... taking Werckmeister as a microtonalist seriously

One thing that puzzles me more and more is how some people (not just
Johnny, many harpsichordists too) select WIII out of all the tunings
published or mentioned by Werckmeister - and throw away the rest. When
there is no historical record which distinguishes between then, so far
as actual use was concerned.

We know Werckmeister had his pals, who might, or might not
(particularly in the case of Bendeler) have used one or other of his
tunings. But I don't know why anyone should assume that it must be
'III' rather than anything else.

I also don't know of any place in Werckmeister's writings where it
says that WIII is in some way better than all his other tunings. So
far as I can see, the only comment made to distinguish them is that
'IV' is suited for relatively diatonic playing; whereas 'III', and
possibly also 'V', are suited for chromatic. Number 'VI' is given a
particular boost as being 'in practice so correct that one can really
be satisfied with it'. The 1698 continuo tuning is advertised as
suitable for 'the diatonic-chromatic genus as it is most used today'.

Well, most of Brandenburg 2 is very diatonic, for example. So why
choose 'III' rather than 'IV' or 1698?

Even in his last work of 1707 where he talks about using ET, or some
tuning which is purer than ET in the most-used keys, all he says is
'And these [variations] may be tolerated in the temperaments contained
in my Monochord.' Nothing to imply that one of the temperaments is
more or less tolerable than another.

So, any historical clue at all that somehow, WIII exclusively was
intended, and his other schemes, however carefully worked out, simply
blowing smoke?

(Plus the question: how exactly does one tune WIII by ear? Where does
the schisma go?)

~~~T~~~

One theory is that WIII got a 'boost' because it was preset on Korg
tuners. Ditto Kirnberger.

Why Korg chose III over the rest remains a mystery, in that case.

Back to square 1 !

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
>
> One thing that puzzles me more and more is how some people (not just
> Johnny, many harpsichordists too) select WIII out of all the tunings
> published or mentioned by Werckmeister - and throw away the rest. When
> there is no historical record which distinguishes between then, so far
> as actual use was concerned.
>
> We know Werckmeister had his pals, who might, or might not
> (particularly in the case of Bendeler) have used one or other of his
> tunings. But I don't know why anyone should assume that it must be
> 'III' rather than anything else.
>
> I also don't know of any place in Werckmeister's writings where it
> says that WIII is in some way better than all his other tunings. So
> far as I can see, the only comment made to distinguish them is that
> 'IV' is suited for relatively diatonic playing; whereas 'III', and
> possibly also 'V', are suited for chromatic. Number 'VI' is given a
> particular boost as being 'in practice so correct that one can really
> be satisfied with it'. The 1698 continuo tuning is advertised as
> suitable for 'the diatonic-chromatic genus as it is most used today'.
>
> Well, most of Brandenburg 2 is very diatonic, for example. So why
> choose 'III' rather than 'IV' or 1698?
>
> Even in his last work of 1707 where he talks about using ET, or some
> tuning which is purer than ET in the most-used keys, all he says is
> 'And these [variations] may be tolerated in the temperaments contained
> in my Monochord.' Nothing to imply that one of the temperaments is
> more or less tolerable than another.
>
> So, any historical clue at all that somehow, WIII exclusively was
> intended, and his other schemes, however carefully worked out, simply
> blowing smoke?
>
> (Plus the question: how exactly does one tune WIII by ear? Where does
> the schisma go?)
>
> ~~~T~~~
>

Tom Dent: One thing that puzzles me more and more is how some people (not
just
Johnny, many harpsichordists too) select WIII out of all the tunings
published or mentioned by Werckmeister - and throw away the rest. When
there is no historical record which distinguishes between then, so far
as actual use was concerned.

Johnny: There is straight-forward musical information being transferred in
WIII for certain composers, JS Bach being one of them. I’m just being
honest.
Tom: We know Werckmeister had his pals, who might, or might not
(particularly in the case of Bendeler) have used one or other of his
tunings. But I don't know why anyone should assume that it must be
'III' rather than anything else.
Johnny: In part it is to have a default to ET. The ET version of Bach does
it no favors. Daniel indicated there was an abundance of WIII recordings.
Neil and Dave, there are only the ones I have already listed:
Kipnis, Koopman, Pechefsky, and Reinhard. These are preferable examples of
comparison to midi files.

WIII is the chromatic tuning, placed in an order of descriptions that gives
prestige to the chromatic composer. While the author does not claim to need
the full usage of all the 24 keys, he demonstrates that he admires them. I
know it is difficult for some to connect the dots the way I do, but that is
what this List is about. Put it out there.

Tom: I also don't know of any place in Werckmeister's writings where it
says that WIII is in some way better than all his other tunings.
Johnny: Throughout his entire life, Werckmeister favored the diatonic keys
for more just treatment as detailed in Misicalische Temperatur through the
monochords.
SNIP
Tom: Well, most of Brandenburg 2 is very diatonic, for example. So why
choose 'III' rather than 'IV' or 1698?

Johnny: It doesn’t make sense to shift between a lot of different tunings,
either. Brandenburg 2 is audibly influenced by WIII, and it works well.
There is a need for something to plug in as a default, and WIII deserves to be
that default, not ET, and not a modern speculation open to just anything.
That is not in the best interest of the music. The very meaning is deeper in
WIII to my ears. But it is not a tuning for everything, merely for the music
for which it was intended. The modern piano, with 3 strings per key, is not
a good instrument for WIII, accordingly.

Tom: Even in his last work of 1707 where he talks about using ET, or some
tuning which is purer than ET in the most-used keys, all he says is
'And these [variations] may be tolerated in the temperaments contained
in my Monochord.' Nothing to imply that one of the temperaments is
more or less tolerable than another.

Johnny: Couldn’t this be because each tuning as a location for its tonic
that simulates basic tunings and meantones? WIII could be almost just, almost
Pythagorean, almost ET, almost sixthcomma, etc. A chromatic composer would
naturally choose the chromatic choice, WIII.

Tom: So, any historical clue at all that somehow, WIII exclusively was
intended, and his other schemes, however carefully worked out, simply
blowing smoke?

Johnny: The historical clues are in Wender’s tunings in Arnstadt and
Muhlhausen. It continues in the keyboard usage for all Bach’s music, the great
preponderance of which is notated outside the meantone compass (Barbour). My
position is that there was a favorite way for JS to get around the keyboard for
full chromatic usage. It was certainly used by his uncle JC Bach, who was
likely the chromatic composer Werckmeister was thinking about. The use of WIII
is a good reason for sixth comma meantone, in the sense that it mirrors WIII
much better than quarter comma meantone.

Tom: (Plus the question: how exactly does one tune WIII by ear? Where does
the schisma go?)

~~~T~~~
Johnny: It is eminently tunable by ear. I have done so. The pure fifths
are easy enough. As for quarter comma flat fifths of 696 cents, I’m a modern
who hears it well. Bach then, it could have been anything, maybe a recorder?
Best, Johnny