didn't need tuning adjustments.

You are simply assuming your conclusion.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:
>
> > If you really think that the meaning of 'Well-Tempered Clavier' is
> > that you have to spend more time retuning the instrument than playing
> > the pieces... and you'd end the WTC about a semitone and a half above
> > the starting pitch!
>
> Only if you assume Bach was incompetent.
>

It is you who is making the assumption that Bach was unable or
unwilling to tune in a way that *did not need* retuning between each
piece. Besides, there is the D minor fugue by Bach that goes all the
way round the cycle of fifths in one single movement. I suppose he
played the notes with one hand and retuned with the other?

I invite Gene, or anyone, to tell us *how many* strings would have to
be retuned, and by *how much*, if you wanted to play in C major, then
C minor, then C# major, then C# minor, etc. etc. in such a way as
respects Gene's idea of what Bach might have wanted. Recall that
Bach's time for tuning a whole harpsichord was 15 minutes. Then, for
example, suppose that 1/3 of the strings would have to be retuned to
get from C to C# major, the added time would be 5 minutes.

> > (...) he was able to modulate freely to any key, and
> > that the instrument sounded good in every key.
>
> Which would prove it was a circulating temperament of some kind, but
> not that Bach was unwilling to move the goalposts.

The goalposts were that he should be able to modulate to any key he
wanted without it sounding bad. Therefore, there could never be a
situation where Bach arrives at a key that *requires* retuning. Why
spend time on what is unnecessary?

> > Now, Ozan's original point was about the *organ* where there are
> > indeed no works in C# major and very few which modulate anywhere near
> > that key.
>
> Which suggests he was not so willing to experiment with keys in an
> instrument with a fixed tuning. That makes sense if in other cases he
> sometimes adjusted the tuning.
>

Or that his organ works were designed to be accessible not just to one
organ tuned in a way that Bach liked, but to many different ones which
would not be. Or that Bach's preferred organ tuning was *different*
from the harpsichord tuning. Or that due to the stinginess of the town
council he never did get an organ tuned just how he wanted it. Or any
number of reasons. You can't really deduce anything from organ to
harpsichord or vice versa.

There is a famous report of Bach playing on a Hildebrandt organ around
1740 in which he played successive movements in D minor, E flat minor
and E minor. [In, of course, the same tuning.] This was unheard-of at
the time in organist circles. Hildebrandt was the most modern and
advanced organ builder who actually consulted with Bach about tuning.
We can deduce with some certainty that very few, or zero, organs
before then had a really circular tuning which would allow this. That
didn't prevent Bach from tuning his harpsichord in such a way as to
allow playing the WTC all the way through.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:
>> you'd end the WTC about a semitone and a half above
> > > the starting pitch!
> >
> > Only if you assume Bach was incompetent.

> It is you who is making the assumption that Bach was unable or
> unwilling to tune in a way that *did not need* retuning between each
> piece.

No, I merely am suggesting it's possible that he sometimes did.
Assuming that if he were to do such a thing he's end up a semitone and
a half off is assuming he would retune incompetently. Given that this
is Bach, that's hardly likely.

Besides, there is the D minor fugue by Bach that goes all the
> way round the cycle of fifths in one single movement. I suppose he
> played the notes with one hand and retuned with the other?

I' not suggesting Bach would always retune, only that he could and
therefore might. It wasn't uncommon. Given that it's a work for organ
(so is the Dorian if you meant that), obviously the tuning was fixed,
so it is absurd of you to bring the D minor fugue up. It amounts to an
argumentative fallacy.

> I invite Gene, or anyone, to tell us *how many* strings would have to
> be retuned, and by *how much*, if you wanted to play in C major, then
> C minor, then C# major, then C# minor, etc. etc. in such a way as
> respects Gene's idea of what Bach might have wanted. Recall that
> Bach's time for tuning a whole harpsichord was 15 minutes. Then, for
> example, suppose that 1/3 of the strings would have to be retuned to
> get from C to C# major, the added time would be 5 minutes.

You are assuming the WTC was meant for a performance of the whole
cycle at once.