Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning here it is! (championship listening test)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I took Brad's excellent advice and used the thornier fugue in Ab,
> WTC2. It does have nice qualities that demonstrate well different WTs.
>
> I eventually settled on the following list of temperaments:
>
> 12-equal
> Young

Which Young? - The one with six pure fifths, or the one with just
four? (I guess the former, since you talk of having two 'pyth's.)

> Werckmeister3
> Francis 'squiggle' (francis_r2-1.scl in the scala archive)
> Lehman 'squiggle' (of course, we have to have a 'squiggle war')
> One of my own temperament with a C-E, E-G#, G#-C based on
>
> 5/4 * 24/19 * 19/15 = 2/1 (johnson_temp in scala archives)
> 1/7-comma meantone
>

with G#-Eb 'wolf'??

> I settled on these because I wanted two 'pyth' temperaments (plenty of
> 81/64 action), two squiggles, and 2 'borderline' superpyth temps that
> nevertheless work reasonably well for Bach, with thirds close to
> 19/15....although 19/15 is larger than 81/64, it has a certain
> pleasant consonant resonance that I think 81/64 doesn't, (at least I
> hear it that way) so I rather like the 1/7-comma and 'johnson_temp'
> versions--see if you can identify them and if you agree.

Might I suggest that something is missing: a temperament with
undisputed historical credentials, but which doesn't have any 81/64
thirds.

For example 'Neidhardt I' (1724 Dorf) which has offsets

A 0 E -2 B -2 F# -2 C# 0 G# +2 Eb +2 Bb +2 F +4 C +6 G +4 D +2

or chromatically

C +6
C# 0
D +2
Eb +2
E -2
F +4
F# -2
G +4
G# +2
A 0
Bb +2
B -2

In terms of distribution of the sizes of thirds, Neidhardt is similar
to the 'squiggles', except a little nearer-equal (it only ever has 2
pure fifths in succession, never 3).

Having said that, though, I've listened to temperaments 'a' through
'e' and found nothing to object to. I thought 'a' was ET on first
listening ... a bit cardboardy. (Though, in practice, on a real
harpsichord, and certainly a clavichord, without 'modern' ET tuning
methods, one would probably get small deviations from ET which could
counteract this. That's a disadvantage of representing 18th century
'ET' by a synthesized version.) The others are somewhat more interesting.

I'm a bit distressed at not being able to get to grips with 1/7 comma
meantone!! Though it should be obvious enough in the Prelude.

... Just got to the Bbb = A major bit in 'f' and it sounds strikingly
different. Hmm.

~~~T~~~

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:

> Again---what do you like best and why. And of course, what do you
> think is what?

This is all very interesting, but the differences are so subtle that I'm not even going to try to guess this time which is which.

> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_a.mp3

This is a good one to start with. Not anything especially remarkable about it, but it's pleasant to listen to in this key. Probably one of the milder well-temperaments.

> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_b.mp3

I liked this one right off the bat for some reason. There's something appealing about it that I can't quite identify. I think it might be the Db that I like.

> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_c.mp3

This one sounds fairly plain. Nothing special about it. Most likely to be confused for ET.

> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_d.mp3

This is a nice solid tuning, maybe a little more delicate than example B, but Ab major is a pretty extreme key.

> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_e.mp3

Still pretty listenable, but I still think I prefer examples B and D. Something about this just seems a little out of place for this key, but I'm not quite sure what.

> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_f.mp3

This one seems quite different from the last two, better than example E at least. Actually sounds pretty similar to example B, but I still think I have a slight preference for B.

> http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_g.mp3

This seems like a pretty solid, effective tuning. I still like some of the others better, but if I listened to them in a different order I might have a different opinion.

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@dividebypi.com>

Hi Tom!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@> wrote:
> >
> > Hey,
> >
> > I took Brad's excellent advice and used the thornier fugue in Ab,
> > WTC2. It does have nice qualities that demonstrate well different WTs.
> >
> > I eventually settled on the following list of temperaments:
> >
> > 12-equal
> > Young
>
> Which Young? - The one with six pure fifths, or the one with just
> four? (I guess the former, since you talk of having two 'pyth's.)

Yes, the 6 5ths one.

>
> > Werckmeister3
> > Francis 'squiggle' (francis_r2-1.scl in the scala archive)
> > Lehman 'squiggle' (of course, we have to have a 'squiggle war')
> > One of my own temperament with a C-E, E-G#, G#-C based on
> >
> > 5/4 * 24/19 * 19/15 = 2/1 (johnson_temp in scala archives)
> > 1/7-comma meantone
> >
>
> with G#-Eb 'wolf'??

Yup...I just tried it on a whim--I was surprised how ok it sounded.

>
> > I settled on these because I wanted two 'pyth' temperaments (plenty of
> > 81/64 action), two squiggles, and 2 'borderline' superpyth temps that
> > nevertheless work reasonably well for Bach, with thirds close to
> > 19/15....although 19/15 is larger than 81/64, it has a certain
> > pleasant consonant resonance that I think 81/64 doesn't, (at least I
> > hear it that way) so I rather like the 1/7-comma and 'johnson_temp'
> > versions--see if you can identify them and if you agree.
>
>
> Might I suggest that something is missing: a temperament with
> undisputed historical credentials, but which doesn't have any 81/64
> thirds.
>
> For example 'Neidhardt I' (1724 Dorf) which has offsets
>

You must have never seen my posts about NeidhardtI with Johnny. I like
it, he doesn't think it's possible for Bach historically.
Nevertheless, I opted not to use it because I felt it was redundant
enough and only subtley different from others sonically.

> Having said that, though, I've listened to temperaments 'a' through
> 'e' and found nothing to object to. I thought 'a' was ET on first
> listening ... a bit cardboardy. (Though, in practice, on a real
> harpsichord, and certainly a clavichord, without 'modern' ET tuning
> methods, one would probably get small deviations from ET which could
> counteract this. That's a disadvantage of representing 18th century
> 'ET' by a synthesized version.) The others are somewhat more
interesting.
>
> I'm a bit distressed at not being able to get to grips with 1/7 comma
> meantone!! Though it should be obvious enough in the Prelude.
>
> ... Just got to the Bbb = A major bit in 'f' and it sounds strikingly
> different. Hmm.

:) !!!!!!!!!!!!

Let me know what your choices are sometime, yes?

>~~~T~~~
>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@dividebypi.com>

Interesting observations, Herman! i'll not give the answers until a
few more people give it a stab!

Best,
Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:
>
> Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
>
> > Again---what do you like best and why. And of course, what do you
> > think is what?
>
> This is all very interesting, but the differences are so subtle that
I'm
> not even going to try to guess this time which is which.
>
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_a.mp3
>
> This is a good one to start with. Not anything especially remarkable
> about it, but it's pleasant to listen to in this key. Probably one of
> the milder well-temperaments.
>
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_b.mp3
>
> I liked this one right off the bat for some reason. There's something
> appealing about it that I can't quite identify. I think it might be the
> Db that I like.
>
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_c.mp3
>
> This one sounds fairly plain. Nothing special about it. Most likely to
> be confused for ET.
>
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_d.mp3
>
> This is a nice solid tuning, maybe a little more delicate than example
> B, but Ab major is a pretty extreme key.
>
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_e.mp3
>
> Still pretty listenable, but I still think I prefer examples B and D.
> Something about this just seems a little out of place for this key, but
> I'm not quite sure what.
>
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_f.mp3
>
> This one seems quite different from the last two, better than example E
> at least. Actually sounds pretty similar to example B, but I still
think
> I have a slight preference for B.
>
> > http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/bwv886fugue_g.mp3
>
> This seems like a pretty solid, effective tuning. I still like some of
> the others better, but if I listened to them in a different order I
> might have a different opinion.
>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@dividebypi.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@dividebypi.com>

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
>
> > > Anyone else taking a stab at these? If not, I'll reveal the
answers in
> > > one day.
> >
> > what,
> > exactly, are you looking for? Pick of what you like the best?
> >
>
> Yes, or if you can identify them. But I guess I'm more interested in
> subjectively what people like. As well, I wanted to demonstrate how
> subtle this whole business is, and how exaggerated alot of the claims
> are about how huge the differences between tunings is.
>
> -A

So far as I remember I wasn't able to distinguish much difference
between 'em, except thinking that 'a' was pretty near equal and 'f'
probably wasn't. All were acceptable.

With all this talk of A flat major and B flat minor, I think it is
worth pointing out that a (hypothetical) temperament that was designed
specifically for flats would do pretty well on these tests, whereas
the sharp side may be neglected.

(Sure, there is a single bar with a chord of Bbb=A major in the Ab
Fugue, but the fact that this appears as an extreme modulation and as
a 6/3 chord means it doesn't actually matter much if the chord is
pleasantly-tuned. The test simply doesn't test music in sharp keys.)

I don't think the single tonality Ab, even with wide modulation, can
be a reasonable test... At least include one piece in two, three or
four sharps.

For example: Fugue in E major, 'Book II' (4 part harmony, slow tempo
and a reasonable range of modulation);
... or the much-discussed Prelude in E major, 'Book I';

Prelude, Courante I, II etc. from English Suite no.1 in A major;

Fugue in D major, 'Book I'; (easily audible 4 part harmony,
diametrically 'opposite' to Ab major)

& in general, slower-moving pieces with fuller harmony are more
exacting test of tuning, whereas the music we had so far is pretty
busy and often in only 2 or 3 parts. (Gene's BWV542 is the honorable
exception.)

Timbre is a problem, I would go for whatever was closest to an
acoustic instrument. Herman's piano timbre seemed fairly effective.

~~~T~~~

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@dividebypi.com>

Ok, I'll give the answers now:

a) Francis-Bach
b) WerckIII
c) Lehman-Bach
d) Young
e) 1/7-comma meantone
f) my 5/4 * 24/19 * 19/15 = 2/1 temperament
g) 12-eq

I was surprised that 'e' and 'f' worked as well as they did, and
colorfully so! Especially 'e' with a wolf fifth on the fifth of the
home key! But, Tom, you are right--to get a comprehensive test going,
it would be good to have several pieces in several keys, and slower
tempi are better than fast tempi as well....as for the sharps or flats
key signature thing, I think to my knowledge Brad's squiggle
temperament is the only example where sharps are worse than flats.
They are usually equal in badness, or flats sometimes worse. I might
be forgetting the particular specs of this or that temperament,
though. Anyone with other, or counter- examples?

Anyway, I learned how subtle this all is by doing this, and I agree
with Carl that we are often full of it when we talk about these
things. Alot of the qualities of a temperament depend on, like Tom and
others say, tempi, articulation, thickness of texture, brightness of
timbre, inharmonicity of timbre, even room or reverb characteristics.
Not news around here of course (think Sethares), but a fact we often
forget when fighting about theoretical (mostly math) properties. I
just don't trust what's on 'paper' or '.scl' file about a tuning from
this point on, that's for sure. The ear has to decide, in context, period.

I also see no point in not using a tuning that sounds good, whether
'historically accurate' or not. Thus, if Gene likes 31-equal for Bach,
why not? I listened to all the examples of Gene's---like Carl, I was
surprised how well 31-equal 'worked' in the sense that it didn't
*scream* at me where it was! Also, for the sake of argument, if Johnny
was 'proven' wrong about WerckIII, it wouldn't make a difference--he
likes it, his ear is turned on by it, therefore, he *should* make
delightful performances with it. The opposite is true,
too---'anachronistic' tunings should be 'valid' in the same sense, if
they are delicious to the ears!

I'd like to do a related test where we use the 'aeolus' pipe organ,
choose a slow piece or piece(s), and have two temperaments battle it
out, people vote, and then the winner advances to a challenger. An
interesting question is if we can compare tuning that way---it might
be a non-transitive relationship, who knows.

Best,
Aaron.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > Anyone else taking a stab at these? If not, I'll reveal the
> answers in
> > > > one day.
> > >
> > > what,
> > > exactly, are you looking for? Pick of what you like the best?
> > >
> >
> > Yes, or if you can identify them. But I guess I'm more interested in
> > subjectively what people like. As well, I wanted to demonstrate how
> > subtle this whole business is, and how exaggerated alot of the claims
> > are about how huge the differences between tunings is.
> >
> > -A
>
> So far as I remember I wasn't able to distinguish much difference
> between 'em, except thinking that 'a' was pretty near equal and 'f'
> probably wasn't. All were acceptable.
>
> With all this talk of A flat major and B flat minor, I think it is
> worth pointing out that a (hypothetical) temperament that was designed
> specifically for flats would do pretty well on these tests, whereas
> the sharp side may be neglected.
>
> (Sure, there is a single bar with a chord of Bbb=A major in the Ab
> Fugue, but the fact that this appears as an extreme modulation and as
> a 6/3 chord means it doesn't actually matter much if the chord is
> pleasantly-tuned. The test simply doesn't test music in sharp keys.)
>
> I don't think the single tonality Ab, even with wide modulation, can
> be a reasonable test... At least include one piece in two, three or
> four sharps.
>
> For example: Fugue in E major, 'Book II' (4 part harmony, slow tempo
> and a reasonable range of modulation);
> ... or the much-discussed Prelude in E major, 'Book I';
>
> Prelude, Courante I, II etc. from English Suite no.1 in A major;
>
> Fugue in D major, 'Book I'; (easily audible 4 part harmony,
> diametrically 'opposite' to Ab major)
>
> & in general, slower-moving pieces with fuller harmony are more
> exacting test of tuning, whereas the music we had so far is pretty
> busy and often in only 2 or 3 parts. (Gene's BWV542 is the honorable
> exception.)
>
> Timbre is a problem, I would go for whatever was closest to an
> acoustic instrument. Herman's piano timbre seemed fairly effective.
>
> ~~~T~~~
>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

Tom Dent wrote:
> With all this talk of A flat major and B flat minor, I think it is
> worth pointing out that a (hypothetical) temperament that was designed
> specifically for flats would do pretty well on these tests, whereas
> the sharp side may be neglected.

Not that anyone has done such a thing, of course.

> > (Sure, there is a single bar with a chord of Bbb=A major in the Ab
> Fugue, but the fact that this appears as an extreme modulation and as
> a 6/3 chord means it doesn't actually matter much if the chord is
> pleasantly-tuned. The test simply doesn't test music in sharp keys.)

Agreed that the test with this single piece (Ab major fugue WTC book 2) doesn't "test music in sharp keys" especially well; but I disagree that "it doesn't actually matter much if the chord is pleasantly-tuned".

> > I don't think the single tonality Ab, even with wide modulation, can
> be a reasonable test... At least include one piece in two, three or
> four sharps.
> > For example: Fugue in E major, 'Book II' (4 part harmony, slow tempo
> and a reasonable range of modulation);

Excellent choice. Go right ahead and do that, by all means. That reasonable range of modulation includes forays up to B major, F# major, C# major (variously as dominants or supplying scale-passagework), and it eventually works its way around to a G# minor section.

I played that piece on this concert:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/2005oct30.htm
confirming that it works brilliantly in my temp. That was on a real pipe organ, using full principal chorus plus mixtures; and at bar 35 I added the trumpet stop; and at bar 40 I played the bass entrance with coupled-in pedal plus a 16-foot Posaune. Even with all that brightness of timbre, the thing *still* seemed relatively relaxed without any uncomfortable intervals anyway; and that's despite having the E-G# be the widest major third in the temperament. (For a comparable effect, listen to my recording of the Fischer E-major of _Ariadne musica_: same fugue subject and similar registration, pulling no punches on presenting the E major and B major chords as brightly as possible, with mixtures and reeds. Play it "good and loud", and in context of all of Fischer's 20 preludes/fugues for contrast.)

Then I took that WTC 2 piece and a pile of other Bach books over for a visit to Notre Dame University, nearby, and tried out this same WTC 2 E major fugue on their new Fritts organ. It's in Kirnberger 3. I tried several different registrations, including the full-great option and some quieter ones, and all of them didn't do very well at taking the bright/raucous edge off this piece's sharp-side modulations. Good old B major, F# major, C# major, and G# minor. Ouch.

Go ahead and try it likewise, on real organs and simulated organs and real harpsichords and simulated harpsichords.

This morning I took that piece to one of my harpsichords where I currently have a regular 1/6 comma set up. I'm using that temp to accompany some Telemann in a couple of weeks, for which it works perfectly (and it should, being Telemann's own system). That's for an A-minor piece that happens to stick to only 12 notes, namely Bb-F-C...C#-G#-D#, so that's what I have set up, *regular* 1/6 with those 12 notes (with the shifting-around-the-wolf technique that Gene uses, hi Gene!). Wolf D#-Bb. So I played through this E major fugue on it, book 2. It worked marvelously until bar 12, and even the several A#s before that weren't too bad as they happened in weak/passing moments. But at bar 12 the E# was then horrible; at bar 15 the B#; and all the rest of the A#s and E#s and B#s through the end of the piece (and the accented wolf at bar 34 was awful). Those three notes ruin it, for the simple reason that they're not available. The several double-sharps starting in bar 33 *do* sound OK here, in part because they make pure tritones with other notes that are being played simultaneously.

One could "do a Barbour" still further here and retune the Bb, F, and C to be the correct 1/6 comma A#, E#, and B#. Maybe even convert the G to an Fx. But this would ruin the prelude, which does have some C and G naturals. And the fugue itself uses both D natural and Cx (i.e. this straightforward piece uses 13 notes....). Pick your poison: make some compromises off of regularity, or just let some of these sound lousy, or water-down the regularity to something wimpier than 1/6 comma, or build some split keys.

(All of which Tom obviously already knows!)

> ... or the much-discussed Prelude in E major, 'Book I';

Sure, why not? Buy Peter Watchorn's set of the complete WTC book 1 to hear how it works through all 24 keys, including this one! (Please, enough of this straw-man argument about E major allegedly being bad, in musical practice, just because its tonic triad happens to have the highest major 3rd! Play the music--ALL OF IT--to experience how it works out.)

While we're at that Prelude in E major of book 1, go ahead and play the whole French Suite in E also, since it's together with that in one of the manuscripts. My favorite bits, doing so, are the Sarabande and the Allemande: for the way they glisten but even bring a (surprising!) bit of plaintiveness as well...even with a wide-ish E-G#.

> > Prelude, Courante I, II etc. from English Suite no.1 in A major;

Yes, one of my favorite suites, and I'm playing its Allemande on *this* concert:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/2007mar13.htm
You'll note also that I'm playing the Ab major and the B major back-to-back; and a whole A-major fugue (BWV 949) that scarcely modulates, right after the six-voiced Ricercar (C minor) that's been a bugaboo in Dr Lindley's older articles about acceptable Bach temperaments. "D-flat major approached in straightforward modulations" and etc etc, observing that this Ricercar doesn't do too well with temps that peak at Db-F.

For the heck of it, this morning I flipped through my book to play a page of that Ricercar on the Telemann regular 1/6 comma (with D# as described above, and the only correct flat being Bb), and couldn't stand even a single bar of it. Telemann of course was about taking the regular thing for a spin, five wraps around the spiral of 5ths and not picking merely a 12-note subset; but hey. Whatcha gonna do without split keys?

> > Fugue in D major, 'Book I'; (easily audible 4 part harmony,
> diametrically 'opposite' to Ab major)
> > & in general, slower-moving pieces with fuller harmony are more
> exacting test of tuning, whereas the music we had so far is pretty
> busy and often in only 2 or 3 parts. (Gene's BWV542 is the honorable
> exception.)

Yes, good points. And I've assembled a large list of others, as well, at:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/testpieces.html
Have been doing for two years.

> > Timbre is a problem, I would go for whatever was closest to an
> acoustic instrument. Herman's piano timbre seemed fairly effective.

Agreed. Real instruments with the timbres and actions and volume that Bach knew. Plus modern pianos (real and simulated), even though they tend to swallow up the overtones where some of this stuff matters most crucially.

When I play the Ab prelude of book *1* here on my fretted clavichord, I notice that the action itself (apart from any considerations of tuning) argues mildly for a crispish articulation, at least in the right hand. The "Ab" and G share the same string, and there can't be any over-legato there; same observation for the "Db" and C where they come up next to one another in runs.

Brad Lehman

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@dividebypi.com>

Brad,

Hey---I wonder if you've tried any of the pieces mentioned in
1/6-comma *modified* meantone (widening 4 fifths F-Bb-Eb and
F#-C#-G#)? Takes the edge off...I imagine 1/7-comma would fare even
better---larger than 1/7-comma, and I figure you might as well go
straight in WT-land.

Perhaps I'll make a file on a harpsichord soundfont of the E-major
fugue (bkII) as a test case and post it...

-A.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> Tom Dent wrote:
> > With all this talk of A flat major and B flat minor, I think it is
> > worth pointing out that a (hypothetical) temperament that was
designed
> > specifically for flats would do pretty well on these tests,
whereas
> > the sharp side may be neglected.
>
> Not that anyone has done such a thing, of course.
>
> >
> > (Sure, there is a single bar with a chord of Bbb=A major in the Ab
> > Fugue, but the fact that this appears as an extreme modulation
and as
> > a 6/3 chord means it doesn't actually matter much if the chord is
> > pleasantly-tuned. The test simply doesn't test music in sharp
keys.)
>
> Agreed that the test with this single piece (Ab major fugue WTC book 2)
> doesn't "test music in sharp keys" especially well; but I disagree that
> "it doesn't actually matter much if the chord is pleasantly-tuned".
>
> >
> > I don't think the single tonality Ab, even with wide
modulation, can
> > be a reasonable test... At least include one piece in two,
three or
> > four sharps.
> >
> > For example: Fugue in E major, 'Book II' (4 part harmony, slow
tempo
> > and a reasonable range of modulation);
>
> Excellent choice. Go right ahead and do that, by all means. That
> reasonable range of modulation includes forays up to B major, F# major,
> C# major (variously as dominants or supplying scale-passagework),
and it
> eventually works its way around to a G# minor section.
>
> I played that piece on this concert:
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/2005oct30.htm
> confirming that it works brilliantly in my temp. That was on a real
> pipe organ, using full principal chorus plus mixtures; and at bar 35 I
> added the trumpet stop; and at bar 40 I played the bass entrance with
> coupled-in pedal plus a 16-foot Posaune. Even with all that brightness
> of timbre, the thing *still* seemed relatively relaxed without any
> uncomfortable intervals anyway; and that's despite having the E-G# be
> the widest major third in the temperament. (For a comparable effect,
> listen to my recording of the Fischer E-major of _Ariadne musica_: same
> fugue subject and similar registration, pulling no punches on
presenting
> the E major and B major chords as brightly as possible, with mixtures
> and reeds. Play it "good and loud", and in context of all of Fischer's
> 20 preludes/fugues for contrast.)
>
> Then I took that WTC 2 piece and a pile of other Bach books over for a
> visit to Notre Dame University, nearby, and tried out this same WTC 2 E
> major fugue on their new Fritts organ. It's in Kirnberger 3. I tried
> several different registrations, including the full-great option and
> some quieter ones, and all of them didn't do very well at taking the
> bright/raucous edge off this piece's sharp-side modulations. Good
old B
> major, F# major, C# major, and G# minor. Ouch.
>
> Go ahead and try it likewise, on real organs and simulated organs and
> real harpsichords and simulated harpsichords.
>
> This morning I took that piece to one of my harpsichords where I
> currently have a regular 1/6 comma set up. I'm using that temp to
> accompany some Telemann in a couple of weeks, for which it works
> perfectly (and it should, being Telemann's own system). That's for an
> A-minor piece that happens to stick to only 12 notes, namely
> Bb-F-C...C#-G#-D#, so that's what I have set up, *regular* 1/6 with
> those 12 notes (with the shifting-around-the-wolf technique that Gene
> uses, hi Gene!). Wolf D#-Bb. So I played through this E major
fugue on
> it, book 2. It worked marvelously until bar 12, and even the several
> A#s before that weren't too bad as they happened in weak/passing
> moments. But at bar 12 the E# was then horrible; at bar 15 the B#; and
> all the rest of the A#s and E#s and B#s through the end of the piece
> (and the accented wolf at bar 34 was awful). Those three notes ruin
it,
> for the simple reason that they're not available. The several
> double-sharps starting in bar 33 *do* sound OK here, in part because
> they make pure tritones with other notes that are being played
> simultaneously.
>
> One could "do a Barbour" still further here and retune the Bb, F, and C
> to be the correct 1/6 comma A#, E#, and B#. Maybe even convert the
G to
> an Fx. But this would ruin the prelude, which does have some C and G
> naturals. And the fugue itself uses both D natural and Cx (i.e. this
> straightforward piece uses 13 notes....). Pick your poison: make some
> compromises off of regularity, or just let some of these sound
lousy, or
> water-down the regularity to something wimpier than 1/6 comma, or build
> some split keys.
>
> (All of which Tom obviously already knows!)
>
> > ... or the much-discussed Prelude in E major, 'Book I';
>
> Sure, why not? Buy Peter Watchorn's set of the complete WTC book 1 to
> hear how it works through all 24 keys, including this one! (Please,
> enough of this straw-man argument about E major allegedly being bad, in
> musical practice, just because its tonic triad happens to have the
> highest major 3rd! Play the music--ALL OF IT--to experience how it
> works out.)
>
> While we're at that Prelude in E major of book 1, go ahead and play the
> whole French Suite in E also, since it's together with that in one of
> the manuscripts. My favorite bits, doing so, are the Sarabande and the
> Allemande: for the way they glisten but even bring a (surprising!) bit
> of plaintiveness as well...even with a wide-ish E-G#.
>
> >
> > Prelude, Courante I, II etc. from English Suite no.1 in A major;
>
> Yes, one of my favorite suites, and I'm playing its Allemande on *this*
> concert:
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/2007mar13.htm
> You'll note also that I'm playing the Ab major and the B major
> back-to-back; and a whole A-major fugue (BWV 949) that scarcely
> modulates, right after the six-voiced Ricercar (C minor) that's been a
> bugaboo in Dr Lindley's older articles about acceptable Bach
> temperaments. "D-flat major approached in straightforward modulations"
> and etc etc, observing that this Ricercar doesn't do too well with
temps
> that peak at Db-F.
>
> For the heck of it, this morning I flipped through my book to play a
> page of that Ricercar on the Telemann regular 1/6 comma (with D# as
> described above, and the only correct flat being Bb), and couldn't
stand
> even a single bar of it. Telemann of course was about taking the
> regular thing for a spin, five wraps around the spiral of 5ths and not
> picking merely a 12-note subset; but hey. Whatcha gonna do without
> split keys?
>
> >
> > Fugue in D major, 'Book I'; (easily audible 4 part harmony,
> > diametrically 'opposite' to Ab major)
> >
> > & in general, slower-moving pieces with fuller harmony are more
> > exacting test of tuning, whereas the music we had so far is pretty
> > busy and often in only 2 or 3 parts. (Gene's BWV542 is the
honorable
> > exception.)
>
> Yes, good points. And I've assembled a large list of others, as
well, at:
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/testpieces.html
> Have been doing for two years.
>
> >
> > Timbre is a problem, I would go for whatever was closest to an
> > acoustic instrument. Herman's piano timbre seemed fairly
effective.
>
> Agreed. Real instruments with the timbres and actions and volume that
> Bach knew. Plus modern pianos (real and simulated), even though they
> tend to swallow up the overtones where some of this stuff matters most
> crucially.
>
> When I play the Ab prelude of book *1* here on my fretted clavichord, I
> notice that the action itself (apart from any considerations of tuning)
> argues mildly for a crispish articulation, at least in the right hand.
> The "Ab" and G share the same string, and there can't be any
over-legato
> there; same observation for the "Db" and C where they come up next to
> one another in runs.
>
>
> Brad Lehman
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@dividebypi.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@...> wrote:
>
>
> Brad,
>
> Hey---I wonder if you've tried any of the pieces mentioned in
> 1/6-comma *modified* meantone (widening 4 fifths F-Bb-Eb and
> F#-C#-G#)? Takes the edge off...I imagine 1/7-comma would fare even
> better---larger than 1/7-comma, and I figure you might as well go
> straight in WT-land.
>
> Perhaps I'll make a file on a harpsichord soundfont of the E-major
> fugue (bkII) as a test case and post it...

I just that, using a nice harpsichord soundfont:

http://www.akjmusic.com/audio/wtcii09fugue.mp3

Let me know if you like it.

-A.

> -A.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@> wrote:
> >
> > Tom Dent wrote:
> > > With all this talk of A flat major and B flat minor, I think
it is
> > > worth pointing out that a (hypothetical) temperament that was
> designed
> > > specifically for flats would do pretty well on these tests,
> whereas
> > > the sharp side may be neglected.
> >
> > Not that anyone has done such a thing, of course.
> >
> > >
> > > (Sure, there is a single bar with a chord of Bbb=A major in
the Ab
> > > Fugue, but the fact that this appears as an extreme modulation
> and as
> > > a 6/3 chord means it doesn't actually matter much if the
chord is
> > > pleasantly-tuned. The test simply doesn't test music in sharp
> keys.)
> >
> > Agreed that the test with this single piece (Ab major fugue WTC
book 2)
> > doesn't "test music in sharp keys" especially well; but I disagree
that
> > "it doesn't actually matter much if the chord is pleasantly-tuned".
> >
> > >
> > > I don't think the single tonality Ab, even with wide
> modulation, can
> > > be a reasonable test... At least include one piece in two,
> three or
> > > four sharps.
> > >
> > > For example: Fugue in E major, 'Book II' (4 part harmony, slow
> tempo
> > > and a reasonable range of modulation);
> >
> > Excellent choice. Go right ahead and do that, by all means. That
> > reasonable range of modulation includes forays up to B major, F#
major,
> > C# major (variously as dominants or supplying scale-passagework),
> and it
> > eventually works its way around to a G# minor section.
> >
> > I played that piece on this concert:
> > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/2005oct30.htm
> > confirming that it works brilliantly in my temp. That was on a real
> > pipe organ, using full principal chorus plus mixtures; and at bar
35 I
> > added the trumpet stop; and at bar 40 I played the bass entrance with
> > coupled-in pedal plus a 16-foot Posaune. Even with all that
brightness
> > of timbre, the thing *still* seemed relatively relaxed without any
> > uncomfortable intervals anyway; and that's despite having the E-G# be
> > the widest major third in the temperament. (For a comparable effect,
> > listen to my recording of the Fischer E-major of _Ariadne musica_:
same
> > fugue subject and similar registration, pulling no punches on
> presenting
> > the E major and B major chords as brightly as possible, with mixtures
> > and reeds. Play it "good and loud", and in context of all of
Fischer's
> > 20 preludes/fugues for contrast.)
> >
> > Then I took that WTC 2 piece and a pile of other Bach books over
for a
> > visit to Notre Dame University, nearby, and tried out this same
WTC 2 E
> > major fugue on their new Fritts organ. It's in Kirnberger 3. I
tried
> > several different registrations, including the full-great option and
> > some quieter ones, and all of them didn't do very well at taking the
> > bright/raucous edge off this piece's sharp-side modulations. Good
> old B
> > major, F# major, C# major, and G# minor. Ouch.
> >
> > Go ahead and try it likewise, on real organs and simulated organs and
> > real harpsichords and simulated harpsichords.
> >
> > This morning I took that piece to one of my harpsichords where I
> > currently have a regular 1/6 comma set up. I'm using that temp to
> > accompany some Telemann in a couple of weeks, for which it works
> > perfectly (and it should, being Telemann's own system). That's
for an
> > A-minor piece that happens to stick to only 12 notes, namely
> > Bb-F-C...C#-G#-D#, so that's what I have set up, *regular* 1/6 with
> > those 12 notes (with the shifting-around-the-wolf technique that Gene
> > uses, hi Gene!). Wolf D#-Bb. So I played through this E major
> fugue on
> > it, book 2. It worked marvelously until bar 12, and even the several
> > A#s before that weren't too bad as they happened in weak/passing
> > moments. But at bar 12 the E# was then horrible; at bar 15 the
B#; and
> > all the rest of the A#s and E#s and B#s through the end of the piece
> > (and the accented wolf at bar 34 was awful). Those three notes ruin
> it,
> > for the simple reason that they're not available. The several
> > double-sharps starting in bar 33 *do* sound OK here, in part because
> > they make pure tritones with other notes that are being played
> > simultaneously.
> >
> > One could "do a Barbour" still further here and retune the Bb, F,
and C
> > to be the correct 1/6 comma A#, E#, and B#. Maybe even convert the
> G to
> > an Fx. But this would ruin the prelude, which does have some C and G
> > naturals. And the fugue itself uses both D natural and Cx (i.e. this
> > straightforward piece uses 13 notes....). Pick your poison: make
some
> > compromises off of regularity, or just let some of these sound
> lousy, or
> > water-down the regularity to something wimpier than 1/6 comma, or
build
> > some split keys.
> >
> > (All of which Tom obviously already knows!)
> >
> > > ... or the much-discussed Prelude in E major, 'Book I';
> >
> > Sure, why not? Buy Peter Watchorn's set of the complete WTC book
1 to
> > hear how it works through all 24 keys, including this one! (Please,
> > enough of this straw-man argument about E major allegedly being
bad, in
> > musical practice, just because its tonic triad happens to have the
> > highest major 3rd! Play the music--ALL OF IT--to experience how it
> > works out.)
> >
> > While we're at that Prelude in E major of book 1, go ahead and
play the
> > whole French Suite in E also, since it's together with that in one of
> > the manuscripts. My favorite bits, doing so, are the Sarabande
and the
> > Allemande: for the way they glisten but even bring a (surprising!)
bit
> > of plaintiveness as well...even with a wide-ish E-G#.
> >
> > >
> > > Prelude, Courante I, II etc. from English Suite no.1 in A major;
> >
> > Yes, one of my favorite suites, and I'm playing its Allemande on
*this*
> > concert:
> > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/2007mar13.htm
> > You'll note also that I'm playing the Ab major and the B major
> > back-to-back; and a whole A-major fugue (BWV 949) that scarcely
> > modulates, right after the six-voiced Ricercar (C minor) that's
been a
> > bugaboo in Dr Lindley's older articles about acceptable Bach
> > temperaments. "D-flat major approached in straightforward
modulations"
> > and etc etc, observing that this Ricercar doesn't do too well with
> temps
> > that peak at Db-F.
> >
> > For the heck of it, this morning I flipped through my book to play a
> > page of that Ricercar on the Telemann regular 1/6 comma (with D# as
> > described above, and the only correct flat being Bb), and couldn't
> stand
> > even a single bar of it. Telemann of course was about taking the
> > regular thing for a spin, five wraps around the spiral of 5ths and
not
> > picking merely a 12-note subset; but hey. Whatcha gonna do without
> > split keys?
> >
> > >
> > > Fugue in D major, 'Book I'; (easily audible 4 part harmony,
> > > diametrically 'opposite' to Ab major)
> > >
> > > & in general, slower-moving pieces with fuller harmony are more
> > > exacting test of tuning, whereas the music we had so far is
pretty
> > > busy and often in only 2 or 3 parts. (Gene's BWV542 is the
> honorable
> > > exception.)
> >
> > Yes, good points. And I've assembled a large list of others, as
> well, at:
> > http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/testpieces.html
> > Have been doing for two years.
> >
> > >
> > > Timbre is a problem, I would go for whatever was closest to an
> > > acoustic instrument. Herman's piano timbre seemed fairly
> effective.
> >
> > Agreed. Real instruments with the timbres and actions and volume
that
> > Bach knew. Plus modern pianos (real and simulated), even though they
> > tend to swallow up the overtones where some of this stuff matters
most
> > crucially.
> >
> > When I play the Ab prelude of book *1* here on my fretted
clavichord, I
> > notice that the action itself (apart from any considerations of
tuning)
> > argues mildly for a crispish articulation, at least in the right
hand.
> > The "Ab" and G share the same string, and there can't be any
> over-legato
> > there; same observation for the "Db" and C where they come up next to
> > one another in runs.
> >
> >
> > Brad Lehman
> >
>