re: Bach's tunings

Bill Alves wrote...

>>but the WTC was not meant to be performed as a whole at all,
>
>Of course not. Who would dream such a thing? It would take hours (though
>I have heard of a competition where the pianists do just that -- how would
>you like to judge that!).

I heard all 96 in the space of four morning concerts at last year's early
music festival in Berkeley. It was really awesome.

>>3. Bach did not see the title "Well Tempered Clavier" in his lifetime.
>
>The autograph title page of the first volume (dated 1722) is "Das Wohl
>Temperirte Clavier or Preludes and Fugues through all the tones and
>semitones both as regards the teria major or ut re mi and as concerns the
>teria minor or re mi fa..." The Well Tempered Clavier is Bach's own title.

I always thought that too. But I recently read that a publisher made it
up. I can't remember where I read that, tho, so I'll take your word for it.

>The idea that Bach intended to retune before each piece strikes me as
>counter to the whole point of the Well Tempered Clavier. Why would Bach go
>to the trouble of creating a collection of pieces in all the keys if not
>to demonstrate that playing them from a singled "well tempered" tuning was
>possible?

This is a good point. I am not decided on the issue, nor do I lay
awakenights trying to get decided, but...

There may be many reasons one would write a collection of pieces in all keys.
Perhaps Bach, who probably had a good sense of absolute pitch, enjoyed
hearing music in different keys. WTC is first and foremost a method book,
and maybe Bach wanted his students to practice fingering in all keys. Maybe
he just wanted to be complete.

Actually, what I'd like establish first is: Why did composers of the time
specify "keys" at all, even when writing instrumental works (where fixed
tuning was not an issue)?

>It is true that many of the individual works can be played in meantone, and
>may work quite well, but others are quite chromatic.

Indeed, and this could be the reason for the title -- "These compositions
require well temperament or extended meantone!" Rather than, "You can play
all of this in one sitting without touching the insides of your
instrument!" The latter seems odd in light of the fact that we know Bach
to have retuned during performance.

-Carl

Carl asks:
<< Actually, what I'd like establish first is: Why did composers of the time
specify "keys" at all, even when writing instrumental works (where fixed
tuning was not an issue)? >>

Greetings,
It seems that the "Doctrine of Affections" evolved into key character
about the time that meantone evolved into well temperament. And even though
the meantones don't offer the shades of tonal variation that well temperament
does, the keys had already been identified with emotions long before well
temperament gave everybody a reason to "prove" it.
After 1700, there is a reason that funeral dirges weren't written in the
simplest keys, and why the pastoral stuff was. The reason could have been
the growing use of the well temperaments with their very different levels of
dissonance in their extremes. This certainly allows an argument for
selection of key signature based on the desired musical,(thus emotional),
effects.
A keyboard composer of the 17-19th centuries would certainly be aware of
how the differing keys sounded in the "new" circular temperaments showing up
on well tempered keyboards. Those theorists that proposed ET at the time were
in such a distinct minority, and the difficulty of actually producing a
credible ET so great, that I see no way to consider the use of ET for the
WTC. In comparison to any of the historically supportable temperaments
of1722, Et really destroys some killer harmony found in the Prelude in C, and
it certainly deadens the Prelude in C#. Its effect is neglible in some of
the middle keys, as they have their tonic thirds near 14 cents, as today. On
the extremes, it is another story entirely.
Regards,
Ed Foote
Precision Piano Works
Nashville, Tn.

Carl Lumma wrote,

>Actually, what I'd like establish first is: Why did composers of the time
>specify "keys" at all, even when writing instrumental works (where fixed
>tuning was not an issue)?

Carl, this question makes no sense at all to me. What on earth do you mean?

>>Actually, what I'd like establish first is: Why did composers of the time
>>specify "keys" at all, even when writing instrumental works (where fixed
>>tuning was not an issue)?
>
>Carl, this question makes no sense at all to me. What on earth do you mean?

Many a work written for ensembles of free-pitch instruments have had their
key specified in their title. And many of them were by composers other
than Bach.

Bill Alves asked why Bach would have written a piece in every key if he
hadn't intended to showcase the difference between keys in irregular
temperament.

See also Ed Foote's reply in TD 415.

-Carl

>Many a work written for ensembles of free-pitch instruments have had their
>key specified in their title. And many of them were by composers other
>than Bach.

So you mean why was the key of the work specified in the _title_? I can
think of many reasons, and don't know what being by Bach has to do with it.

>Bill Alves asked why Bach would have written a piece in every key if he
>hadn't intended to showcase the difference between keys in irregular
>temperament.

It was more to showcase the wide variety of keys possible in a circulating
temperament. Again, Bach completed the WTC by transposing some older pieces
into difficult keys. And again, I agree that an irregular temperament is
more appropriate than equal temperament, but one can't get all too specific
as to which one.

On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>>Actually, what I'd like establish first is: Why did composers of the time
>>>specify "keys" at all, even when writing instrumental works (where fixed
>>>tuning was not an issue)?
>>
>>Carl, this question makes no sense at all to me. What on earth do you mean?
>
> Many a work written for ensembles of free-pitch instruments have had their
> key specified in their title. And many of them were by composers other
> than Bach.

Oh, I get it, I think. Carl, I believe you may be looking at the
situation too narrowly. Just because a fixed key and temperament aren't
too much of an issue for those instruments doesn't mean instrumental
range, register, and fingering aren't.

--pH <manynote@library.wustl.edu> http://library.wustl.edu/~manynote
O
/\ "Hey--do you think I need to lose some weight?"
-\-\-- o

[Erlich]
>It was more to showcase the wide variety of keys possible in a circulating
>temperament.

If you mean within the space of a single work, I agree.

[Erlich]
>Again, Bach completed the WTC by transposing some older pieces into
>difficult keys.

Right. This is one of the reasons I reject the graduated tension theory.

[Hahn]
>Oh, I get it, I think. Carl, I believe you may be looking at the
>situation too narrowly. Just because a fixed key and temperament aren't
>too much of an issue for those instruments doesn't mean instrumental
>range, register, and fingering aren't.

Right. Which is exactly what I was saying; there may be other reasons Bach
wrote a collection of works in all keys besides to compare the consonance
of keys in well temperament. In fact I specifically mentioned fingering a
post or two ago.

My point to Bill was simply: before we use the titles of the pieces in the
WTC to draw conclusions about Bach's tuning, let's realize that the WTC and
Bach are not the only places you'll find keys specified in titles!

-Carl

>From: Carl Lumma <clumma@nni.com>
>
>Bill Alves asked why Bach would have written a piece in every key if he
>hadn't intended to showcase the difference between keys in irregular
>temperament.
>
I'm afraid you misunderstood my point. I meant to ask why Bach would have
put together a collection of all keys if he didn't intend to show that they
were all playable without retuning. Of course if retuning is available,
then there's no reason why you can't transpose meantone to any key you
want, and no reason why someone 100 years earlier couldn't have published
pieces in C# major. They didn't, of course, because no one keeps their
meantone harpsichord tuned for such keys. But Bach made a point not only of
writing something in C# major, but each of 12 major and minor keys. I was
saying that I could only imagine that he did so to show the possibilities
of a "well tempered keyboard."

>My point to Bill was simply: before we use the titles of the pieces in the
>WTC to draw conclusions about Bach's tuning, let's realize that the WTC and
>Bach are not the only places you'll find keys specified in titles!

Actually, the preludes and fugues in the WTC are numbered, not named. In
any case, I was not claiming that having a key in a title implies a certain
tuning. I was saying that the title of the entire collection "Das Wohl
Temperirte Clavier" definitely says something about the expected tuning.

On the question of key affects in the Baroque, there are no clear cut
answers. It's true that certain writers -- Mattheson, Rousseau -- gave
lists of key affects, but they often do not agree. I think this is due as
much to the subjectivity of these assessments as to differences between
French and German temperaments, for example.

In certain pieces, Bach writes in "traditional" keys for a certain genre --
F major for pastorales, for example. However, this preference is often
overblown, especially in the case of Bach, I think. For example, D major is
often characterized as a joyous, celebratory key, and, indeed, many
celebratory sinfonia and cantata movements of Bach are in D, such as the
Magnificat. However, the original version of the Magnificat was in Eb. Why?
Because in Weimar, where the first version was done, the local trumpet
maker made instruments in Eb, whereas in Leipzig (and many other
localities) they were tuned to D.

Thus Bach's choice of a key in this case was mostly practical, not
symbolic. He wanted trumpets, so he had to accomodate their key. It is not
inconceivable that our association of joyousness with D comes from the
unrelated fact that it was the most common key for trumpets in this period,
not from there being anything particularly special about the absolute pitch
D (which would have probably been a different frequency then anyway). Wind
instruments continued to be an important determinant of keys of pieces up
to Brahms. Also, string players tended to play open strings when possible
(the opposite of today's practice), so pieces in sharp keys would tend to
have more resonant string chords.

That Bach often had no strong associations of affect with a particular key
is also shown from the transposed pieces he included in the WTC, as some
have pointed out. This is the reason that the first volume has a prelude in
Eb minor but a fugue in D# minor. It was easier to simply add flats to an
existing piece in E minor or sharps to a piece in D minor than to write it
out again.

Of course Bach was aware of the different affects that non-equal tuning
gave different keys, which is why he did not support equal temperament.
However, even in his keyboard works, it is difficult to find many possible
examples of those differences affecting his choice of keys, and I didn't
mean to imply otherwise, Carl.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Bill Alves wrote,

>Of course Bach was aware of the different affects that non-equal tuning
>gave different keys, which is why he did not support equal temperament.

Judging from the music you're probably right, but is there any _verbal_
evidence?

>From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
>Bill Alves wrote,
>
>>Of course Bach was aware of the different affects that non-equal tuning
>>gave different keys, which is why he did not support equal temperament.
>
>Judging from the music you're probably right, but is there any _verbal_
>evidence?
>
When Kirnberger was drawn into the great equal temperament vs. well
temperament debate of Marpurg and Mattheson, he claimed the elder Bach did
not like equal temperament. (Kirnberger was a student of Bach's.) As I
recall, when Marpurg expressed some doubt, Kirnberger sought and received a
testimonial from Bach's son Emanuel, confirming that the elder Bach indeed
did not use equal temperament. My knowledge of the incident comes mainly
from Rita Steblin's A History of Key Characteristics in the Eighteenth and
Early Nineteenth Centuries (Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press), but her
reference is: Johann Philipp Kirnberger, Die Kunst des reinen Satzes in der
Musik, (Berlin and K�nigsberg: Decker & Hartung, 1774-79), facsimile repr.
(Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968), vol. ii, p. 188.

Bill

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^ Bill Alves email: alves@hmc.edu ^
^ Harvey Mudd College URL: http://www2.hmc.edu/~alves/ ^
^ 301 E. Twelfth St. (909)607-4170 (office) ^
^ Claremont CA 91711 USA (909)607-7600 (fax) ^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>Bill Alves asked why Bach would have written a piece in every key if he
>>hadn't intended to showcase the difference between keys in irregular
>>temperament.
>>
>I'm afraid you misunderstood my point. I meant to ask why Bach would have
>put together a collection of all keys if he didn't intend to show that they
>were all playable without retuning.

Sorry I got my mix crossed up, Bill. My points are still applicable, though.

>>My point to Bill was simply: before we use the titles of the pieces in the
>>WTC to draw conclusions about Bach's tuning, let's realize that the WTC and
>>Bach are not the only places you'll find keys specified in titles!
>
>Actually, the preludes and fugues in the WTC are numbered, not named.

I've seen and read from several versions of the sheet music, and that's
what I was going by.

I'm afraid you guys are all taking this titles bit too seriously. I'm just
saying that people wrote music in keys back then, as a matter of practice.
A collection of works appearing in all keys doesn't necessarily mean anything.

I'm not committed on this issue, as I said. But I don't believe that the
variations of consonance between keys in irregular temperament was any
point of attraction or compositional resource for Bach. And I find it more
likely that Bach made the move to well temperament for what became possible
within the span of a piece than for the ability of playing different pieces
in different keys without retuning.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote,

>I'm just
>saying that people wrote music in keys back then, as a matter of practice.

How could they not?

>A collection of works appearing in all keys doesn't necessarily mean
anything.

It sure does mean that keyboard tuning had changed since the days of Byrd.

>And I find it more
>likely that Bach made the move to well temperament for what became possible
>within the span of a piece than for the ability of playing different pieces
>in different keys without retuning.

Agreed. But the different pieces, taken together, constitute a wonderful
study of the possibilities of the circulating 12-tone system. As such the
WTC has been excellent training for keyboard-minded composers since
Beethoven.