taking Bach as a microtonalist seriously

One thing Johnny said sort of makes his whole point of view completely rational and logical: if one believes that Bach was truely a "microtonal" composer, with a capital M, like Harry Partch, and was truly composing for 39(?) different intervals of WIII, then it follows almost deductively that there IS 1 correct tuning, at least for each piece, if not for his whole corpus of work, and that the tuning aspect IS as important if not more important, than anything else.

Consider, that we would probably all consider it sacriledge to perform Partch music on instruments in some other 43-note scale, say 43TET, or something "close enough". People would be pissed.

So the argument here is really down to this: was Bach composing for those specific 39 microtonally differentiated intervals, or was he just composing for some Ur-chromatic/diatonic complex that could possibly be tuned in various different ways? Most people on this list probably feel the latter. but Johnny's passionate defense makes complete sense to me if one believes the former.

So the question is, was Bach a microtonalist, with a capital M; or, was he a composer of tonal music, whose output can be "tweaked" via tuning in various ways?

C Bailey

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <chris@...> wrote:

> Consider, that we would probably all consider it sacriledge to
perform
> Partch music on instruments in some other 43-note scale, say 43TET,
or
> something "close enough". People would be pissed.

I think that's been done; at least, I seem to recall hearing about
performing him in 72-et.

> So the argument here is really down to this: was Bach composing
for those
> specific 39 microtonally differentiated intervals, or was he just
> composing for some Ur-chromatic/diatonic complex that could
possibly be
> tuned in various different ways?

Considering how much of Bach is not keyboard music I'm not sure this
question even makes total sense.

Sorry if this was sent in duplicate.

Hi Gene,

I have never heard of anyone performing Partch intended for just in 72ET or
any other ET.
Even more importantly, regarding your statement "Considering how much of
Bach is not keyboard music I'm not sure this question even makes total sense":

Every piece by Bach is for keyboard music, with but few exceptions.
Contrary to whatever you may have heard, a musician with flexible pitch must use the
instrument present -- the continuo -- as the rule of law regarding the
correct intonation. There is an expectation that there is a keyboard in every
Bach piece, except solos for violin and cello.

And Brother Ozan, I would have to suggest that the Well-tempered clavier,
like the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue, and like the organ solo works, and like
the Brandenberg, would all have the same well-tempered tuning. Why wouldn't
Bach use his favorite well temperament in all cases? If it mattered to Bach
to change them, history would have recorded this, I feel. He was born to a
tuning that had just spread like lightening to the musical illuminati. I'm
sure Bach wanted the tuning done right to his own high level of expertise, but
why would he juggle them? It certainly would have confused his musicians if
he was into juggling. ;)

Johnny

p.s. Thanks, Chris --- well stated

Greetings,

One disservice that Bach did to his own music was to not have written a specific set of tuning instructions. Please correct me if I am wrong. What I think was needed was for him to write out his practice.

Part of the reason he did not may have been that he was, or seemed to be quite reluctant to write. In part this was because he preferred the 'practice' of music to theory and also in part because it seems that he felt inadequate to write a treatise. Sad! Above all he was the best to do so! What a loss for us!

Recently, I was preparing a copy of a work I wrote for harpsichord many years ago and realized I had to put the tuning requirements for it. It requires 12 tone Equal temperament (shame!) but since so many harpsichords are now tuned otherwise, it must be specified.

BTW I recall a lecture where Guy Bovet began to play the harpsichord and stood up and said "Oh dear, it's tuned incorrectly)." He took out a hammer from his case and retuned the instrument while continuing to lecture. In those days I didn't know much about tuning, so I can't recall what he replaced it with. He was done in a few minutes. This as an example of the speed with which a musician can retune.

All best wishes,

Gordon Rumson

Hello Gordon,

You are not wrong; Bach did not write down a specific set of tuning
instructions.
There may be another explanation, however.

If there was an established well temperament, designed for the chromatic
usage of all the keys, then there would be no need to specify. In fact there
was one tuning that fits this description, WIII.

best, Johnny
_____________________________________________________
Greetings,

One disservice that Bach did to his own music was to not have written
a specific set of tuning instructions. Please correct me if I am
wrong. What I think was needed was for him to write out his practice.

Part of the reason he did not may have been that he was, or seemed to
be quite reluctant to write. In part this was because he preferred
the 'practice' of music to theory and also in part because it seems
that he felt inadequate to write a treatise. Sad! Above all he was
the best to do so! What a loss for us!

> One disservice that Bach did to his own music was to not have
> written a specific set of tuning instructions.

Maybe it wasn't a disservice.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Christopher Bailey <chris@...> wrote:

> So the argument here is really down to this: was Bach composing for
> those specific 39 microtonally differentiated intervals, or was he
> just composing for some Ur-chromatic/diatonic complex that could
> possibly be tuned in various different ways? Most people on this
> list probably feel the latter. but Johnny's passionate defense
> makes complete sense to me if one believes the former.

> So the question is, was Bach a microtonalist, with a capital M; or,
> was he a composer of tonal music, whose output can be "tweaked" via
> tuning in various ways?

I think this is a good summary.

If Bach is a 'Microtonalist', as Johnny seems to believe, we'd have to
see evidence that he minded a piece played on organ in Silbermann,
1/6-comma meantone, etc. being played in WerckIII, and/or vice versa.
We also have to explain, given that WerckIII was NOT the only
temperament out and about, why Bach woudn't specify a particular temp.
for a given piece where there was ambiguity.

We are also forgetting a couple of things (Johnny is anyway)---what
about the cosmopolitan nature of Bach's musical awareness? He wrote
music in French, English and Italian styles. He transcribed music and
arranged the music of others, including Vivaldi. Are we going to think
he was stuck on and didn't try any of the tuning trends of those
countries? What about the precedence and ubiquity of modified
meantones, like 'Ordinaire'...are you going to honestly tell me Bach
was unaware of them? There are probably as many variations on this
idea as there were players of keyboards. None of it had to be
documented, because the procedure was rather generic. Are you saying
Bach's ears never encountered a modified meantone, and that he didn't
try it himself? Given also that he knew of Silbemann's temperment, it
seem even more unlikely that you could say such a thing. The
overwhelming evidence suggests that Bach's music was viewed by Bach as
being adaptable to various temps., and that he certainly would not
think the *identity* of his music was bound up in one temp like
WerckIII!!! I also find it hard to believe he didn't make up his own
temperments! We are talking about one of the supreme creative
geniuses, and you claim he was content with a little regional German
tuning designed to save time and money when converting organs from
meantone---it boggles my mind why you would think that!

Secondly, I don't know the answer to this, but a wind player
might---what is the history of key/hole placement on wind instruments?
Aside from breath pressure, all else being equal, what theoretical
temp. where the placers of hole/keys going for?...it seems that this
would resolve alot of the dispute where ensemble playing is concerned.
Related to this---where is it documented, Johnny, that anywhere in
history, wind players did some of the things you do to prepare players
to play in WerckIII? For instance, scotch taping recorders to play in
a perfect WerckIII. If you have such info, please share.

Best,
Aaron.

SNIP

And Brother Ozan, I would have to suggest that the Well-tempered clavier,
like the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue, and like the organ solo works, and
like the Brandenberg, would all have the same well-tempered tuning. Why
wouldn't Bach use his favorite well temperament in all cases? If it
mattered to Bach to change them, history would have recorded this, I feel.
He was born to a tuning that had just spread like lightening to the musical
illuminati. I'm sure Bach wanted the tuning done right to his own high
level of expertise, but why would he juggle them? It certainly would have
confused his musicians if he was into juggling. ;)

Johnny

------------------

Well dear colleague, 'tis but your faith, which I do not necessarily share.
Since WTC is supposed to be a unique package bundled with the intent of
demonstrating the ability to cycle through 12-tones in a manner acceptable
to the general palate of that age, I would surmise that any circulating
tuning Bach may have specified in the case of WTC I & II applies thereto
alone. I am further inclined to think that Bach had proposed his own
temperament choice (whatsoever that might be) in squiggle form only as a
default recipe among recipes for "best results".

Now look at the original title of what we dub WTC I today:

"composed for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and
especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study"

The operative word here is, I think, "pastime", which would suggest not only
keyboard enthusiasts, but also, tuners. This, according to my feeble
understanding, implies that the aim of the work is none other than
increasing the knowledge of the youth and the refinement of the musical
elite in 12-tone cyclic tonality in a way that pleases the ear.

By all means, I am inclined to believe that all well-temperaments would work
in the case of WTC. There might be merit, of course, for the usage of
Werckmeister III here too, but is it really the only well-temperament that
Bach would endorse?

If the majority of Bach's works show little usage of keys with 5-7 sharps
and flats, then I would be inclined to think that even meantone would be
acceptable for several concerti grossi, masses, organ works, the lot...

Cordially,
Oz.

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

[SNIP]

> Every piece by Bach is for keyboard music, with but few exceptions.
> Contrary to whatever you may have heard, a musician with flexible
pitch must use the
> instrument present -- the continuo -- as the rule of law regarding the
> correct intonation.

That is not entirely correct. Although the flexible-pitch instrument
obviously must match the continuo's tuning any time they are playing
the same pitch together, I am aware of no good reason why this should
be the case when they are playing different pitches. This is a major
reason why the best accompanists don't double the melody.

You don't know me as a microtonalist, because I'm not; I speak here
from years of singing in a professional choir which preferred to sing
outside 'piano tuning' (even when singing with a piano accompaniment).
People on this list tend to forget that only keyboard instruments (and
'whistles' like the recorder) are truly locked to a fixed tuning.
-Good singers naturally use adaptive harmonic tuning, purely because
it 'sounds right' and we don't care about absolute pitch beyond the
initial reference pitch.
-Non-fretted strings can, in the hands of a reasonably skilled player,
play fully chromatically - as far as I'm aware, they also use adaptive
harmonic tuning by default.
-Any sufficiently skilled wind player can play arbitrary pitches
outside the intended tuning of the instrument - even I, at best a
mediocre wind player, can slide smoothly from pitch to pitch on any
brass or single-reed woodwind instrument. For that matter, I have seen
a musician (James Morrison) play complex melodies both on trombone and
on trumpet without touching slide or keys.
-Even fretted string instruments like guitar and lute can 'bend' the
pitch more than the semitone required for full microtonal capability.

By "adaptive harmonic tuning", I mean making the harmonics match up so
that the entire ensemble sounds like a single instrument playing a
single note with an extraordinarily rich timbre - isn't this the
ultimate aim of harmonic tuning? For the most obvious examples of
this, listen to a first-class barbershop group.

Regards,
Patrick

Good show!

SNIP

>
> If Bach is a 'Microtonalist', as Johnny seems to believe, we'd have to
> see evidence that he minded a piece played on organ in Silbermann,
> 1/6-comma meantone, etc. being played in WerckIII, and/or vice versa.
> We also have to explain, given that WerckIII was NOT the only
> temperament out and about, why Bach woudn't specify a particular temp.
> for a given piece where there was ambiguity.
>
> We are also forgetting a couple of things (Johnny is anyway)---what
> about the cosmopolitan nature of Bach's musical awareness? He wrote
> music in French, English and Italian styles. He transcribed music and
> arranged the music of others, including Vivaldi. Are we going to think
> he was stuck on and didn't try any of the tuning trends of those
> countries? What about the precedence and ubiquity of modified
> meantones, like 'Ordinaire'...are you going to honestly tell me Bach
> was unaware of them? There are probably as many variations on this
> idea as there were players of keyboards. None of it had to be
> documented, because the procedure was rather generic. Are you saying
> Bach's ears never encountered a modified meantone, and that he didn't
> try it himself? Given also that he knew of Silbemann's temperment, it
> seem even more unlikely that you could say such a thing. The
> overwhelming evidence suggests that Bach's music was viewed by Bach as
> being adaptable to various temps., and that he certainly would not
> think the *identity* of his music was bound up in one temp like
> WerckIII!!! I also find it hard to believe he didn't make up his own
> temperments! We are talking about one of the supreme creative
> geniuses, and you claim he was content with a little regional German
> tuning designed to save time and money when converting organs from
> meantone---it boggles my mind why you would think that!
>
> Secondly, I don't know the answer to this, but a wind player
> might---what is the history of key/hole placement on wind instruments?
> Aside from breath pressure, all else being equal, what theoretical
> temp. where the placers of hole/keys going for?...it seems that this
> would resolve alot of the dispute where ensemble playing is concerned.
> Related to this---where is it documented, Johnny, that anywhere in
> history, wind players did some of the things you do to prepare players
> to play in WerckIII? For instance, scotch taping recorders to play in
> a perfect WerckIII. If you have such info, please share.
>
> Best,
> Aaron.
>
>

Patrick: -Non-fretted strings can, in the hands of a reasonably skilled
player,
play fully chromatically - as far as I'm aware, they also use adaptive
harmonic tuning by default.
Johnny: Yes, but MODERN string players. We have been exploring Werckmeister
III tuning which has 39 different intervals, some no more than 6 cents
apart. Adaptive tuning here, in this particular case, has led to awful results.
We have performed Bach in large ensembles numbers of time, some performances
more successfully than others.
Patrick: SNIP By "adaptive harmonic tuning", I mean making the harmonics
match up so
that the entire ensemble sounds like a single instrument playing a
single note with an extraordinarily rich timbre - isn't this the
ultimate aim of harmonic tuning? For the most obvious examples of
this, listen to a first-class barbershop group.

Regards,
Patrick
Johnny: The love of the harmonic barbership sound makes you a wonderful
candidate for the microtonal identification. We have been focusing on an
aesthetic of the past with possible repercussions for the present. All best.

Dear Ozan, I don't think Aaron needs your encouragement!

Ozan: Well dear colleague, 'tis but your faith, which I do not necessarily
share.
Since WTC is supposed to be a unique package bundled with the intent of
demonstrating the ability to cycle through 12-tones in a manner acceptable
to the general palate of that age, I would surmise that any circulating
tuning Bach may have specified in the case of WTC I & II applies thereto
alone.
Johnny: Not much to add. It is good that so many opinions have been added
to the List. It is better to know the variety of positions that are held.
We simply disagree.
Ozan: I am further inclined to think that Bach had proposed his own
temperament choice (whatsoever that might be) in squiggle form only as a
default recipe among recipes for "best results".
Johnny: Join the league of noodle interpreters; for me that’s a dead end.
Even if there was some intent there, the fact there is no key to discerning
its mystery brings everything back to square one. The scenario of WIII being
the defacto chromatic organ tuning (possibly only on a single church organ in
a city of churches) makes it more believeable than anything else. For this
reasons, it is a better choice for assuaging the beauty of Bach.
Ozan: Now look at the original title of what we dub WTC I today:
"composed for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and
especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study"
The operative word here is, I think, "pastime", which would suggest not only
keyboard enthusiasts, but also, tuners. This, according to my feeble
understanding, implies that the aim of the work is none other than
increasing the knowledge of the youth and the refinement of the musical
elite in 12-tone cyclic tonality in a way that pleases the ear.
Johnny: Ah, Ozan, have you not considered that the pedagogical aspect of
these pieces is for the fingers? I’m not primarily a keyboardist, but it makes
good sense to have a set of piece for the hands to master all the different
key relationships. At least that helps explain a second book of TWTC.
Ozan: By all means, I am inclined to believe that all well-temperaments
would work
in the case of WTC. There might be merit, of course, for the usage of
Werckmeister III here too, but is it really the only well-temperament that
Bach would endorse?
Johnny: What you are resisting is my tying Bach’s 2 books of the
Well-tempered Clavier with the majority of his works. They are not that significant to
me, musically as are the Brandenberg Concerti. The Tocatta and Fugue for
organ has greater power for me, and I always crack a smile at the Coffee
Cantata. I just think the books were more for setting up technique for the student,
with the tuning a good excuse for arrangement. The sentiment issue is much,
much, much stronger in the Passions, and these have never been recorded for
release in anything but ET, to my knowledge.

Ozan: If the majority of Bach's works show little usage of keys with 5-7
sharps
and flats, then I would be inclined to think that even meantone would be
acceptable for several concerti grossi, masses, organ works, the lot...
Cordially, Oz.
Johnny: Firstly, these things have all been studied already. They are in
dissertations. Since I am researching, I am asserting, Barbour has not been
challenged to say that Bach needs a well-temperament for the great majority
of his organ compositions. You’ll have to accept this, unless wants to
challenge this.
Secondly, the choice of tuning effects a piece in most any key that has any
chromatic extensions. There is always the run of alternatively large/small
semitones, for example.
And thirdly, I just don’t think JS needed to have several WTs. He had one
single favorite WT. He could write for other tunings, but he had one single
favorite WT. This great organist’s organ tuning would determine his favorite
WT. His favorite WT on organ would be the tuning he would prefer for the
harpsichord or the clavichord. The WTC only rounds the bend for the hands to
mature in their technique, something JS is renown for, while ALSO aiding the
ears, and the mind.
All best, Johnny

----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 15 Ocak 2007 Pazartesi 4:25
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: taking Bach as a microtonalist seriously

Dear Ozan, I don't think Aaron needs your encouragement!

He certainly does not. Nevertheless, he entertains me more than you on this topic.

Ozan: Well dear colleague, 'tis but your faith, which I do not necessarily share.
Since WTC is supposed to be a unique package bundled with the intent of
demonstrating the ability to cycle through 12-tones in a manner acceptable
to the general palate of that age, I would surmise that any circulating
tuning Bach may have specified in the case of WTC I & II applies thereto
alone.

Johnny: Not much to add. It is good that so many opinions have been added to the List. It is better to know the variety of positions that are held. We simply disagree.

For a good reason too...

Ozan: I am further inclined to think that Bach had proposed his own
temperament choice (whatsoever that might be) in squiggle form only as a
default recipe among recipes for "best results".

Johnny: Join the league of noodle interpreters; for me that’s a dead end. Even if there was some intent there, the fact there is no key to discerning its mystery brings everything back to square one. The scenario of WIII being the defacto chromatic organ tuning (possibly only on a single church organ in a city of churches) makes it more believeable than anything else. For this reasons, it is a better choice for assuaging the beauty of Bach.

No need for condescending remarks there. The squiggles sure give me the impression that Bach was endorsing a well temperament of sorts with WTC. For all I know, it could be WIII too. But what's the point? I have not been convinced that Bach was obsessed by a single favourite circular 12-tone temperament as much as you seem to be.

Ozan: Now look at the original title of what we dub WTC I today:
"composed for the profit and use of musical youth desirous of learning, and
especially for the pastime of those already skilled in this study"
The operative word here is, I think, "pastime", which would suggest not only
keyboard enthusiasts, but also, tuners. This, according to my feeble
understanding, implies that the aim of the work is none other than
increasing the knowledge of the youth and the refinement of the musical
elite in 12-tone cyclic tonality in a way that pleases the ear.

Johnny: Ah, Ozan, have you not considered that the pedagogical aspect of these pieces is for the fingers? I’m not primarily a keyboardist, but it makes good sense to have a set of piece for the hands to master all the different key relationships. At least that helps explain a second book of TWTC.

Since you are not a keyboardist by profession, let us keyboard players be the judge of that.

Ozan: By all means, I am inclined to believe that all well-temperaments would work
in the case of WTC. There might be merit, of course, for the usage of
Werckmeister III here too, but is it really the only well-temperament that
Bach would endorse?

Johnny: What you are resisting is my tying Bach’s 2 books of the Well-tempered Clavier with the majority of his works. They are not that significant to me, musically as are the Brandenberg Concerti. The Tocatta and Fugue for organ has greater power for me, and I always crack a smile at the Coffee Cantata. I just think the books were more for setting up technique for the student, with the tuning a good excuse for arrangement. The sentiment issue is much, much, much stronger in the Passions, and these have never been recorded for release in anything but ET, to my knowledge.

I assume Bach would not have cared much about what the temperament was as long as it was "wohl", or even "ordinaire". Besides, is it entirely implausible that he would want to liberate himself from a fixed clavier tuning in his daring orchestrations?

Ozan: If the majority of Bach's works show little usage of keys with 5-7 sharps
and flats, then I would be inclined to think that even meantone would be
acceptable for several concerti grossi, masses, organ works, the lot...
Cordially, Oz.

Johnny: Firstly, these things have all been studied already. They are in dissertations. Since I am researching, I am asserting, Barbour has not been challenged to say that Bach needs a well-temperament for the great majority of his organ compositions. You’ll have to accept this, unless wants to challenge this.

I only accept what makes sense. It is possible for Bach to have reserved the question of temperament for keyboard alone, and a particular well-temperament specifically for his 48 Preludes and Fugues. I am more inclined to imagine that he did not worry greatly about pitch-deviations in his other works for chamber, concerti and choir.

Secondly, the choice of tuning effects a piece in most any key that has any chromatic extensions. There is always the run of alternatively large/small semitones, for example.

So, you think that Bach would compose in nothing but a solitary well-temperament?

And thirdly, I just don’t think JS needed to have several WTs. He had one single favorite WT. He could write for other tunings, but he had one single favorite WT. This great organist’s organ tuning would determine his favorite WT. His favorite WT on organ would be the tuning he would prefer for the harpsichord or the clavichord. The WTC only rounds the bend for the hands to mature in their technique, something JS is renown for, while ALSO aiding the ears, and the mind.

I find grave problems in your reductive reasoning. Why would Bach choose only one tuning when a plethora of nicely working temperaments enriched the Baroque tradition across Europe? And why would he settle for a single tuning for both the harpsichord and the church organ when these instruments are so contrasting in timbre? And so many more questions ad infinitum...

Oz.

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

> Every piece by Bach is for keyboard music, with but few exceptions.
> Contrary to whatever you may have heard, a musician with flexible
pitch must use the
> instrument present -- the continuo -- as the rule of law regarding
the
> correct intonation.

I really doubt singers are singing in Werck3 just because there is a
keyboard in the room, or even plunking away in the background. If you
listen to a typical Back cantata, keyboards are not that big a deal,
though there are exceptions with some wonderful organ music.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:

> Well dear colleague, 'tis but your faith, which I do not necessarily
share.
> Since WTC is supposed to be a unique package bundled with the intent
of
> demonstrating the ability to cycle through 12-tones in a manner
acceptable
> to the general palate of that age...

That's the theory. It makes a lot of sense. But do we know it is true?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "p_heddles" <p_heddles@...> wrote:

> People on this list tend to forget that only keyboard instruments (and
> 'whistles' like the recorder) are truly locked to a fixed tuning.
> -Good singers naturally use adaptive harmonic tuning, purely because
> it 'sounds right' and we don't care about absolute pitch beyond the
> initial reference pitch.

I've been trying to make the point on this thread that Bach, above all
else, was primarily a vocal composer.

Johnny,

Do you have anything to say about flexible-pitch instruments other
than strings? I'll deal with strings later in this post, but my point
wasn't just about strings.

Moving on...

--

Johnny: Yes, but MODERN string players.

Patrick: And what makes you think that string players a few centuries
ago didn't do the same? I've just done a little checking of my
terminology, and what I refer to as "adaptive harmonic tuning" might
better be referred to as JI with modulation where necessary. That
being the case, I quote Hermann Helmholtz, from his 1863 "On the
Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of Music":

"That performers of the highest rank really do play in just
intonation, has been directly proved by the very interesting and exact
results of Delezenne (1826). This observer determined the individual
notes of the major scale, as it was played by distinguished violinist
and violoncellists, by means of an accurately gauged string, and found
that these players produced correctly perfect Thirds and Sixths."
(On the Sensations of Tone as a Physiological Basis for the Theory of
Music, 1863, English translation, Ellis, 1875, p.325)

1826 isn't the time of Bach, but it's the earliest reference I could
lay hands on immediately. If you have any earlier references
contradicting this, please share them. We have identical results for
1826, 1863 (Helmholtz's own experiments with a string player by the
name of Herr Joachim) and present practice (as agreed in your previous
post). It seems reasonable to me, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, to assume that the same applies to Bach's time.

--

Johnny: We have been exploring Werckmeister III tuning which has 39
different intervals, some no more than 6 cents apart.

Patrick: No, Johnny. What I have seen on this list recently is an
often-heated debate on the merits of Werck III as the single correct
tuning for Bach's music, with you on one side and everyone else on the
other. I may not post often, but I do read most of what others post on
this list (and have done for a few years now).

--

Johnny: Adaptive tuning here, in this particular case, has led to
awful results. We have performed Bach in large ensembles numbers of
time, some performances more successfully than others.

Patrick: I'd like more details of that. Precisely what 'adaptive
tuning' under what circumstances led to what 'awful results'? I have
sung Bach many times in a small choir (perhaps a dozen members on
average) in what I could only describe as adaptive JI, and I have
never encountered anything which I would describe as "awful results".
I'm curious to know how this is different for larger groups, since I
don't have the personal experience of that.

--

Johnny: The love of the harmonic barbership sound makes you a
wonderful candidate for the microtonal identification.

Patrick: I do apologise, I don't seem to have expressed myself very
clearly. I'll just clarify a few points:
-Barbershop isn't the be-all and end-all of harmony; it's just the
most obvious example of adaptive JI.
-The choir to which I refer (and to which I used to belong) is not
barbershop. It is a chapel choir, with repertoire covering the length
and breadth of Western choral composition. Composers frequently sung
include: Allegri, Bach, Bruckner, Franck, Gesualdo, Guerrero, Josquin,
Lassus, and Palestrina. I omit those composers whose works we sang
only infrequently, as well as those whose names escape me at present.

--

Johnny: We have been focusing on an aesthetic of the past with
possible repercussions for the present.

Patrick: In light of the source I quote above, it seems rather
plausible that that "aesthetic of the past" bears a close resemblance
to "modern" practice.

--

Incidentally, I've a general question for you and for the other list
members: what *is* the ultimate aim of tuning? What is it that makes
people like you and me devote so much time and energy to the subject?

Regards,
Patrick

Hi Gene,

It is quite understandable that you wrote:

"I really doubt singers are singing in Werck3 just because there is a
keyboard in the room, or even plunking away in the background. If you
listen to a typical Back cantata, keyboards are not that big a deal,
though there are exceptions with some wonderful organ music."

Our performances have everyone write on pitch if we can help it. There is
something else going on. No vibrato, various performance practice items.

With the modern ET performance of Bach, there is no need of keeping the
tuning's measure. It's all the same. Modern players internalize the one ET
template and transpose it in their minds.

Besides, how can you base the use of the harpsichord you barely hear in
recordings in ET with anything that happened acoustically in a natural balance
over three hundred years ago? (Sorry to be rhetorical.) In WIII, the
harpsichord has a different power in the group.

best, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
> I really doubt singers are singing in Werck3 just because there is a
> keyboard in the room, or even plunking away in the background. If you
> listen to a typical Back cantata, keyboards are not that big a deal,
> though there are exceptions with some wonderful organ music.

Right there with you, Gene. Piano isn't that big a deal to sing
against (though my old Chapel Choir usually only used one in early
rehearsals), but it's pretty much impossible to compete with the
sustaining ET of an organ.

-Patrick

He was both a vocal AND an instrumental composer.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 15 Ocak 2007 Pazartesi 6:43
Subject: [tuning] Re: taking Bach as a microtonalist seriously

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "p_heddles" <p_heddles@...> wrote:
>
> > People on this list tend to forget that only keyboard instruments (and
> > 'whistles' like the recorder) are truly locked to a fixed tuning.
> > -Good singers naturally use adaptive harmonic tuning, purely because
> > it 'sounds right' and we don't care about absolute pitch beyond the
> > initial reference pitch.
>
> I've been trying to make the point on this thread that Bach, above all
> else, was primarily a vocal composer.
>
>
>

We assume it is implied.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 15 Ocak 2007 Pazartesi 6:38
Subject: [tuning] Re: taking Bach as a microtonalist seriously

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> > Well dear colleague, 'tis but your faith, which I do not necessarily
> share.
> > Since WTC is supposed to be a unique package bundled with the intent
> of
> > demonstrating the ability to cycle through 12-tones in a manner
> acceptable
> > to the general palate of that age...
>
> That's the theory. It makes a lot of sense. But do we know it is true?
>
>

Johnny: With the modern ET performance of Bach, there is no need of
keeping the tuning's measure. It's all the same. Modern players
internalize the one ET template and transpose it in their minds.

Patrick: I've never performed professionally as an instrumentalist, so
I can't speak for them. I will say, however, that first-class choral
singers do not sing ET unless they're singing with an organ or
possibly a piano (JI can usually be sung against an ET piano, but
almost never against an ET organ).

Regards,
Patrick

Patrick: Johnny,
Do you have anything to say about flexible-pitch instruments other
than strings? I'll deal with strings later in this post, but my point
wasn't just about strings.

Johnny: Only that I regularly work as a woodwind specialist. My tradition
is to train musicians to play different microtonal tunings on all different
instruments.

Patrick: And what makes you think that string players a few centuries
ago didn't do the same?
Johnny: Patrick, you must know that I produce microtonal concerts in NYC,
since 1981. Besides just providing enjoyment to our audience and to the
players, themselves, we try all sorts of things. It’s an opportunity to try things
out. This is what I have been referring to. We do have a CD out on CD
Baby, but I am not trying to sell you anything. Listen to the free stuff on the
site:
_http://cdbaby.com/cd/pitchrecs2_ (http://cdbaby.com/cd/pitchrecs2)

SNIP

Johnny: We have been exploring Werckmeister III tuning which has 39
different intervals, some no more than 6 cents apart.

Patrick: No, Johnny. What I have seen on this list recently is an
often-heated debate on the merits of Werck III as the single correct
tuning for Bach's music, with you on one side and everyone else on the
other. I may not post often, but I do read most of what others post on
this list (and have done for a few years now).

Johnny: No, Patrick. You know nothing of what you are speaking of. Do a
little more research before you attack someone on a new list. We have been
talking about Bach’s Tuning on this List for many years, now. It is time to
try to confront some of the ideas you are holding. I am not satisfied to hold
old, tired theories about Bach that force him into ET performances. The
disrespect towards WIII is totally baseless to my ear, and to many others. How
disappointing for your position at this juncture.
--

Patrick: I'd like more details of that. Precisely what 'adaptive
tuning' under what circumstances led to what 'awful results'?
Johnny: When you perform in WIII, it is best to start pitches right on
pitch, rather than to swoop from below or above. This directional attack is quite
common among modern players. However, something about doing anything in
that portamento sense makes for a nauseous sensation. This happened to us with
Brandenberg #4. After the first five measures, or so, everything leveled
out.
Patrick: I have sung Bach many times in a small choir (perhaps a dozen
members on
average) in what I could only describe as adaptive JI, and I have
never encountered anything which I would describe as "awful results".
Johnny: May I ask, was this in ET? This makes sense in ET, and I’m sure
your singing groups is melodious and rich. If you have never sung a large work
in WIII, but only in ET, then it is unlikely you will understand what I am
getting at. Sorry.
Patrick: … I omit those composers whose works we sang
only infrequently, as well as those whose names escape me at present.

Johnny: And I am only talking about Bach. I would love to hear about
specific a cappella Bach, music intended sung without Continuo. Could you help?

Patrick: In light of the source I quote above, it seems rather
plausible that that "aesthetic of the past" bears a close resemblance
to "modern" practice.

Johnny: There is much that happened before Helmoltz. Even if Helmholtz had
the musicianly skills to determine what was being done by musicians, this is
WAY too late for Bach.

Patrick: Incidentally, I've a general question for you and for the other
list
members: what *is* the ultimate aim of tuning? What is it that makes
people like you and me devote so much time and energy to the subject?
Regards,
Patrick
Johnny: Let’s leave this to others. All best.

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

> With the modern ET performance of Bach, there is no need of keeping
the
> tuning's measure. It's all the same. Modern players internalize
the one ET
> template and transpose it in their minds.

That hasn't been true for some time now. Here's Yo-Yo Ma on his
experience with Koopman and the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra:

http://tonkoopman.nl/yoyotonlinereng.htm

"Working with Ton Koopman and the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra offered
both challenges and rewards for Ma. Just as he had to get used to the
new feel and sound of his old instrument, Ma says that even the
simple act of tuning with the Amsterdam Baroque Orchestra took some
adjusting. "For 39 years, I have been using tempered tuning or piano
pitch for intonation. But in a period instrument orchestra, the
various instruments tune in relation to one another... so that they
all fit together exactly. It requires a different set of ears..."

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "p_heddles" <p_heddles@...> wrote:

> Incidentally, I've a general question for you and for the other list
> members: what *is* the ultimate aim of tuning? What is it that makes
> people like you and me devote so much time and energy to the subject?

I'm interested in tuning theory just as an area of study, but to me it
is also the inspiration and driving force behind what I compose. I
often get ideas by thinking about how to compose something in a
particular tuning, with its peculiar characteristics. The ocean of
tuning possibilies is immense, and being a Captian Cook on the sea of
tuning allows me to cease worrying about being original and concentrate
on being as good as I can contrive.

Johnny: Only that I regularly work as a woodwind specialist. My
tradition is to train musicians to play different microtonal tunings
on all different instruments.

Patrick: Sounds like we don't really have a disagreement on that
point, then. We agree that non-keyboard instruments (with a few
exceptions) are fully chromatic.

--

Patrick: And what makes you think that string players a few centuries
ago didn't do the same?

Johnny: Patrick, you must know that I produce microtonal concerts in
NYC, since 1981.

Patrick: Indeed. What does that prove about string practice in Bach's
time?

--

Patrick: No, Johnny. What I have seen on this list recently is an
often-heated debate on the merits of Werck III as the single correct
tuning for Bach's music, with you on one side and everyone else on the
other. I may not post often, but I do read most of what others post on
this list (and have done for a few years now).

Johnny: No, Patrick. You know nothing of what you are speaking of.
Do a little more research before you attack someone on a new list. We
have been talking about Bach’s Tuning on this List for many years,
now. It is time to try to confront some of the ideas you are holding.
I am not satisfied to hold old, tired theories about Bach that force
him into ET performances. The disrespect towards WIII is totally
baseless to my ear, and to many others. How disappointing for your
position at this juncture.

Patrick:
1. I joined this list in 2004. As I said in my previous post, I have
been reading most of what's posted here for the last few years. That
being the case, I'm not entirely sure what you mean by a 'new list'.
2. Yes, Bach's tuning has been discussed for years on this list. That
is not the same thing as discussing Werck III, however - they are not
the same thing. Werck III is one of the competing theories, no more or
less. The present discussion, to which I was referring, is precisely
what I called it.
3. What old, tired theories do I hold? When have I ever suggested that
ET was the correct tuning for Bach?

--

Patrick: I'd like more details of that. Precisely what 'adaptive
tuning' under what circumstances led to what 'awful results'?

Johnny: When you perform in WIII, it is best to start pitches right
on pitch, rather than to swoop from below or above. This directional
attack is quite common among modern players. However, something about
doing anything in that portamento sense makes for a nauseous
sensation. This happened to us with Brandenberg #4. After the first
five measures, or so, everything leveled out.

Patrick: Oh, dear. At least now I understand why you're dismissing my
ideas - my use of the term 'adaptive' seems to have been a mistake.
What I mean by "adaptive" is simply that there isn't a set,
unchangeable frequency defined for each note in the scale. For a note
to vary in pitch as it is sounded, unless dictated by the music (eg
glissando or vibrato) is in my opinion a mistake. Adaptive tuning, to
me, simply means that the tuning of a note depends on harmonic
context. A good enough singer can hit the appropriate pitch
immediately, and a singer who isn't good enough either improves
quickly or leaves the choir (I improved quickly).

--

Patrick: I have sung Bach many times in a small choir (perhaps a
dozen members on
average) in what I could only describe as adaptive JI, and I have
never encountered anything which I would describe as "awful results".

Johnny: May I ask, was this in ET? This makes sense in ET, and I'm
sure your singing groups is melodious and rich. If you have never
sung a large work in WIII, but only in ET, then it is unlikely you
will understand what I am getting at. Sorry.

Patrick: Except when we had to sing with the organ, we never sang in
ET. On the other hand, we never sang any other temperament at all (and
at the time I had barely even heard of WIII). We didn't bother to give
a name to what you would probably refer to as adaptive JI - we were
aware that we weren't singing 'piano tuning', but we just sang
properly in tune (with some direction from our highly talented
choirmaster where necessary). For what it's worth, I'm not surprised
if a choir had trouble singing in a temperament other than ET.

--

Johnny: And I am only talking about Bach. I would love to hear about
specific a cappella Bach, music intended sung without Continuo. Could
you help?

Patrick: I'm afraid not. I left that choir at the end of 2005, and
left most of the sheet music behind. Why is it that you restrict your
enquiry to a cappella Bach, though? My initial point was that the
tuning of the continuo does not dictate the tuning of other parts, and
so far you have not even addressed it.

--

Patrick: In light of the source I quote above, it seems rather
plausible that that "aesthetic of the past" bears a close resemblance
to "modern" practice.

Johnny: There is much that happened before Helmoltz. Even if
Helmholtz had the musicianly skills to determine what was being done
by musicians, this is WAY too late for Bach.

Patrick: What happened before Helmholtz, then? Specifically, what
happened before Delezenne? What exactly was Helmholtz missing?
Delezenne's results are quite straight-forward, as are Helmholtz's own
- how much musicianship is required to determine the pitches of notes
in a scale played by someone else? Can you offer some evidence on any
of this, to support your own assertions or to contradict my own?

Regards,
Patrick

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "p_heddles" <p_heddles@> wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, I've a general question for you and for the other list
> > members: what *is* the ultimate aim of tuning? What is it that makes
> > people like you and me devote so much time and energy to the subject?
>
> I'm interested in tuning theory just as an area of study, but to me it
> is also the inspiration and driving force behind what I compose. I
> often get ideas by thinking about how to compose something in a
> particular tuning, with its peculiar characteristics. The ocean of
> tuning possibilies is immense, and being a Captian Cook on the sea of
> tuning allows me to cease worrying about being original and concentrate
> on being as good as I can contrive.

Fair enough. I understand the allure of uncharted waters.

Patrick: No, Johnny. What I have seen on this list recently is an
often-heated debate on the merits of Werck III as the single correct
tuning for Bach's music, with you on one side and everyone else on the
other. I may not post often, but I do read most of what others post on
this list (and have done for a few years now).

Johnny: No Patrick, WIII has always been part of discussions about Bach on
this List, at least since I have been a correspondent (ten years now?). This
is the free exchange of ideas in the service of the truth. In part, it
stems from my early research while a grad student at Columbia University. I
wrote a paper called "Bach's Tuning" and have used my resources to experiment. I
am presenting my conclusions. It doesn't really matter if no one agrees
with me, since that is the whole reason I passionately respond to the issues
that people bring up. I'm shining a light.

Please, let us return to the issues. Bach works today in any tuning because
he is Bach, the consummate composer. However, if Bach used a single WT for
his greatest music, and it offered a new dimension to his music, a passionate
musician would seek it out and use it. My idea is that Bach's music needs
to be understood in its cultural context. Throwing in personal likes of
moderns moves further from the concern stated above.

One thing now seems very clear; people are very emotional about this. One
thing I cannot accept is the poor treatment given Andreas Werckmeister and his
writings. He was a good man. If not for him, who knows how music would be
different. For about 8 years, this List has been following the thread of
WIII for Bach. The bad treatment I get, and other people on this List, and
others on other Lists, get from speaking their mind with good intentions is
example enough of what Werckmeister went through. Yes, I guess you could say he
is a musical hero of mine.

And while I agree with you, Patrick, that Bach did not use ET, other WTs are
rare (noodles) to non-existent (meantone).

Patrick: Adaptive tuning, to
me, simply means that the tuning of a note depends on harmonic
context. A good enough singer can hit the appropriate pitch
immediately, and a singer who isn't good enough either improves
quickly or leaves the choir (I improved quickly).

Johnny: This is not about skills, it is about an old tradition that has been
buried by musicologists. I can speak towards NYC, but there are lots of
other places out there, and I await to hear of anything else. Other than
released recordings, there is only hearsay that has been presented. WIII does not
do well with too much harmonic context. I did what I could as alto recorder
soloist in the aforementioned "Brandenberg #2."

I'm not sure it's related, but when 18 year old Bach was adjudicating the
Arnstadt organ in 1703 tuned by Wender, reputedly in WIII, there was only one
tuning published for chromatic playing, even if others were thought about by
some individuals. The question I raise is whether WIII sufficed for Bach as
appropriate for his chromatic music.

--

Patrick: For what it's worth, I'm not surprised
if a choir had trouble singing in a temperament other than ET.

Johnny: Sometimes people with perfect pitch have trouble singing non-ET for
the first time. They seem to snap into the old positions much like an old
piano that has been retuned snaps back to its familiar pitches (positions).
Most people have no trouble, at least in the sense that there is no need for
any extra rehearsals.
--

Patrick: Why is it that you restrict your
enquiry to a cappella Bach, though? My initial point was that the
tuning of the continuo does not dictate the tuning of other parts, and
so far you have not even addressed it.

Johnny: I asked about a cappella because there is no keyboard. Contrary to
your experience of adaptive JI, I do not believe that is what Bach did. The
tuning WIII virtually prohibits it. With 4 major thirds 6 cents apart, and
other intervals similarly 6 cents apart, there seems to be a requirement for
a different performance practice for WIII. Please consider this as WIII
specific when I write about Bach.

Before Helmholtz, there was plenty, all sorts of meantone, extended meantone
(with extra notes played by non-fixed instruments), idiosyncratics,
approximations (even to ET, no doubt), variants by Werckmeister. However,
Werckmeister is the first to describe a full circle of 12 major and minor keys that
were equally usable, and that mirrored many of the other tunings, including just
and pythagorean and ET.

--

Regards,
Patrick

Regards to you, Patrick

p_heddles wrote:

> Incidentally, I've a general question for you and for the other list
> members: what *is* the ultimate aim of tuning? What is it that makes
> people like you and me devote so much time and energy to the subject?

Tuning is a musical resource, and one that (unlike orchestration, say), there hasn't been much written that you can easily find outside of groups like this. Back when I was writing in 12-ET, I found myself drawn to unusual scales, trying to explore areas of tonality that were more exotic than the kind of harmony that's generally taught in music theory classes. I'd heard a performance by Owen Jorgensen demonstrating some of the different historical temperaments, along with his unusual "5 and 7" temperament, with the white keys tuned in 7-ET and the black keys in 5-ET. I also became interested in the gamelan music of Indonesia and ran across a copy of Colin McPhee's _Music in Bali_ in the university library. So it was only natural that I started examining different systems of tuning and using them in my own music.

It was around that time that Wendy Carlos' album _Beauty in the Beast_ came out, which was really the thing that convinced me of the vast unexplored potentials in the area of musical tuning. It even featured an excerpt of authentic Balinese gamelan music arranged for the digital synthesizer! Later, Easley Blackwood's _Microtonal_ album (which I found out about from Scott R. Wilkinson's book _Tuning In_) convinced me that even the "bad" tunings which look unimpressive on paper have their own distinct character which can create particular moods that don't work as well in other tunings.

The CDs I have of music in historical tunings sound notably better to me than the modern 12-ET tuning for that style of music. I also collect CDs of music from around the world, which offer a variety of interesting scales and tunings. But that barely begins to scratch the surface of the possibilities, so I started getting interested in the theory behind it all.

>Patrick: Non-fretted strings can, in the hands of a reasonably
skilled player, play fully chromatically - as far as I'm aware, they
also use adaptive harmonic tuning by default.

>Johnny: Yes, but MODERN string players. We have been exploring
Werckmeister III tuning which has 39
different intervals, some no more than 6 cents apart.

>Patrick: No, Johnny. What I have seen on this list recently is an
often-heated debate on the merits of Werck III as the single correct
tuning for Bach's music, with you on one side and everyone else on the
other. I may not post often, but I do read most of what others post on
this list (and have done for a few years now).

>Johnny: No Patrick, WIII has always been part of discussions about
Bach on this List, at least since I have been a correspondent (ten
years now?). This is the free exchange of ideas in the service of the
truth. In part, it stems from my early research while a grad student
at Columbia University. I wrote a paper called "Bach's Tuning" and
have used my resources to experiment. I am presenting my conclusions.
It doesn't really matter if no one agrees with me, since that is the
whole reason I passionately respond to the issues that people bring
up. I'm shining a light.

>Patrick: OK, let's back up a little. I've finally found the missing
context, and this particular point in our exchange suddenly makes a
lot more sense. I do apologise for getting sidetracked.
You make a distinction between modern and Bach-era string players.
Given the evidence I have presented from roughly the half-way point
between that time and our own, on what basis do you dismiss the
possibiliy of non-WIII tuning for fretless strings playing Bach's
music in Bach's time? For that matter, on what basis do you dismiss
the possibility of non-WIII tuning for other chromatic instruments
playing/singing Bach's music in Bach's time?

Yes Johnny, your credentials are impressive. However, I think we have
established by now that no one on this list is willing to accept your
conclusions blindly simply out of respect for you (which I do have, by
the way). Even if I were credulous enough to accept the conclusions of
experts uncritically, there are other experts here and they disagree
with you in this case. By all means present your conclusions, but
don't expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't provide
sufficient supporting evidence.

--

>Johnny: if Bach used a single WT for his greatest music

>Patrick: He did not. His a cappella Chorales alone make a mockery of
that idea.

--

>Johnny: My idea is that Bach's music needs to be understood in its
cultural context. Throwing in personal likes of moderns moves further
from the concern stated above.

>Patrick: I agree. This does not explain, however, why you seem to be
so obsessed with a single fragment of that cultural context. Your
personal fixation on WIII is a 'personal like' of a modern - no more
and no less, irrespective of how many years' research you have devoted
to it. It is entirely valid to suggest WIII as an appropriate tuning
for some of Bach's music, and I might well agree with you on that. It
is absurd, however, to insist that it is the only 'correct' tuning for
any and all music written by Bach.

--

>Johnny: One thing I cannot accept is the poor treatment given Andreas
Werckmeister and his writings. He was a good man. If not for him,
who knows how music would be different.

>Patrick: Please, drop the persecution complex. I don't know the
history of Andreas Werckmeister, but I have not yet seen anyone here
or elsewhere dismiss either him or his writings. We merely object to
your insistence upon a particular tuning of his as the only correct
tuning for any of Bach's music. You yourself are giving "poor
treatment" to all of the other tunings he published, by dismissing
them out of hand.

--

>Johnny: And while I agree with you, Patrick, that Bach did not use
ET, other WTs are rare (noodles) to non-existent (meantone).

>Patrick: What about Werckmeister's other temperaments? What about
non-tempered tunings? Werckmeister himself said that certain of his
other tunings were more appropriate than WIII in some cases, and at
least some of Bach's music was never intended to be performed in a
tempered tuning at all.

--

>Patrick: Adaptive tuning, to me, simply means that the tuning of a
note depends on harmonic context. A good enough singer can hit the
appropriate pitch immediately, and a singer who isn't good enough
either improves quickly or leaves the choir (I improved quickly).

>Johnny: This is not about skills, it is about an old tradition that
has been buried by musicologists.

>Patrick: I was merely dispelling your apparent misconception that
"adaptive tuning" somehow meant sliding up or down to a note. It does
not. And what "old tradition" are you talking about?

--

>Patrick: For what it's worth, I'm not surprised
if a choir had trouble singing in a temperament other than ET.

>Johnny: Sometimes people with perfect pitch have trouble singing
non-ET for the first time. They seem to snap into the old positions
much like an old piano that has been retuned snaps back to its
familiar pitches (positions). Most people have no trouble, at least
in the sense that there is no need for any extra rehearsals.

>Patrick: You missed my distinction between "temperament other than
ET" and "non-ET tuning". Temperaments are by definition unnatural - ET
comes easily to a singer because we're all immersed in it, but I've
never yet heard a choir sing in a temperament other than ET. I'd be
quite surprised if they managed it without significant trouble, and
I'd be very interested to see a Fourier analysis of what pitches
they're actually singing while singing with WIII-tuned instruments.

--

>Patrick: Why is it that you restrict your
enquiry to a cappella Bach, though? My initial point was that the
tuning of the continuo does not dictate the tuning of other parts, and
so far you have not even addressed it.

>Johnny: I asked about a cappella because there is no keyboard.
Contrary to your experience of adaptive JI, I do not believe that is
what Bach did. The tuning WIII virtually prohibits it. With 4 major
thirds 6 cents apart, and other intervals similarly 6 cents apart,
there seems to be a requirement for a different performance practice
for WIII. Please consider this as WIII specific when I write about Bach.

Before Helmholtz, there was plenty, all sorts of meantone, extended
meantone (with extra notes played by non-fixed instruments),
idiosyncratics, approximations (even to ET, no doubt), variants by
Werckmeister. However, Werckmeister is the first to describe a full
circle of 12 major and minor keys that were equally usable, and that
mirrored many of the other tunings, including just and pythagorean and ET.

>Patrick: So your entire response presupposes that you are correct? I
realise that you are a specialist in tuning rather than debating, but
surely you can see that as a fallacy.

You refer to "what Bach did". I remind you that the tuning of Bach's
music in his time depended on the performers rather than the composer.
I exclude keyboard-only pieces, for which Bach could indeed set the
tuning. Even for pieces involving keyboard, he could tune the keyboard
but not the other instruments; they merely needed to use tuning(s)
which fitted with the keyboard's tuning at each moment. This does not
require a complete fixed tuning system which is entirely compatible
with WIII.

You mention a number of developments before Helmholtz. None of them
seems remotely relevant to the JI that Delezenne and Helmholtz both
observed. Given that JI is the original tuning in Western music and
that all 'standard' temperaments (ie excluding the exotic tunings
played with by other list members) are fundamentally just attempts to
solve the comma problem in JI, on what basis do you suggest that JI
was abandoned sometime before Bach's time and then revived between
Bach's time and Delezenne's? That strikes me as wildly improbable,
especially in the absence of supporting evidence.

Regards,
Patrick

Hi Patrick,

>Patrick: OK, let's back up a little. I've finally found the missing
context, and this particular point in our exchange suddenly makes a
lot more sense. I do apologise for getting sidetracked.
You make a distinction between modern and Bach-era string players.
Given the evidence I have presented from roughly the half-way point
between that time and our own, on what basis do you dismiss the
possibiliy of non-WIII tuning for fretless strings playing Bach's
music in Bach's time? For that matter, on what basis do you dismiss
the possibility of non-WIII tuning for other chromatic instruments
playing/singing Bach's music in Bach's time?

Johnny: I cut some things down for the sake of readability and to focus on
important points. There are other distinctions that you may not have made.
Please do try to remain cool as you reassess your musical beliefs. And
please, do not fear for my own. My path is rather complete by now.
I had written:
>Johnny: if Bach used a single WT for his greatest music

>Patrick: He did not. His a cappella Chorales alone make a mockery of
that idea.

Johnny: Um, sir, why a mockery? I told you I was unfamiliar with Bach’s a
cappella music, and that Bach could use different tunings for particular
ocassions (e.g., music for lute, music for meantone). Even Wyschnegradsky wrote a
piece in 31-tone ET. Could you title an example or two of Bach works a
cappella for me to look at? I would appreciate it.

>Johnny: My idea is that Bach's music needs to be understood in its
cultural context. Throwing in personal likes of moderns moves further
from the concern stated above.

>Patrick: It is absurd, however, to insist that it is the only 'correct'
tuning for
any and all music written by Bach.
Johnny: and for the nteenth time, I do not. Somehow, it seems further
discussion would be deeply improved if you had a chance to actually hear what I am
talking about.

>Patrick: What about Werckmeister's other temperaments? What about
non-tempered tunings? Werckmeister himself said that certain of his
other tunings were more appropriate than WIII in some cases, and at
least some of Bach's music was never intended to be performed in a
tempered tuning at all.

Johnny: Yes, use of other Werckmeister is certainly a possibility, except
when Bach goes into the well temperament area. This is where a Bb is the
same pitch as an A#. If there are more pitches written than there are keys to
play them, the music is deemed in well temperament. Werckmeister gave a
single variant for chromatic writing. Patrick, don’t you understand there was a
single tuning for the kind of composer that Bach was? Sure, Bach could use
the others, or other tunings, but the timing is such that WIII is a natural.
Most important, modern music has set a default of ET for Bach, which as you
said, is all you know. If one could accept that WIII (which all reasonably
agrees works for Bach) was as good a historic possibility as anything else,
because it WAS disseminated throughout, and humbly so, then the new default for
recording and “hearing” Bach would be a WT (maybe even WIII).
There are no recordings anyone knows of in Europe of Bach in anything other
than ET (and rare spurts by Ton Koopman). There is little in the US. I
think this is an important development for culture to take in drawing closer to
Bach. ET is too off the mark.

I’m not even sure you took me at my meaning when I wrote:
Johnny: However, Werckmeister is the first to describe a full
circle of 12 major and minor keys that were equally usable, and that
mirrored many of the other tunings, including just and pythagorean and ET.

>Patrick: So your entire response presupposes that you are correct?
Johnny: What I wrote in the paragraph above is historical, its not opinion.
If you had some more familiarity with WIII you would understand that each
key is completely different from the other; they have different size
intervals.
Patrick: You refer to "what Bach did". I remind you that the tuning of
Bach's
music in his time depended on the performers rather than the composer.
Johnny: Ah, it would be so much easier if you could just agree with you.
Alas, I do not believe the performer influenced pitch as freely today as they
did for Bach. I do not believe that if they used WIII in the larger pieces,
passions, etc., there would be enough wiggle room to do much. Bach was the
real control freak in this conversation. I see WT as providing an illusion
for the keyboard to appear as expressive melodically as a violin.
Patrick: Even for pieces involving keyboard, he could tune the keyboard
but not the other instruments; they merely needed to use tuning(s)
which fitted with the keyboard's tuning at each moment. This does not
require a complete fixed tuning system which is entirely compatible
with WIII.

Johnny: I think it does for woodwinds. It’s a really big deal if you can’t
get all the pitches that the keyboard has. With the confidence of matching
the keyboard exactly, a player can provide another dimension. Mozart wrote
in a letter of a soprano who could stay an exact quartertone above the entire
orchestra, and that this got her the big money!

You’ve asked about how tuning started in Just and then went out of Just and
then came back for Helmholtz. There is much material being written about
this, more all the time. But sticking to topic, JS Bach has always been
recognized as the master of temperament, someone who insisted that all his major
thirds be tuned sharp!
All best to us in our discoveries, Johnny

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "p_heddles" <p_heddles@...> wrote:

> Given that JI is the original tuning in Western music...

What do you mean by that? Pythagorean? When does Western music start?

>Johnny: I cut some things down for the sake of readability and to
focus on important points. There are other distinctions that you may
not have made. Please do try to remain cool as you reassess your
musical beliefs. And please, do not fear for my own. My path is
rather complete by now.

>Patrick: Yeah, no worries. Certain things had became a little unclear
in the absence of that context, so I restored it temporarily. For the
record, I am remaining cool - you're not used to the way I use the
language, and apparently it sounds angry to you. Understandable, but
not correct.

--

>Johnny: if Bach used a single WT for his greatest music

>Patrick: He did not. His a cappella Chorales alone make a mockery of
that idea.

>Johnny: Um, sir, why a mockery? I told you I was unfamiliar with
Bach's a cappella music, and that Bach could use different tunings for
particular ocassions (e.g., music for lute, music for meantone). Even
Wyschnegradsky wrote a piece in 31-tone ET. Could you title an
example or two of Bach works a cappella for me to look at? I would
appreciate it.

>Patrick: To be honest, I'm no expert on Bach's a cappella chorales
myself. My point, and the reason I stated this unequivocally before
looking into specific chorales, is that no choir would have sung an a
cappella piece in any temperament at all before ET became so
pervasive. To a singer such as myself, the concept is absurd.

I suggest "185 Bach Chorales" (BWV 254). It is available from CPDL at
http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/185_Bach_Chorales%2C_BWV_254_%28Johann_Sebastian_Bach%29

--

>Johnny: My idea is that Bach's music needs to be understood in its
cultural context. Throwing in personal likes of moderns moves further
from the concern stated above.

>Patrick: It is absurd, however, to insist that it is the only
'correct' tuning for any and all music written by Bach.

>Johnny: and for the nteenth time, I do not. Somehow, it seems
further discussion would be deeply improved if you had a chance to
actually hear what I am talking about.

>Patrick: So precisely what claim are you making for WIII? From
reading this discussion and similar discussions in the past, my
understanding was that you claimed WIII as the only correct tuning for
Bach's music. If this is not your claim, it would be very helpful for
you to state unequivocally what claims you do and do not make for
WIII. And why would my hearing it make the slightest difference? I
have never suggested that Bach's music doesn't sound fine in WIII.

--

>Johnny: Patrick, don't you understand there was a single tuning for
the kind of composer that Bach was?

>Patrick: In short, no. I understand what you mean, and I disagree. In
the absence of solid evidence, I consider such a claim silly.

--

>Johnny: Most important, modern music has set a default of ET for
Bach, which as you said, is all you know.

>Patrick: So you seek merely to change the default tuning for Bach's
music from ET to WIII? I have no strong objection to that, although I
will be astounded if it happens. I do suggest you take more care in
stating the limitations of your intent.

I said what, exactly? Please be a little more careful about what you
ascribe to me - I never said that I had not heard Bach in any tuning
outside ET. I merely said I had not heard it in any temperament other
than ET. There is a big difference between the two statements, given
my stated opinion that many Bach pieces were never intended to be
performed in any tempered tuning at all.

--

>Johnny: What I wrote in the paragraph above is historical, its not
opinion. If you had some more familiarity with WIII you would
understand that each key is completely different from the other; they
have different size intervals.

>Patrick: This is a point still under debate here. You modified the
point on the basis of itself. This is a logical fallacy known as
circular reasoning, regardless of how sure you are. First prove the
point, and then use it.

--

>Patrick: You refer to "what Bach did". I remind you that the tuning
of Bach's music in his time depended on the performers rather than the
composer.

>Johnny: Ah, it would be so much easier if you could just agree with
you. Alas, I do not believe the performer influenced pitch as freely
today as they did for Bach. I do not believe that if they used WIII
in the larger pieces, passions, etc., there would be enough wiggle
room to do much. Bach was the real control freak in this
conversation. I see WT as providing an illusion for the keyboard to
appear as expressive melodically as a violin.

Patrick: I think you've made a few substitution errrors here, and I
can't be sure what you mean. Could you please restate this paragraph?

--

>Patrick: Even for pieces involving keyboard, he could tune the
keyboard but not the other instruments; they merely needed to use
tuning(s) which fitted with the keyboard's tuning at each moment. This
does not require a complete fixed tuning system which is entirely
compatible with WIII.

>Johnny: I think it does for woodwinds. It's a really big deal if
you can't get all the pitches that the keyboard has. With the
confidence of matching the keyboard exactly, a player can provide
another dimension. Mozart wrote in a letter of a soprano who could
stay an exact quartertone above the entire orchestra, and that this
got her the big money!

>Patrick: Haven't we already established that woodwinds are capable of
fully chromatic playing? Do you have any evidence of woodwind
instruments tuned in WIII in Bach's time? Mozart's letter is
unsurprising - a musician with such pitch sensitivity and accuracy
would be highly prized.

--

Johnny: You've asked about how tuning started in Just and then went
out of Just and then came back for Helmholtz. There is much material
being written about this, more all the time. But sticking to topic,
JS Bach has always been recognized as the master of temperament,
someone who insisted that all his major thirds be tuned sharp!

>Patrick: Actually, I dispute that it happened at all for instruments
capable of fully chromatic playing (excluding those occasions when
they played with fixed-pitch instruments, of course). I thought I had
made myself clear on this point.

And did Bach ever insist that a choir sing a cappella in tempered
tuning? If not, then that little factoid is irrelevant.

Regards,
Patrick

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "p_heddles" <p_heddles@> wrote:
>
> > Given that JI is the original tuning in Western music...
>
> What do you mean by that? Pythagorean? When does Western music start?
>

I mean tuning in which the frequencies of different notes are in
simple ratios to each other.

I wouldn't presume to define the beginning of Western music, but I
think this is a universal thing - I restricted it to Western music
simply because I don't know much about other music traditions.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "p_heddles" <p_heddles@...> wrote:

> I mean tuning in which the frequencies of different notes are in
> simple ratios to each other.
>
> I wouldn't presume to define the beginning of Western music, but I
> think this is a universal thing - I restricted it to Western music
> simply because I don't know much about other music traditions.

It's not so clear; gamelan music, for instance, depends on *not* having
things in simple ratios. If you go back as far as you possibly can in
Western music, you reach Mesopotamia. While Joe Monzo has an (in my
opinion very way out there) opinion that this involved 12-equal, it is
at least striking that a scrap of tuning instruction we have seems to
be describing the diatonic scale in meantone. This is because it tunes
a chain of fifths, but in such a way that you get a *circle* of thirds,
where *all* of the thirds have to be tuned so as to sound consonant.
This can only be done in some (probably somewhat irregular) version of
meantone tuning, and once you've done it, you can for example have two-
part harmony in parallel thirds or sixths, with fifths and fourths
tossed in. Or of course fauxbordon or counterpoint or what have you,
but I'd stick with the simplest explanation.

Hi Gene and p_heddles,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "p_heddles" <p_heddles@> wrote:
>
> > I mean tuning in which the frequencies of different notes are in
> > simple ratios to each other.
> >
> > I wouldn't presume to define the beginning of Western music, but I
> > think this is a universal thing - I restricted it to Western music
> > simply because I don't know much about other music traditions.
>
> It's not so clear; gamelan music, for instance, depends on
> *not* having things in simple ratios. If you go back as far
> as you possibly can in Western music, you reach Mesopotamia.
> While Joe Monzo has an (in my opinion very way out there)
> opinion that this involved 12-equal, it is at least striking
> that a scrap of tuning instruction we have seems to
> be describing the diatonic scale in meantone. This is because
> it tunes a chain of fifths, but in such a way that you get
> a *circle* of thirds, where *all* of the thirds have to be
> tuned so as to sound consonant. This can only be done in some
> (probably somewhat irregular) version of meantone tuning, and
> once you've done it, you can for example have two-part harmony
> in parallel thirds or sixths, with fifths and fourths
> tossed in. Or of course fauxbordon or counterpoint or what
> have you, but I'd stick with the simplest explanation.

Gene, please be careful about the claims i make on my webpage:
my opinion is that Sumerian tuning *may* have involved 12-edo,
not that it *did*. The page is clearly titled "*Speculations*
on Sumerian Tuning", and i don't represent it as anything more
than my own speculations.

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/sumerian/sumerian-tuning.htm

And here's my (perhaps more interesting) follow-up:

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/sumerian/simplified-sumerian-tuning.htm

What's clear to me is that the Sumerians had a system of
mathematical calculation that was advanced/clever/sophisticated
enough to have been able to obtain a very good approximation
to 12-edo using measured string-lengths.

However, the *original* tuning was undoubtedly pythagorean,
even granting your very interesting, and i think very plausible,
interpretation of the "Babylonian Tuning Tablet" as describing
a meantone. Certainly, if the Sumerians were clever enough
to calculate 12-edo, they would have been able to figure
out the meantone concept too.

However, this tablet dates from c.1600 BC, and Sumerian
culture had already been highly developed over 1400 years
before that time, and the Sumerian civilization itself had
been destroyed (and subsequently appropriated) by the
Babylonians 600 years earlier -- in other words, the
oldest evidence we have is already quite late in answer to
this question.

Hopefully, if the Iraq War hasn't yet destroyed them, someday
the actual Sumerian tablets which describe tuning will one day
be unearthed and deciphered. My guess is that we will find some
form of pythagorean tuning to be the "original Western tuning".

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@...> wrote:

> Gene, please be careful about the claims i make on my webpage:
> my opinion is that Sumerian tuning *may* have involved 12-edo,
> not that it *did*. The page is clearly titled "*Speculations*
> on Sumerian Tuning", and i don't represent it as anything more
> than my own speculations.

Sorry, I seem to have annoyed both Manuel and now you by using less
than careful language.

> Hopefully, if the Iraq War hasn't yet destroyed them, someday
> the actual Sumerian tablets which describe tuning will one day
> be unearthed and deciphered. My guess is that we will find some
> form of pythagorean tuning to be the "original Western tuning".

That would be wonderful, but I'd also like to get scores. There is,
however, a huge amount of material yet to be uncovered or translated,
so hope remains.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "p_heddles" <p_heddles@> wrote:
>
> > I mean tuning in which the frequencies of different notes are in
> > simple ratios to each other.
> >
> > I wouldn't presume to define the beginning of Western music, but I
> > think this is a universal thing - I restricted it to Western music
> > simply because I don't know much about other music traditions.
>
> It's not so clear; gamelan music, for instance, depends on *not* having
> things in simple ratios. If you go back as far as you possibly can in
> Western music, you reach Mesopotamia. While Joe Monzo has an (in my
> opinion very way out there) opinion that this involved 12-equal, it is
> at least striking that a scrap of tuning instruction we have seems to
> be describing the diatonic scale in meantone. This is because it tunes
> a chain of fifths, but in such a way that you get a *circle* of thirds,
> where *all* of the thirds have to be tuned so as to sound consonant.
> This can only be done in some (probably somewhat irregular) version of
> meantone tuning, and once you've done it, you can for example have two-
> part harmony in parallel thirds or sixths, with fifths and fourths
> tossed in. Or of course fauxbordon or counterpoint or what have you,
> but I'd stick with the simplest explanation.
>

I do apologise; I was only going back 500-1000 years. Oh, and I was
consciously excluding gamelan music, since I don't really consider
that a part of Western music (I may be wrong there).

Dear Patrick,

BTW, where do you live? (just curious). I thought it better to paraphrase to make our interactions more comprehensible, or at least more readable.

My “claim” is that Bach’s well tempered music is only recorded in ET as a default. I think it is time to change the default. My suggestion is WIII because of its historical pre-eminence.

You asked, “And why would my hearing it make the slightest difference? I
have never suggested that Bach's music doesn't sound fine in WIII.” My answer is that it does make a difference. I remain unclear, however, if you have ever heard WIII for Bach. If not, then you may have some good listening ahead, if not a different dimension of listening. ET gives too little of the full impression of WT to my ears.

Please understand, this is NOT about a cappella, not about exceptions. This is about clearly well tempered compositions with keyboards. With a WT, each key is different. For example:

WIII C major:
0 90 192 294 390 498 588 696 792 888 996 1092

WIII C# major:
0 102 204 300 408 498 606 702 798 906 1002 1110

This should help you see that if one starts on a different tonic, the measurements change. Performance practice in WIII with ensembles has led to some interesting results. Please, give a listen to some WIII if possible because it will aid in understanding what I had said. In other words, I don’t know what you mean by substitution errors. I repeat the paragraph in question:

Johnny: I do not believe the performer influenced pitch as freely
today as they did for Bach. I do not believe that if they used WIII
in the larger pieces, passions, etc., there would be enough wiggle
room to do much. Bach was the real control freak in this
conversation. I see WT as providing an illusion for the keyboard to
appear as expressive melodically as a violin.

While woodwinds can play different pitches, they reference the notes of the keyboard to reference before they can attempt anything else. A player who cannot play the exact notes (and this in itself is challenging to a player) is not someone you want improvising harmonies. In WIII, the situation is much more strict. The keys are added to woodwinds to have them play in ET. The actual tone holes are bored on the instrument with tendencies that point to purer diatonic keys. Unfortunately, instruments really don’t retain their tuning over 300 years. Couple that with reeds that don’t exist any longer, and there really is no reliable way to determine what interval they played.

I hope I have been helpful.

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.

Hi Gene,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@> wrote:
>
> > Gene, please be careful about the claims i make on my webpage:
> > my opinion is that Sumerian tuning *may* have involved 12-edo,
> > not that it *did*. The page is clearly titled "*Speculations*
> > on Sumerian Tuning", and i don't represent it as anything more
> > than my own speculations.
>
> Sorry, I seem to have annoyed both Manuel and now you by using
> less than careful language.

No worries ... you didn't annoy me -- i just want to make
sure that people don't get the idea that i'm claiming
something as a fact that was only just my own fantasy. :-)

> > Hopefully, if the Iraq War hasn't yet destroyed them, someday
> > the actual Sumerian tablets which describe tuning will one day
> > be unearthed and deciphered. My guess is that we will find some
> > form of pythagorean tuning to be the "original Western tuning".
>
> That would be wonderful, but I'd also like to get scores.

Yes, that would be great if they exist ... but i personally
think that's a really big "if". However, the Sumerians were
awfully clever, so maybe they did figure out a way to notate
scores. In fact, i wouldn't be surprised if it turns out that
the method used by the Hurrians (in the famous Hurrian Hymn)
was the same as one developed by the Sumerians.

> There is, however, a huge amount of material yet to be
> uncovered or translated, so hope remains.

That hopefully is true -- but believe me, the Sumerian
tablets that haven't been destroyed have rapidly been
looted by the locals to be sold on Ebay.

They know that the Sumerian stuff is far more valuable
to collectors than anything that came later, and of course
the Sumerian pieces lie at the bottom -- so the diggers
toss aside everything lying above, thus destroying thousands
of years of historical context that could help archaeologists
piece together the whole story.

I posted links to internet articles about this several
years ago, not too long after the war first started.
Here's an article from only 3 months ago, indicating
that the problem persists:

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/10/6f5f571b-f0f8-4ff9-899f-b8341676574b.html

One unfortunate quote from that article:

"There has been the looting of sites on an industrial scale.
Some of the greatest Sumerian sites have gone."

If we want to discuss this particular issue more, we
should do it on metatuning.

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

>Johnny: BTW, where do you live? (just curious).I thought it better to
paraphrase to make our interactions more comprehensible, or at least
more readable.

>Patrick: I live about 50k outside Melbourne, Australia. I understand
why you paraphrased and cut text, but I found it helpful to restore
them for now.

--

Johnny: My "claim" is that Bach´s well tempered music is only recorded
in ET as a default. I think it is time to change the default. My
suggestion is WIII because of its historical pre-eminence.

>Patrick: Yes, the default tuning for Bach's tempered music is ET.
That's because the default tuning for very nearly everything is ET
nowadays. I have no major objection to the aim you state here,
although I doubt you'll have any success with it. You have made
stronger claims, however - "there was a single tuning for the kind of
composer that Bach was", for instance.

--

>Johnny: My answer is that it does make a difference. I remain
unclear, however, if you have ever heard WIII for Bach. If not, then
you may have some good listening ahead, if not a different dimension
of listening. ET gives too little of the full impression of WT to my ears.

>Patrick: Until yesterday I had never listened to a complete Bach
piece in WIII. Then I did so, in the course of preparing my acid test
(which I have posted on this list). Frankly, I'm not impressed.
Neither is anyone else, so far. I'd be really interested to know
whether you can even recognise WIII in that acid test.

--

>Johnny: Please understand, this is NOT about a cappella, not about
exceptions. This is about clearly well tempered compositions with
keyboards.

>Patrick: You know, you could have saved yourself a lot of debate by
stating that in the first place. I might still quibble with you over
the power of a continuo to dictate tuning, but the major substance of
my objection lies in Bach's a cappella music.

--

>Johnny: I don´t know what you mean by substitution errors.

>Patrick: Accidentally using the wrong word, eg "it would be so much
easier if you could just agree with you"

The really confusing sentence (since grammatically it looks like a
switch error) is "I do not believe the performer influenced pitch as
freely today as they did for Bach."

--

>Johnny: While woodwinds can play different pitches, they reference
the notes of the keyboard to reference before they can attempt
anything else. A player who cannot play the exact notes (and this in
itself is challenging to a player) is not someone you want improvising
harmonies. In WIII, the situation is much more strict. The keys are
added to woodwinds to have them play in ET. The actual tone holes are
bored on the instrument with tendencies that point to purer diatonic
keys. Unfortunately, instruments really don´t retain their tuning over
300 years. Couple that with reeds that don´t exist any longer, and
there really is no reliable way to determine what interval they played.

>Patrick: On what basis do you assume that woodwinds were playing in
WIII? What evidence do you have for this?

--

You have been helpful - I feel we have at least clarified the issues here.

Peace,
Patrick