Bach/ET

When I started studying with my mentor George Keith, 31 years ago, he suggested I start analyzing Bach almost from the start, so I did, and still do. I've mostly worked out of the solo violin sonatas/partitas, cello sonatas, and lute suites (which overlap the other two in places)...I've read through many of those works numerous times, but my gift is not as a classical guitarist, so I never performed them (except for the Prelude from violin partita # 3, which I can get through). But, I've learned a great deal about chord movement, voice leading, bass lines, and many other musical concepts. And, the great Cream bassist Jack Bruce said in a Guitar Player interview once, that Bach wrote the best bass lines, and if you wanted to learn bass, study the Art of Fugue.
And, since I do play guitar, I listened to an awful lot of guitarists play Bach, including Segovia, Christopher Parkening, John Williams, Julian Bream, Eliot Fisk, Kazuhito Yamashita, Liona Boyd, Manuel Barrueco, Sharon Isbin, and others...and every one of them played in 12 tone equal temperament, and the music sounded just great to me. I started studying tuning about 1989, and a few years later began to understand about mean tone, well temps and such...and then realized that Bach used well temps instead of eq (well, maybe he DID use 12 tone eq at times, since he wrote for lute, and had a lute/clavier, as well as a real lute...there's absolutely no compelling reason why he wouldn't have tweaked his clavier into 12 to see what the lute works would sound like...plus, he jammed with SL Weiss, and maybe other lutenists as well). And yet, his music still sounds superb to me in 12 eq...I listen to Kazuhito and Fisk a great deal, and they play his music with great understanding and depth of feeling. I'm not sure it would sound or feel any better if they used a well temp.
And, I find it astonishing that there is so much time spent debating just what tuning Bach used, when, the real truth is, nobody knows...and unless some undiscovered documents appear, we never will. So, as we've seen, there are passionate defenses of this or that tuning concept, but...nobody knows...nobody. It's all opinions; yes, intelligent and informed, but only personal opinions. And, I, for one, am also curious about what tuning concepts were going on in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, and other places at the same time...but, there's very little discussion of this subject. Not a big deal, either, just an observation. Bach is a great icon to me, my favorite musician, but there were a hell of a lot of great players back then, on many instruments, but they often seem of little importance on this list. That's kind of a shame, because I would like to learn more about what was going on back in that era, and I know there's some sharp folks here who probably have info on that...so if they ever want to speak up, I'm all ears...and fingers...Hstick
myspace.com/microstick agenturadellarte.net

Hi Neil,

Do you think there is a relationship between all the ET you have learned for Bach and the lack of commitment to determining his most likely tuning? I really don't mean to psychoanalyze, but the same has beeen suggested to Aaron, and many others before.

When the mind is developed with a single pattern of reference, including a single religion, and all the many stage fixations, etc., it is like a habit that won't break. It's probably the reason why those with perfect pitch are so anxious about new pitch relationships. But they have the glue to take on the new intervals that the rest of us do not.

From my listening perspective, Bach makes true sense in Werckmeister III. And I know that any of the other well temperaments are going to sound to me more like WIII than to ET. This is the central issue to understanding Western Art Music, in my opinion.

Have you played or heard John Dowland in Dowland's Irregular Temperament? Wim Hoogewerf served up some examples. It is exquisite. How can anyone hearing Dowland's music in what his son, Robert, declared was his father John Dowland's tuning, again in ET? Same with Bach.

Discussion on this list about BAD pythagorean intervals are part of Church service, and yet this has been ignored by correspondents. ET is part of Werckmeister III in terms of near identical keys, and this has been ignored. Choosing nothing over something as a base tuning, when historically accurate and nearly identical to its althernatives, as agreed to by Herr Kellner on this list, is to ignore the genuine tradition of a non-ET chromaticism in Bach's country. Some of us are passionate about this.

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:
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> Do you think there is a relationship between all the ET you have
learned for Bach and the lack of commitment to determining his most
likely tuning?

I don't think Neil has a 'lack of commitment' on the subject--I read
it as a healthy skepticism, combined with healthy respect for great
musicianship in *any* tuning. Not everyone who doesn't follow *your*
reasoning is a dispassionate Bach fan. Not everyone who doesn't follow
*your* reasoning is a failed steward of Bach's intentions. And not
everyone shares your apparant obsessive hatred of 12-equal, and music
written for it, or adapted to it, as it were.

Given a choice, of course, I'd rather hear Bach in historical
veracity. However, for instance, I wouldn't burn all piano
performances, which still have things to teach. Dinu Lipatti. Edwin
Fischer. Of course, Glenn Gould (love him or hate him, he is a huge
reason we even consider Bach today). Martha Argerich. Roslyn Tureck.
Andras Schiff. Daniel Barenboim. I'm sure I forget others. There are
of course, also really irritating 19th-century Bach conceptions on the
piano that are piggish. But to dismiss Bach experiences in 12-, or
near 12-equal is really fundamentalism of the worst kind. (Plus, the
timbre of the piano, for me, lasts longer without irritation than does
the harpsichord, but I digress).

I was listening to Art Tatum last night. This guy was probably the
greatest keyboard player who ever lived, and I'm including all the
great composer/keyboardists and interpreters in any genre you can
throw at me (there's wide agreement that he was the single greatest
jazz instumentalist ever), and I seriously doubt he gave a single
thought his who life to the issue of tuning or temperament. He was to
preoccupied with being the miracle player he was, and that's Neil's
point, I would think. And guess what? He played in 12-equal, or
however closely a tuner could get to it, his whole life. Should we
ignore the phenomenon that was Art Tatum, because his contrapuntal
lines aren't "etched out" in WerckIII clarity? (whatever do you mean
by that, Johnny?---I still am trying to figure out what you mean)

> I really don't mean to psychoanalyze, but the same has beeen
> suggested to Aaron, and many others before.

But you *are* psychoanalyzing, inappropriately and badly, and again,
mainly because very few of us have drank your "WerckIII-only for Bach,
please" cool-aid, and that makes you upset.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think it's appropriate for
*anyone* to say with 100% certainty, as you do, that Bach's tuning was
X. Lehman shouldn't, you shouldn't, Kellner shouldn't, I shouldn't.
There is no direct evidence. It's certainly appropriate to share
enthusiasm for a likely candidate, and share your reasoning; but don't
be surprised when you lash out and attack those whose views differ if
you don't get converts. And in my book, tuning *can* be an important
element of Bach interpretation, but it takes a big-time backseat to
technical mastery and accuracy, tempi, articuation, ensemble, phrasing
subtlety, nuance, energy, affect, and overall intellectual and
emotional engagement. If the tuning highlights the music and makes the
textures shimmer in a way that augments the prerequisite elements,
then great--icing on the cake!

> When the mind is developed with a single pattern of reference,
> including a single religion, and all the many stage fixations, etc.,
> it is like a habit that won't break.

Now, take that insight, and look at yourself regarding your belief
about WerckIII...notice anything?

<SNIP>

> Discussion on this list about BAD pythagorean intervals are part of
> Church service, and yet this has been ignored by correspondents. ET
> is part of Werckmeister III in terms of near identical keys, and
> this has been ignored. Choosing nothing over something as a base
> tuning, when historically accurate and nearly identical to its
> althernatives, as agreed to by Herr Kellner on this list, is to
> ignore the genuine tradition of a non-ET chromaticism in Bach's
> country. Some of us are passionate about this.

I don't understand. If WerckIII is so close to some other, milder WTs
that have been proposed, why do make such a stink about the issue?

Another question--What, in your opinion, is the driving force behind
the progressive mellowing of WTs as they went, in historical
evolution? Can you tell me why you think it *wasn't* to tame the
Pythagorean thirds in remoter keys?

Best,
Aaron

Aaron, there is no hate for ET on my part. I have said so before and you continue to misrepresent me. I have indeed published that all music is microtonally cross-culturally in a paper using phenomenology to describe microtonality.

Secondly, I wrote a question to Neil. After our recent flurry of exchanges, why would you usurp Neil?

There is a psychology involved when one has a particular pattern of hegemony throughout life, and then is introduced to alternatives. Comparison is the basic process people use. What has fascinated me is that people have different primary patterns. For example, mine was not equal temperament.

So what about Art Tatum? I love him, too! But I might prefer Thelonious Monk on piano. Unlike you, I don’t care much for the piano as an instrument. I could tell piano jokes the way some tell viola jokes. But in the hands of a master musician, like my friend Joshua Pierce, it sings like no other.

Aaron: Should we ignore the phenomenon that was Art Tatum, because his contrapuntal
lines aren't "etched out" in WerckIII clarity? (whatever do you mean
by that, Johnny?---I still am trying to figure out what you mean)

Johnny: I think that you are not getting the concept of contrapuntal writing. When music is essentially the stacking of one melody over another and others, like with JS Bach, there are certain rules that were established to insure good music writing. In fact, Werckmeister wrote lots about this in his other, less known works. When an unequal tuning is used, the lines stand out a bit more, as if the keyboard had some of the “English” that a violinst has at their disposal. It really fits well with JS’s having full musical control of his players, writing out ornaments, eradicating improvisation, and with unequal tuning there is more control of sentiment. Read about sentiment in Kirnberger’s book the art of composition. By not crossing voices, and by virtue of the indiosyncratic varieties of intervals sizes, the voices are “etched” more to the ear in WIII. This would be true is most any well temperament, but WIII is more gradated in its variegation.

Aaron, you point out that the variation gets smoother. I agree. But once again, it has nothing to do with Bach. Taming melodic Pythagorean thirds to be better harmonic thirds was a trend, but again, it has nothing to do with the time of Bach.

Bach is a microtonalist because he was able to use 39 different melodic intervals at a time when there were only those available in a limited extended meantone. To a modern ear drenched in ET, it seems a primitive throwback, better served by the ET you know than the WT you don’t.

If you had to choose a tuning for the Brandenberg #2, it would not get performed, I guess. You have not been able to give a tuning to tune the harpsichord into, and so the piece would not get played. There are no Brandenberg Concerti performed in anything but ET and WIIII. In other words, if you are so sure that anything is better than WIII and yet cannot give a plausible, actual tuning, there would be no performance. Since I have recorded Brandenberg #2 in WIII, you have a chance to compare it to any ET tuned performance and to listen for the distinctions. Or, you could continue blowing hot air.

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:
>
>
> Aaron, there is no hate for ET on my part. I have said so before
and you continue to misrepresent me. I have indeed published that all
music is microtonally cross-culturally in a paper using phenomenology
to describe microtonality.

At the same time you constantly talk about modern audiences being
drenched in a horrible habit, etc. etc.

> Secondly, I wrote a question to Neil. After our recent flurry of
> exchanges, why would you usurp Neil?

I don't usurp Neil. He can speak for himself. We've had several
private conversations on the issue, and he shares my sentiments about
the whole issue. I was just giving my take on it since you seemed to
be attacking/insulting him by saying he 'had a lack of commitment' on
the issue of Bach tuning.

> There is a psychology involved when one has a particular pattern of
> hegemony throughout life, and then is introduced to alternatives.
> Comparison is the basic process people use. What has fascinated me
> is that people have different primary patterns. For example, mine
> was not equal temperament.
>
> So what about Art Tatum? I love him, too! But I might prefer
> Thelonious Monk on piano.

Why does this stupid dichotomy exist where someone says 'Tatum' or
'Peterson' and someone else has to come along and prove they like
spacious, hip, 'silent' playing, and disdain virtuosity, so they say
'Monk'? Ok, Monk is great, too--ok?

> Unlike you, I don’t care much for the
> piano as an instrument. I could tell piano jokes the way some tell
> viola jokes. But in the hands of a master musician, like my friend
> Joshua Pierce, it sings like no other.

Ok...?

> Aaron: Should we ignore the phenomenon that was Art Tatum, because
> his contrapuntal
> lines aren't "etched out" in WerckIII clarity? (whatever do you mean
> by that, Johnny?---I still am trying to figure out what you mean)
>
>
> Johnny: I think that you are not getting the concept of
> contrapuntal writing.

God, you are an insufferable egotist when you talk this way! Do you
realize how incredibly condescending you are sounding? Cut it out!

> When music is essentially the stacking of one melody over another
> and others, like with JS Bach, there are certain rules that were
> established to insure good music writing.

Gee, really, Johnny? Hey, can you explain 'quarter notes' next---I
never could understand that one either...thanks, Johnny, you know so much!

> In fact, Werckmeister wrote lots about this in his other, less known
> works. When an unequal tuning is used, the lines stand out a bit
> more, as if the keyboard had some of the “English” that a
> violinst has at their disposal. It really fits well with JS’s
> having full musical control of his players, writing out ornaments,
> eradicating improvisation, and with unequal tuning there is more
> control of sentiment. Read about sentiment in Kirnberger’s book
> the art of composition. By not crossing voices, and by virtue of
> the indiosyncratic varieties of intervals sizes, the voices are
> “etched” more to the ear in WIII. This would be true is most
> any well temperament, but WIII is more gradated in its variegation.

So, "should any contrapuntal music should be played in WIII?" was my
question... Well? Should Hindemith's 'Ludis Tonalis' be played in
WIII? Should Missa Prolationum by Ockeghem be sung in WIII? Should
Bartok's more contrapuntal nibbles from 'Mikrokosmos' be played in
WIII? Mozart's fugue in C Minor (2 pianos) K. 426? Beethoven's "Grosse
Fugue"?

> Aaron, you point out that the variation gets smoother. I agree.
> But once again, it has nothing to do with Bach. Taming melodic
> Pythagorean thirds to be better harmonic thirds was a trend, but
> again, it has nothing to do with the time of Bach.

Except that is was underway by the time of Bach, even while he was
alive, tunings were being published which continue this trend.

> If you had to choose a tuning for the Brandenberg #2, it would not
> get performed, I guess.

I answered this elsewhere, I don't need to answer again, but will---I
said I'd choose a milder WT. There are several choices I'm stuck on
none of them. They all serve, I guess some sound better, but the
differences are subtle enough that to my mind/ear, they are drop-in
replacements for one another. I guess I'd pick whichever turned me on
at the moment. You know, variety, etc. spice of life, etc. Something
oppositional to being an utter control freak.

Regards,
A.

I am more inclined to thinking in my daring ignorance, that any specific
tuning Bach may have intended in the case of WTC I & II are for these works
alone.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@dividebypi.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 13 Ocak 2007 Cumartesi 21:23
Subject: [tuning] Re: Bach/ET

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
>
> Aaron, there is no hate for ET on my part. I have said so before
and you continue to misrepresent me. I have indeed published that all
music is microtonally cross-culturally in a paper using phenomenology
to describe microtonality.

At the same time you constantly talk about modern audiences being
drenched in a horrible habit, etc. etc.

> Secondly, I wrote a question to Neil. After our recent flurry of
> exchanges, why would you usurp Neil?

I don't usurp Neil. He can speak for himself. We've had several
private conversations on the issue, and he shares my sentiments about
the whole issue. I was just giving my take on it since you seemed to
be attacking/insulting him by saying he 'had a lack of commitment' on
the issue of Bach tuning.

> There is a psychology involved when one has a particular pattern of
> hegemony throughout life, and then is introduced to alternatives.
> Comparison is the basic process people use. What has fascinated me
> is that people have different primary patterns. For example, mine
> was not equal temperament.
>
> So what about Art Tatum? I love him, too! But I might prefer
> Thelonious Monk on piano.

Why does this stupid dichotomy exist where someone says 'Tatum' or
'Peterson' and someone else has to come along and prove they like
spacious, hip, 'silent' playing, and disdain virtuosity, so they say
'Monk'? Ok, Monk is great, too--ok?

> Unlike you, I don’t care much for the
> piano as an instrument. I could tell piano jokes the way some tell
> viola jokes. But in the hands of a master musician, like my friend
> Joshua Pierce, it sings like no other.

Ok...?

> Aaron: Should we ignore the phenomenon that was Art Tatum, because
> his contrapuntal
> lines aren't "etched out" in WerckIII clarity? (whatever do you mean
> by that, Johnny?---I still am trying to figure out what you mean)
>
>
> Johnny: I think that you are not getting the concept of
> contrapuntal writing.

God, you are an insufferable egotist when you talk this way! Do you
realize how incredibly condescending you are sounding? Cut it out!

> When music is essentially the stacking of one melody over another
> and others, like with JS Bach, there are certain rules that were
> established to insure good music writing.

Gee, really, Johnny? Hey, can you explain 'quarter notes' next---I
never could understand that one either...thanks, Johnny, you know so much!

> In fact, Werckmeister wrote lots about this in his other, less known
> works. When an unequal tuning is used, the lines stand out a bit
> more, as if the keyboard had some of the “English� that a
> violinst has at their disposal. It really fits well with JS’s
> having full musical control of his players, writing out ornaments,
> eradicating improvisation, and with unequal tuning there is more
> control of sentiment. Read about sentiment in Kirnberger’s book
> the art of composition. By not crossing voices, and by virtue of
> the indiosyncratic varieties of intervals sizes, the voices are
> “etched� more to the ear in WIII. This would be true is most
> any well temperament, but WIII is more gradated in its variegation.

So, "should any contrapuntal music should be played in WIII?" was my
question... Well? Should Hindemith's 'Ludis Tonalis' be played in
WIII? Should Missa Prolationum by Ockeghem be sung in WIII? Should
Bartok's more contrapuntal nibbles from 'Mikrokosmos' be played in
WIII? Mozart's fugue in C Minor (2 pianos) K. 426? Beethoven's "Grosse
Fugue"?

> Aaron, you point out that the variation gets smoother. I agree.
> But once again, it has nothing to do with Bach. Taming melodic
> Pythagorean thirds to be better harmonic thirds was a trend, but
> again, it has nothing to do with the time of Bach.

Except that is was underway by the time of Bach, even while he was
alive, tunings were being published which continue this trend.

> If you had to choose a tuning for the Brandenberg #2, it would not
> get performed, I guess.

I answered this elsewhere, I don't need to answer again, but will---I
said I'd choose a milder WT. There are several choices I'm stuck on
none of them. They all serve, I guess some sound better, but the
differences are subtle enough that to my mind/ear, they are drop-in
replacements for one another. I guess I'd pick whichever turned me on
at the moment. You know, variety, etc. spice of life, etc. Something
oppositional to being an utter control freak.

Regards,
A.

SNIP

>
> I was listening to Art Tatum last night. This guy was probably the
> greatest keyboard player who ever lived, and I'm including all the
> great composer/keyboardists and interpreters in any genre you can
> throw at me (there's wide agreement that he was the single greatest
> jazz instumentalist ever), and I seriously doubt he gave a single
> thought his who life to the issue of tuning or temperament. He was to
> preoccupied with being the miracle player he was, and that's Neil's
> point, I would think. And guess what? He played in 12-equal, or
> however closely a tuner could get to it, his whole life. Should we
> ignore the phenomenon that was Art Tatum, because his contrapuntal
> lines aren't "etched out" in WerckIII clarity? (whatever do you mean
> by that, Johnny?---I still am trying to figure out what you mean)
>

Art surely rocks. The chubby fella certainly would not have cared much for
the piano tuning as long as it was a decent circulating 12-tone temperament,
no?

SNIP