More on Bach/Tuning

More on Bach/tuning
Posted by: "microstick@msn.com" microstick@msn.com
Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:30 pm (PST)
NH: A few questions/thoughts on the Bach/tuning issue. First, and I mentioned this a while back but got no answer...it's well known that Bach
(and other musicians of his time as well) would transcribe works from other composers, often from French or Italian musicians, and redo them for other instruments. So, how were these musicians tuning their instruments, and did Bach (and the others) change the tuning to whatever temperament he was using?

JR: General Musicians in France and Germany and Italy used an extended sixth-comma meantone tuning. Basically, this is the mean compromise of Pythagorean tuning with quarter-comma meantone. The extension comes with flexible instruments, like the E# in the bassoon concerto by Vivaldi. Of course, there was always a harpsichord, or other keyboard to continue the tuning of the basic twelve notes, unextended.

NH: And if so, did it destroy, or alter in some way, the original musical intent of the piece?

JR: It may have moved it into a neighboring quadrant; that’s the phraseology that Kirberger used to describe a dimensional shift in tuning with well-tempeament.

NH: And, I've just been listening to some CD's of Sylvius Weiss's lute music (very beautiful); it mentions in the liner notes that he was court lutenist at Dresden for 32 years, and was very highly regarded by the musicians of his time. So, since he was obviously interacting with all sorts of musicians at the court, how did THEY tune?

JR: Dresden was a sixthcomma extended tuning city. Quantz, Frederick the Great’s flute teacher and principal musician, built flutes for him with alternative chromatic keys, for greater ease with the extensions. This was not well-temperament, but a complementary system. Please note there is not much of a peep about the change in tuning from Praetorious’ extended quartercomma system to the 18th century sixthcomma. But it happened.

NH: We know lutes were in 12 eq; did the clavier players he played with retune to him? Or, did they just plow ahead in a well temperament?

JR: You see now, ET is much closer to extended sixthcomma meantone, so there would be more of a mere coloring factor, if not a sweetening with the mix of temperaments. There would be no well-temperament. But one could believe the clavier player would retune to the lute soloist…if he liked him well enough.

NH: How about the singers, flutists, and whoever else was there?

JR: They would follow the instrument of least-flexible pitch.

NH: And, it's my understanding that there were other famous and highly talented lutenists on the scene as well; the same question applies to their careers and interactions with other musicians as well. And I don't think these are insignificant questions; this issue, to me, is much bigger then just how Bach tuned; there were many musicians, on many different instruments, all interacting in various ways at that time (obviously). So, the way different musicians tuned as they played together was, most likely, an important issue.

JR: Its just the tip of the iceberg.

NH: One more thing...Bach's 5th suite for solo cello was originally in C minor; Bach himself transcribed it for lute, and changed the key to G minor. So...was the original cello version intended for Werckmeister, or something similar? And, when it was transcribed to the other key, if it WAS in a well temp, then all the intervals would have changed slightly for the G minor version...oops, since that was for the lute, it was in 12 eq, so obviously, there goes the subtle shadings of well temp. And, since Bach was responsible for the 12 eq version, I'm assuming it didn't make much difference to him WHAT key it was played in.

JR: All well-temperament sound more in common than any one well-temperament sounds to equal temperament: a truism. Firstly, C minor in Werckmeister III, and keep in mind that all tunings of the time began on C as a starting pitch (a completely different reference to the key), would have every single pitch of twelve “flat” to equal temperament. It is DARK as any meantone can be dark, at least in terms of general usage. Modulating to any equal temperament would clearly flatten it out. G minor makes a lot of sense for a lute with a low string G instead of a cello’s C. Most obvious difference of all, the change from cello’s lowest string to a more technically versatile lower string on the lute. The lute needs whatever amplification it can get since it has a softer signal.

NH. So, when Bach wrote his unaccompanied suites for cello and violin, which of course were unfretted instruments, would a well temperament have been the intended tuning?

JR: My guess is it would be a performer’s exaggeration of an agreed upon sentiment of a particular tuning. C major was always plain and simple and sweet. C minor was not. Interesting thing here is that the C minor triad’s minor third is 300 cents, exactly the same as in equal temperament!

NH: Or, would the performer maybe tweak the intervals to retain pure 3rds (and other intervals) if possible?

JR: Man, after Joint with Jon Catler, what ch’u talkin’ ‘bout “tweak”?

NH: Would they possibly have aimed for a more Pythagorean based scalar approach, since they tuned in 5ths?

JR: They had long left the tuning of the ancients, Pythagorean based scales. Europe had become tempered.

NH: Could there have been a number of approaches, depending on the performer?
JR: John Dowland is a perfect example; Harry Partch is another.

NH: Hey, this is a cool subject...and, these scenarios have been on my mind for a long time, actually. I am not a Bach scholar, but love his music deeply, so any insights from folks who are more learned in this field would be appreciated...and perhaps more light can be shed on just what was happening in that era, in the field of tunings...best...Hstick
myspace.com/microstick microstick.net

JR: It’s all about the love.

________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

After looking at much of the original evidence put forward to justify
an 18th century hegemony for extended 1/6-comma meantone, I have come
to the belief that this supposedly dominant tuning mostly didn't exist.

The reason is simply that virtually all of the texts that have been
cited as evidence don't *show* any evidence that the authors 1) were
talking about a tempered system of fixed pitches; 2) had the
mathematical skill or inclination to relate a 9-fold division of the
tone, or a 55-fold-division of the octave, to a meantone with slightly
flat fifths and slightly sharper maj. thirds; 3) meant any exactly
measurable interval when talking of a 'comma' difference between sharp
and flat.

But all of these formal mathematical elements are *necessary* to
deduce that a tuning (of fixed pitches) with 9 parts in a tone, or 1
comma enharmonic difference, can be related to nearly-1/6-comma meantone.

Since such mathematical deductions, and the assumption of fixed
pitches, are entirely *absent* from the texts, with the sole exception
of Sauveur's Parisian scientific treatises, what importance can the
18th-century authors and their readers have placed upon them?

If the text doesn't define a comma clearly, how was the reader to tell
what size this slight difference between sharp & flat should be? Some
authors referred to the diesis as a comma, for example.

A minor organist called Suppig, who lived near Dresden, published in
1722 a scheme for a keyboard of 31 pitches per octave, purely tuned in
thirds: he called each step a 'comma', and used enharmonic 'comma'
shifts in a rather odd pantonal composition. I guess he didn't get the
memo that quarter-comma was no longer allowed!

Statements like "Dresden was a sixthcomma extended tuning city" simply
make no sense to me.

What becomes of Quantz' statement that instrumentalists play the
proper ratios of intervals, and only keyboards need to have recourse
to tempering (quoted in the Haynes article)?

It seems to me madness to proceed on the basis that any flautist (say)
would have bothered with an equal division of the octave (which
requires logarithms), or a division of the comma into 6 (which is only
practicable when tuning keyboards, and even then difficult) - rather
than trusting his ears and playing as pure as possible, with the help
of extra keys if needed.

Awaiting clear evidence that anyone played anything in extended
sixth-comma,

~~~T~~~

These are shocking revelations Tom. It shows the extent to which historical
revisionism can go. I share Quantz's view, that temperament is only meant
for fixed-pitch instruments which subsist on a specific preset tuning, like
the keyboard and qanun. Any single temperament for the likes of Ney, Flute
and Violin is simply out of the question.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Dent" <stringph@gmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 15 Kas�m 2006 �ar�amba 20:41
Subject: [tuning] 55-EDO: The Tuning that Never Was

>
> After looking at much of the original evidence put forward to justify
> an 18th century hegemony for extended 1/6-comma meantone, I have come
> to the belief that this supposedly dominant tuning mostly didn't exist.
>
> The reason is simply that virtually all of the texts that have been
> cited as evidence don't *show* any evidence that the authors 1) were
> talking about a tempered system of fixed pitches; 2) had the
> mathematical skill or inclination to relate a 9-fold division of the
> tone, or a 55-fold-division of the octave, to a meantone with slightly
> flat fifths and slightly sharper maj. thirds; 3) meant any exactly
> measurable interval when talking of a 'comma' difference between sharp
> and flat.
>
> But all of these formal mathematical elements are *necessary* to
> deduce that a tuning (of fixed pitches) with 9 parts in a tone, or 1
> comma enharmonic difference, can be related to nearly-1/6-comma meantone.
>
> Since such mathematical deductions, and the assumption of fixed
> pitches, are entirely *absent* from the texts, with the sole exception
> of Sauveur's Parisian scientific treatises, what importance can the
> 18th-century authors and their readers have placed upon them?
>
> If the text doesn't define a comma clearly, how was the reader to tell
> what size this slight difference between sharp & flat should be? Some
> authors referred to the diesis as a comma, for example.
>
> A minor organist called Suppig, who lived near Dresden, published in
> 1722 a scheme for a keyboard of 31 pitches per octave, purely tuned in
> thirds: he called each step a 'comma', and used enharmonic 'comma'
> shifts in a rather odd pantonal composition. I guess he didn't get the
> memo that quarter-comma was no longer allowed!
>
> Statements like "Dresden was a sixthcomma extended tuning city" simply
> make no sense to me.
>
> What becomes of Quantz' statement that instrumentalists play the
> proper ratios of intervals, and only keyboards need to have recourse
> to tempering (quoted in the Haynes article)?
>
> It seems to me madness to proceed on the basis that any flautist (say)
> would have bothered with an equal division of the octave (which
> requires logarithms), or a division of the comma into 6 (which is only
> practicable when tuning keyboards, and even then difficult) - rather
> than trusting his ears and playing as pure as possible, with the help
> of extra keys if needed.
>
> Awaiting clear evidence that anyone played anything in extended
> sixth-comma,
>
> ~~~T~~~
>
>

Ross Duffin's new book, released this week (Monday 13th), is largely about 18th century use of extended 1/6 comma and the 55-EDO:

http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall06/006227.htm
"How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony, And Why You Should Care".

Bradley Lehman
http://www.larips.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> Ross Duffin's new book, released this week (Monday 13th), is largely
> about 18th century use of extended 1/6 comma and the 55-EDO:
>
> http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall06/006227.htm
> "How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony, And Why You Should Care".

I would guess this is a reply to "Temperament: The Idea That Solved
Music's Greatest Riddle", which has been reprinted under the title
"Temperament: How Music Became a Battleground for the Great Minds of
Western Civilization".

A whole book about 55-EDO? Oh, I hope not. But you can forward him my
sceptical posting if you like. Does he really think that replacing
1/11 comma meantone with 1/6 comma meantone is a

" radical reevaluation of how we play and hear music. " ?

If that's radical, how much more astounding would it be if we played
in quarter-comma, or sang just intervals?

But wait - hasn't that already been done? (Sarcasm! No apology.)

If he's really into pushing 1/6 comma-for-all, I fear an epidemic of
people squinting at their Korgs trying to get E a couple of cents flat
and C a few cents sharp.

My opinion is that if you can't teach it by ear, or at the most with a
simply marked out monochord, it can't have been historically popular.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> Ross Duffin's new book, released this week (Monday 13th), is largely
> about 18th century use of extended 1/6 comma and the 55-EDO:
>
> http://www2.wwnorton.com/catalog/fall06/006227.htm
> "How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony, And Why You Should Care".
>
>
> Bradley Lehman
> http://www.larips.com
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
>
> A whole book about 55-EDO? Oh, I hope not.

It probably won't mention the liese temperament, the 26deg55
temperament. This has MOS of size 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19,
which sounds almost enough right there to bust people out of the 12
notes to the octave rut. If anyone wants to experiment with 55 they
could try alternating meantone and liese.