Bach's Tuning

NH: Hey Reinhard...jeez, thanks for the detailed answers to my questions about various Bach era ideas. You know, I wish I had more time in life to study everything I want...the whole area of early European music is fascinating, and very vast. But, I'll keep plugging away; and hanging out on the tuning forums is a good way to pick up info. If you can recommend any good books on this subject, not just related to Bach but the whole era and what was happening, I'd love to check them out.

JR: You know, read anything by Buelow, now retired from Indiana University. He [Buelow] got it. Also, check out books by Christoph Wolff (Harvard) which are easier to find (Barnes and Noble).

NH: But you know, in digest 4198 you mentioned my "it could be anything" attitude in regards to how Bach tuned; actually, for me, I haven't yet come to any definitive conclusions about this subject...that's why I'm asking all these questions, trying to get more info on the tuning practices of that era. It seems that there's a lot of folks with conflicting ideas, and I'm trying to sort it all out...if that's ever possible, since we weren't there, and we're all trying to come to intelligent conclusions from what we have studied about that era.

JR: True that. If I misunderstood, I withdraw the affirmation of that mention.

N.H.: And, I just saw Brad Lehman's article on how he interpreted the design on the cover of Bach's Well Tempered Clavier; very interesting stuff, for sure. And, I have the Goldberg Variations CD by Richard Egarr, where he uses that temperament...it is beautifully played, and sounds great to boot. Egarr says, in the liner notes, in regards to the tuning: "Bradley Lehman seems to have discovered 'the truth,' or at least A truth." Well, that seems like a good attitude to take regarding all of this; maybe Bach, and others of his day, tried a number of different tunings...why not?

JR: Speculate away. Only…I went to find out. Noodled ornaments an upside down code for a tuning called “well-temperament,” they very same name invented by Andreas Werckmeister when Bach was a whelp….Where do you see the connection break down? Werckmeister remained in Bach’s book shelves his whole life. In terms of publications there was only Werckmeister, and Bach’s relatives. The Bachs and Werckmeisters were neighbors even in the physical sense; both would lose them in Muhlhausen, sort of an independent city-state, for some anonymity. Except it is the home of the Ahles, a familty of admittedly pro-Werckmeister composers, and the organ builder and Werckmeister tuner Wender.

J.R.: Guess, if the story was better told by musicologists, you and others might know something of this. But there is more invested in having Bach out of reach (and in ET) rather than something knowable as culturally consistent history. (Yes, Gene, you are correct.)

N.H.: I mean, these were some of the greatest musical minds in history; why WOULDN'T they have experimented with different different systems? If a guy like me enjoys playing in numerous systems, it certainly wouldn't be a giant surprise to find that a titan like Bach tried out various ways of tuning.

JR: Werckmeister III is different systems. Each key is intervallically different from another. F major is practically just intonation. I told you that C minor has and equal tempered major third. Well, D minor has a large, almost just minor third. Some keys embody Pythorean tuning. And all this described for the first time in Western history in the young Bach’s virtual backyard, in north eastern Thuringia.

JR: And, perhaps he was inspired by tuning theorists like Werckmeister, and came up with his own take on temperament...again, why not? I'm sure, as I learn more about this era, I'll get more insights into what could have been happening then. But, we do know that there were many different ideas in the air about how to tune, and 12 eq had not yet come to dominate the scene.

JR: Not likely, I’m afraid. Tom Dent can’t see any reason to believe sixth comma meantone extended at all, while Joe Monzo sees much of it. (Tom, please check past postings on this.) I see it continuing into the 20th century. I know because as a bassoonist, I have played it in orchestras throughout my life. Neil, are you confusing the lots of ideas of tuning of today with the baroque days? You have to start pre-baroque to do that.

To me Bradley’s tuning is like Werckmeister VI, a basically near ET tuning found with measurements like one/seventh of a Pythagorean comma. Radical methods providing similarities to other tunings. Like Harrison’s Pi connection to quarter-comma meantone. Or the C minor triad of Werckmeister III with the C minor of Equal Temperament uni-key… It’s all fun.

All best, Johnny
________________________________________________________________________
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.

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

> "Bradley Lehman seems to have discovered 'the truth,' or at least A
truth." (...) why not?
>

If 'the truth' is (as Brad argued in Early Music) that Bach used only
one type of keyboard tuning in his mature musical life, that pretty
much excludes any other 'truths'. Egarr is trying to have his cake &
eat it.

> Werckmeister remained in Bach’s book shelves his whole life. (...)

Fine - but he said many different, and even contradictory, things
about tuning! First (1681) 'III and 'IV'; then (1691) 'III' and 'IV'
and 'V' and 'VI'; then (later 1690s) equal temperament, or some kind
of ordinaire or 'well-temperament' based on diluted meantone; then (at
the end of his life) ET, or something near it that favoured the
most-used keys. Bach would have had a lot to think about & choose from
- but arguably arising from the same overall principle. And arguably
Neidhardt took up theoretically from exactly where W. had left off.

> more invested in having Bach out of reach (and in ET) rather than
something knowable as culturally consistent history.

I'm not sure this is true. You've heard of Kellner, the German
professor who tried to patent his 'Bach tuning'? If the world will
believe in your special tuning, you get lasting fame! Whereas ET is
common as mud & not profitable for anyone, except piano tuners. Rasch
himself is, as you should know, very interested in microtonality.

As for 'knowable' - hmmm, how knowable can he be, he must have met
hundreds of organists and organbuilders, not to mention
harpsichordists - of which we now know only a scant dozen. Say,
Bendeler, down the road from Werckmeister, who made up a few of his
own perfectly decent circulating tunings just a few years later - now
how many more Bendelers were there who didn't bother to write it down?

> Werckmeister III is different systems. Each key is intervallically
different from another. (...) Some keys embody Pythagorean tuning.

Hum, I don't hear F# major and C# major having much intervallic
difference myself. Rather too much Pythagoras.

Still, in practice it's almost impossible to come up with a scheme
which makes absolutely every key both reasonably pleasant *and*
identifiably different. W's later turn towards ET and/or diluted
meantones may have acknowledged this.

> Tom Dent can’t see any reason to believe sixth comma meantone
extended at all, while Joe Monzo sees much of it. (Tom, please check
> past postings on this.)

I have, it all boils down to a few historical sources, and almost all
of them have nothing to do with tempered systems of fixed pitches. Not
that I am saying extended 6th-comma necessarily sounds bad, or was
necessarily a bad approximation to what some people might have played,
just that I don't see any evidence that people actually *thought* in
terms of 1/6 comma being nearly as strong as it has been promoted
(ever since Barbour).

> as a bassoonist, I have played it in orchestras throughout my life.

I'm sceptical about the degree of accuracy and inflexibility this
would require if taken literally. Does it mean you have been careful
to play fifths with other instruments always a bit narrow, and thirds
always somewhat wide? Or just to think sharps down a bit and flats up
a bit, which is all most of the sources say?

> Werckmeister VI, a basically near ET tuning found with measurements
like one/seventh of a Pythagorean comma.

Oh, please! Werckmeister VI is based on (complicated) j u s t
intervals, it is nothing to do with divisions of a comma, the text of
Musicalische Temperatur explicitly says as much. Unfortunately many
20th century 'historians' starting with Dupont & Barbour have utterly
misread the text and imagine (simply because of the number 7 popping
up) that it has something to do with 1/7 comma. Well, that isn't even
a good approximation. If someone brings this up I *know* they haven't
been near the original text, or even Rasch's commentary.

Actually the 'septenarius' is better approximated by fifth-comma steps
(apart from the bizarrely low pitch of D). But it's not clear if this
was intentional.

Oh well. There's only so long I can go on about the same stuff - the
sheer multiplicity of historical existence, compared to the scarcity
of historical sources; the need (nevertheless) to actually read those
sources and see what they do or don't say.

~~~T~~~

Re: Bach's Tuning

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

> "Bradley Lehman seems to have discovered 'the truth,' or at least A
truth." (...) why not?
>

JR: Tom, I did not say this. I believe it was Neil Haverstick
TD: If 'the truth' is (as Brad argued in Early Music) that Bach used only
one type of keyboard tuning in his mature musical life, that pretty
much excludes any other 'truths'. Egarr is trying to have his cake &
eat it.

JR: And a “single keyboard tuning in his mature life” makes meaningless Brad Lehman’s constant “clarity” that there were organ-only tunings. There were keyboard tunings plain and simple. The organ tuning has to have more professional expertise because of the time and expense involved. But every piece had a keyboard of discrete pitches, and every other musician playing had to follow it, the continuo.

JR: > Werckmeister remained in Bach’s book shelves his whole life. (...)

TD: Fine - but he said many different, and even contradictory, things
about tuning! First (1681) 'III and 'IV'; then (1691) 'III' and 'IV'
and 'V' and 'VI'; then (later 1690s) equal temperament, or some kind
of ordinaire or 'well-temperament' based on diluted meantone; then (at
the end of his life) ET, or something near it that favoured the
most-used keys.
JR: Fine – but you are infinitely more contradictory. Actually, I don’t seem him contradictory so much as confusing to moderns. For example, you wrote “ET, or somethingnear it that favoured the most-used keys.” Hmn… that’s exactly what Werckmeister III is, equally-playable keys that favor the most-used keys. And that was what he wrote about in 1691 for chromatic composers (of which he, himself, was declared not), but ideal for J.S. Bach, a chromatic composer. And Werckmeister always referred back to this tuning his entire life.
TD: Bach would have had a lot to think about & choose from
- but arguably arising from the same overall principle.
JR: Disagree. Bach would have learned directly from his uncle Johann Christoph Bach, the composer/keyboard virtuoso in the family. JCB and A. Werckmeister were surely acquainted, but history disguises any encounter. It might be that JCB was using Werckmeister III tuning – as a appropriate chromatic composer – and Werckmeister, actually quite a modest fellow, listed it first after extended quarter-comma meantone (the incorrect tuning) of Praetorious.
TD: And arguably Neidhardt took up theoretically from exactly where W. had left off.
JR: Yes, you are arguing. Neidhardt had non influence on JS Bach. His Uncle JCB’s oldest son was the winner of the contest with Neidhardt for the most “musical” tuning. Poor Mr. Neidhardt lost with his monochord driven ET, later demoted two degrees to Neidhardt III.

> more invested in having Bach out of reach (and in ET) rather than
something knowable as culturally consistent history.

TD: I'm not sure this is true. You've heard of Kellner, the German
professor who tried to patent his 'Bach tuning'? If the world will
believe in your special tuning, you get lasting fame! Whereas ET is
common as mud & not profitable for anyone, except piano tuners. Rasch
himself is, as you should know, very interested in microtonality.

JR: Coincidentally, Prof. Rasch is an old friend of mine, and we have stayed with each other on various occasions. However, we disagree on Werckmeister. I do not believe he changed his views at the end of his life. He was always selling 1691 Musicalische Tempeatur with its W. III. Rasch doesn’t accept that all keys are even playable in W.III. I have found no such problem with W. III.
TD: As for 'knowable' - hmmm, how knowable can he be, he must have met
hundreds of organists and organbuilders, not to mention
harpsichordists - of which we now know only a scant dozen. Say,
Bendeler, down the road from Werckmeister, who made up a few of his
own perfectly decent circulating tunings just a few years later - now
how many more Bendelers were there who didn't bother to write it down?

JR: Tom, I’m not sure what your experience is, and I’m sure you have little idea of what my involvement involves. However, Werckmeister was a superstar in comparison to the small handful of independent tuning scholars in Thuringia. As an organ expert, Werckmeister was unlikely to have a peer in Thuringia.
Somehow I suspect that if Wercmeister was more of an asshole, if we had a painting with his face, with some example of his good lucks, then he would be better treated. Really, it’s rather deplorable.

> Werckmeister III is different systems. Each key is intervallically
different from another. (...) Some keys embody Pythagorean tuning.

TD: Hum, I don't hear F# major and C# major having much intervallic
difference myself. Rather too much Pythagoras.

JR: And totally meaningless as to whether Bach used it or not.
TD: Still, in practice it's almost impossible to come up with a scheme
which makes absolutely every key both reasonably pleasant *and*
identifiably different.
JR: And that is exactly what Werckmeister accomplished. Even if it was used by someone else (like a Bach) it was the first presentation of what can be accomplished exactly as you said.
TD: W's later turn towards ET and/or diluted meantones may have acknowledged this.

JR: This is false. I have covered this in the past with others before. Just using the word “meantone” for Werckmeister is wrong-headed, IMHO.

> Tom Dent can’t see any reason to believe sixth comma meantone
extended at all, while Joe Monzo sees much of it. (Tom, please check
> past postings on this.)

I have, it all boils down to a few historical sources, and almost all
of them have nothing to do with tempered systems of fixed pitches. Not
that I am saying extended 6th-comma necessarily sounds bad, or was
necessarily a bad approximation to what some people might have played,
just that I don't see any evidence that people actually *thought* in
terms of 1/6 comma being nearly as strong as it has been promoted
(ever since Barbour).

JR: That’s fine. But half-way between just and Pyth is some kind of sixth comma meantone. But check out Telemann explaining chromatic extended sixth comma meantone. And Silbermann’s insistence on tuning sixth-comma meantone in Dresden and throughout Thuringia and Saxon-Anhalt.

> as a bassoonist, I have played it in orchestras throughout my life.

TD: I'm sceptical about the degree of accuracy and inflexibility this
would require if taken literally. Does it mean you have been careful
to play fifths with other instruments always a bit narrow, and thirds
always somewhat wide? Or just to think sharps down a bit and flats up
a bit, which is all most of the sources say?

JR: Hope you are sitting for this; I train people to play accurately in pitch in different tunings on all different kinds of instruments – and voices – all the time. My preferred method is to work by individual cents. Now, if you want to howl about this, joint the club. But you owe it to the truth to listen to some of the many recordings made on the PITCH label that represent some of the best results.

> Werckmeister VI, a basically near ET tuning found with measurements
like one/seventh of a Pythagorean comma.

TD: Oh, please! Werckmeister VI is based on (complicated) j u s t
intervals, it is nothing to do with divisions of a comma, the text of
Musicalische Temperatur explicitly says as much. Unfortunately many
20th century 'historians' starting with Dupont & Barbour have utterly
misread the text and imagine (simply because of the number 7 popping
up) that it has something to do with 1/7 comma. Well, that isn't even
a good approximation. If someone brings this up I *know* they haven't
been near the original text, or even Rasch's commentary.

JR: Picked up the 1/7 comma at http://www.groenewald-berlin.de/
Have you ever heard anyone ever use Werckmeister VI? Seems no one in history, except maybe you? BTW, I have all the Werckmeister texts. Mark Lindley gave me my first translation of Musical Temperament (Elizabeth Hehr). If you are into character assassination, either dead or living victims, please let us just wrap up instead.

TD: Actually the 'septenarius' is better approximated by fifth-comma steps
(apart from the bizarrely low pitch of D). But it's not clear if this
was intentional.

JR: No, it’s all unclear. I see now I must have been wasting my time recording Brandenburg Concerti in Werckmeister III….If only I could see through all the intentional unintentionals to be able to intentionalize myself, not. (sorry, you bring out the sarcasm in me.)
TD: Oh well. There's only so long I can go on about the same stuff - the
sheer multiplicity of historical existence, compared to the scarcity
of historical sources; the need (nevertheless) to actually read those
sources and see what they do or don't say.

~~~T~~~

JR: Spoken like a true musicologist. J
________________________________________________________________________
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.

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

>> Neidhardt
in using algebraically irrational numbers
>>took up theoretically from exactly where W. had left off.
while W stayed alwas reamaining within the rational fraction concept,
which was citizied by N as 'inferior' versus his own
abstract calculations using Simon Stevins ET invention,
that W refused in reference to the Pythagorean concept of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensurability_%28mathematics%29
of all possible intervalls to the unit 1.
N. abonded that traditional demand, still indispensable for W.

henc I do agree, that:
> > Werckmeister III is different systems.
against N's mathematically more advanced
way of computation in his 'sectio-canonis'.

> Each key is intervallically
> different from another.
yielding just
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonartencharakter
that W considered still as essential.
N. firstly advocated ET without that feature,
needed time depart from ET
for accepting the traditional view also for himself too.

> Some keys embody Pythagorean tuning.
That's right observed,
W. intended fully aware just that sound in the rare keys
for a change in the 'variationibus' when modulating.
>
> Hum, I don't hear F# major and C# major having much intervallic
> difference myself. Rather too much Pythagoras.
Appearently W. designed that nice effect consciously wanted
especially for fast melodic transitions,
alike violinist change to pythagorean when playing runs rapidly.

>
>> W's later turn towards ET
Simply wrong, because:
He never refers to that new mathematically concept, not even
squareroots do appear nowhere in any of his writings,
not to mention logarithms.
Alike later Kirnberger W. never cared about that
modern "mathematical-stuff", as JSB
inbeween them also too refused that.
>>and/or diluted
>> meantones may have acknowledged this.
W. considered that outdated practice simply as: 'wrong'.
JSB refused Silbermann's 'barbaric 3rds!'
Who needs even today an much over-broadly based
wolf 5th of ~704Cents?
inept placed inbetween Bb and F unduly, absolute needless, even
faulty labeled as an alleged theoretically "diminished 6th"?
in 55ET, 'a tuning that had never existed' in the Baroque era.
>
>> Werckmeister VI, a basically near ET tuning found with
>> measurements like one/seventh of a Pythagorean comma.
Long ago disproved early 20th century scholary nonsene!
>
TD:
> Oh, please! Werckmeister VI is based on (complicated) j u s t
> intervals, it is nothing to do with divisions of a comma, the text >of
> Musicalische Temperatur explicitly says as much. Unfortunately many
> 20th century 'historians' starting with Dupont & Barbour have > >utterly
> misread the text and imagine (simply because of the number 7 popping
> up) that it has something to do with 1/7 comma.
Cave!
That both time-honored authors should be touched only with croucher
tools due to careless deformation of historical source texts: All in
all: Obsolete out-dated faulty below todays scientific standards.

> Well, that isn't even a good approximation.
but even worser:
Theirs deceptive description misleads astray
about W's concept behind his plain rational number arithmetics.

> Actually the 'septenarius' is better approximated by fifth-comma
> steps
There's no need for improving him:
Why using barely approximations instead
staying in his own original values
given concrete in absolute monochord-stringlengths:

196 C 1
186 C# 98/93
176 D 49/44
165 Eb 196/165
156 E 49/39
147 F 4/3
139 F# 196/139
131 G 196/131
124 G# 49/31
117 A 196/117
110 Bb 98/55
104 B 49/26
98 C' 2

obtained from tempered 5hs-circle

196 C (_393_)392;196 start
131 G 393/3:= 131(132,66,33)
176 D (_351_)352;176;88,44,22,11:= 33/3
_117_A :=351/3
156 E 78,_39_:= 117/3
104 B (_417_)416,208;104;52,26,13:= 39/3
139 F# (_279_)278;139:= 417/3
186 C# 93:= 279/3
124 G# (_495_)496,248;124;62,31:= 93/3
110 Bb (_441_)440,220;110;55:= 165/3 not Scheibler's pitch: 440cps
_147_F := 441/3
196 C 98,49:= 147/3 returned to begin

so that seven 5ths are tempered by the pure rational fractions:

C*392/393*G*132/131*D*352/351*A>E>B*416/417*F#*278/279*C#>G#*496/495*Eb>Bb*440/441*F>C

Analog it's also possible to fit the corresponding four 5ths of his
#3(1691) the 'quaternarius' according in the same manner,
My actual interpretation sounds:

C 6560/6561 G 204/205 D 152/153 A>E>B 512/513 F#>C#>G#>Eb>Bb>F>C

expanded in absolute frequencies:

273.375 C ((17))2187:= 3^7
410 G (17*3=51,102,204)205;410;820,1640,3280,6560(6561:= 3^8)
306 D (19,38,76,152)153:= 17*9
456 A 57:= 19*3
342 E 171:= 19*9
256.5 B (1,...,512)513:= 19*27
384 F# 3
288 C# 9
432 G# 27
324 Eb 81
486 Bb 243
364.5 F 729:= 3^6
273.375 C 2187:= 3^7

that's in ascending pitch order

273.375 C 1 middle C
288 C# 256/243
306 D 272/243
324 Eb 32/27
342 E 304/243
364.5 F 4/3
384 F# 1024/729
410 G 3280/2187 coeval Cammer-tone ~410cps
432 G# 128/81
456 A 1216/729 coeval Choir-tone ~456cps
486 Bb 152/81
512.5 B 16/9
546.75 C' 2

Further refinement in
/bach_tunings/

> Oh well. There's only so long I can go on about the same stuff - the
> sheer multiplicity of historical existence, compared to the scarcity
> of historical sources;
The original sources are still worth to study and recheck again and
again, against meanwhile unsustainable claims and questionable
allegations,
alike the historical W3 would consist in the later (20th-century)
foisted modern PC^(1/4) of ~ 6Cents variant or even worser 12-ET.

> the need (nevertheless) to actually read >those
> sources and see what they do or don't say.
In order to get at least partially rid of historically obsolete
ballast, that meanwhile has got mouldy.
>
http://www.strukturbildung.de/Andreas.Sparschuh/

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

Well, I can't go through every point. Let's select a few.

The 1698 continuo tuning instruction says to tune every fifth from C
to C# a little bit flat, checking that thirds are somewhat sharp.
(Remaining fifths are pure or may be slightly sharp.) What is this if
not diluted meantone? In this text he doesn't mention Number Three at
all, and he starts off also recommending ET. Apparently at this point
he didn't think Three worth remembering.

If you disagree with this, please say why, and how you get it from the
text.

On the 'Septenarius', if you have read the text, which says explicitly
that the idea of the tuning is not anything to do with comma
fractions, why do you think it is associated with sevenths of a
Pythagorean comma? How do you get from Werckmeister's intervals to
anywhere near 1/7 PC?

No, I haven't played any music literally in that tuning; but I *have*
played in what I think was a good approximation to it, after the
correction of 176 to 175. That is, the tuning I used had pure, narrow
and wide fifths in the same places. But why is this relevant to the
question of reading the text?

Why would you think that I was abusing or disrespecting Werckmeister?
I consider that in his texts he spoke *for himself*: and one should at
least consider the possibility that other people - for example Bach
and his uncles - could have had other, valid, opinions.

Or does it amount to disrespect if I say that Werckmeister may not
have had a complete controlling influence over all good keyboard
musicians in the whole region?

I am continually astounded by the claims Johnny makes - which seem to
be, that no-one in Baroque Thuringia ever could have had an
independent idea about keyboard tuning after what Werckmeister did in
1781.

~~~T~~~

Re: Bach's Tuning

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

Well, I can't go through every point. Let's select a few.

The 1698 continuo tuning instruction says to tune every fifth from C
to C# a little bit flat, checking that thirds are somewhat sharp.
(Remaining fifths are pure or may be slightly sharp.) What is this if
not diluted meantone? In this text he doesn't mention Number Three at
all, and he starts off also recommending ET. Apparently at this point
he didn't think Three worth remembering.

If you disagree with this, please say why, and how you get it from the
text.

JR: I disagree. Firstly, I’m not sure “diluted meantone” constitutes a tuning. Meantone is identical key to key, but well-temperament is not. Using phrases like “somewhat” sharp certainly does not mean “equally” sharp. To respect Werckmeister as an intellectual is to see his consistency, not to undercut him at every instance, possibly as a result of following others who do likewise. I know it shakes up the world that you “think” you know. But is it the only way to get at the truth. And yes, there is truth to be gained. If you think this otherwise then we are finished in discussion, which would be sad.
Even the posthumously published work (1707) referred back to the 1691 publication for the real nitty-gritty of tuning. For detail, please read these excerpts from my unpublished writings:
Another Werckmeister publication that contained important tuning information came as a 1698 amendment to his Die nothwendigsten Ammerckungen und Regeln, wie der Bassus continuus oder General-Bass wohl könne tractiret werden (Essential annotations and rules concerning the proper realization of the basso continuo or thorough-bass), Werckmeister published “Short Lesson and Addition, how one can tune and temper well a clavier.” Directed towards beginners in tacet recognition that organs will always need to be tuned by trained professionals, Werckmeister attempts to aid the more naïve reader in tuning the harpsichord, and eventually, the clavichord. These individuals were unlikely to consult the monochord instructions in his work for professionals.

Moreover, there is quite a difference between tuning strings and pipes. If, therefore, an organist is ignorant of pipe tuning or, as the case may be, of adjusting the voicing, he ought not, under any circumstance, to remove a single pipe; for when a pipe is removed, it can very easily be put back differently and out of tune (Krapf, p. 62).

For the professional tuner, it is imperative to consult Musicalische Temperatur,

or the clear and authentic mathematical instruction of how, through the analysis of the monochord, one can tune a keyboard instrument (especially organs, positives, regals, spinets, and such) in a well-tempered manner, in order that according to the practice of today, all modi ficti can be accepted in a pleasing and tolerable harmony; with a preliminary perfection and lesser perfection of the musical numbers, proportions, and consonants which in the process of setting up the temperament, are to be seriously considered. In addition, a monochord is depicted distinctly and completely in a copper-plate (Hehr, p. 1).

Werckmeister explains that the intricacies represented by the tuning requirements of his temperament need monochord assistance. “As this way cannot be presented and shown any better to the eyes and ears than through the monochord, I have undertaken this difficult, yet necessary and useful work,” and so Werckmeister had a graphic made as a copper-plate print for accurate measurement of musical intervals.

Throughout “Essential Annotations…,” Werckmeister invites the reader to consult his copper-plate Monochordo contained in Musicalische Temperatur in order to “find more exact information throughout the proportional numbers” (Archambault, p. 225). The title page of Musicalische Temperatur enlarged the word MONOCORDI for the largest word to reach the eye, with second place going to the word MONOCHORDO. This indicates that the copper-plate comparisons of tunings was the real draw for the purchase of the work. The monochord, an ancient tool for measuring musical intervals used throughout Eurasia long before the invention of writing, allowed Neolithic man to take control of sound.[i] While a monochord only needs a single string, it is through multiple strings that the comparison of intervals is possible. Essentially, multiple strings of identical pitch have moveable frets placed under them to allow for the actual sounding of mathematical calculations.

Werckmeister explained that “one cannot have nor use the pure concordances in musical practice as they exist in nature, but they must exist in a good temperament (like many other things in nature)” (Hehr, p. 2). He emphasizes the need for a full-size monochord, asking it be capable of being divided into 57,771 parts, “because one such short monochord can not be set into so many parts with one circle and even if it were the sharpest subtlest needle-p[oints], still one stitch would always fall in the other” (Hehr, p. 106). Werckmesiter emphasized whole number relationships to preclude the use of fractions for measuring musical intervals.

For 80/81 is a superparticular proportion and can not be divided into two equal proportions. If one wanted to bring the entire tempered scale into whole numbers since the commas are divided into third and fourth parts [Werckmeister IV and Werckmeister III, respectively], then the numbers would be so large that one would feel an aversion to them; and also because no usefulness is involved, then the division only happens in a mechanical way (Hehr, p. 59-60).

After explaining that one simply cannot have all the consonances available, and after using organ pipes as an example of hearing beats (which he calls tremors, or shakings) in case a student doesn’t get to the opportunity to “temper an organ-voice,” he suggests a try, though more of a trial, to attempt the tuning of “a good and stable regal, exercising and learning temperament on the good instrument, for experience is necessary” (Archambault, p. 284). Returning again to the benefits of using the organ as an example, Werckmeister admits “it is difficult to exactly differentiate the certainty of the small differences through the ear.” At this point there is the expected reference to “our Monochordo” in Musicalische Temperatur “for different ways of tempering and tuning.”

What is amazing to those of us in the present is the manner in which Werckmeister attempts a description of equal temperament with the intention of dealing here “simply and mechanically, because beginners and many others do not know what a musical comma is.”

All fifths, the highest to the lowest can, namely, vibrate 1/12 comma low; consequently the major thirds become 2/3 too large, the minor thirds ¾ comma too small, which is all to be endured, if one wished to go through the entire clavier and would treat all songs in all keys (Archambault, p. 285).

How striking to hear that this theory of tuning would allow us to “endure” all the
now effectively playable scales. It appears telling of his disdain for equal temperament. Werckmeister may well have thought of equal temperament as more of an idea than an actual tuning system in use. Immediately, Werckmeister follows that “We do not want, however, to think about commas in our instruction, but rather only move on simply as intended, and describe this procedure so that the diatonic-chromatic genus, which is used the most nowadays, remains as pure as possible.” Equal temperament is described here as a simpler approach because it is primarily theory with little expectation of exactitude. The addition of the words “remains as pure as possible” indicates that this is a short term method for the clavier in lieu of more serious study of the monochords previously published. Later, in the Classical period, “pure tuning” inverts to indicate “equally tempered for identical scales” (McGeary, p. 94-95).[ii]

Werckmeister continues in this same way to be “simple” with a theory of equal
temperament. There is no exactitude to a description of the fifth as to “vibrate a little
low” because Werckmeister has done away with the comma measurements frankly
impossible for his inexperienced audience. By regularly asking for the flattening of the fifth “a little low” Werckmeister is assured that it will never be exactly the same amount for each fifth, not at exactly the correct 2 cents flat of today’s conventional equal tempered fifth. Werckmeister:

To this a, the fifth e1 is again drawn so that it also vibrates a little bit low. Now one holds this e1 to the c or c1—if this third c-e1 or c1 and e1 is tolerable, so that the e1 doesn’t vibrate too strongly too high, thus the process has been successful, and it is the first test, for all major thirds must vibrate high (against the lower pitch).

Werckmeister is here anticipating Kirnberger’s revelation to Marpurg about how Bach tuned his thirds. According to Marpurg, Johann Sebastian Bach relayed to Kirnberger, during his instruction with the master that in his tuning all the thirds must be tuned sharp. This is equally true for Werckmeister III tuning with its four variegated sizes of major thirds (each with 6 cents separation from the other). Werckmeister:

If, however, the pitch e1 is all too sharp or high, then the fifths must be corrected a little bit, and lowered, until the e vibrates high tolerably. If, then, this e1 is correct, then one can proceed, and the e1 make the octave e completely pure. To this e one tunes again the b, so that it again vibrates low very subtly. Hereupon one can test the major third as g and b against e, in which b must vibrate a little bit high, as much as the ear can tolerate. One can also play g, b, d simultaneously, for when the triad is heard, the major third becomes more tolerable. Therefore the major third g-b is the second test.

Werckmeister here anticipates that the “naïve student” (a term he actually uses) will need to readjust pitches. The most likely reason is that “a little bit” is none too exact. It terms of “tolerable,” Werckmeister does use a major third that is 408 cents wide. By asking the student to attempt an “equal temperament” there is less risk that the e will be intolerably high, especially if, as directed, the fledgling clavier tuner starts with the c. The change of phrase to “vibrates low very subtly” from “vibrates a bit low” is circumvented by its preamble, “one tunes again.” Werckmeister never tunes to the minor thirds, so he checks the major third g-b, against an e, only to rush ahead to the major triad of g-b-d.

To this b, the fifth above can again be taken, as b and f#1, so that the f#1 again vibrates a little bit low against the b. To this f#1 can f# again be tuned completely purely. At this point d and f#, or d1 and f#1 can be taken as a test, and f#1 must again vibrate high to the d. To the f#, the c#1 must again be tuned as a fifth, which likewise must vibrate a little bit low. To this c#1 one takes a as a test of the major third, the higher pitch of which then again (as all major thirds) must vibrate high against the lower. To the c#1 the octave c# will again be tune purely, and to this c# the fifth g# can be tuned almost purely

This is a bit monotonous, but it is important that each part of the instructions is included or risk suspicion that something has been left out. Obviously, Werckmeister’s instructions to tune pure octaves need not be mentioned each and every time. And the instructions for the fifth do not change much either. But the tests, and Werckmeister’s repeated admonition that “all major thirds” are higher is significant to both Werckmeister III tuning, and to Johann Sebastian Bach’s tuning revelations to his young theory student Kirnberger. It should be noted that both Werckmeister’s and Bach’s aesthetic to completely sacrifice the pure major third was unacceptable to Kirnberger’s personal musical aesthetic, which demanded pure “just” major thirds wherever possible.

The test of the g# is e; this third tends, of course, to fall a little sharp, but if one considers using the g# in place of Ab, as f-Ab-c1, it can be no other way. The fifth d#1 is tuned to the g#. Then here the d#1 can vibrate a little high to the g#, so that it is tolerably consonant to the b as a major third and to the g1 as a major third. The octave d# is again purely tuned to the d#1. On this d# the fifth Bb can again be tuned, which can also vibrate a little high, so that the d1 will be tolerable as the third belonging to it. To the Bb, the fifth f1 can be taken, again vibrating a little high, or completely pure, after which the f will hold itself as the last point to the c1 or even as the final test, as the major third f and a. The f, however, is first made pure to the f1, which is then tested to the c1 and a. If then one or another fifth should be tuned too low or too high, one can always correct it, for the thirds will always sound tolerable, especially because they can tolerate much more than the fifths, because they are not as perfect as the fifths according to their proportions.

Enharmonic identities would now be introduced for the first time thanks to Andreas Werckmeister, who asked his readers to constitute G# as an Ab for the purpose of comparing the Ab to C. The confusion possible with multiple names for the same pitch caused Werckmeister to earlier consider doing away with them and sticking to only one straight set of 12 names for 12 pitches. The frustrating continuance of meantone tuning likely mitigated against this eventuality, among other reasons (such as “just intonation” theory). When it is the Bb’s turn for discussion, there is no discussion of an A#, nor any discussion of an Eb when the D# is discussed. And there is always the possibility to readjust the fifths because this simple general equal temperament will accept for the beginner a plethora of major third variations.

Even in his later years of life, Werckmeister was dumbstruck at the obstinacy of individuals insisting on retaining “the old hypothesis, that all fifths must be a quarter comma small throughout the entire clavier, and all thirds must be pure.” This time he indicates that the actual practice in contemporary organ tuning is to tune major thirds higher than pure regardless of any meantone ideology an inexperienced tuner might have. His actual perception of organs tuned during his time was totally contrary to the meantone ideology.

I have indeed found in their organs that most of the major thirds are too large and vibrate high, which must there be the consequence, and they do not allow it to be done any other way. Therefore they must, in part, tune only according to their custom, without basis. It goes as it will, in that they cannot perceive whether the thirds vibrate or not, especially since they cannot always be brought to a tremor (Archambault, p. 290).

The poor result is an extra-flat “fifth,” framed by the inefficient attempt to reach quarter comma flat fifths, but shortened too far. These “are so horribly dissonant that one can hardly tolerate them, especially when they are played alone with the addition of the thirds that are tuned a little too low. No healthy ear would sanction such lame and lazy fifths” (Archambault, p.290). Before leaving this subject, Werckmeister inserts his regular plug for acquiring the more complete method for tuning he described in his copper-plate Monochordo, issued in Musicalische Temperatur. “The truth lies before one’s eyes,” made visible through the monochord drawings.
________________________________

TD: On the 'Septenarius', if you have read the text, which says explicitly
that the idea of the tuning is not anything to do with comma
fractions, why do you think it is associated with sevenths of a
Pythagorean comma? How do you get from Werckmeister's intervals to
anywhere near 1/7 PC?

JR: I thought I already indicated where I found that, on the Internet. I’ll get you the exact page. The point for me is that it has been unrelated to my work because there is no example of anyone ever using it. And there have been lots of different numbers that I have seen for it.

TD: No, I haven't played any music literally in that tuning; but I *have*
played in what I think was a good approximation to it, after the
correction of 176 to 175. That is, the tuning I used had pure, narrow
and wide fifths in the same places. But why is this relevant to the
question of reading the text?

JR: It seems we are interested in different things. And that’s fine. It’s what one comes to expect on this list. We are the Flying Dutchmen of the Yahoo Groups. J When someone can inform why this tuning, WVI matters as a real alternative for a piece of music, or why it is important other than as an alternative in construction with a familiarity to other scales, I’ll surely give it another look.

TD: Why would you think that I was abusing or disrespecting Werckmeister?
JR: I would hope you were not. Well, frankly, it’s like male bashing, one doesn’t know it when it’s happening to them, and one doesn’t really know it when one is dishing it out. In truth, Werckmeister is much more important as a personage in the development of music than is properly attributed to him. He was not one in a myriad, he was the catalyst for a rational and reproducible tuning method that offered different things to those with different aesthetics, or compositional needs. The only difference between us here is that I think WIII became the orthodoxy for tuning in Bach’s music.
TD: I consider that in his texts he spoke *for himself*:
JR: This is, alas, unfortunately unfair for the actual reality; his writings are only in recent times (my lifetime) being translated out of reproductions of plates. There has not even been a modern German translation. As a result, the invested interest in believing Bach was equal temperament was laid at the feet Werckmeister’s “constant indecision.” There is a different explanation that is being offered.
TD: and one should at
least consider the possibility that other people - for example Bach
and his uncles - could have had other, valid, opinions.

JR: Tom, I love fantasy, and science fiction. Man, I really enjoy the big blockbusters when them come out. But you are mixing Bach with fantasy, as have many others. You have talk about this area much as an Egyptologist speaks about ancient Egypt. This presence on this list is aimed at providing balance to musicological myths that still hold sway, but are based on smoke.
Also, it is okay, although not sought, to attack what seems foreign, and different, even a set of beliefs. My aim is to give openly to explain my positions for your evaluation. I can only hope it is fair.
Johnny

Or does it amount to disrespect if I say that Werckmeister may not
have had a complete controlling influence over all good keyboard
musicians in the whole region?

TD: I am continually astounded by the claims Johnny makes - which seem to
be, that no-one in Baroque Thuringia ever could have had an
independent idea about keyboard tuning after what Werckmeister did in
1781.

~~~T~~~
________________________________________________________________________
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.

Hi Neil, don't know who you were addressing, so I jumped right in. It's been fun focusing on Bach again.

NH: Hey, no huge deal, but since we were talking about Bach, I thought this would be interesting. I was going through some of my classical guitar music, and found the "Prelude, Fugue, and Allegro," (in Eb); on the title page (of the original score) it says "Prelude for Lute o Cembal par J.S. Bach."
It's also written in bass and treble clef; but, since Bach intended it for either instrument, I wonder how his keyboard was tuned while he wrote it? If in Werck, than why also intend it for an axe in 12 eq, since the effect of the piece would be altered by switching tunings.

JR: Neil, Werckmeister III is many tunings in one. Eb major is quite close to exact equal temperament, at worst only six cents different from an equal temperament pitch:

0 96 204 294 402 498 594 702 798 906 996 1098

NH: And, according to editor Michael Lorimer, there were "awkward and uncomfortable fingerings," which, he said, would never occur in the works of a lutenist, like Weiss. Same thing happened with the solo violin sonatas, there were passages that were not playable as written on a violin (those pieces fit the guitar perfectly).

JR: Not sure what you are trying to say here. This seems outside of a tuning question. Bad modulations, not made by the composer, are always dangerous. Yet good players can always beat the odds. Man, I play more fingerings than most bassoonists ever imagined. Microtones take you there. The adjustments needed for instruments to make back then were normal. The tuning that the orchestra (post-Brandenburg) would use is an extended concept of mirroring keys on different tonic tones, which is extended meantone.

Sorry to disagree with Tom (but not disagreeable), but sixth comma meantone is really quite easy to hear. I’ve played sixth comma many, many times, most recently this past March. The tuning is exact in the mind, as any tuning should be. The theoreticals mean little in light of actually playing the shit. One must lock it, which one good reason for the baroque continuo. But the continuo is training wheels that Mozart and Haydn through off.

NH: And, "The Art of Fugue" doesn't even specify an instrument, so how do you tune it?

JR: It’s not relevant. Always tune starting on the note C in the Baroque, allowing the close keys to C to be the most just, and the extreme chromatic keys as closer to Pythagorean pitch interval models. No matter the instrument, the tuning would be the same.

NH: I've often wondered if Bach was hearing things in his head that transcended ANY instrument, and if he wanted to hear music in pure tunings, and found the tempered systems available to him very limited?

JR: Um, Bach is the arch temperament fan. He’s “famous” for insisting that every major third be sharp to just (Kirnberger), which is just so in Werckmeister III tuning (but not in Kirnberger’s own tuning). In an analysis I did of Bach’s opening intervals in his famous works, I found that for all the pure perfect fifths and perfect fourths available in Werckmeister III tuning, NONE was ever used.

________________________________________________________________________
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.

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

... much to ponder!
>
[snip]
>
> Sorry to disagree with Tom (but not disagreeable), but sixth comma
meantone is really quite easy to hear. I’ve played sixth comma many,
many times, most recently this past March. The tuning is exact in the
mind, as any tuning should be.

Good point! If you don't have an exact tuning in mind, how would you
know you were playing it?

> The theoreticals mean little in light of actually playing the shit.
One must lock it, which one good reason for the baroque continuo. But
the continuo is training wheels that Mozart and Haydn through [sic] off.

I *love* using a continuo ... Knew I had a long way yet to go! ;-) For
a soloist, a continuo provides support at crucial times, but - if well-
written - does not obtrude overly. And I'd find much of Handel almost
unimaginable without the continuo. I'm in no hurry to "throw it off".

Regards,
Yahya

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry to disagree with Tom (but not disagreeable), but sixth comma
> meantone is really quite easy to hear. I've played sixth comma many,
> many times, most recently this past March. The tuning is exact in the
> mind, as any tuning should be.
>
> Good point! If you don't have an exact tuning in mind, how would you
> know you were playing it?

This presupposes that one must have any exact set of pitches in mind
before starting to play. But I don't see why this is necessary. How
about l i s t e n i n g to the intervals produced, and adjusting them
to taste? Surely the main point of having an idea about tuning, as a
performing musician, is to produce a musically satisfying quality of
interval - not to satisfy a theoretical model, let alone to produce a
'correct' pitch to within x cents.

(And what's so theoretically good about 1/6 comma? Any meantone is a
compromise between thirds and fifths, now if 1/6 comma is halfway
between two other types of meantone, that just amounts to saying it is
a compromise between compromises.)

Why should one want to play 'in' a tuning which allows only one pitch
for any note? - in other words which is completely inflexible? For any
instrument except a keyboard, that seems to me very inefficient. You
have a big continuous pitch spectrum which can be used to try and
produce satisfying chords with the other guys, but something 'exact'
within your mind tells you that only such and such discrete pitches
can be correct? I find this difficult to accept as music-making.

> One must lock it, which one good reason for the baroque continuo.

Why? What Pandora's box of dire consequences would result from
violinists or bassoonists deviating from some given meantone?

> the continuo is training wheels that Mozart and Haydn threw off.

I find it difficult to believe that that the continuo was an exact
intonational guide for all instrumentalists. First, continuo
instruments are relatively difficult to match to exactly during
performance. Typically they would consist of an Italian harpsichord
and/or chamber organ. The hpcd is harmonically rich but its tones
decay very quickly: its function must have been primarily rhythmic, as
well as providing a basic indication of tuning. Baroque melodic
instruments have mainly 'soft' attacks, so their sound envelope is the
opposite of the harpsichord, minimising the aural effects of slight
differences in tuning between hpcd and melody. The chamber organ is
the opposite to the hpcd: it provides almost pure sine wave tone,
which is quite insensitive to slight differences of intonation, except
with fundamental-rich instruments at the unison.

So just acoustically, melody instruments would have been allowed a
surprising degree of freedom to deviate from the tempered keyboard
tuning, without it necessarily sounding bad.

Also, there are some rules for continuo which seem designed to
preserve this freedom: for example the melody line should not be
doubled at the unison by the continuo player, and especially not when
it has a 4-3 suspension. This would allow pure thirds if desired.

In fact, that is what I would consider most likely for Baroque
intonation practice. The bass instrument, which must be in unison with
the continuo left hand, does play mainly in some kind of meantone. (So
OK, Johnny, adherence to meantone makes some sense there...) BUT the
melody instruments, if playing consonances above the bass, can tune
these as pure intervals as far as possible. Hence they would be in
agreement with harmonics of the bass-line and, clearly, with each
other. The tempered intervals of RH continuo chords are then only an
imperfect first approximation to what the melodists can play.

Just to clarify, if the continuo RH plays a note which is impure with
the bass, then beats ensue and the melody instrument has a *choice* :
either play purely with the RH note, or with the bass. Since the bass
has its own melodic instrument (gamba, cello, bassoon...) along with
it, hence is stronger than the RH, I would think the better musical
alternative was to go with the harmonics of the bass. The result is
some type of adaptive JI!

I have found a relevant quote - "In 1772, Charles Burney described the
playing of the oboist Carlo Besozzi:

His taste and ear are exceedingly delicate and refined, and he seems
to possess a happy and peculiar faculty of tempering a continued tone
to different basses, according to their several relations."

What Burney means by 'tempering' is of course not playing in a fixed
temperament, but rather *improving* intonation by deviating slightly
from fixed pitch.

> I *love* using a continuo (...) And I'd find much of Handel almost
> unimaginable without the continuo. I'm in no hurry to "throw it off".
>
> Regards,
> Yahya

Exactly - late Baroque practice was a style in its own right, not a
juvenile stage of Viennese classicism. Myself, I'd find much of Haydn
and Mozart unimaginable without just chords.

~~~T~~~

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

> (And what's so theoretically good about 1/6 comma? Any meantone is a
> compromise between thirds and fifths, now if 1/6 comma is halfway
> between two other types of meantone, that just amounts to saying it is
> a compromise between compromises.)

It's not theory, but I've found in practice when rendering things into
extended meantone that I like some things better with sharper fifths,
and others better with flatter fifths. From that subjective point of
view I find 55, 43, 31, and 50 to all be useful. On the other hand 31
makes for a better utility, use-in-all-circumstances tuning IMHO.

> Why should one want to play 'in' a tuning which allows only one pitch
> for any note? - in other words which is completely inflexible? For any
> instrument except a keyboard, that seems to me very inefficient.

Because the alternative is using an adaptive tuning program you don't
have? Because you want what you've done to be precisely notated?

Re: Bach's Tuning

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@...> wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry to disagree with Tom (but not disagreeable), but sixth comma
> meantone is really quite easy to hear. I've played sixth comma many,
> many times, most recently this past March. The tuning is exact in the
> mind, as any tuning should be.
>
> Good point! If you don't have an exact tuning in mind, how would you
> know you were playing it?

TD: This presupposes that one must have any exact set of pitches in mind
before starting to play. But I don't see why this is necessary. How
about l i s t e n i n g to the intervals produced, and adjusting them
to taste?
JR: It doesn’t work. It sounds bad. Nautious to rotten. The player using an instrument of flexible pitch must hear the music in his or her head before playing it. There is no room for fudging in real time performance.
TD: Surely the main point of having an idea about tuning, as a
performing musician, is to produce a musically satisfying quality of
interval - not to satisfy a theoretical model, let alone to produce a
'correct' pitch to within x cents.

JR: You are running on lots of assumptions. My experience(s) in performance tell a different story.
TD: (And what's so theoretically good about 1/6 comma? Any meantone is a
compromise between thirds and fifths, now if 1/6 comma is halfway
between two other types of meantone, that just amounts to saying it is
a compromise between compromises.)

JR: Absolutely correct.
TD: Why should one want to play 'in' a tuning which allows only one pitch
for any note? - in other words which is completely inflexible?
JR: Well, for the meantone tunings there is more flexibility (than a well-temperament) because there are different pitch assignments for different chromatics. Learning notes is the way all musicians learn to work with music. As they advance, they begin to understand that they are actually playing intervals. Werckmeister III offers 39 different intervals, while other well-temperaments offer other large numbers of “expressive” intervals.
TD: For any instrument except a keyboard, that seems to me very inefficient.
JR: The multitude of pitches/intervals depending on the system provides the great variety. Vibrato does not work in the earlier tunings for various reasons. But the keyboard does not bend and all baroque performance involves keyboard…so, no fudging.
TD: You have a big continuous pitch spectrum which can be used to try and
produce satisfying chords with the other guys, but something 'exact'
within your mind tells you that only such and such discrete pitches
can be correct? I find this difficult to accept as music-making.
JR: It sounds to me that you cannot accept that one could like different temperings. My position is that of being honest to the period. I do not want to change them into a modern aesthetic, or even a different Baroque aesthetic. Werckmeister III honestly fits the bill. There has not been any better argument.

> One must lock it, which one good reason for the baroque continuo.

TD: Why? What Pandora's box of dire consequences would result from
violinists or bassoonists deviating from some given meantone?

JR: Darn, it’s awful sounding! Would you like different players to be sliding around in just intonation? It’s bad with temperament, too. Please give a listen to the PITCH Early CD. I’ll make one available to you for free. But hey, there are other recordings…only they are so few.

> the continuo is training wheels that Mozart and Haydn threw off.

TD: I find it difficult to believe that that the continuo was an exact
intonational guide for all instrumentalists. First, continuo
instruments are relatively difficult to match to exactly during
performance.
JR: I’m not here to convince you. Anecdotally, my AFMM Ensemble fights to be near the harpsichord in performances. By using scotch tape to change the intonation of the alto recorder, I can be right on with the harpsichord in Brandenburg #2.
TD: Typically they would consist of an Italian harpsichord
and/or chamber organ. The hpcd is harmonically rich but its tones
decay very quickly: its function must have been primarily rhythmic, as
well as providing a basic indication of tuning. Baroque melodic
instruments have mainly 'soft' attacks, so their sound envelope is the
opposite of the harpsichord, minimising the aural effects of slight
differences in tuning between hpcd and melody. The chamber organ is
the opposite to the hpcd: it provides almost pure sine wave tone,
which is quite insensitive to slight differences of intonation, except
with fundamental-rich instruments at the unison.

JR: That’s why the strings tuned to the alto recorder, rather than the harpsichord. But hearing any single exact pitch, even if by a plucked string, is still exact in the musician’s mind. It may require more quiet in the hall, but a pitch frequency is a pitch frequency.
TD: So just acoustically, melody instruments would have been allowed a
surprising degree of freedom to deviate from the tempered keyboard
tuning, without it necessarily sounding bad.

JR: This sounds more like a modern singer crooning to a piano. Sorry to be stating certain statements so often, but it’s just not true in my musical experience. I play a flexible instrument and I teach other instrumentalists and vocalists. We work by the cent, to the best extent as the player can. The true color is in the tone used, not in its distance from a targeted tone (like Romanticism’s leading tones). Wrong century.

TD: Also, there are some rules for continuo which seem designed to
preserve this freedom: for example the melody line should not be
doubled at the unison by the continuo player, and especially not when
it has a 4-3 suspension. This would allow pure thirds if desired.

JR: You’re dreaming. Sure, the harpsichordist would have to leave out all thirds if everyone else was trying to be just.
TD: In fact, that is what I would consider most likely for Baroque
intonation practice. The bass instrument, which must be in unison with
the continuo left hand, does play mainly in some kind of meantone. (So
OK, Johnny, adherence to meantone makes some sense there...)
JR: Sorry, it has to be the whole enchilada. But not for Bach, who was not in meantone.
TD: BUT the melody instruments, if playing consonances above the bass, can tune
these as pure intervals as far as possible. Hence they would be in
agreement with harmonics of the bass-line and, clearly, with each
other.
JR: I’ve heard this dream from others before, but it doesn’t work. And more importantly, it didn’t happen. I did this with Otto Luening’s Sonata for Bassoon, with his permission. Luening had actually imagined this kind of harmonic treatment for his piece. But Bach, ridiculous. Wercmeister III well-temperament was his controlled interavallic palette. Meantone is so exact to the ear of the musician working with it, that to move off of it sounds sour.
TD: The tempered intervals of RH continuo chords are then only an
imperfect first approximation to what the melodists can play.

JR: Gee, I don’t think they would take kindly to this sort of description.

TD: Just to clarify, if the continuo RH plays a note which is impure with
the bass, then beats ensue and the melody instrument has a *choice* :
either play purely with the RH note, or with the bass. Since the bass
has its own melodic instrument (gamba, cello, bassoon...) along with
it, hence is stronger than the RH, I would think the better musical
alternative was to go with the harmonics of the bass. The result is
some type of adaptive JI!

I have found a relevant quote - "In 1772, Charles Burney described the
playing of the oboist Carlo Besozzi:

His taste and ear are exceedingly delicate and refined, and he seems
to possess a happy and peculiar faculty of tempering a continued tone
to different basses, according to their several relations."

What Burney means by 'tempering' is of course not playing in a fixed
temperament, but rather *improving* intonation by deviating slightly
from fixed pitch.

JR: I’d love to have heard Mr. Besozzi, but it does not indicate whether musicians of his caliber could embellish with their flexible instruments. As with ornamentation, there is also free improvisation associated with Baroque music. However, not in Bach.

> I *love* using a continuo (...) And I'd find much of Handel almost
> unimaginable without the continuo. I'm in no hurry to "throw it off".
>
> Regards,
> Yahya

Exactly - late Baroque practice was a style in its own right, not a
juvenile stage of Viennese classicism. Myself, I'd find much of Haydn
and Mozart unimaginable without just chords.

~~~T~~~
JR: Thanks, Yahya for your comments. I think it is worth the journey to try and put words to musical concepts. However, it is possible that they are not universally shared. It is really fun to twist them into words as best as one can.
But no, no just chords in the German Baroque. Awful idea if one cares that the original tunings had something to do with the original meanings.

JR: In an analysis I did of Bach's opening intervals in his famous
works, I found that for all the pure perfect fifths and perfect
fourths available in Werckmeister III tuning, NONE was ever used.

TD: How about -

JR: I don’t have time to revisit this subject completely, but it seems you have found some good exceptions:

Violin concert in A minor, opening E-A-E, 3rd movement opening E-A

JR: True that, except maybe the reversal of direction makes for a different meaning;
E-A slurred down to G

Brandenburg no.2 opening F-C above bass F, 3rd movement opening with
F-C in trumpet...
JR: The full chords mask the opening interval of the first movement; the third movement “high” C is an anticipation to a trill, an obvious distortion of pitch/simultaneously in counterpoint with F – G.

Brandenburg no.6, 3rd movement opening F-Bb
JR: Bb is camaflagued by a full chord, blurring any real distinction to a listener.

Violin / keyboard sonata in F minor, opening C-F
Violin / keyboard sonata in A major, opening A-E
JR: I need the BWV numbers for these if you have them available.

Two-part Inventions in E minor and A minor
English Suite opening E-A-A
B minor mass, 'Laudamus te' with violin part opening E-A
JR: I will look further. It does still seem that for every important JS Bach melody, the choices were mostly tempered intervals. Use of just intervals may have a connection with the “Jesus Christus” reference which I agree is a just opening in Werckmeister III.

Chorale prelude 'Wachet auf', Bb-Eb
Two chorale preludes 'Aus tiefer Noth', B-E-B and C#-F#-C#
JR: Agreed.

Ditto 'Jesus Christus, unser Heiland', E-B in both
JR: Agreed.

In the WTC I:
C# minor prelude opening with G#-F# above bass C#

F major prelude opening with F-C above bass F
JR: I see F-A- back to F

F# major fugue, C#-F#
D# minor fugue, D#-A#

Ab major fugue, Ab-Eb
JR: I see a bass line taking preference of C-Db-C for a 90 cent interval.

Bb minor fugue, Bb-F (which is the entire first phrase!)
JR: I see F-G-F in the Bach Werke Verzeichnis.

????

~~~T~~~
JR: I hope to check the others later in the week. Thanks for your industry, which I hope you will agree has been fairly matched. You have indeed found some use, but it still seems infrequent use of just frequencies. ;)
________________________________________________________________________
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.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@> wrote:
>
> (...) I've found in practice when rendering things into
> extended meantone that I like some things better with sharper fifths,
> and others better with flatter fifths. From that subjective point of
> view I find 55, 43, 31, and 50 to all be useful. On the other hand 31
> makes for a better utility, use-in-all-circumstances tuning IMHO.

Sure - but why should one have to choose one out of a fixed selection
of EDO's - *unless* those are the only things which are convenient.

> > Why should one want to play 'in' a tuning which allows only one pitch
> > for any note? - in other words which is completely inflexible? For any
> > instrument except a keyboard, that seems to me very inefficient.
>
> Because the alternative is using an adaptive tuning program you don't
> have? Because you want what you've done to be precisely notated?
>

Quite illuminating. Gene's answers make perfect sense from the point
of view of someone writing *today* who wants to control tuning in a
practical and not overly-complicated way and doesn't have a dedicated
team of musicians at his command.

But my questions related to something completely different - the
historical situation, where in many cases the notation leaves the
exact choice of pitch partially or entirely up to the performer, and
the performance used both fixed-pitch (keyboard/fretted) and
flexible-pitch ('melody') instruments.

I am mainly concerned that some approaches that claim to be historical
- in particular, choosing one exact keyboard temperament and making
everyone 'play in' it - ignore the likelihood of improvisatory /
adaptive pitch variations by individual performers within some given
framework. Which I believe is what good musicians have always been
capable of doing.

Responsibility for good tuning used to lie entirely with the
performer, except in very special cases: tuning was a craft to be
learnt, mainly by listening. These days composers who care about
tuning seem to want to take responsibility away from performers, and
specify every pitch exactly - or even eliminate the performer
entirely. Now should we remake the old composers like this and apply
the model of centralized control over all pitches to their pieces?

Must the natural trumpeters play their A's so-and-so many cents below
pure in the B-minor Mass Hosanna because keyboards have a narrow
tempered fifth there?

~~~T~~~

> But my questions related to something completely different - the
> historical situation, where in many cases the notation leaves the
> exact choice of pitch partially or entirely up to the performer, and
> the performance used both fixed-pitch (keyboard/fretted) and
> flexible-pitch ('melody') instruments.

For the record Tom, I am in complete agreement with almost
everything you've posted in this thread. I'm glad you're out
there!

-Carl

Must the natural trumpeters play their A's so-and-so many cents below
pure in the B-minor Mass Hosanna because keyboards have a narrow
tempered fifth there?

~~~T~~~

Yes, for it to have the maximum clarity. This music is contrapuntal. Distinguishing between lines is a different way of listening as compared with the modern (post-baroque to the present) way of listening.

If you could become a true believer (and Carl, too) and performed in a hisoric tuning like Werckmeister III, then you would want to choose your pitch much more carefully thank you obviously believe necessry, or even preferable.

But this is an experiental knowledge. It could better be demonstated face to face with musical examples.

While it is true that the modern player can aim in to a target pitch from either below or above an eventual pitch, this does not work with Well-temperaments like Werckmeister III. It has 4 variants of each third at only six cent apart. Vibrato is bad enough. A perceived glissing into a pitch sounds like manure.

For meantone, let someone else speak to it.

Johnny
________________________________________________________________________
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.

Do you, Johnny, claim to be able to control the intonation of your instrument to always yield *exactly* those pitches conforming to Werckmeister III in a duo or trio performance involving a keyboard tuned to this temperament? Or would you admit to the usage of tones frolicking thereabouts through out a concert piece, with deviations as much as half a comma (if not more)?

Cordially,
Oz.
----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 21 Kasım 2006 Salı 21:00
Subject: [tuning] Bach's Tuning

Must the natural trumpeters play their A's so-and-so many cents below
pure in the B-minor Mass Hosanna because keyboards have a narrow
tempered fifth there?

~~~T~~~

Yes, for it to have the maximum clarity. This music is contrapuntal. Distinguishing between lines is a different way of listening as compared with the modern (post-baroque to the present) way of listening.

If you could become a true believer (and Carl, too) and performed in a hisoric tuning like Werckmeister III, then you would want to choose your pitch much more carefully thank you obviously believe necessry, or even preferable.

But this is an experiental knowledge. It could better be demonstated face to face with musical examples.

While it is true that the modern player can aim in to a target pitch from either below or above an eventual pitch, this does not work with Well-temperaments like Werckmeister III. It has 4 variants of each third at only six cent apart. Vibrato is bad enough. A perceived glissing into a pitch sounds like manure.

For meantone, let someone else speak to it.

Johnny

Do you, Johnny, claim to be able to control the intonation of your instrument to always yield *exactly* those pitches conforming to Werckmeister III in a duo or trio performance involving a keyboard tuned to this temperament? Or would you admit to the usage of tones frolicking thereabouts through out a concert piece, with deviations as much as half a comma (if not more)?

Cordially,
Oz.

Hi Ozan,

Yes, I do work within cents specific music in performance. While I don't have perfect pitch, my pitch skills have developed along microtonal lines.

And yes, playing more than half a comma off is blaring within the right (wrong) context. This is most certainly true if the half comma changes each time it is played and is doubled by a part that disagrees. Meantone does best with one person per part. Bach, too.

Johnny

________________________________________________________________________
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.

I meant those instances where there is no keyboard chord/arpeggio to back you up. Since you lack perfect pitch, how can you be certain that you are sounding the "exact same" tones of Werckmeister III? I presume to think that a musician would deviate from the course of any temperament eventually, until that is, he/she is reminded of this by a fixed-pitch accompaniment. Otherwise, one would need photographic memory and super-human mastery of his/her instrument to succeed in what you claim to achieve.

----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 21 Kasım 2006 Salı 23:48
Subject: [tuning] Bach's Tuning

Do you, Johnny, claim to be able to control the intonation of your instrument to always yield *exactly* those pitches conforming to Werckmeister III in a duo or trio performance involving a keyboard tuned to this temperament? Or would you admit to the usage of tones frolicking thereabouts through out a concert piece, with deviations as much as half a comma (if not more)?

Cordially,
Oz.

Hi Ozan,

Yes, I do work within cents specific music in performance. While I don't have perfect pitch, my pitch skills have developed along microtonal lines.

And yes, playing more than half a comma off is blaring within the right (wrong) context. This is most certainly true if the half comma changes each time it is played and is doubled by a part that disagrees. Meantone does best with one person per part. Bach, too.

Johnny

Dear Ozan,

Please let me try to improve any confusion. There seems to be some misunderstanding of a performer's lot when playing meatone (or any other tuning) for baroque music.

Ozan: I meant those instances where there is no keyboard chord/arpeggio to back you up. Since you lack perfect pitch, how can you be certain that you are sounding the "exact same" tones of Werckmeister III?

Johnny: A musician must put the entire tuning in the head, during rehearsals. It is too late for the concert. A moment of arpeggio does not do any good, or serve any need. And perfect pitch is more of a problem than an aid when there is diversity of pitch. There have been wonderful exceptions, including for example clarinetists Michiyo Suzuki and cellist David Eggar. They both would add new microtonal relationships to their perfect pitch data base of musical intervals. This is what Charles Ives's father George Ives was doing in the 19th century with his microtonal experiments; he was buttressing his collection of known intervals in his perfect pitch data base.

How would I know? Besides learning to discern by cents, recordings, working with others of the highest virtuosity, there are recordings, there is being able to "sing" the tuning, there is repetiton. Out of tune is out of tune and comes down to the singular matching of pitch. As a result of dictation classes and solfege classes in the conservatory, or simply matching the "exact" pitch of the tuning oboe in the orchestra, one must match pitch. Every cent off of matching pitch causes beats.

About the continuo: even when it is not actually playing, it has landscaped the minde to a particular and unique tuning constellation of pitches. It doesn't matter if it is not prefacing each and every pitch before it is to be played by a flexible instrument.

Ozan: I presume to think that a musician would deviate from the course of any temperament eventually, until that is, he/she is reminded of this by a fixed-pitch accompaniment.

Johnny: This "drift" you speak of happens in "a capella" vocal music. We have discussed previously on the list the pros and cons o such drift. However, as stated above, when a continuo is "part" of the music, there is no drift. Now, if you are talking about particular notes not behaving as wanted? This happens due to the reeds, a physical mis-step (sliding off the keys due to perspiration), the continuo going out of tune, etc.

Ozan: Otherwise, one would need photographic memory and super-human mastery of his/her instrument to succeed in what you claim to achieve.

Johnny: This is the difference between a virtuosic professional and someone that is theorizing about a virtuosic profossional by comparing with one's own skills. As a bassoonist my ten fingers cover 5 open tone holes (often not to be fully covered, but shaded), and 26 keys (in different cominatinos). Besides, I finely tune the whole instrument into ET and every other tuning I use, often 5 and 6 different tunings in a single concert during an evennig of the AFMM.

all best, Johnny Reinhard
________________________________________________________________________
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.

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:
>
> "If you could become a true believer (and Carl, too) and performed
> in a hisoric tuning like Werckmeister III, then you would want to
> choose your pitch much more carefully thank you obviously believe
> necessry, or even preferable.
>
> But this is an experiental knowledge. It could better be
> demonstated face to face with musical examples."
>

Since at least the 1960's (Wesley Kuhnle's recorded lecture-demonstrations date from the 1950's), it has been common practice for Harpsichordists to tune their own instruments in historical tunings, rather than leave the tuning to professional piano tuner. Meantone and WIII, followed by KIII are the tunings that most players learn first and are certainly used in concert by harpsichordists far more that ET. So we have now had abundant "experiental (sic) knowledge" with WIII as a tuning for both solo and continuo usage. On the basis of the experience it is far from necessary to become a "true believer" (the world has dangerously far too many "true believers" at the moment AFAIC) to make a rational assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of the tuning. It certainly works well enough for much solo literature and can be worked-with in ensemble situations. Is it always an optimal tuning? Certainly not, but it is frequently a good compromise. Is its historical status, in particular as a tuning for Bach's music, certain? Certainly not. There is simply no detailed positive evidence to indicate that this particular harpsichord tuning or another was widespread in practice, and Bach did not leave unambiguous and detailed tuning instruction of his own or endorse the tuning of another musician. There is also no good evidence, positive or negative, regarding the entirely plausible notion that harpsichordists would have liberally used their tuning hammers when moving from piece to piece. We do know that Bach played organs in 1/6 comma tuning, and he wrote music for both gamba and lute, presumably in ET (although there is some evidence that these instruments with moveable frets could be a bit more flexible with their intonation, certainly an advantage in continuo environments). Any attempt to advocate a particular historical or conjectural tuning is also going to have to get around the complicated subject of transposition and pitch level. The former was common practice, particular in arrangements, and the latter can get quite thorny as not only did pitch level vary from locality to locality and within a locality from organ to organ, it is difficult to assume that usage of these organs in ensemble situations required complete new sets of instruments. (The F trumpet in the 2nd Brandenburg may well be an example in which an ensemble is synthesized from instruments from different pitch standards).

Finally, and this is strictly a personal opinion, I find that we are in a very lively intonational environment with regard to contemporary performances of early repertoire. Not only does one encounter a wide variety of keyboard intonations in concerts these days -- historical, conjectural, and rather individualized variations on the two --, the best ensembles now have the flexibility to tune as clearly or ambiguously to the continuo as they like, and avoiding intonational conflicts is no longer the sole musical objective. This is a move very much in parallel to the realisation that now that we have become good at eliminating vibrato altogether, it can now become a useful expressive and ornamental element when applied intentional and discretely. Indeed, like vibrato, intonational cloudiness or ambiguity is a quality of its own. It's all a matter of not being a "true believer" in one particular doctrine or another, but rather in the full diversity of musical resources and expressions. Anything less is a disservice to music.

Daniel Wolf

Daniel has given some very needful reminders about the real nature of
our historical knowledge (such as it is).

Although I agree with almost everything, I had a couple of questions
or objections :

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:

> We do know that Bach
> played organs in 1/6 comma tuning,

I assume that is based on the old attribution of 1/6-comma meantone
(with an unspecified comma) as 'Silbermann'. Many organbuilders now
find this doubtful, both by looking at the pipework of original
Silbermann organs, and by re-examining the source (Sorge) who first
attributed that tuning to Silbermann.

Sorge gave a method of testing the temperament by playing the tempered
thirds and fifths (particularly the 'wolf', i.e. enharmonically wrong,
intervals) in comparison with the pure thirds and fifths available on
the organ's Terz and Quint mixtures. In that case one can detect the
presence of intervals that depart widely from the pure values - but
without knowledge of exact beat rates, one cannot convert that into
some fraction of a comma without considerable uncertainty. And in any
case, the 'wolf' intervals beat so fast relative to the pure ones that
to count them is impractical

What is clear from his account is that the Silbermann tunings thay he
examined had a wolf fifth, four major thirds much larger than pure,
and three minor thirds much smaller. But since he did not compare each
individual pitch, we may doubt whether the whole tuning necessarily
corresponded accurately with 1/6 comma meantone.

See http://www.orgelbau-vier.com/silbermannstimmung.html

It is probable, though, that Bach did play on quite a few organs which
had meantone characteristics.

Indeed CPE Bach later gave a warning about improvising on organs,
saying that one should restrict the range of modulation if the tuning
is not suitable.

> intonational cloudiness or ambiguity is a quality
> of its own.
>
> Daniel Wolf
>

I'm not clear on what this might mean - how might a note have 'cloudy'
or 'ambiguous' pitch, unless by the use of vibrato, or with many
instruments slightly detuned to each other (as in a traditional
orchestral string section)?

~~~T~~~

It's all a matter of not being a "true believer" in one
particular doctrine or another, but rather in the full diversity of
musical resources and expressions. Anything less is a disservice to music.

Daniel Wolf

Hi Daniel,

I agree with everything that Daniel, and only want to embellish the above extraction.

It would be wrong to imply that I am a "true believer" when I am a polymicrotonalist, producer of a catholic array of tunings, am irreligous, and non-dogmatic.

It would be a disservice for me not to share my personal experiences, and understandings having performed microtonal music exclusively for over 25 years. It's understandable that people see similar evidence and draw different conclusions.

My experience with Bach in Werckmeister III, with its 6 degrees of separation between alternative variants of basic interval size (adding to 39 total), is that there is no wiggle room. The midpoint, even without vibrato, is 3.5 cents between variants of "intentional pitch differences in 'same' intervals.

Please consider my take on this to be one of a practicing player, and not as a theorist.

Johnny
________________________________________________________________________
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.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Must the natural trumpeters play their A's so-and-so many cents below
> pure in the B-minor Mass Hosanna because keyboards have a narrow
> tempered fifth there?
>
> ~~~T~~~
>
> Yes, for it to have the maximum clarity. This music is contrapuntal.

Not sure this follows. (Forget for a minuts that the Hosanna begins
*monophonically*...) The continuo part is not itself contrapuntal,
rather it consists of a bassline and chords, so why does it serve
counterpoint to have every instrument tuning every note from the
continuo? - and even when the continuo is silent, as it is at many points?

(BTW. No need to educate me about contrapuntal music. I have been
playing Bach on the harpsichord since age 13.)

You could use the argument either way: how better to ensure different
parts' audible independence, than by granting them independence to
determine their own tuning relative to the continuo?

And why do tempered, as opposed to pure, intervals, promote 'clarity'
anyway?

Let's suppose we have a tonic D major chord, with the continuo playing
a quarter-comma flat A. Ringing out we have the *pure* A coming from
the bass instrument (string bass, cello, gamba, bassoon) overtones;
and the *flat* A coming from the righthand continuo chord. Which can,
or should, the trumpeter or singer tune with?

(Forget for a moment also that the trumpet in D naturally blows pure
overtones above the root...)

Tempered chords in the continuo already create confusion by this clash
of overtones, and the skill of the tuner and performer is to keep that
confusion to a minimum. I believe it is simply going to sound better
if the upper parts choose what naively sounds right above the bass -
which will be a pure interval - rather than concentrating on
reinforcing the continuo's A, which clashes with the bass overtones.

> you would want to choose your pitch much more carefully than you
> obviously believe necessary, or even preferable.
>

From where would you get the idea that my attitude to pitch is less
than 'careful'? By what mindreading is someone telling the world what
I 'obviously believe'?

It takes *more* care and attention to achieve adaptively sufficiently
pure intonation above a bass, than to repeat the same pitch every time
your score has a given note. The former requires the performer to
remember what happens differently at different points in the score.

On the other hand, it is easier to teach such adaptive intonation,
because all you need to hear is the pure intervals.

Bass instruments (such as the bassoon!) have a special situation,
because they do have to be in unison with the keyboard continuo bass.
This is usually handled by having them sit next to the keyboard, which
they end up listening to ad nauseam during researsals...

~~~T~~~

So you claim to be able to perform without any glitches - deviating not so much as a cent from the intended tuning for an instant - even when the instrument "misbehaves". I rest my case.
----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 22 Kasım 2006 Çarşamba 18:20
Subject: [tuning] Bach's Tuning

Dear Ozan,

Please let me try to improve any confusion. There seems to be some misunderstanding of a performer's lot when playing meatone (or any other tuning) for baroque music.

Ozan: I meant those instances where there is no keyboard chord/arpeggio to back you up. Since you lack perfect pitch, how can you be certain that you are sounding the "exact same" tones of Werckmeister III?

Johnny: A musician must put the entire tuning in the head, during rehearsals. It is too late for the concert. A moment of arpeggio does not do any good, or serve any need. And perfect pitch is more of a problem than an aid when there is diversity of pitch. There have been wonderful exceptions, including for example clarinetists Michiyo Suzuki and cellist David Eggar. They both would add new microtonal relationships to their perfect pitch data base of musical intervals. This is what Charles Ives's father George Ives was doing in the 19th century with his microtonal experiments; he was buttressing his collection of known intervals in his perfect pitch data base.

How would I know? Besides learning to discern by cents, recordings, working with others of the highest virtuosity, there are recordings, there is being able to "sing" the tuning, there is repetiton. Out of tune is out of tune and comes down to the singular matching of pitch. As a result of dictation classes and solfege classes in the conservatory, or simply matching the "exact" pitch of the tuning oboe in the orchestra, one must match pitch. Every cent off of matching pitch causes beats.

About the continuo: even when it is not actually playing, it has landscaped the minde to a particular and unique tuning constellation of pitches. It doesn't matter if it is not prefacing each and every pitch before it is to be played by a flexible instrument.

Ozan: I presume to think that a musician would deviate from the course of any temperament eventually, until that is, he/she is reminded of this by a fixed-pitch accompaniment.

Johnny: This "drift" you speak of happens in "a capella" vocal music. We have discussed previously on the list the pros and cons o such drift. However, as stated above, when a continuo is "part" of the music, there is no drift. Now, if you are talking about particular notes not behaving as wanted? This happens due to the reeds, a physical mis-step (sliding off the keys due to perspiration), the continuo going out of tune, etc.

Ozan: Otherwise, one would need photographic memory and super-human mastery of his/her instrument to succeed in what you claim to achieve.

Johnny: This is the difference between a virtuosic professional and someone that is theorizing about a virtuosic profossional by comparing with one's own skills. As a bassoonist my ten fingers cover 5 open tone holes (often not to be fully covered, but shaded), and 26 keys (in different cominatinos). Besides, I finely tune the whole instrument into ET and every other tuning I use, often 5 and 6 different tunings in a single concert during an evennig of the AFMM.

all best, Johnny Reinhard

Re: [tuning] Bach's Tuning

So you claim to be able to perform without any glitches - deviating not so much as a cent from the intended tuning for an instant - even when the instrument "misbehaves". I rest my case.----- Original Message -----
Ozan, I wasn't aware that you had a case. So may have proved that people work in music with different gifts and different understandnigs.

As to glitches, sometimes I burp on a note, usually considered a form of ornament, a trill.

Johnny

p.s. please give a listen to music before judging, sort of like not judging a book by its cover.
________________________________________________________________________
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.

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

> What is clear from his account is that the Silbermann tunings thay he
> examined had a wolf fifth, four major thirds much larger than pure,
> and three minor thirds much smaller. But since he did not compare each
> individual pitch, we may doubt whether the whole tuning necessarily
> corresponded accurately with 1/6 comma meantone.

What you can conclude from this is that it probably was some kind of
meantone--that is, there's no reason to think the fifths weren't all
tuned the same. However, "much larger" and "much smaller" does not
suggest 1/6 comma meantone.

Not being aware does not render you inculpable. Besides, you know I listened to certain performances by you over the net and applauded your skill, so I am not being too judgmental when I say that more than once have I imagined you to confound a pitch before subtle recovery. I am only trusting my ears and common sense of reasoning here. It is only "human" to deviate from the course of "coarse" mathematics.

----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 22 Kasım 2006 Çarşamba 23:44
Subject: [tuning] Bach's Tuning

Re: [tuning] Bach's Tuning

So you claim to be able to perform without any glitches - deviating not so much as a cent from the intended tuning for an instant - even when the instrument "misbehaves". I rest my case.----- Original Message -----
Ozan, I wasn't aware that you had a case. So may have proved that people work in music with different gifts and different understandnigs.

As to glitches, sometimes I burp on a note, usually considered a form of ornament, a trill.

Johnny

p.s. please give a listen to music before judging, sort of like not judging a book by its cover.

Re: [tuning] Bach's Tuning, Ozan wrote:

Not being aware does not render you inculpable. Besides, you know I listened to certain performances by you over the net and applauded your skill, so I am not being too judgmental when I say that more than once have I imagined you to confound a pitch before subtle recovery. I am only trusting my ears and common sense of reasoning here. It is only "human" to deviate from the course of "coarse" mathematics.

And Johnny responds:

'scuse me? Are you saying that I can make errors in live performance? Of course. Some believe that is part of what makes live performance so special (although I'd be happier without the errors). Had a particularly tough time with a read last time I played Telemann in sixth comma tuning.

Basically, I've been addressing a different performance practice which results from taking Werckmeister III as an intended tuning by Bach as actual.

don't we alway speak to getting deeper within a tuning? yes, that is all I'm addressing. and first hand, i have been reporting.

sorry i won't be around most of thursday to chat further, family obligations. :) Johnny
________________________________________________________________________
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.

Finally, we agree that one cannot be in "immaculate" alignment with any tuning or temperament when performing on flexible-pitch instruments such as violin, ney and bassoon.
----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 23 Kasım 2006 Perşembe 2:12
Subject: [tuning] Bach's Tuning

Re: [tuning] Bach's Tuning, Ozan wrote:

Not being aware does not render you inculpable. Besides, you know I listened to certain performances by you over the net and applauded your skill, so I am not being too judgmental when I say that more than once have I imagined you to confound a pitch before subtle recovery. I am only trusting my ears and common sense of reasoning here. It is only "human" to deviate from the course of "coarse" mathematics.

And Johnny responds:

'scuse me? Are you saying that I can make errors in live performance? Of course. Some believe that is part of what makes live performance so special (although I'd be happier without the errors). Had a particularly tough time with a read last time I played Telemann in sixth comma tuning.

Basically, I've been addressing a different performance practice which results from taking Werckmeister III as an intended tuning by Bach as actual.

don't we alway speak to getting deeper within a tuning? yes, that is all I'm addressing. and first hand, i have been reporting.

sorry i won't be around most of thursday to chat further, family obligations. :) Johnny

Hi Tom and everyone,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
> Let's suppose we have a tonic D major chord, with the
> continuo playing a quarter-comma flat A. Ringing out we
> have the *pure* A coming from the bass instrument
> (string bass, cello, gamba, bassoon) overtones; and
> the *flat* A coming from the righthand continuo chord.
> Which can, or should, the trumpeter or singer tune with?
>
> (Forget for a moment also that the trumpet in D naturally
> blows pure overtones above the root...)
>
> Tempered chords in the continuo already create confusion
> by this clash of overtones, and the skill of the tuner and
> performer is to keep that confusion to a minimum. I believe
> it is simply going to sound better if the upper parts choose
> what naively sounds right above the bass - which will be a
> pure interval - rather than concentrating on reinforcing the
> continuo's A, which clashes with the bass overtones.

It should also be kept in mind that the harpsichord timbre
is a very transient non-sustaining sound, in comparison to
all of the other instruments mentioned.

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

Bradley Lehman writes on his website:

"As of November 13 2006, in the TUNING-L discussion group, Dr Ortgies is still stating his position as follows:
"Until today there is not a single piece of evidence, that allows us to state which temperament Bach might have preferred at any time. This is also the view hold within Bach-scholarship." Ortgies speaks for the whole body of "Bach-scholarship"? What about my Bach-scholarship, or other people's who happen to agree that my work has merit?"

YES! I do agree, at long last, with you, here. On my Bach radio show we discussed your tuning ideas, and some others, Like Tom's. Also, I thanked Tom for contributing some Bach works that do NOT start with just intervals when computing in Werckmeister III tuning.

But it is to Bradley that I am now thankful. He has shaken up the baloney that musicologists have been dishing out. That is a more harmful reality than a plethora of alternatives. We on the List remember well Herr Kellner, a true gentleman. Although his ideas came from numerology, we reasoned that the actual differences in pitches between his results and Werckmeister III were nill; there was no reason to toss bombs.

It is difficult to gauge how one sounds on the 'net while being passionate in expressing a point. May I draw your attention(s) to what I believe Dr Ortgies implies. Because there is no single "smoking gun" indicating a specific Bach tuning, we must collectively put our heads into the sand and say nothing. This allows the catholic attitude of "anything goes" which Aaron sympathizes with. Maybe Carl, too.

But Bach-scholarship has serious defficiencies, much as Ives-scholarships does. People "protecting" the incorrect "truth" due harm to music. Sorry if this is offensive. I mean it in the abstract sense and not in a personal sense. After all, Ibo Ortgies is self-representing all of Bach-scholarship. Wow!

I see this as self-deluding, representing a willful ignorance of the tuning on the ground. The foremost Bach scholar in the world, Christoph Wolff, agrees that Werckmeister temperament was used by Bach. From an ethnomusicological perspective, this was the best candidate (not the paper temperament of an after the fact Neidhardt, at least in respects to JS Bach).

I hope someone on the list had a chance to listen into the broadcast. If not, suffice it to say, I am beginnnig to take the musicologists to task.

:) Johnny Reinhard

________________________________________________________________________
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.

Hi Johnny!

Just to clarify--my attitude is not so much "anything goes" as much as
this:

If Bach really cared all that much about the musical effect of
whatever tuning his music is played in, of all the possible
alternatives, he would have indicated it, *UNAMBIGUOSLY*. The absence
of evidence does not automatically nominate Werckmeister, or any
other, temperament.

Thus, I regard Lehman's reconstruction as a clever and intriguing
possibility which, whether or not you accept the "mapping of squiggle
to fifth size" that Lehman proposes, one must admit represents a
possibility *consistent* with the practice of the time. Any more is
impossible to say!

I am seriously skeptical of any claim assigned a probability of 100%
that Bach's tuning was "______", since there is no direct evidence
either way.

We *do* know that we can narrow it down to some form of
well-temperament or other, and since the audible differences between
these are a matter of degrees of subtlety which are often quite small,
I am of the opinion that if Bach's music functions in them, the choice
for *which* is a personal one. In other words, I fail to see how a
anachronistic-neo-well-temperament which was nearly inaudibly
different from whatever your-pet-Bach-tuning is could be in any way
considered 'invalid' to anyone except a die-hard korinthenkacker!

Best,
Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Bradley Lehman writes on his website:
>
> "As of November 13 2006, in the TUNING-L discussion group, Dr
Ortgies is still stating his position as follows:
> "Until today there is not a single piece of evidence, that allows us
to state which temperament Bach might have preferred at any time. This
is also the view hold within Bach-scholarship." Ortgies speaks for the
whole body of "Bach-scholarship"? What about my Bach-scholarship, or
other people's who happen to agree that my work has merit?"
>
>
> YES! I do agree, at long last, with you, here. On my Bach radio
show we discussed your tuning ideas, and some others, Like Tom's.
Also, I thanked Tom for contributing some Bach works that do NOT start
with just intervals when computing in Werckmeister III tuning.
>
> But it is to Bradley that I am now thankful. He has shaken up the
baloney that musicologists have been dishing out. That is a more
harmful reality than a plethora of alternatives. We on the List
remember well Herr Kellner, a true gentleman. Although his ideas came
from numerology, we reasoned that the actual differences in pitches
between his results and Werckmeister III were nill; there was no
reason to toss bombs.
>
> It is difficult to gauge how one sounds on the 'net while being
passionate in expressing a point. May I draw your attention(s) to
what I believe Dr Ortgies implies. Because there is no single
"smoking gun" indicating a specific Bach tuning, we must collectively
put our heads into the sand and say nothing. This allows the catholic
attitude of "anything goes" which Aaron sympathizes with. Maybe Carl,
too.
>
> But Bach-scholarship has serious defficiencies, much as
Ives-scholarships does. People "protecting" the incorrect "truth" due
harm to music. Sorry if this is offensive. I mean it in the abstract
sense and not in a personal sense. After all, Ibo Ortgies is
self-representing all of Bach-scholarship. Wow!
>
> I see this as self-deluding, representing a willful ignorance of the
tuning on the ground. The foremost Bach scholar in the world,
Christoph Wolff, agrees that Werckmeister temperament was used by
Bach. From an ethnomusicological perspective, this was the best
candidate (not the paper temperament of an after the fact Neidhardt,
at least in respects to JS Bach).
>
> I hope someone on the list had a chance to listen into the
broadcast. If not, suffice it to say, I am beginnnig to take the
musicologists to task.
>
> :) Johnny Reinhard
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>

> Because there is no single "smoking gun" indicating a specific Bach
> tuning, we must collectively put our heads into the sand and say
> nothing. This allows the catholic attitude of "anything goes" which
> Aaron sympathizes with. Maybe Carl, too.
>
> But Bach-scholarship has serious defficiencies, much as Ives-
> scholarships does. People "protecting" the incorrect "truth" due
> harm to music.

At least with music instruments many mistakes written about them can
be obvious if you look at the instrument, but you still have to
consult documents putting them, as well as the documents, in context.

Clark

Johnny,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
> If not, suffice it to say, I am beginnnig to take the musicologists
to task.

I know that you have spent a lot of time doing research on the idea of
Bach's tunings, very much in the same way that you did a lot of
research on your Ives investigations. This isn't something off the top
of your head, but something you have worked on for a long time. What
are the distinctions between you and a musicologist?

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> (...). This isn't something off the top
> of your head, but something you have worked on for a long time. What
> are the distinctions between you and a musicologist?
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

... Taking the question entirely out of context, the answer is - I am
or am not a Bach-scholar or a musicologist, in contrast to you, since
I am right and you are wrong ! (8-{>
(bald-mustachioed-professor symbol...)

This might be one of these irregular verbs, like

* I do painstaking research and uncover previously unknown facts
* You make intriguing speculations and come across potentially useful
information
* He is one of those musicologists who pull things out of their a&&es
which everyone knows are wrong anyway

... Now what was that about 'Bach-scholars'?? Perhaps the meaning was
that the people who were commonly thought of as the top 'Bach-
scholars' before Brad's article came along, haven't changed their
views as a result of it. A pretty self-reflexive definition, I grant
you. It may indeed require some sort of earthquake to make those
views change, but I don't see that as a drawback - scholarship,
almost by definition, is as permanent as possible.

~~~T~~~

Tom,

Well, that might have been fun writing your response, but it wasn't
helpful in the least! If it wasn't clear, I was posting the message
for Johnny, since he has a beef with "musicologists" (and I use the
quotes since I'm not certain how he defines this particular group).

Then again, you did say you were taking it "entirely out of context".
Oh well...

Cheers,
Jon

Cool!

Now, it is only necessary to establish it was the only likely possibility. There is lots of familiarity with the tuning through Bach's rich association with Muhlhausen and the Werckmeister III tuner, Johann Friedrich Wender.

Now, we do differ that tuning was not important to Mr. Bach. It was consumately important; JS was singlehandedly presenting the Musical World with the principles of well-temperament as a tuning wherein each note can be a tonic for a key with its own sentiment and allusions.

Only one tuning was every described that could influence Bach, Werckmeister III. And yet, as Aaron and Carl suggest, Bach probably could have used just about anything. Sorry, you could challenge what I'm saying, but you cannot take away the conclusionary feeling I have after a lifetime.

Tuning, speaking as a performing musician, is a cultural manifestation. Aaron and Carl, I differ with you, two, because somehow Bach is being confused with being an individual. He was not, in my opinion. He followed the guidelines of his uncle, and his oldest son, and his oldest brother, etc.

Tough cookies, but I'm going to speculate. Werckmeister was quite familiar with the tuning used by Bach's first major teacher, uncle johann Christoph Bach. That's why Werckmeister starts with it in his estimation, even though he himself doesn't need it (because he is not a chromatic composer).

Buxtehude was music in that generation before Bach and he clearly supported Werckmesiter. Even more so were the Ahles and Mr. Wender of Muhlhausen. Muhlhausen was the center of the tuning world. It is where Werckmeister's ideas received its greatest impetus. Even Werckmeister's own son took over in Quedlinberg with "Werckmeister IV".

The point is that Werckmeister passes muster as the most likely candidate for performing the music of JS Bach due to his proximity to Muhlhausen and to his family recipe, likely manifested in the teachings of the uncle JC.

best, johnny
________________________________________________________________________
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.

T: We might tentatively deduce that J.N. Bach tuned fairly near to equal
temperament at that contest - otherwise it would have sounded *worse*
than Neidhardt's near-ET in some keys. One simple possibility is that
JN Bach tuned ET by ear better than Neidhardt did by monochord.

J: I was with you up till the Bb minor info. But there is no “We” in this deduction. It seemed that Aaron (and maybe Carl and Gene) signed off on Neidhardt. Wrapping around the enigma that is Bach takes some doing. I thought it better to rope off areas of the conversation so we can focus.

As for assuming JN Bach was almost ET…well, this may betray more of your 21st century aesthetic, than it could be that of a Bach. Your suggested “simple possibility” …tuning ET by ear as better, even yet, preferable… goes against every sinew in my physiogamy.

> > How in the world could anyone claim Neidhardt influenced the tuning
> of J.S. Bach if the above is true?
>
> You can't.

T: How can anyone in the world claim that Neidhardt *didn't* influence
the tuning of J.S. Bach? You can't. Lack of evidence cuts both ways.

J: Chronologically, it can’t work. JS was a master of the organ and its tuning when he judged the Wender creation in Arnstadt in 1703. JS was established in his chromatic tuning at this time, with Neidhardt a much later phenomenon.

If you have evidence that Wender did not practice Werckmeister III tuning, as to insist upon it for chromatic usage, please do tell.

And very striking, Werckmeister III was essentially a Thuringian tuning. Sorry to pull the race card, but Neidhardt went from Silesia to south of Thuringia (Altdorf) to far north Saxon-Anhalt (Wittemberg), before focusing on theology, where he met JN Bach. Bach’s tuning was one of a family, but of a bigger family, one that takes in the full culture of Thuringia. There were Bach’s everywhere, but they all kept to a musical well-temperament. Now, all well-temperaments sound more alike to modern day ears than any one well-temperament sounds in comparison to ET. Due to the circumstances surrounding the publishing of a popular treatise on the organ and a companion for tuning it, unlike anything of its kind, at least until Neidhardt in 1706, the musical basis for choosing a well temperament goes to Werckmeister III. There is nothing else justifiable, in my opinion.

T: To add to the information presented by Johnny, which only refers to
Neidhardt's early efforts with ET : Neidhardt later presented many
*irregular* temperament recipes, which he must have developed between
1706 and 1724 or later. Did he get any helpful hints from JN Bach in
preparing them?

J: I’m sure Niedhardt was influenced, at least as regards perfecting his science of tempering. And this was admirable.

> > Or does one need more proof that JS Bach was established in a tuning
> > for life since childhood?

T: I don't understand this question. Where is the first proof, never mind
'one more'? Bach, who checked the tuning of his harpsichords daily,
did so the same way for (say) forty years? That's 14,400 tunings. Yet
that is what is claimed. 'Bach was established in a tuning for life
since childhood'. Just think about what this means and what one would
need to 'prove' it.

J: Good. You are dealing with an important question. I do believe this. Proving it is always a different matter. I aim to try.

T: Where is one piece of direct evidence as to what Bach did with respect
to tuning harpsichords in his 'childhood' (though in 1706 he was
already 21)?

J: Red herrings, for me. Keyboard is keyboard. I don’t accept that the tuning is meant to be different on a harpsichord than on an organ. Werckmeister III, with its 8 pure fifths sound great on a harpsichord, certain fantastic in relation to ET.

One piece of evidence is that both Werckmeister and JS are said to be able to tune a harpsichord in 15 minutes, something which was clearly meant to be an amazing feat of speed and accuracy.

T: OK, I stop now. Just to note that it is very easy to select a few
facts out of a huge pile of more or less useful information to 'make a
case'. For example, for the Werckmeister 1698 continuo tuning, which
is different from all the 1691 temperaments.

J: Careful study shows there is no change in Werckmeister’s views that 1691 is his full view on the subject. This has been shown on this List before.

T: This is connected to Bach
in two ways (documented in the Norrback book): one, it was found
copied out in the documents of an organist-composer relation of his;
two, it was also copied into the proceedings of the Leipzig
music-theory society founded by Mizler ... Caveat lector.

~~~T~~~

J: This is juicy; what was copied out? “I, Andreas Werckmeister, have changed my mind.”? I'll look into the 1698 continuo tuning and report...although, continuo tuning might be better in a Werckmeister IV. Regardless, even if there had been a change in 1698, it wouldn't have changed a cocky JS Bach.

all best, Johnny

________________________________________________________________________
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.

Since this Werckmeister III is becoming so popular, I hereby advertise an old duet of mine for clarinet and piano rendered as close to this tuning as my hardware allows:

http://www.ozanyarman.com/files/music/Creepy.mp3

Plenty of room for improvisation should anyone care to perform it.

Oz.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Since this Werckmeister III is becoming so popular, I hereby
advertise an old duet of mine for clarinet and piano rendered as close
to this tuning as my hardware allows:
>
> http://www.ozanyarman.com/files/music/Creepy.mp3
>
> Plenty of room for improvisation should anyone care to perform it.
>
> Oz.
>

Fun! Good for halloween....

-A.

Once and for all (I couldn't resist, I'm ashamed to say)

Johnny says:

1) Werckmeister was published, and Bach could have not used anything
else, because Werckmeister was published.

2) It couldn't be Neidhardt, that's too late. Therefore it *had* to be
Werckmeister. Adn not only that, it had to be Werck III.

3) combinations of the above, ad nauseum....

Tom, Aaron, others say:

1) Just because some tuning was published doesn't mean Bach didn't
have an unpublished solution. Do we really think Bach is so mechanical
and unoriginal that he would, hmmm---experiment? In fact, Johnny even
goes to great lengths to insist Bach was cocky. Let's say we agree he
was 'cocky'--taken at face value, why would he simply copy an existing
tradition without "putting his stamp" on it?

2) CPE Bach said "temper most fifths" --a decidly UN-Werckmeister III
description. Johnny will have to explain why the ultra-orthodox (his
view, not ours) Bach family would suddenly change its tempering
habits. CPE spoke for Papa Bach in more ways than one---for instance,
insisting his Dad (and he, the bearer of the tradition) were
anti-Rameau harmonic theory.

3) If Bach cared, if he thought his music would be spoiled by the
"wrong temperament", he would have left detailed instructions on how
to set the right temperament. The horrible truth Johnny, it hurts you
we know, is that Bach's music is _greater than tuning_. Believe it or
not, it is not an error to enjoy the countless non-AFMM recordings in
non-Werckmeister out there. Nor is at error to (gasp!) enjoy Bach in
12-equal (horrors!!!). If not, let's burn all the lute music he wrote
in error, for certainly 12-equal is a mistake. Let's not forget that
it is *we* who are in the tuning group caring so much about something
that most of the time matters the least about music. Tuning is NOT a
foreground feature of Bach's music, like it is in say Partch, or
Renaissance vocal music. It is UTTERLY INSANE to argue otherwise. It
would be equivalent to saying it utterly fails in 12-equal, which it
doesn't---Renaissance music I agree mostly fails in 12-equal--not Bach.

4) 'It' (assuming there is ONE HOLY TUNING---an error---see below)
doesn't have to be Neidhardt, it could be related or whatever. We will
never know exactly. It's ok to be ok with not knowing. Not knowing
keeps mystery in life. We don't need to know everything. That
said--Neidhardt *might* (again the tentative nature of all speculative
thought is emphasized---how radical!) represent a later publishing of
a distillation of cultural trends for well-temperament that were alive
in some way, *perhaps* in musical families like Bach's, especially
given that Neidhardt had contact with Bach family members. So, it's
quite possible that Neidhardt tuning recipe(s) might be the closest
published tuning(s) at the time to what Bach's personal recipe(s)
might have been. Not to radical a statement really, given the way the
world works when you really look at it. The anachronism doesn't
neccessarily apply---an idea may be around for decades before someone
publishes, after all. You'd have to prove that all ideas are published
AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to disagree.

5) The plurals in parentheses above really bring us around to the main
issue one might have Johnny's ultra-fascist conception---Why does Bach
need ONE HOLY TUNING? Jesus, why does anyone? Can't the guy like
variety? Do we screw ONLY in missionary position? There is not one
compelling reason for Bach to feel like there was a single 'holy
grail' temperament, to be used always and forever, Amen.

Ok, this is tiring. It really has gotten beyond lame. This thread MUST
DIE. Sorry for keeping it alive well beyond what it ultimately merits.

-A.

This was most enjoyable. Good going Aaron.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@dividebypi.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 09 Ocak 2007 Sal� 6:54
Subject: [tuning] Re: Bach's Tuning---summary

>
> Once and for all (I couldn't resist, I'm ashamed to say)
>
> Johnny says:
>
> 1) Werckmeister was published, and Bach could have not used anything
> else, because Werckmeister was published.
>
> 2) It couldn't be Neidhardt, that's too late. Therefore it *had* to be
> Werckmeister. Adn not only that, it had to be Werck III.
>
> 3) combinations of the above, ad nauseum....
>
> Tom, Aaron, others say:
>
> 1) Just because some tuning was published doesn't mean Bach didn't
> have an unpublished solution. Do we really think Bach is so mechanical
> and unoriginal that he would, hmmm---experiment? In fact, Johnny even
> goes to great lengths to insist Bach was cocky. Let's say we agree he
> was 'cocky'--taken at face value, why would he simply copy an existing
> tradition without "putting his stamp" on it?
>
> 2) CPE Bach said "temper most fifths" --a decidly UN-Werckmeister III
> description. Johnny will have to explain why the ultra-orthodox (his
> view, not ours) Bach family would suddenly change its tempering
> habits. CPE spoke for Papa Bach in more ways than one---for instance,
> insisting his Dad (and he, the bearer of the tradition) were
> anti-Rameau harmonic theory.
>
> 3) If Bach cared, if he thought his music would be spoiled by the
> "wrong temperament", he would have left detailed instructions on how
> to set the right temperament. The horrible truth Johnny, it hurts you
> we know, is that Bach's music is _greater than tuning_. Believe it or
> not, it is not an error to enjoy the countless non-AFMM recordings in
> non-Werckmeister out there. Nor is at error to (gasp!) enjoy Bach in
> 12-equal (horrors!!!). If not, let's burn all the lute music he wrote
> in error, for certainly 12-equal is a mistake. Let's not forget that
> it is *we* who are in the tuning group caring so much about something
> that most of the time matters the least about music. Tuning is NOT a
> foreground feature of Bach's music, like it is in say Partch, or
> Renaissance vocal music. It is UTTERLY INSANE to argue otherwise. It
> would be equivalent to saying it utterly fails in 12-equal, which it
> doesn't---Renaissance music I agree mostly fails in 12-equal--not Bach.
>
> 4) 'It' (assuming there is ONE HOLY TUNING---an error---see below)
> doesn't have to be Neidhardt, it could be related or whatever. We will
> never know exactly. It's ok to be ok with not knowing. Not knowing
> keeps mystery in life. We don't need to know everything. That
> said--Neidhardt *might* (again the tentative nature of all speculative
> thought is emphasized---how radical!) represent a later publishing of
> a distillation of cultural trends for well-temperament that were alive
> in some way, *perhaps* in musical families like Bach's, especially
> given that Neidhardt had contact with Bach family members. So, it's
> quite possible that Neidhardt tuning recipe(s) might be the closest
> published tuning(s) at the time to what Bach's personal recipe(s)
> might have been. Not to radical a statement really, given the way the
> world works when you really look at it. The anachronism doesn't
> neccessarily apply---an idea may be around for decades before someone
> publishes, after all. You'd have to prove that all ideas are published
> AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to disagree.
>
> 5) The plurals in parentheses above really bring us around to the main
> issue one might have Johnny's ultra-fascist conception---Why does Bach
> need ONE HOLY TUNING? Jesus, why does anyone? Can't the guy like
> variety? Do we screw ONLY in missionary position? There is not one
> compelling reason for Bach to feel like there was a single 'holy
> grail' temperament, to be used always and forever, Amen.
>
> Ok, this is tiring. It really has gotten beyond lame. This thread MUST
> DIE. Sorry for keeping it alive well beyond what it ultimately merits.
>
> -A.
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...>
wrote:
> Believe it or
> not, it is not an error to enjoy the countless non-AFMM recordings in
> non-Werckmeister out there.

Not to mention that so much of it is singing anyway. What tuning ideal
does Ton Koopman adhere to in his integral edition, I wonder?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...>
wrote:
> Believe it or
> not, it is not an error to enjoy the countless non-AFMM recordings in
> non-Werckmeister out there.

Which is not to mention the countless non-AFMM recordings _in_ Werckmeister out there! Since the sixties, harpsichordists have learned to tune their own instruments and meantone, WIII, and KIII are the first tunings that they learn -- if you can tune meantone, you can easily tune the other two.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:
>
> Since the sixties, harpsichordists have
> learned to tune their own instruments and meantone, WIII, and KIII are
> the first tunings that they learn -- if you can tune meantone, you can
> easily tune the other two.

Indeed. This places WIII and KIII in the elementary school, or
possibly junior high, level of tuning... being the simplest possible
things one can do after plain meantone. (Although the tempered fifths
in WIII don't correspond so exactly with 1/4 comma meantone.)

How much further would or could Bach go? Do we take seriously the
quotation that

'No-one else could tune to Bach's satisfaction'?

That would certainly nix any simple temperament made up of 1/4 comma
chunks. Face it, that quote is directly contradictory to Bach's using
WIII.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@> wrote:
> >
> > Since the sixties, harpsichordists have
> > learned to tune their own instruments and meantone, WIII, and KIII
are
> > the first tunings that they learn -- if you can tune meantone, you
can
> > easily tune the other two.
>
>
> Indeed. This places WIII and KIII in the elementary school, or
> possibly junior high, level of tuning... being the simplest possible
> things one can do after plain meantone. (Although the tempered fifths
> in WIII don't correspond so exactly with 1/4 comma meantone.)
>
> How much further would or could Bach go? Do we take seriously the
> quotation that
>
> 'No-one else could tune to Bach's satisfaction'?
>
> That would certainly nix any simple temperament made up of 1/4 comma
> chunks. Face it, that quote is directly contradictory to Bach's using
> WIII.

As you already know, I strongly agree with your assessment here, and I
find it hard to believe anyone would defend WerckIII as the strongest
possible Bach tuning, based on this fact alone. On top of this, we
have other facts, which I have stated elsewhere. Bach himself thought
Kirnberger's tuning rather simplistic, and Werckmesiter is not all
that much more complex than Kirnberger...plus CPE Bach, his SON, said
"temper MOST fifths", and Neidhardt (and Sorge), sorry Johnny, you'll
have to prove that he wasn't developing their temperaments years
before publishing.

There is also this article I came across today, which makes a stronger
case to me than Lehman's does:

http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Das_Wohltemperirte_Clavier.htm

Indeed, I find it hard to buy the whole 'upside down' reading of
Lehman's, this article makes the case that the squiggles in the 1722
WTC manuscript are a bearing plan, but make the more logical and
intriguing case that they are an equal-beating scheme, which is more
in line with 18th century understanding of beats (they didn't
understand beats increase as one ascends which keeping the same
intervallic proportion back then)

-A.

> http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Das_Wohltemperirte_Clavier.htm
>
> Indeed, I find it hard to buy the whole 'upside down' reading of
> Lehman's, this article makes the case that the squiggles in the 1722
> WTC manuscript are a bearing plan, but make the more logical and
> intriguing case that they are an equal-beating scheme, which is more
> in line with 18th century understanding of beats (they didn't
> understand beats increase as one ascends which keeping the same
> intervallic proportion back then)
>
> -A.

Aaron,

Two of the resulting temperaments are in my spreadsheet, and
generally do well.

http://lumma.org/music/theory/WellTemperamentComparator.xls

-Carl

Daniel Wolf asserts:

Re: Bach's Tuning---summary

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...>
wrote:
> Believe it or
> not, it is not an error to enjoy the countless non-AFMM recordings in
> non-Werckmeister out there.

"Which is not to mention the countless non-AFMM recordings _in_
Werckmeister out there! Since the sixties, harpsichordists have
learned to tune their own instruments and meantone, WIII, and KIII are
the first tunings that they learn -- if you can tune meantone, you can
easily tune the other two."

Dear Daniel,

Please, let us make some comparisons. I thirst for such Werckmeister III-tuned recordings of JS Bach for radio broadcast in New York and all I have are Ton Koopman's now budget "Brandenberg Concerti," harpsichord recordings by the late Igor Kipnis, and the new ones made by my good friend, Rebecca Pechefsky. Please, can you confirm any others?

Incidentally, Aaron Krister Johnson misrepresents me regarding anyone's taking delight in ET Bach. As previously stated, I believe Bach works well in all tunings. Have you heard Ezra Sims performing Bach in Just with Newband?

best, Johnny

________________________________________________________________________
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.

Tom responds to Daniel, etc.:

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@...> wrote:
>
> Since the sixties, harpsichordists have
> learned to tune their own instruments and meantone, WIII, and KIII are
> the first tunings that they learn -- if you can tune meantone, you can
> easily tune the other two.

Indeed. This places WIII and KIII in the elementary school, or
possibly junior high, level of tuning... being the simplest possible
things one can do after plain meantone. (Although the tempered fifths
in WIII don't correspond so exactly with 1/4 comma meantone.)

How much further would or could Bach go? Do we take seriously the
quotation that

'No-one else could tune to Bach's satisfaction'?

That would certainly nix any simple temperament made up of 1/4 comma
chunks. Face it, that quote is directly contradictory to Bach's using
WIII.

~~~T~~~

Hi Tom,

Indeed you make the case that from the "virtuoso" perspective of a professional tuner or a performing musician, WIII and KIII are natural consequences of meantone tuning. And there is no doubt in mind that this is a great part of the reason that both Andreas and Johann Sebastian could tune a harpsichord in only fifteen minutes. Clearly, Bach tuned to everyone else's satisfaction.

However, the quotation above may have nothing to do with the "virtuosic" ability to tune. It is more likely to mean that people of the simple human variety did not have the accuracy that he possessed in his efforts. It has become very obvious to those on this list that people possess differing degrees of accuracy. I certainly wouldn't trust anyone in my family to hold a pitch in a concert. There is nothing contradictory about the quotation. Can you tune a harpsichord in Werckmeister III fifteen minutes? I'm not sure I can.

~~~J~~~
________________________________________________________________________
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.

Dear Aaron,

I thought you wanted this subject to die? It seems this topic, with a long history on this List has a bit more life in it after all. Would JS be happy or sad?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>>
> How much further would or could Bach go? Do we take seriously the
> quotation that
>
> 'No-one else could tune to Bach's satisfaction'?
>
> That would certainly nix any simple temperament made up of 1/4 comma
> chunks. Face it, that quote is directly contradictory to Bach's using
> WIII.

Aaron: As you already know, I strongly agree with your assessment here, and I
find it hard to believe anyone would defend WerckIII as the strongest
possible Bach tuning, based on this fact alone.

Johnny: Ah, and you are misinterpreting. Check the response to Daniel Wolf for the details. I would want to just go on.......

Aaron: On top of this, we
have other facts, which I have stated elsewhere. Bach himself thought
Kirnberger's tuning rather simplistic,

Johnny: Bull. The source for this is where? Kirnberger's improvements came with a new paradigm: music would now be considered foremost from a new, verical point of view, rather than by the previous Baroque counterpoint. Um, did you study the difference between the Baroque and the Classical periods?

Aaron: ...and Werckmesiter is not all
that much more complex than Kirnberger...

Johnny: What does this mean? It is'nt making any sense to me...complex in what sense(s)?

Aaron: ...plus CPE Bach, his SON, said
"temper MOST fifths",

Johnny: Please see above about the revoultionary change in music in the Classical period. Some would say that Europe waited ten years simply for JS Bach to die. More to the point, why was CPE sly about his tuning? But CPE didn't tune organs.

Aaron: and Neidhardt (and Sorge), sorry Johnny, you'll
have to prove that he wasn't developing their temperaments years
before publishing.

Johnny: ...ad nauseum to you. I have nothing to prove, certainly not to you. As far as I know, you are an obnoxious composer with no Bach scholarship. Once again I pose a question: if you were to perform Brandenberg Concerto #2 professionally, what temperament do you choose? A decision HAS to be made for anything to happen. I choose Werckmeister III because I believe he used it. Is that okay with you?

Aaron: There is also this article I came across today, which makes a stronger
case to me than Lehman's does:

Johnny: ...to me the squiggle thing is lame. But is seems completely natural that you would be fascinated by them. By all means, enjoy.

________________________________________________________________________
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.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Dear Aaron,
>
> I thought you wanted this subject to die? It seems this topic, with
a long history on this List has a bit more life in it after all.
Would JS be happy or sad?

Aaron: whatever he would be, he'd probably be a bit busier and happier
writing than to be among the likes of us!

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@> wrote:
> >>
> > How much further would or could Bach go? Do we take seriously the
> > quotation that
> >
> > 'No-one else could tune to Bach's satisfaction'?
> >
> > That would certainly nix any simple temperament made up of 1/4 comma
> > chunks. Face it, that quote is directly contradictory to Bach's using
> > WIII.
>
> Aaron: As you already know, I strongly agree with your assessment
here, and I
> find it hard to believe anyone would defend WerckIII as the strongest
> possible Bach tuning, based on this fact alone.
>
> Johnny: Ah, and you are misinterpreting. Check the response to
Daniel Wolf for the details. I would want to just go on.......

Aaron: I dont think I'm misinterpreting. I think you are so stuck on
Werck III, you will read anything that points against it as a
'misinterpretation'. You've lost all objectivity.

>
> Aaron: On top of this, we
> have other facts, which I have stated elsewhere. Bach himself thought
> Kirnberger's tuning rather simplistic,
>
> Johnny: Bull. The source for this is where? Kirnberger's
improvements came with a new paradigm: music would now be considered
foremost from a new, verical point of view, rather than by the
previous Baroque counterpoint. Um, did you study the difference
between the Baroque and the Classical periods?

Aaron: your obvious hot-headed sarcasm aside, although I can't sing an
interval of one cent as well as you can, so I've heard (or not), I did
study music history. I'm not aware of a complete quantum leap anywhere
in music history. Please make your case stronger with an example that
there ever was one. Debussy is about as close as I can think, and even
there, there are precidents in Wagner, a strong influence on the early
Debussy. People don't wake up on January 1st (or July 29th 1750 as we
are talking here) and say "hmmm...now a vertical music"...true, Bach
was considered old fashioned by some (including sons), using older
forms (ricercar, etc.) but he was aware of the newer galant style
himself. And what of all the futuristic, yet simultaneously
backward-looking counterpoint of Beethoven, especially in the late
period? Are we to play him in WerckIII, because as you said somewhere
"Each line has a greater etching, and more recognizeability". Hogwash!
It seems the more chromatic the music, the closer the WT should
approach ET, not the other way. Bach was a very chromatic composer at
times, almost mannerist at times. WerckIII is really a
half-in-the-meantone world temperament, not really able to stomach the
gargoyles of Bach's more tortured lines (think of the b-minor fugue in
WTC-I), almost a 12-tone row! I've played this in WerckIII, and it
doesn't really convince.

> Aaron: ...and Werckmesiter is not all
> that much more complex than Kirnberger...
>
> Johnny: What does this mean? It is'nt making any sense to
me...complex in what sense(s)?
>
> Aaron: ...plus CPE Bach, his SON, said
> "temper MOST fifths",
>
> Johnny: Please see above about the revoultionary change in music in
the Classical period. Some would say that Europe waited ten years
simply for JS Bach to die. More to the point, why was CPE sly about
his tuning? But CPE didn't tune organs.

Aaron: Hmmm---Johnny alter-ego said this in:
/tuning/topicId_65736.html#65736

"But a keyboard tuning is a keyboard tuning. There is no difference,
except that the organ tuning has to be more exact due to the sustain
and expense of the organ tuning. It is a red herring to claim
otherwise. While WIII is described first in Orgelprobe, it appears
later in his Musicalishe Temperatur. A keyboard, is a keyboard, is a
keyboard. And Baroque music involved keyboard in virtually EVERY piece
written."

So which is it? Does organ vs. harpsichord matter? And perhaps he was
sly because he didn't want to directly reveal a family secret....you
know, like Indian families hide spice mixtures for their dishes.

There's a piece called,'musikalische Opfer', where there are puzzle
canons, and Bach gives little vague verbal hints about how to solve
them. Bach loved puzzles. It seems COMPLETELY consistent with his
character to hide a family teperament in plain sight, but only sly
dogs could see it.

> Aaron: and Neidhardt (and Sorge), sorry Johnny, you'll
> have to prove that he wasn't developing their temperaments years
> before publishing.
>
> Johnny: ...ad nauseum to you. I have nothing to prove, certainly
not to you. As far as I know, you are an obnoxious composer with no
Bach scholarship.

Aaron: No need to resort to groundless nasty ad hominem attacks,
unless of course, you are out of convincing arguments. I've played the
entire WTC, many of the English and French Suites, and Partitas, the
entire Goldbergs, most of the 2-part inventions, much organ music from
Orgelbuchlien, the Italian Concerto, the C major concerto for two
harpsichords, Musical Offering, the list goes on. In short I have a
very, very large Bach repertoire compared to most. I have a master's
degree in Piano Performance from Northwestern, and a Bachelor's degree
from SUNY Purchase. The faculties at both schools voted unanimously to
offer me special graduate honors as the top keyboard musician in my
class. I've read, twice, 'The Bach Reader', and countless articles and
papers on Bach. I've done Schenkerian analysis on his music under a
great Schenker teacher at Queens college and Julliard. I've lived and
breathed a great deal of Bach. I don't have to prove anything to you.
If you don't like my composition, fair enough, it's not going to
discourage me, rather encourage me.

Johnny: Once again I pose a question: if you were to perform
Brandenberg Concerto #2 professionally, what temperament do you
choose? A decision HAS to be made for anything to happen. I choose
Werckmeister III because I believe he used it. Is that okay with you?

Aaron: Sure---no problem. I personally, and many others too, just
don't think it's the best possible one. I would think, based on the
evidence, the key color shifts are more subtle. You don't have to
agree with me; go on and do what turns you on as an artist. But don't
claim you are trying to establish something objective about Bach,
that's all.

>
> Aaron: There is also this article I came across today, which makes
a stronger
> case to me than Lehman's does:
>
> Johnny: ...to me the squiggle thing is lame. But is seems
completely natural that you would be fascinated by them. By all
means, enjoy.

Aaron: Again, royally ad hominem nastyness. You insult more the league
of folks who have done much work on that topic. Ask yourself--what is
the probability that there should be 12 squiggles, a few having two
twists, a few having one, and a few having none, NOT describing some
sort of 12-note tuning scheme, on the title page of a set of pieces
*designed* to illustrate the benefits of a circulating temperament? I
would say very, very, small. I think it's an ingenious insight on the
part of Andreas Sparschuh's (and others). Also, when interpreted as
such, they fall RIGHT IN LINE with the characteristics of temperaments
from the era, further casting doubt aside, except yours obviously,
which I can only read as, frankly, jealousy.

Regards,
Aaron.

SNIP

Bach was a very chromatic composer at
> times, almost mannerist at times. WerckIII is really a
> half-in-the-meantone world temperament, not really able to stomach the
> gargoyles of Bach's more tortured lines (think of the b-minor fugue in
> WTC-I), almost a 12-tone row! I've played this in WerckIII, and it
> doesn't really convince.
>

I enjoy playing this prelude and fugue. It is also one of the pieces which
demonstrates that key is not only about major and minor scales. Yet, I
always thought f-minor was the most chromatic of them all.

SNIP

Again, it was a most enjoyable discourse.

Oz.

Johnny,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
> As far as I know, you are an obnoxious composer with no Bach
scholarship.

I'm sorry, but this is unacceptable. Make your musical claims without
resorting to personal insults, or expect that people will completely
write you off. Johnny, I have more respect for you than your reply to
Aaron would indicate.

Jon

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

(Johnny said about Wkm "III" )
> "Each line has a greater etching, and more recognizeability".

(And Aaron replied)
>Hogwash!
> It seems the more chromatic the music, the closer the WT should
> approach ET, not the other way. Bach was a very chromatic composer
>at
> times, almost mannerist at times. WerckIII is really a
> half-in-the-meantone world temperament, not really able to stomach
>the
> gargoyles of Bach's more tortured lines (think of the b-minor
>fugue in
> WTC-I), almost a 12-tone row! I've played this in WerckIII, and it
> doesn't really convince.

I'm staying out of this argument, but I have to comment here because
I think this brings up one of the great myths against which I rage.

Chromaticism doesn't require equal temperament and equal temperament
did NOT come into power in order to facilitate chromaticism, rather
the opposite: equal temperament came into power to TAME
chromaticism, to make it more palatable, less openly sexual,
spiritual, smelly, what have you.

Nor does equal temperament facilitate modulation- it largely reduces
modulation to mere transposition.

Where I work, I am literally surrounded by artwork from the time of
Bach- late 17th century stucco work in this 16th century building, a
mid-18th century monument about 40 feet away, etc. If there is any
homogeneity amongst the different arts of the time, the more
colorful the tuning, within the bounds of historical documentation
and sanity, the more likely it is.

The arts of the past have been outrageously bowdlerized for the last
200 years.

Anyway carry on,

Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@>
> wrote:
>
> (Johnny said about Wkm "III" )
> > "Each line has a greater etching, and more recognizeability".
>
> (And Aaron replied)
> >Hogwash!
> > It seems the more chromatic the music, the closer the WT should
> > approach ET, not the other way. Bach was a very chromatic composer
> >at
> > times, almost mannerist at times. WerckIII is really a
> > half-in-the-meantone world temperament, not really able to stomach
> >the
> > gargoyles of Bach's more tortured lines (think of the b-minor
> >fugue in
> > WTC-I), almost a 12-tone row! I've played this in WerckIII, and it
> > doesn't really convince.
>
> I'm staying out of this argument, but I have to comment here because
> I think this brings up one of the great myths against which I rage.
>
> Chromaticism doesn't require equal temperament and equal temperament
> did NOT come into power in order to facilitate chromaticism, rather
> the opposite: equal temperament came into power to TAME
> chromaticism, to make it more palatable, less openly sexual,
> spiritual, smelly, what have you.

You are right, of course, however, I think you'd have to show that for
instance the trend wasn't in the 'taming' direction as you call it,
through the 18th century...Bach sat on the G#-Eb wolf to mock
Silbermann's temperament after all, and the the history of temperament
was towards making the key shifts more subtle. Whether or not
personally you *like* that, well it's there nonetheless.

As for 'smelly sexuality', I think there is more to that than
tuning---Stravinsky did fine making outright orgiastic music in the
'Rite'--and that's 12-equal. Ditto Scriabin. Interesting that
harmonies really opened up to the suggestion of higher harmonics,
apparantly while you think they are being 'tamed' by 12-equal.

> Nor does equal temperament facilitate modulation- it largely reduces
> modulation to mere transposition.

Isn't this a semantic bait-and-switch? But I know what you mean, I
think---less key color. I agree that that is true, but I also think
that composer's conception *led to this*, starting with the ultra
circulating chromatic music of Bach. I'm not saying that WerckIII flat
out doesn't work for chromatic music---I'm saying that the evidence
appears to be that it wasn't enough for the 18th century to end
there---otherwise they would have stopped looking for ways to temper
the key contrast, and stopped looking for better temperaments.

> Where I work, I am literally surrounded by artwork from the time of
> Bach- late 17th century stucco work in this 16th century building, a
> mid-18th century monument about 40 feet away, etc. If there is any
> homogeneity amongst the different arts of the time, the more
> colorful the tuning, within the bounds of historical documentation
> and sanity, the more likely it is.

Remember that 12-equal goes back longer than we commonly think,
too---lute, viol music. A historical period can have many complex
facets, right?

> The arts of the past have been outrageously bowdlerized for the last
> 200 years.

You are right, but I think in the case of Bach he is watershed---still
close enough to modern 12-equal thought that his music works quite
well in it, but is a bit duller. I would think in that case the spirit
of the performer is more important and brings more to it than the
tuning would. IOW, I'd rather listen to amazing Bach playing in
12-equal than pedestrian Bach playing in WT of choice.
Fortunately, the people who cre about Bach tuning tend to be
passionate about other aspects of perf. practice, so, we tend to hear
mostly very good quality Bach these days. It's rubbed off on pianists
so that even pianists these days are better at bach than 20 years ago,
on average.

I guess how subjectively spicy one likes Bach is the issue. I think
it's fair to say that some would like hearing Bach spicier than Bach
would have liked (and who knows just how he liked it?), and that's
fine. A composer is often not the best interpreter of their own works!

Anyway, I look forward to your response, I've enjoyed your insights
before!

-A.

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

> A composer is often not the best interpreter of their own works!
>

Caveat---by all accounts, Bach was one of the most astounding
keyboardists ever, so I will say that in his case, I couldn't imagine
anyone (theoretically) bettering Bach playing Bach (although it might
be in the realm of possibility, who knows, however unlikely). I would
also imagine he would play with such an amazing combination of
solidity and control, yet at the same time such a subtle freedom that
even today we would be astounded!

-A.

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

>
> You are right, of course, however, I think you'd have to show that
>for
> instance the trend wasn't in the 'taming' direction as you call it,
> through the 18th century...Bach sat on the G#-Eb wolf to mock
> Silbermann's temperament after all,

It's clear that a certain amount of tempering, or further division
of the octave, or flexible intonation, has to happen to make key
changes possible, if it's desirable to have key changes that aren't
jump-cuts. Taming a wolf and completely taming everything aren't the
same.

> and the the history of temperament
> was towards making the key shifts more subtle. Whether or not
> personally you *like* that, well it's there nonetheless.

Yes, of course. But if Bach's goal had been to do equal temperament
or something so close as to almost indistinguishable, and not to
openly use key color, why would he have written WTC when such an
obvious and, in this case, far more impressive possibility is so
obvious? Once you get within a certain distance of equal
temperament, your modulations can include every key within one
piece, and pretty rapidly at that.

> As for 'smelly sexuality', I think there is more to that than
> tuning---Stravinsky did fine making outright orgiastic music in the
> 'Rite'--and that's 12-equal. Ditto Scriabin.

I've never heard ROS in 12-equal, but I haven't heard recent
recordings. In old recordings it's only 12-equal on paper, like
every other orchestral work. Besides, there's timbral excitment in
spades. On a 12-equal piano there would only be rhythmic excitement.

Scriabin? New recordings are Muzak, unlistenble to me, haven't heard
it in a serious concert. Do you really think that 12-equal was
happening 100 years ago in Russia? Korsakov's comments on key colors
certainly don't suggest that.

>Interesting that
> harmonies really opened up to the suggestion of higher harmonics,
> apparantly while you think they are being 'tamed' by 12-equal.

That's just a desperate- and failed- attempt to make a boring thing
less boring.

> > Nor does equal temperament facilitate modulation- it largely
>>reduces
> > modulation to mere transposition.
>
> Isn't this a semantic bait-and-switch?

Nope. :-) The words have meanings, or once did and should again.

>But I know what you mean, I
> think---less key color. I agree that that is true, but I also think
> that composer's conception *led to this*, starting with the ultra
> circulating chromatic music of Bach. I'm not saying that WerckIII
>flat
> out doesn't work for chromatic music---I'm saying that the evidence
> appears to be that it wasn't enough for the 18th century to end
> there---otherwise they would have stopped looking for ways to
>temper
> the key contrast, and stopped looking for better temperaments.

I don't think it's possible to look at the development of 12-equal
outside the context of the Age of Revolutions, the Industrial
Revolution and the rise of the "middle class".

> Remember that 12-equal goes back longer than we commonly think,
> too---lute, viol music. A historical period can have many complex
> facets, right?

Certainly. But straight frets does not necessarily equal equal
temperament if the music is all in a few keys- what percentage of
lute music modulates widely or even leaves a handful of keys?

> > The arts of the past have been outrageously bowdlerized for the
>>last
> > 200 years.
>
> You are right, but I think in the case of Bach he is watershed---
>still
> close enough to modern 12-equal thought that his music works quite
> well in it, but is a bit duller. I would think in that case the
>spirit
> of the performer is more important and brings more to it than the
> tuning would.
>IOW, I'd rather listen to amazing Bach playing in
> 12-equal than pedestrian Bach playing in WT of choice.

Hmmm...well we've all heard Bach played wonderfully in 12-equal, and
you know? I don't have the slightest urge to hear it again. Ever.

> I guess how subjectively spicy one likes Bach is the issue. I think
> it's fair to say that some would like hearing Bach spicier than
>Bach
> would have liked (and who knows just how he liked it?), and that's
> fine.

My only beef with WIII is that it isn't spicy enough- and I only
have one child, not 22. :-)

>A composer is often not the best interpreter of their own works!

I believe that's true only for purely physical reasons- too clumsy
to accurately play what's in the head, for example.

> Anyway, I look forward to your response, I've enjoyed your insights
> before!

Thanks, likewise!

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > You are right, of course, however, I think you'd have to show that
> >for
> > instance the trend wasn't in the 'taming' direction as you call it,
> > through the 18th century...Bach sat on the G#-Eb wolf to mock
> > Silbermann's temperament after all,
>
> It's clear that a certain amount of tempering, or further division
> of the octave, or flexible intonation, has to happen to make key
> changes possible, if it's desirable to have key changes that aren't
> jump-cuts. Taming a wolf and completely taming everything aren't the
> same.

Yes, except when you are dealing with 12 note keyboards. Then, to have
all the keys sound 'tamed', you need to deal with that wolf.

As far as I know, Bach didn't have 19-note keyboards, etc. as options.
Plus, even if he did, he played dim7 harmonies (1/4 octaves), which
really is a WT/ET phenomenon...

>
> > and the the history of temperament
> > was towards making the key shifts more subtle. Whether or not
> > personally you *like* that, well it's there nonetheless.
>
> Yes, of course. But if Bach's goal had been to do equal temperament
> or something so close as to almost indistinguishable, and not to
> openly use key color, why would he have written WTC when such an
> obvious and, in this case, far more impressive possibility is so
> obvious? Once you get within a certain distance of equal
> temperament, your modulations can include every key within one
> piece, and pretty rapidly at that.

Well, that's kind of my point---he did write the piece to demonstrate
that you could play any prelude and fugue from it followed by any
other without retuning!

> > As for 'smelly sexuality', I think there is more to that than
> > tuning---Stravinsky did fine making outright orgiastic music in the
> > 'Rite'--and that's 12-equal. Ditto Scriabin.
>
> I've never heard ROS in 12-equal, but I haven't heard recent
> recordings. In old recordings it's only 12-equal on paper, like
> every other orchestral work. Besides, there's timbral excitment in
> spades. On a 12-equal piano there would only be rhythmic excitement.

Hmm...well, there's enough rhythmic excitement alone for me not to
care about the temperament!

> Scriabin? New recordings are Muzak, unlistenble to me, haven't heard
> it in a serious concert. Do you really think that 12-equal was
> happening 100 years ago in Russia? Korsakov's comments on key colors
> certainly don't suggest that.

Hard to say. Messiaen also had synasthesia, and he certainly was
playing on 12-equal organs.

> >Interesting that
> > harmonies really opened up to the suggestion of higher harmonics,
> > apparantly while you think they are being 'tamed' by 12-equal.
>
> That's just a desperate- and failed- attempt to make a boring thing
> less boring.

I can't agree. I love lots of 12-equal music that uses rich harmonies,
in particular look at Impressionaist to Modern classical, and then the
jazz masters. Art Tatum's harmonical vocabulary is not in the least
bit 'confined' by 12-equal, in my estimation.

> > > Nor does equal temperament facilitate modulation- it largely
> >>reduces
> > > modulation to mere transposition.
> >
> > Isn't this a semantic bait-and-switch?
>
> Nope. :-) The words have meanings, or once did and should again.

Well, for my part, 'mere transposition' is really not doing justice to
a powerful tool in music!

> >But I know what you mean, I
> > think---less key color. I agree that that is true, but I also think
> > that composer's conception *led to this*, starting with the ultra
> > circulating chromatic music of Bach. I'm not saying that WerckIII
> >flat
> > out doesn't work for chromatic music---I'm saying that the evidence
> > appears to be that it wasn't enough for the 18th century to end
> > there---otherwise they would have stopped looking for ways to
> >temper
> > the key contrast, and stopped looking for better temperaments.
>
> I don't think it's possible to look at the development of 12-equal
> outside the context of the Age of Revolutions, the Industrial
> Revolution and the rise of the "middle class".

And, what, you think these things were bad somehow?

> > Remember that 12-equal goes back longer than we commonly think,
> > too---lute, viol music. A historical period can have many complex
> > facets, right?
>
> Certainly. But straight frets does not necessarily equal equal
> temperament if the music is all in a few keys- what percentage of
> lute music modulates widely or even leaves a handful of keys?

I'm not an expert on lute music---only I've heard that lutes are
typically constructed like modern guitar in 12-equal...although I
vaguely remember hearing about adjustable frets, which I know I've
heard/seen on viols....any lute experts want to chime in?

> > > The arts of the past have been outrageously bowdlerized for the
> >>last
> > > 200 years.
> >
> > You are right, but I think in the case of Bach he is watershed---
> >still
> > close enough to modern 12-equal thought that his music works quite
> > well in it, but is a bit duller. I would think in that case the
> >spirit
> > of the performer is more important and brings more to it than the
> > tuning would.
> >IOW, I'd rather listen to amazing Bach playing in
> > 12-equal than pedestrian Bach playing in WT of choice.
>
> Hmmm...well we've all heard Bach played wonderfully in 12-equal, and
> you know? I don't have the slightest urge to hear it again. Ever.

Hmm...that's too bad! ;)

> > I guess how subjectively spicy one likes Bach is the issue. I think
> > it's fair to say that some would like hearing Bach spicier than
> >Bach
> > would have liked (and who knows just how he liked it?), and that's
> > fine.
>
> My only beef with WIII is that it isn't spicy enough- and I only
> have one child, not 22. :-)

Well, you like-a-de-strong-pepper-taco then!

-A.

Dear Aaron,

Permit me to answer a few points in a non-incendiary way. If you would like to join me on Metatuning, fine. But I would like to engage certain points as part of a process that purports to be a furthering of scholarship. Sorry to have offended you.

Aaron: I dont think I'm misinterpreting. I think you are so stuck on
Werck III, you will read anything that points against it as a
'misinterpretation'. You've lost all objectivity.

Johnny: Let us just say we see things differently. Many composers have used a single tuning throughout their lifetimes. These include Stravinsky, Debussy, Wagner, Scriabin (except for an obscure fascination with a particular just intonation chord). Could it not be possible that JS Bach was a cocky composer that could actually stick to his tuning throughout his lifetime? His tuning is not held hostage by things that came later.

Aaron: I dont think I'm misinterpreting. I think you are so stuck on
Werck III, you will read anything that points against it as a
'misinterpretation'. You've lost all objectivity.

Johnny: Let us keep things intellectually honest by reading each point for what it says, and not for what we would wish it to say. That’s really what all this is about. Honestly, you don’t think your musical conceptions as a professional pianist influenced you understanding of music? Mine are formed by being a bassoonist. It’s different. Didn’t you see the South Park episode with the 3 different atheism groups that were declaring annihilation on each other because they had a different basis for their science. One group was made of intellectual otters! Perfect correspondence. Sorry you felt you had to give out your biography. But it does help.

Aaron: Bach was a very chromatic composer at
times, almost mannerist at times. WerckIII is really a
half-in-the-meantone world temperament, not really able to stomach the
gargoyles of Bach's more tortured lines (think of the b-minor fugue in
WTC-I), almost a 12-tone row! I've played this in WerckIII, and it
doesn't really convince.

Johnny: I completely agree with Cameron on this on all he said. The 12ET comparison to WIII is to my view irrelevant. The real issue is how can we make modern performances of JS Bach as informative as possible. With ET an entire dimension of listening is lost.

> Johnny: Please see above about the revolutionary change in music in
the Classical period. Some would say that Europe waited ten years
simply for JS Bach to die. More to the point, why was CPE sly about
his tuning? But CPE didn't tune organs.

Aaron: Hmmm---Johnny alter-ego said this in:
/tuning/topicId_65736.html#65736

"But a keyboard tuning is a keyboard tuning. There is no difference,
except that the organ tuning has to be more exact due to the sustain
and expense of the organ tuning. It is a red herring to claim
otherwise. While WIII is described first in Orgelprobe, it appears
later in his Musicalishe Temperatur. A keyboard, is a keyboard, is a
keyboard. And Baroque music involved keyboard in virtually EVERY piece
written."

Johnny: Perhaps you did not understand me. Because the organ is locked in, the harpsichord and all other keyboard/clavier, would be in the tuning of the organs. That is if one believes, as I do, that JS used one tuning for all his music, a preferred well temperament, if you will, then his keyboard tunings would mimic his organ tuning. The vagueness of CPE leads me to believe that he, indeed, may have been more flexible. W.F. Bach was likely a meantone composer based on the compositions he wrote, were written for him, and by the cities which he worked (Dresden, Halle, Berlin).

It seems you misunderstood me again about the question I had been posing:

“Johnny: Once again I pose a question: if you were to perform
Brandenberg Concerto #2 professionally, what temperament do you
choose? A decision HAS to be made for anything to happen. I choose
Werckmeister III because I believe he used it. Is that okay with you?”

“Aaron: Sure---no problem. I personally, and many others too, just
don't think it's the best possible one. I would think, based on the
evidence, the key color shifts are more subtle. You don't have to
agree with me; go on and do what turns you on as an artist. But don't
claim you are trying to establish something objective about Bach,
that's all.”

Johnny: Each Brandenberg Concerto is in a different key. The problem of key shifts seems negligible. I am asking “if” you would make a choice for a different tuning or the same tuning for each of the Brandenbergs, and “if” you have an alternative, a SPECIFIC alternative to WIII. If not, and if you do not choose ET, then does the music just not get played?

Johnny

________________________________________________________________________
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.

Whoops, sorry, tried to correct a typo and lost everything, carry on..

> Caveat---by all accounts, Bach was one of the most astounding
> keyboardists ever, so I will say that in his case, I couldn't imagine
> anyone (theoretically) bettering Bach playing Bach (although it might
> be in the realm of possibility, who knows, however unlikely). I would
> also imagine he would play with such an amazing combination of
> solidity and control, yet at the same time such a subtle freedom that
> even today we would be astounded!

Indeed.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> But if Bach's goal had been to do equal temperament
> or something so close as to almost indistinguishable, and not to
> openly use key color, why would he have written WTC when such an
> obvious and, in this case, far more impressive possibility is so
> obvious?

Sorry, what precise possibility is so obvious? Many people have looked
at WTC and thought of many different tunings...

What is 'openly' using key colour? As opposed to 'secretly'?
Interesting phrase.

You might try and 'deduce' which pieces were written with which
supposedly different key colours in mind. What special characteristics
should the pieces have, to align with their different intonations?
But this is so subjective and debatable that it can too easily become
an exercise in confirming one's own prejudices.

Also, which pieces did Bach sketch in one key and then transpose (e.g.
D/E minor -> D#/Eb minor)?

> Once you get within a certain distance of equal
> temperament, your modulations can include every key within one
> piece, and pretty rapidly at that.

Indeed... now for the WTC we need at least to be able to make
regularly functioning perfect and imperfect cadences in 24 major and
minor keys. So how far away from ET can ya get? For example, do you
find Pythagorean intonation satisfactory for playing practically a
whole piece (which is what happens in WIII sometimes)?

> > Stravinsky did fine making outright orgiastic music in the
> > 'Rite'--and that's 12-equal. Ditto Scriabin.
>
> I've never heard ROS in 12-equal(...)
> Besides, there's timbral excitment in
> spades. On a 12-equal piano there would only be rhythmic excitement.

Stravinsky arranged the Rite for piano 4-hands, of which I have heard
a few movements played live. Are you really saying that every one of
the dissonant harmonies would be boring and predictable done that way?
(Are you also saying that the timbre of pianos is totally boring and
predictable?? Debussy might disagree :)

> Do you really think that 12-equal was happening 100 years ago in
Russia?

On pianos - what else?

> Korsakov's comments on key colors certainly don't suggest that.

... Assuming that perceived differences in key colour arise purely and
solely from differences in tuning?? That's an old chestnut.

> what percentage of
> lute music modulates widely or even leaves a handful of keys?

Actually, some French lute music of the 16th, 17th and 18th century
uses *distant* keys, even unto Ab major and F# minor. They also
routinely used different tunings of the open strings, which couldn't
work unless the fretting was sufficiently near equal. See Ledbetter's
book on French lute and harpsichord music.

> > (...) some would like hearing Bach spicier than Bach
> > would have liked (and who knows just how he liked it?), and that's
> > fine.

welll... there are some Bach recordings in meantone, which sound so
bad to most people that, on balance, they discredit the whole idea of
historical unequal tuning

> My only beef with WIII is that it isn't spicy enough

Heavens. What do you think Ab major, C# major and F# major ought to
sound like, then?

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@>
wrote:
> >
> > But if Bach's goal had been to do equal temperament
> > or something so close as to almost indistinguishable, and not to
> > openly use key color, why would he have written WTC when such an
> > obvious and, in this case, far more impressive possibility is so
> > obvious?
>
> Sorry, what precise possibility is so obvious? Many people have
>looked
> at WTC and thought of many different tunings...

I meant: WTC is not an impressive demonstration of equal
temperament, because exactly as you say: it works in different
tunings. Some kind of "giant steps" would be the obvious choice to
demonstrate equal temperament.
>
> What is 'openly' using key colour? As opposed to 'secretly'?
> Interesting phrase.

Yes, openly and not secretely, exactly: piece in one key, piece in
the next key... it's a fabulous, methodical, display of differing
key colors. To display equal temperament you write a piece in minor,
a piece in major, and say, transpose away. :-)

> You might try and 'deduce' which pieces were written with which
> supposedly different key colours in mind. What special
>characteristics
> should the pieces have, to align with their different intonations?
> But this is so subjective and debatable that it can too easily
>become
> an exercise in confirming one's own prejudices.

So?
>
> Also, which pieces did Bach sketch in one key and then transpose
(e.g.
> D/E minor -> D#/Eb minor)?

No idea.
>
> > Once you get within a certain distance of equal
> > temperament, your modulations can include every key within one
> > piece, and pretty rapidly at that.
>
> Indeed... now for the WTC we need at least to be able to make
> regularly functioning perfect and imperfect cadences in 24 major
>and
> minor keys. So how far away from ET can ya get? For example, do you
> find Pythagorean intonation satisfactory for playing practically a
> whole piece (which is what happens in WIII sometimes)?

certainly, but I'm a very mainstream guy and enjoy Pythagorean
tunings like millions of people have for millenia.

>
> Stravinsky arranged the Rite for piano 4-hands, of which I have
>heard
> a few movements played live. Are you really saying that every one
>of
> the dissonant harmonies would be boring and predictable done that
>way?
> (Are you also saying that the timbre of pianos is totally boring
>and
> predictable?? Debussy might disagree :)

The overall effect of 12-equal piano is very boring to me, yes.

> > Do you really think that 12-equal was happening 100 years ago in
> Russia?
>
> On pianos - what else?

There were no other piano tunings?

> > Korsakov's comments on key colors certainly don't suggest
>>that.
>
> ... Assuming that perceived differences in key colour arise purely
>and
> solely from differences in tuning?? That's an old chestnut.

Where do you get "purely and solely"? Key color must also from
relationships to formants in instruments, for example.

> > what percentage of
> > lute music modulates widely or even leaves a handful of keys?
>
> Actually, some French lute music of the 16th, 17th and 18th century
> uses *distant* keys, even unto Ab major and F# minor. They also
> routinely used different tunings of the open strings, which
couldn't
> work unless the fretting was sufficiently near equal. See
Ledbetter's
> book on French lute and harpsichord music.

That doesn't prove that most lutes everywhere were tuned equal. I
would not be surprised if there were historical pieces of lute music
that show off what equal temperament can do, with modulations that
don't happen in WTC.

> welll... there are some Bach recordings in meantone, which sound so
> bad to most people that, on balance, they discredit the whole idea
>of
> historical unequal tuning

"Most people" is billions of people around the world. Billions of
people around the world have listened to meantone Bach recordings?

> > My only beef with WIII is that it isn't spicy enough
>
> Heavens. What do you think Ab major, C# major and F# major ought to
> sound like, then?

If it's a far key, it should sound far out, otherwise why even
bother?

Cameron Bobro

"If it's a far key, it should sound far out, otherwise why even
bother?

Cameron Bobro"

Thanks for adding your points of view. How right to point out that Pythagorean is an excellent tuning to great populations of the world. It seems likely that Pythagorean Hymns from before Bach's time continue still in some churches. The linear quality of counterpoint's natural affinity in fast moving music is quite acceptable to the c. 1700 listening ear.

Some musicologists believe that WIII is unacceptable because it has music in Pythagorean-like keys (e.g., Rasch), but used as by JS, there is nothing offensive in the music thus played.

Johnny

________________________________________________________________________
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.

Johnny,

Thanks for your measured response. No hard feelings.

I think we could go round and round in circles on this one. I think
it's fair to say that the whole issue really boils down to emotional
interpretation. Your taste, and some evidence, leads you to your
conclusion regarding WerckIII, my reading of the facts and my taste I
suppose, are different. Perhaps we should let it lie, and agree to
disagree?

Anyhow, I am fascinated by the whole issue of the squiggles in terms
of it being a puzzle. I find it compelling (I know you don't), and a
low probability that they aren't significant, given the number of
loops, and the fact that however you interpret them, you end up with a
stylistically viable WT! To me, there's something there, the question
is: how do we *correctly* interpret them. To my knowledge, given the
equal-beating temperament thinking prevelant then, I think Francis'
conception might just be the closest (of course, if you dismiss the
whole thing as rubbish, it wouldn't matter). I also find it compelling
*however* that one comes close to a temperament of the Neidhardt/Sorge
variety, which would make sense in terms of the evolution of
temperments in the period. Hats off to Sparschuh for being the first
to see this as a possibility. It must have made for a satisfying
mental game!

Nevertheless, WerckIII certainly will carry Bach's music, I agree.
After that, it's all subjective taste, I'm afraid, for we only have
hazy fact that we have to deduce some things....

BEest,
Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
>
> Dear Aaron,
>
> Permit me to answer a few points in a non-incendiary way. If you
would like to join me on Metatuning, fine. But I would like to
engage certain points as part of a process that purports to be a
furthering of scholarship. Sorry to have offended you.
>
> Aaron: I dont think I'm misinterpreting. I think you are so stuck on
> Werck III, you will read anything that points against it as a
> 'misinterpretation'. You've lost all objectivity.
>
>
> Johnny: Let us just say we see things differently. Many composers
have used a single tuning throughout their lifetimes. These include
Stravinsky, Debussy, Wagner, Scriabin (except for an obscure
fascination with a particular just intonation chord). Could it not be
possible that JS Bach was a cocky composer that could actually stick
to his tuning throughout his lifetime? His tuning is not held hostage
by things that came later.
>
> Aaron: I dont think I'm misinterpreting. I think you are so stuck on
> Werck III, you will read anything that points against it as a
> 'misinterpretation'. You've lost all objectivity.
>
>
> Johnny: Let us keep things intellectually honest by reading each
point for what it says, and not for what we would wish it to say.
That’s really what all this is about. Honestly, you don’t think
your musical conceptions as a professional pianist influenced you
understanding of music? Mine are formed by being a bassoonist.
It’s different. Didn’t you see the South Park episode with the 3
different atheism groups that were declaring annihilation on each
other because they had a different basis for their science. One group
was made of intellectual otters! Perfect correspondence. Sorry you
felt you had to give out your biography. But it does help.
>
> Aaron: Bach was a very chromatic composer at
> times, almost mannerist at times. WerckIII is really a
> half-in-the-meantone world temperament, not really able to stomach the
> gargoyles of Bach's more tortured lines (think of the b-minor fugue in
> WTC-I), almost a 12-tone row! I've played this in WerckIII, and it
> doesn't really convince.
>
>
> Johnny: I completely agree with Cameron on this on all he said.
The 12ET comparison to WIII is to my view irrelevant. The real issue
is how can we make modern performances of JS Bach as informative as
possible. With ET an entire dimension of listening is lost.
>
> > Johnny: Please see above about the revolutionary change in music in
> the Classical period. Some would say that Europe waited ten years
> simply for JS Bach to die. More to the point, why was CPE sly about
> his tuning? But CPE didn't tune organs.
>
> Aaron: Hmmm---Johnny alter-ego said this in:
> /tuning/topicId_65736.html#65736
>
> "But a keyboard tuning is a keyboard tuning. There is no difference,
> except that the organ tuning has to be more exact due to the sustain
> and expense of the organ tuning. It is a red herring to claim
> otherwise. While WIII is described first in Orgelprobe, it appears
> later in his Musicalishe Temperatur. A keyboard, is a keyboard, is a
> keyboard. And Baroque music involved keyboard in virtually EVERY piece
> written."
>
> Johnny: Perhaps you did not understand me. Because the organ is
locked in, the harpsichord and all other keyboard/clavier, would be in
the tuning of the organs. That is if one believes, as I do, that JS
used one tuning for all his music, a preferred well temperament, if
you will, then his keyboard tunings would mimic his organ tuning. The
vagueness of CPE leads me to believe that he, indeed, may have been
more flexible. W.F. Bach was likely a meantone composer based on the
compositions he wrote, were written for him, and by the cities which
he worked (Dresden, Halle, Berlin).
>
> It seems you misunderstood me again about the question I had been
posing:
>
> “Johnny: Once again I pose a question: if you were to perform
> Brandenberg Concerto #2 professionally, what temperament do you
> choose? A decision HAS to be made for anything to happen. I choose
> Werckmeister III because I believe he used it. Is that okay with you?”
>
> “Aaron: Sure---no problem. I personally, and many others too, just
> don't think it's the best possible one. I would think, based on the
> evidence, the key color shifts are more subtle. You don't have to
> agree with me; go on and do what turns you on as an artist. But don't
> claim you are trying to establish something objective about Bach,
> that's all.”
>
> Johnny: Each Brandenberg Concerto is in a different key. The
problem of key shifts seems negligible. I am asking “if” you
would make a choice for a different tuning or the same tuning for each
of the Brandenbergs, and “if” you have an alternative, a SPECIFIC
alternative to WIII. If not, and if you do not choose ET, then does
the music just not get played?
>
> Johnny
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> The arts of the past have been outrageously bowdlerized for the last
> 200 years.

Gee, and I was just speaking approvingly of homogenizing it all to 31-
et. Alas. :(

Hey guys,

Here we get to the crux of the issue. For common practice (read
5-limit infused, I guess) music, I'm not really a fan of Pythagorean
thirds. I think one can still make Gb major sound 'far away' in the
circle without resorting to 81/64. I made up a temperament where the
largest thirds are 24/19, and they are active, but the edge is softer.
I rather like the edge being softer. To each his own.

Of course, there's subjective taste for spicy thirds. Margo Schulter
loves a 14/11 injection for instance. For me, the timbre has to be
mellow to stomach that....and a harpsichord timbre for instance is
*pretty* bright...I simply prefer mellower WTs for chromatic baroque
music, and I'm really willing to bet that so did Bach (hence our
heated debate)

Best,
Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> "If it's a far key, it should sound far out, otherwise why even
> bother?
>
> Cameron Bobro"
>
>
> Thanks for adding your points of view. How right to point out that
Pythagorean is an excellent tuning to great populations of the world.
It seems likely that Pythagorean Hymns from before Bach's time
continue still in some churches. The linear quality of counterpoint's
natural affinity in fast moving music is quite acceptable to the c.
1700 listening ear.
>
> Some musicologists believe that WIII is unacceptable because it has
music in Pythagorean-like keys (e.g., Rasch), but used as by JS, there
is nothing offensive in the music thus played.
>
> Johnny
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 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.
>

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

> Johnny: Each Brandenberg Concerto is in a different key. The
problem of key shifts seems negligible. I am asking “if” you
would make a choice for a different tuning or the same tuning for each
of the Brandenbergs, and “if” you have an alternative, a SPECIFIC
alternative to WIII. If not, and if you do not choose ET, then does
the music just not get played?

I forgot to answer this---I would of course use any of the mellower
WTs---the fewer 81/64s the better in my book....Neidhardt, Sorge, pick
any from the current crop of Bach squiggle reconstructions, even a
anachronistic modern historically informed tuning. Many of them are SO
close in sound that I think the music speeding along wouldn't be any
the wiser. I think the point for me is calmer thirds in distant keys,
yet still have key color. So I guess I wouldn't be picky except to say
it wouldn't be ET OR WIII!

What would be interesting is an experiment: take a thorny, craggy,
chromatic Bach work, like the B-minor fugue from WTC-I, and retune it
to a handful of 18th century WTs, and vote!

-A.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> I've never heard ROS in 12-equal, but I haven't heard recent
> recordings.

Here ya go:

http://www.classicalmidi.co.uk/strav.htm

It's incredibly unlikely that you would find a midi file for it in
anything but 12-equal, but I actually checked, and 12-et it is.

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

> Plus, even if he did, he played dim7 harmonies (1/4 octaves), which
> really is a WT/ET phenomenon...

We just got through discussing how to do dim7 in JI and regular
temperament. In particular, meantone does a fine dim7 chord which to
some ears, like mine, sounds much better than in et.

> Well, that's kind of my point---he did write the piece to demonstrate
> that you could play any prelude and fugue from it followed by any
> other without retuning!

We know that how?

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

> welll... there are some Bach recordings in meantone, which sound so
> bad to most people that, on balance, they discredit the whole idea of
> historical unequal tuning

Cite?? I really just do not buy this. If it sounded so bad to do Bach
that way, why was it done? And as for discreding anything, that is
obvious nonsense.

Can you name these recordings?

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

> What would be interesting is an experiment: take a thorny, craggy,
> chromatic Bach work, like the B-minor fugue from WTC-I, and retune it
> to a handful of 18th century WTs, and vote!

Just to confuse things, I could toss a 31-et version into the pot. Does
anyone have a favorite WTC-I midi version they want to suggest?

> > What is 'openly' using key colour? As opposed to 'secretly'?
>
> Yes, openly and not secretely, exactly: piece in one key, piece in
> the next key... it's a fabulous, methodical, display of differing
> key colors.

Well, it might be, if we knew the correct key colours. Or if we happen
to choose a tuning that makes X sound purer than Y, whereas Bach
envisioned Y as purer than X, what then...

> > You might try and 'deduce' which pieces were written with which
> > supposedly different key colours in mind. (...)
> > But this is so subjective and debatable that it can too easily
> >become
> > an exercise in confirming one's own prejudices.
>
> So?

So, is it a problem if two people come to completely different
conclusions as to which key ought to have which colour, and each is
convinced that he has it the correct way round? Or doesn't it matter
as long as there is some sort of key colour somewhere?

> > Also, which pieces did Bach sketch in one key and then transpose
> (e.g.
> > D/E minor -> D#/Eb minor)?
>
> No idea.

... well many researchers do believe this happened in 'Book I' - and
it certainly did in 'Book II', where the Ab major fugue is derived
from an earlier piece in F major.

> > do you
> > find Pythagorean intonation satisfactory for playing practically a
> > whole piece (which is what happens in WIII sometimes)?
>
> certainly, but I'm a very mainstream guy

Really? I thought ET was mainstream...

> and enjoy Pythagorean
> tunings like millions of people have for millenia.

Not in triadic harmony they haven't. Recall the medieval treatment of
81/64 as an unstable interval that required resolution to a more
consonant 3/2.

I'm not sure why Pythagorean is acceptable, if ET isn't...

> > 100 years ago in Russia (...) There were no other [than ET] piano
tunings?

I seriously doubt it! Tuning for concerts and composers was surely
done by professional tuners who learned at their factory... and so far
as anyone knows, no other way than ET is documented.

> > ... Assuming that perceived differences in key colour arise purely
> >and
> > solely from differences in tuning?? That's an old chestnut.
>
> Where do you get "purely and solely"? Key color must also from
> relationships to formants in instruments, for example.

Fine. Then Rimsky's comments might not refer to tuning at all.

> > welll... there are some Bach recordings in meantone, which sound so
> > bad to most people that, on balance, they discredit the whole idea
> >of
> > historical unequal tuning
>
> "Most people" is billions of people around the world.

NO IT ISN'T. Gee. Please don't descend to purposely misunderstanding
plain English. If I must explain: people who have listened to the
recording and whose opinions are documented. To be specific, people
posting at the HPSCHD-L mailing list about certain recordings of
Blandine Verlet - the Toccatas and Fantasias. (Her Inventions &
Sinfonias recording might be meantone too.)

Well, perhaps I overstated it, but the majority of people there seem
to think that it was a bad idea to use meantone. And by meantone I
mean strictly G#-Eb with no extra keys or retuning for enharmonics.

Also:
www.jsbach.org/verletpartitasforharpsichord2001.htm

For an aural indication of what I'm on about, you can hear bits of her
playing Froberger in meantone, with G# in place of Ab, at the Tower
Records website. Try track no.10 here

http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=2191833

- actually tracks 4-7 are a bit odd, too.

Or search for Verlet Bach on Amazon... though their audio samples are
not of great quality.

> > What do you think Ab major, C# major and F# major ought to
> > sound like, then?
>
> If it's a far key, it should sound far out, otherwise why even
> bother?
>

... but 'far' from what? In a circle of fifths, each key is related to
the other 11 (counting major & minor separately) in the same way.

Do you know the pieces in these keys in the WTC (Book 1)? They are
all, at least to begin with, based on simple triad figures, and their
harmony is neither more or less 'far out' than any of the others.
Though, arguably, the F# and C# pieces are somewhat sparser-textured.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@> wrote:
>
> > welll... there are some Bach recordings in meantone, which sound so
> > bad to most people that, on balance, they discredit the whole idea of
> > historical unequal tuning
>
> Cite?? I really just do not buy this. If it sounded so bad to do Bach
> that way, why was it done? And as for discreding anything, that is
> obvious nonsense.
>
> Can you name these recordings?
>

Sorry, the phrasing of the message was a bit off, it sounds rather
stronger than what I meant! What I meant was that possibly, if someone
heard the music, and that was their only exposure to 'historical'
unequal tuning, they would believe it was simply mistuning. And hence
the idea of historical unequal tuning would be, for them, discredited.

Google for ' Verlet "out of tune" ' to see some examples. Or listen to
the Tower Records sample I just mentioned.

~~~T~~~

I want to suggest the following subset out of 79 MOS 159-tET:

0: 1/1 C
1: 16.441 cents Dbb
2: 91.689 cents C#
3: 105.733 cents Db
4: 181.743 cents Cx
5: 196.552 cents D
6: 211.236 cents Ebb
7: 287.048 cents D#
8: 302.375 cents Eb
9: 378.366 cents Dx
10: 392.909 cents E
11: 408.636 cents Fb
12: 483.946 cents E#
13: 4/3 F
14: 514.895 cents Gbb
15: 589.342 cents F#
16: 603.389 cents Gb
17: 679.788 cents Fx
18: 3/2 G
19: 717.305 cents Abb
20: 792.077 cents G#
21: 807.688 cents Ab
22: 882.706 cents Gx
23: 897.524 cents A
24: 913.191 cents Bbb
25: 988.537 cents A#
26: 1003.508 cents Bb
27: 1079.436 cents Ax
28: 1093.547 cents B
29: 1109.285 cents Cb
30: 1184.235 cents B#
31: 2/1 C

Mode: 1 5 1 5 1 1 5 1 5 1 1 5 1 1 5 1 5 1 1 5 1 5 1 1 5 1 5 1 1 5 1

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 11 Ocak 2007 Per�embe 23:23
Subject: [tuning] Re: Bach's Tuning---summary

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...>
> wrote:
>
> > What would be interesting is an experiment: take a thorny, craggy,
> > chromatic Bach work, like the B-minor fugue from WTC-I, and retune it
> > to a handful of 18th century WTs, and vote!
>
> Just to confuse things, I could toss a 31-et version into the pot. Does
> anyone have a favorite WTC-I midi version they want to suggest?
>

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> There is also this article I came across today, which makes a
stronger case to me than Lehman's does:
>
> http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Das_Wohltemperirte_Clavier.htm
>
> Indeed, I find it hard to buy the whole 'upside down' reading of
> Lehman's, this article makes the case that the squiggles in the 1722
> WTC manuscript are a bearing plan, but make the more logical and
> intriguing case that they are an equal-beating scheme, which is more
> in line with 18th century understanding of beats (they didn't
> understand beats increase as one ascends which keeping the same
> intervallic proportion back then)
>
> -A.

Fascinating reading, and certainly, Francis' seems to be an eminently
logical interpretation of the WTC cover. Supporting this approach is
his equal-beating analysis of two documents of Friedrich Suppig's,
both also of 1722, which you can also find at the Bach Cantata site:
http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Friedrich-Suppig.pdf

This makes it seem rather more likely that musicians of the time
could have indicated their bearing plans with a succinct graphic: a
spiral with embedded windings to indicate beat rates. The fact that
two different musicians used such graphical ornaments at the same
epoch that can be quite simply interpreted in this way makes the
probablility that Bach's figure on the WTC is pure decoration
vanishingly small.

---

Another point nobody seems to have made, recently at least, is that
the tuning used by a musician may have given him a competitive
advantage in the struggle to secure posts; it may well fall into the
category of a trade secret. This being the case, why would a
successful musician like JS Bach willingly relinquish the recipe to
all and sundry? To do so might prove injurious to his family's
fortunes - or even the bread on his table.

Regards,
Yahya

----- Original Message -----
From: "yahya_melb" <yahya@melbpc.org.au>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 12 Ocak 2007 Cuma 4:44
Subject: [tuning] Re: Bach's Tuning---summary

>
> Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > There is also this article I came across today, which makes a
> stronger case to me than Lehman's does:
> >
> > http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Das_Wohltemperirte_Clavier.htm
> >
> > Indeed, I find it hard to buy the whole 'upside down' reading of
> > Lehman's, this article makes the case that the squiggles in the 1722
> > WTC manuscript are a bearing plan, but make the more logical and
> > intriguing case that they are an equal-beating scheme, which is more
> > in line with 18th century understanding of beats (they didn't
> > understand beats increase as one ascends which keeping the same
> > intervallic proportion back then)
> >
> > -A.
>
> Fascinating reading, and certainly, Francis' seems to be an eminently
> logical interpretation of the WTC cover. Supporting this approach is
> his equal-beating analysis of two documents of Friedrich Suppig's,
> both also of 1722, which you can also find at the Bach Cantata site:
> http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Articles/Friedrich-Suppig.pdf
>
> This makes it seem rather more likely that musicians of the time
> could have indicated their bearing plans with a succinct graphic: a
> spiral with embedded windings to indicate beat rates. The fact that
> two different musicians used such graphical ornaments at the same
> epoch that can be quite simply interpreted in this way makes the
> probablility that Bach's figure on the WTC is pure decoration
> vanishingly small.
>
> ---
>
> Another point nobody seems to have made, recently at least, is that
> the tuning used by a musician may have given him a competitive
> advantage in the struggle to secure posts; it may well fall into the
> category of a trade secret. This being the case, why would a
> successful musician like JS Bach willingly relinquish the recipe to
> all and sundry? To do so might prove injurious to his family's
> fortunes - or even the bread on his table.
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>
>

Possibly, he was advertising his tuning along with the WTC morsels?

Oz.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > I've never heard ROS in 12-equal, but I haven't heard recent
> > recordings.
>
> Here ya go:
>
> http://www.classicalmidi.co.uk/strav.htm
>
> It's incredibly unlikely that you would find a midi file for it in
> anything but 12-equal, but I actually checked, and 12-et it is.
>

Hahaha! Thanks. That opening melody doesn't work at all "snapped to
the grid", shocking.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
> > > What is 'openly' using key colour? As opposed to 'secretly'?
> >
> > Yes, openly and not secretely, exactly: piece in one key, piece
in
> > the next key... it's a fabulous, methodical, display of
>differing
> > key colors.
>
> Well, it might be, if we knew the correct key colours. Or if we
>happen
> to choose a tuning that makes X sound purer than Y, whereas Bach
> envisioned Y as purer than X, what then...

So we're not sure which key colors are correct and the solution
is...do it in black and white!

Now, let's say that the art of Bach were a single, physical, and
time-worn artifact in a museum, and we were restorers and custodians.
Then we'd really be in a pickle, but equal temperament might be an
option. We know it's wrong but it's neutral- just imagine how it was.
Greek statues were originally painted for example.

> > > You might try and 'deduce' which pieces were written with which
> > > supposedly different key colours in mind. (...)
> > > But this is so subjective and debatable that it can too easily
> > >become
> > > an exercise in confirming one's own prejudices.
> >
> > So?
>
> So, is it a problem if two people come to completely different
> conclusions as to which key ought to have which colour, and each is
> convinced that he has it the correct way round? Or doesn't it
>matter
> as long as there is some sort of key colour somewhere?

But we're not talking about a single historical physical artifact.
It's disingenous to equate our lack of knowledge about exactly which
key colors are appropriate with complete ignorance on the matter,
because Bach isn't ahistorical. Are we going to put the darkest and
most bitter key on C Major?

> > > Also, which pieces did Bach sketch in one key and then
transpose
> > (e.g.
> > > D/E minor -> D#/Eb minor)?
> >
> > No idea.
>
> ... well many researchers do believe this happened in 'Book I' -
and
> it certainly did in 'Book II', where the Ab major fugue is derived
> from an earlier piece in F major.

Which proves what?

> > > do you
> > > find Pythagorean intonation satisfactory for playing
>practically a
> > > whole piece (which is what happens in WIII sometimes)?
> >
> > certainly, but I'm a very mainstream guy
>
> Really? I thought ET was mainstream...

That's the provincial and ethnocentric misconception that is the
bane of tuning.

> > and enjoy Pythagorean
> > tunings like millions of people have for millenia.
>
> Not in triadic harmony they haven't. Recall the medieval treatment
>of
> 81/64 as an unstable interval that required resolution to a more
> consonant 3/2.

There are no 81/64 thirds in historical tunings from the time and
place of triadic harmony?

> I'm not sure why Pythagorean is acceptable, if ET isn't...

Don't try to sell me bananas, man. Some Pythagorean thirds in a
tuning is one thing, all thirds the same is whole different ballgame.

> > > 100 years ago in Russia (...) There were no other [than ET]
piano
> tunings?
>
> I seriously doubt it! Tuning for concerts and composers was surely
> done by professional tuners who learned at their factory... and so
>far
> as anyone knows, no other way than ET is documented.

ET on paper and ET in real life are two different things.
Unfortunately my big collection of Melodiya recordings, including
50's reissues of stuff from before the '20s, was stolen.

> > > ... Assuming that perceived differences in key colour arise
>>purely
> > >and
> > > solely from differences in tuning?? That's an old chestnut.
> >
> > Where do you get "purely and solely"? Key color must also from
> > relationships to formants in instruments, for example.
>
> Fine. Then Rimsky's comments might not refer to tuning at all.

Baloney, sense of key color comes from a combination of things
including tuning. Leaving tuning out in this case conveniently
ignores the fact that orchestras to this day don't play exactly in
equal temperament but vary things according to expression and
function.

> > > welll... there are some Bach recordings in meantone, which
>sound so
> > > bad to most people that, on balance, they discredit the whole
idea
> > >of
> > > historical unequal tuning
> >
> > "Most people" is billions of people around the world.
>
> NO IT ISN'T.

Yes, it is.

> Gee. Please don't descend to purposely misunderstanding
> plain English.

I am understanding the expression "most people"; you are abusing it.

> If I must explain: people who have listened to the
> recording and whose opinions are documented. To be specific, people
> posting at the HPSCHD-L mailing list about certain recordings of
> Blandine Verlet - the Toccatas and Fantasias. (Her Inventions &
> Sinfonias recording might be meantone too.)
>
> Well, perhaps I overstated it, but the majority of people there
>seem
> to think that it was a bad idea to use meantone. And by meantone I
> mean strictly G#-Eb with no extra keys or retuning for enharmonics.
>
> Also:
> www.jsbach.org/verletpartitasforharpsichord2001.htm
>
> For an aural indication of what I'm on about, you can hear bits of
her
> playing Froberger in meantone, with G# in place of Ab, at the Tower
> Records website. Try track no.10 here
>
> http://www.towerrecords.com/product.aspx?pfid=2191833
>
> - actually tracks 4-7 are a bit odd, too.

30 second samples, nice- no. 10 is a lamentation, and it sounds like
a lamentation. No. 4 is gorgeous, 7 neither here nor there. My
opinions.
>
>
> > > What do you think Ab major, C# major and F# major ought to
> > > sound like, then?
> >
> > If it's a far key, it should sound far out, otherwise why even
> > bother?
> >
>
> ... but 'far' from what? In a circle of fifths, each key is
related to
> the other 11 (counting major & minor separately) in the same way.

Hahaha! Classic piano-player thinking. Have you sung Bach chorales?
Of course you have. The "center" is based on human tessature, which
you know very well.

> Do you know the pieces in these keys in the WTC (Book 1)? They are
> all, at least to begin with, based on simple triad figures, and
>their
> harmony is neither more or less 'far out' than any of the others.
> Though, arguably, the F# and C# pieces are somewhat sparser-
textured.

Sure the harmony can be further "out", even if it's the same piece
in a different key- how far depends on the tuning.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I want to suggest the following subset out of 79 MOS 159-tET:

Ah--the sort of thing I've called a "muddle".

> > I want to suggest the following subset out of 79 MOS 159-tET:
>
> Ah--the sort of thing I've called a "muddle".

You have? -C.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > I want to suggest the following subset out of 79 MOS 159-tET:
> >
> > Ah--the sort of thing I've called a "muddle".
>
> You have? -C.

Extensively on this group a few years back.

And what, perchance, would that mean? Is it related to the "muggle" of Harry
Potter films?

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 12 Ocak 2007 Cuma 8:32
Subject: [tuning] Re: Bach's Tuning---summary

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > I want to suggest the following subset out of 79 MOS 159-tET:
>
> Ah--the sort of thing I've called a "muddle".
>
>

> > > > I want to suggest the following subset out of 79 MOS 159-tET:
> > >
> > > Ah--the sort of thing I've called a "muddle".
> >
> > You have? -C.
>
> Extensively on this group a few years back.

Looks like this was in '01, right after you joined...
/tuning/topicId_29372.html#29372

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> And what, perchance, would that mean? Is it related to the "muggle"
of Harry
> Potter films?

No, it's just a word for doing something like taking a 79 out of 159
MOS, and then treating the 79 MOS as if it were equal and using it in
place of 79-edo in a 31 out of 79 MOS. The resulting scales are
interesting but I don't know if anyone has actually used them for
making music.

Muddle eh... figures.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 12 Ocak 2007 Cuma 20:17
Subject: [tuning] Re: Bach's Tuning---summary

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > And what, perchance, would that mean? Is it related to the "muggle"
> of Harry
> > Potter films?
>
> No, it's just a word for doing something like taking a 79 out of 159
> MOS, and then treating the 79 MOS as if it were equal and using it in
> place of 79-edo in a 31 out of 79 MOS. The resulting scales are
> interesting but I don't know if anyone has actually used them for
> making music.
>

I find it difficult to carry on a discussion when the other person is
just contradicting every sentence I type, or quibbling about the
meaning of words... Still, one more try.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> It's disingenous to equate our lack of knowledge about exactly which
> key colors are appropriate with complete ignorance on the matter,
> because Bach isn't ahistorical.

Sure, but are you interested in looking carefully at the historical
sources for ideas of key colour, taking into account the confused
nature of historical discussions, and ambiguities of sources? What do
you think of Steblin?

Some interesting questions for the WTC are:

- Should there be a particular distinction between 'sharp' and 'flat'
keys, or just a distinction between 'normal' and 'far out'?
E.g. Lehman thinks that 'flat' keys should be tuned purer than 'sharp'
keys, other things being equal; Lindley thinks the reverse.

- Which key should be the most 'far out' in tuning? Lehman thinks E
major/C# minor, Lindley thinks C# major/F minor.

- What should be the difference between the purest third and the most
impure one? Both those guys think about 2/3 of a comma, but this
French guy

http://www.clavecin-en-france.org/article.php3?id_article=40

goes for some thirds that are 1/6 comma *beyond* Pythagorean (i.e.
majors sharper and minors flatter) and some pure majors...

- Should every major / minor chord sound different? And so on.

The sources shed little light on these questions, so far as I know.

> Are we going to put the darkest and most bitter key on C Major?

I guess not, but it would be helpful to think about the reasons
(rather than gut feeling) why 'we' would not do so. Consider whether
people in the Baroque period might have had the same reasons, or
different.
How could you get a major key to be more 'dark and bitter' than the
impurest minor key, anyway??

For example, some people thought that Eb major was a particularly
harsh kind of key... which seems quite different from how it was later
used in the Romantic period.

Recently Western classical music listeners have been conditioned to
keyboards played in ET; in 1700 they were probably conditioned to
keyboards in meantone. So is ET 'old hat' and meantone 'interesting' -
or the other way round?

> > > > Also, which pieces did Bach sketch in one key and then
transpose (...)
> > in 'Book II', where the Ab major fugue is derived
> > from an earlier piece in F major.
>
> Which proves what?

That, for one, the key-colour enthusiast Kirnberger was wrong when he
stated that one could not transpose a piece by Bach, Handel or other
old masters without ruining the effect. If you believe in key-colour
for Bach, you have to work out how it can make sense to *allow* such
kind of transpositions without ruining the effect.

> That's the provincial and ethnocentric misconception that is the
> bane of tuning.

Gosh, fancy words. Meaning what?
For playing Bach, ET happens to be the most common keyboard tuning
used nowadays, which I think is a reasonable definition of
'mainstream'. Of course Bach was terribly provincial and ethnocentric too.

> There are no 81/64 thirds in historical tunings from the time and
> place of triadic harmony?

That is not the question. You were saying people *enjoyed* them -
presumably as consonances. Well, probably some people thought they
were OK... de gustibus.

> > professional tuners who learned at their factory... and so far
> > as anyone knows, no other way than ET is documented.
>
> ET on paper and ET in real life are two different things.

Riddling with definitions again?
Of course no piano is going to get tuned with its fundamental
frequencies exactly in geometrical ratio... the point so far as I can
see is, whether the tuning has thirds that sound more or less
uniformly sharp / flat (resp. major/minor). If it was put in ET then
went out of tune, it will have random deviations. But key colour is
about deliberate and systematic deviations.

If you can tell me which old Russian recordings you had, maybe they've
been reissued on CD!

> > Rimsky's comments might not refer to tuning at all.
>
> Baloney, sense of key color comes from a combination of things
> including tuning.

I don't see why that makes what I said 'baloney' - unless it were
impossible for anyone to perceive key colours without irregularities
in tuning. Logically, comments about perceived key colour need not
imply irregular tuning.

(Note that lack of key colour in orchestral tuning does NOT imply ET:
all major, resp. minor keys sound the same as each other in ANY
regular tuning.)

Some reasons for perceiving key colour are not acoustic at all, like
how it feels under the fingers, or how it looks on the page, or what
pieces one happens to know in that key. How can we tell if one
person's experience was due to irregular tuning, or some other source,
or some combination of factors?
(Maybe read Rimsky's book on orchestration?)

> orchestras to this day don't play exactly in
> equal temperament but vary things according to expression and
> function.

Fine, I never said any orchestras ever played in ET. But this is
irrelevant to the question of key colour. Given that they don't use
ET, it doesn't mean that they systematically tuned differently in each
different key. (... maybe they tuned adaptive JI or 1/6 comma meantone
or a host of other things that don't depend on key ...)

I don't see how an orchestra which tunes using its ears would get the
irregularity to make one key deliberately different from another,
unless they were specially instructed beforehand. Why should music in
one major key come out tuned systematically different from another?

> - no. 10 is a lamentation, and it sounds like a lamentation.

Sure, the beginning has F minor with meantone G#, the usual funereal
subminor third. But then the music modulates to Eb major and has a
chord on Ab (45 seconds in). This is a complete breakdown in function,
because Ab-Eb here is about 738 cents - but in the score performs the
function of a fifth. Unlike the sharp or flat thirds, I can't make any
harmonic sense of it myself!

Whereas, if Eb was made rather lower and G# a bit higher, you could
have the best of both worlds with 'interesting' thirds and
recognizable fifths...

One story about Bach is that he played a meantone organ in Ab major
(that being the 'wolf' key) until the organbuilder couldn't stand it
any longer and had to flee the building. Just the opposite of an
artistic purpose ;>

> > 'far' from what? In a circle of fifths, each key is
> related to
> > the other 11 (counting major & minor separately) in the same way.
>
> Hahaha! Classic piano-player thinking.

And why would this be inappropriate for a keyboard work including all
24 tonalities?

> Have you sung Bach chorales? Of course you have.
> The "center" is based on human tessature, which
> you know very well.

I can't make any sense out of this. C major and C# major (or Db major)
are right next to each other in tessitura, but miles apart in
character in almost every irregular historical tuning. I just last
night sang the bass part to 'Nun ruhen alle Waelde' in Ab major -
although the music said 'May also be sung in G'.

No two people have the same vocal range, plus absolute pitch standards
have changed over a range of several semitones over the last few
hundred years. Then how can any key colour difference between C maj
and C# maj be due to difference of pitch relative to 'human' vocal range?

In Bach's case, he used at least three different pitches over his
lifetime: one about a semitone above A440, one about a semitone below,
and one a whole tone below. Does this mean that he must have worked
with three different sets of key colours?

~~~T~~~

> Some interesting questions for the WTC are:
> > - Should there be a particular distinction between 'sharp' and 'flat'
> keys, or just a distinction between 'normal' and 'far out'?
> E.g. Lehman thinks that 'flat' keys should be tuned purer than 'sharp'
> keys, other things being equal; Lindley thinks the reverse.
> > - Which key should be the most 'far out' in tuning? Lehman thinks E
> major/C# minor, Lindley thinks C# major/F minor.

'Scuse me, but where did I ever say such a thing about C# minor, let alone think it? This is news to me.

Or anything about "far out" or exotic or whatever?

I would also disagree with the assertion: "Lehman thinks that 'flat' keys should be tuned purer than 'sharp' keys." I don't think that. I do think that the flat keys and sharp keys make a comparably "pure" *musical effect* when played in compositions by Bach. Not just thinking it, but hearing it daily as I practice Bach repertoire on my harpsichords. (Which I tune by ear in about 12 minutes, if anybody cares....)

N.B. This is not "purity" in the shallow sense of counting up simple-ratio intervals; but rather, the sense that each scale (both melodically and harmonically) makes a crisp, clear, interesting effect with integrity, and no rough spots anywhere. All 24 keys each present an unproblematic profile, and convincing focus to the music. In my opinion, of course! But, I also believe that this is the same type of "purely played" effect CPE Bach was writing about:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/cpeb.html

What I *do* say about C# minor is: in the C# minor fugue of WTC 1, "This fugue (unusually) has real entrances in _six_ different keys, displaying all the following diminished 4ths: B#-E, Fx-B, E#-A, Cx-F#, D#-G and A#-D. Those are all the six positions in Bach's temperament where that interval is narrower than or equal to its size in equal temperament." (May 2005 _Early Music_, top right of page 223)

I believe that Bach *knew* that they're the six smallest, simply by listening to them at the keyboard (which merely takes close attention at a decent harpsichord...no calculations!)...and then used this as an unusual compositional feature to help generate this piece of music. Do I believe Bach was a "microtonalist", at least in that way? Yeah baby.

Brad Lehman
http://www.larips.com
(Playing the C# minor, and the B minor, and the Musical Offering 6-part, and a bunch of other stuff in some concerts in March)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> (...) Lehman thinks that 'flat' keys should be tuned purer than 'sharp'
> > keys, other things being equal; Lindley thinks the reverse.
> >
> > - Which key should be the most 'far out' in tuning? Lehman
thinks E
> > major/C# minor, Lindley thinks C# major/F minor.
>
> 'Scuse me, but where did I ever say such a thing about C# minor, let
> alone think it? This is news to me.

I am writing in a STRICTLY objective and impartial manner here. You
favour a tuning in which the intervals of the chord of C# minor are
the farthest from pure 5-limit intervals of any minor chord. Lindley
favours a tuning in which the chord of F minor is the farthest from
5-limit just intonation.

That is the simple and logical meaning of 'far out', in context.

> I would also disagree with the assertion: "Lehman thinks that 'flat'
> keys should be tuned purer than 'sharp' keys, [other things being
equal]." I don't think that.

Again, this is a simple and objective use of the word 'pure'. And you
*do* favour a tuning in which F-A is purer than G-B, Bb-D is purer
than D-F#, Eb-G is purer than A-C#, and so on. I think it is an
entirely reasonable summary that, in any objective sense, the tuning
you think is correct makes flat keys purer than sharp ones.

> I
> do think that the flat keys and sharp keys make a comparably "pure"
> *musical effect* when played in compositions by Bach.

This is a subjective opinion, which depends on particular
circumstances and the choice of repertoire. We can't meaningfully
discuss tuning at all if everyone reserves the right to redefine the
meaning of 'purity' however they want, according to what they feel
when playing their favourite pieces on their own instrument(s) at
home. 'Purity' of intervals and chords is a word which *does* have an
objective meaning in discussing tuning.

With your definition, every sentence becomes subjective, relative, and
arguable. Total confusion. I don't see the advantage if we replace the
objective meaning of 'purity' by 'Lehman-purity' which is based
entirely on Bradley Lehman's internal perceptions. Well, I see the
advantage to one person, but not to the rest of the world. This is a
solipsist's definition.

Not to mention that 'Lehman-purity' back in 2003 encompassed a Bach
tuning which was basically 1/5-comma meantone, with Eb modified
partway towards D#. That version of 'Lehman-purity', of course, was
wrong ... but the present-day version of 'Lehman-purity' *must*
represent a historical truth about Bach!!

If you want to talk about what you feel, by all means do so, but don't
give it the label of a fact.

> hearing it daily as I practice Bach repertoire on my
> harpsichords.

Fine, but every time I tried to practice the A major English Suite on
mine, I got the opposite impression about the 'purity', or otherwise,
of the tuning. De gustibus, I hope.

> N.B. This is not "purity" in the shallow sense of counting up
> simple-ratio intervals;

I see. Simple, objective, easily-understood definitions of intervallic
purity are now 'shallow', and must be replaced by personal, subjective
and endlessly arguable non-meanings. Words must be made ambiguous,
confusing and endlessly manipulable. Cui bono?

> but rather, the sense that each scale (both
> melodically and harmonically) makes a crisp, clear, interesting effect
> with integrity, and no rough spots anywhere.

Sounds like a vodka advertisement. Who chose that list of adjectives?
Why 'crisp', but not 'mellow' or 'crunchy' or 'smooth'?

And how can we tell when a scale has 'integrity both melodically and
harmonically'? Otherwise it's meaningless.

Again, I disagree about the presence of 'rough spots'. So it seems
'Lehman-purity' and 'Dent-purity' mean two quite different things,
which I would call an entirely natural and healthy state of affairs,
and tells us nothing about 'Bach-purity'.

> ... convincing focus to the music. In my opinion, of course!

But this is just what is pointless for anyone except you to write
about, because none of us has any business to summarize or represent
your internal perceptions. (Let alone Bach's...)

> But, I also believe that this is the same type of
> "purely played" effect CPE Bach was writing about

CPE Bach on tuning is so vague that you can believe almost anything
about it, with or without the aid of subjectively redefining the
meaning of words and thinking about malt whiskies. But why would your
belief be more accurate than anyone else's?

And what would CPE have been thinking when he endorsed Barthold
Fritz's little book about how to tune clavichords (approximately) in ET?

> "This
> fugue (unusually) has real entrances in _six_ different keys,
displaying
> all the following diminished 4ths: B#-E, Fx-B, E#-A, Cx-F#, D#-G and
> A#-D. Those are all the six positions in Bach's temperament where that
> interval is narrower than or equal to its size in equal temperament."
> (May 2005 _Early Music_, top right of page 223)

EVERY prelude and fugue has some peculiarities in its use of
intervals. With sufficient diligence one can ferret out
'coincidences', or curious facts, that might be presented as having
some significance in relation to a particular temperament. What this
can never do is show that one temperament was used by the composer in
preference to another. (You could also argue that it makes the music
sound good, but it might be that a slightly different temperament made
it sound even better...)

And WHATEVER temperament you choose, there will be some 'interesting
coincidences', which you can pick out and dazzle your readers with -
at least, for readers having a rather loose grasp on statistics.

This is no more evidence of anything than finding (say) the numbers 14
and 41 everywhere in Bach.

> I believe that Bach *knew* that they're the six smallest

of course, knowing what fifths he had tuned between what notes on any
given day, it would be obvious with or without listening... but who's
to say if he always tuned the same fifths??

> and used this as an
> unusual compositional feature to help generate this piece of music.

Well, I myself disbelieve! I disbelieve every single assertion from
2005 of Bach using specialized or esoteric connections between one
particular temperament and his compositions! I believe that you could
search for 'unusual compositional features' in relation to a dozen
different irregular circulating temperaments, and turn up equally
convincing 'evidence' for each of them!

Where does that then leave us? Does anyone with a sufficiently strong
belief get to publish his or her personal opinions about 'purity' in
an Oxford Journal?

~~~T~~~

Good points, Tom. I especially agree with you regarding the need for
objective criteria, and like you, decry the 'personalized' language
phenomenon.

BTW, you picked up an important point regarding the general ignorance
of statistics---some of the arguments about the virtues of a given
temperament based on what occurs in Bach's music remind me of the
inane logic that occurs around 'The Bible Code'---you know, you can
find such and such a message if you read the characters in
such-and-such an ordering.

-A.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@> wrote:
> >
> > (...) Lehman thinks that 'flat' keys should be tuned purer than
'sharp'
> > > keys, other things being equal; Lindley thinks the reverse.
> > >
> > > - Which key should be the most 'far out' in tuning? Lehman
> thinks E
> > > major/C# minor, Lindley thinks C# major/F minor.
> >
> > 'Scuse me, but where did I ever say such a thing about C# minor, let
> > alone think it? This is news to me.
>
> I am writing in a STRICTLY objective and impartial manner here. You
> favour a tuning in which the intervals of the chord of C# minor are
> the farthest from pure 5-limit intervals of any minor chord. Lindley
> favours a tuning in which the chord of F minor is the farthest from
> 5-limit just intonation.
>
> That is the simple and logical meaning of 'far out', in context.
>
>
> > I would also disagree with the assertion: "Lehman thinks that 'flat'
> > keys should be tuned purer than 'sharp' keys, [other things being
> equal]." I don't think that.
>
> Again, this is a simple and objective use of the word 'pure'. And you
> *do* favour a tuning in which F-A is purer than G-B, Bb-D is purer
> than D-F#, Eb-G is purer than A-C#, and so on. I think it is an
> entirely reasonable summary that, in any objective sense, the tuning
> you think is correct makes flat keys purer than sharp ones.
>
>
> > I
> > do think that the flat keys and sharp keys make a comparably "pure"
> > *musical effect* when played in compositions by Bach.
>
> This is a subjective opinion, which depends on particular
> circumstances and the choice of repertoire. We can't meaningfully
> discuss tuning at all if everyone reserves the right to redefine the
> meaning of 'purity' however they want, according to what they feel
> when playing their favourite pieces on their own instrument(s) at
> home. 'Purity' of intervals and chords is a word which *does* have an
> objective meaning in discussing tuning.
>
> With your definition, every sentence becomes subjective, relative, and
> arguable. Total confusion. I don't see the advantage if we replace the
> objective meaning of 'purity' by 'Lehman-purity' which is based
> entirely on Bradley Lehman's internal perceptions. Well, I see the
> advantage to one person, but not to the rest of the world. This is a
> solipsist's definition.
>
> Not to mention that 'Lehman-purity' back in 2003 encompassed a Bach
> tuning which was basically 1/5-comma meantone, with Eb modified
> partway towards D#. That version of 'Lehman-purity', of course, was
> wrong ... but the present-day version of 'Lehman-purity' *must*
> represent a historical truth about Bach!!
>
> If you want to talk about what you feel, by all means do so, but don't
> give it the label of a fact.
>
> > hearing it daily as I practice Bach repertoire on my
> > harpsichords.
>
> Fine, but every time I tried to practice the A major English Suite on
> mine, I got the opposite impression about the 'purity', or otherwise,
> of the tuning. De gustibus, I hope.
>
>
> > N.B. This is not "purity" in the shallow sense of counting up
> > simple-ratio intervals;
>
> I see. Simple, objective, easily-understood definitions of intervallic
> purity are now 'shallow', and must be replaced by personal, subjective
> and endlessly arguable non-meanings. Words must be made ambiguous,
> confusing and endlessly manipulable. Cui bono?
>
> > but rather, the sense that each scale (both
> > melodically and harmonically) makes a crisp, clear, interesting
effect
> > with integrity, and no rough spots anywhere.
>
> Sounds like a vodka advertisement. Who chose that list of adjectives?
> Why 'crisp', but not 'mellow' or 'crunchy' or 'smooth'?
>
> And how can we tell when a scale has 'integrity both melodically and
> harmonically'? Otherwise it's meaningless.
>
> Again, I disagree about the presence of 'rough spots'. So it seems
> 'Lehman-purity' and 'Dent-purity' mean two quite different things,
> which I would call an entirely natural and healthy state of affairs,
> and tells us nothing about 'Bach-purity'.
>
>
> > ... convincing focus to the music. In my opinion, of course!
>
> But this is just what is pointless for anyone except you to write
> about, because none of us has any business to summarize or represent
> your internal perceptions. (Let alone Bach's...)
>
> > But, I also believe that this is the same type of
> > "purely played" effect CPE Bach was writing about
>
> CPE Bach on tuning is so vague that you can believe almost anything
> about it, with or without the aid of subjectively redefining the
> meaning of words and thinking about malt whiskies. But why would your
> belief be more accurate than anyone else's?
>
> And what would CPE have been thinking when he endorsed Barthold
> Fritz's little book about how to tune clavichords (approximately) in
ET?
>
> > "This
> > fugue (unusually) has real entrances in _six_ different keys,
> displaying
> > all the following diminished 4ths: B#-E, Fx-B, E#-A, Cx-F#, D#-G and
> > A#-D. Those are all the six positions in Bach's temperament where
that
> > interval is narrower than or equal to its size in equal temperament."
> > (May 2005 _Early Music_, top right of page 223)
>
> EVERY prelude and fugue has some peculiarities in its use of
> intervals. With sufficient diligence one can ferret out
> 'coincidences', or curious facts, that might be presented as having
> some significance in relation to a particular temperament. What this
> can never do is show that one temperament was used by the composer in
> preference to another. (You could also argue that it makes the music
> sound good, but it might be that a slightly different temperament made
> it sound even better...)
>
> And WHATEVER temperament you choose, there will be some 'interesting
> coincidences', which you can pick out and dazzle your readers with -
> at least, for readers having a rather loose grasp on statistics.
>
> This is no more evidence of anything than finding (say) the numbers 14
> and 41 everywhere in Bach.
>
> > I believe that Bach *knew* that they're the six smallest
>
> of course, knowing what fifths he had tuned between what notes on any
> given day, it would be obvious with or without listening... but who's
> to say if he always tuned the same fifths??
>
> > and used this as an
> > unusual compositional feature to help generate this piece of music.
>
> Well, I myself disbelieve! I disbelieve every single assertion from
> 2005 of Bach using specialized or esoteric connections between one
> particular temperament and his compositions! I believe that you could
> search for 'unusual compositional features' in relation to a dozen
> different irregular circulating temperaments, and turn up equally
> convincing 'evidence' for each of them!
>
> Where does that then leave us? Does anyone with a sufficiently strong
> belief get to publish his or her personal opinions about 'purity' in
> an Oxford Journal?
>
> ~~~T~~~
>