Goldberg in squiggle

I'm listening to the Goldberg Variations in squiggle temperament, the
Richard Egarr recording (Harmonia Mundi) which has been mentioned here
before. It sounds damned good; a very recommendable Goldberg, whatever
your position on the squiggle issue.

Any clear difference from 12-et? Most of the relevant chords in
'squiggle' - ie G, D, A, B majors, Eb and Bb majors for the relative
minor variations, are only a few cents off equal.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> I'm listening to the Goldberg Variations in squiggle temperament, the
> Richard Egarr recording (Harmonia Mundi) which has been mentioned here
> before. It sounds damned good; a very recommendable Goldberg, whatever
> your position on the squiggle issue.
>

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> I'm listening to the Goldberg Variations in squiggle temperament, the
> Richard Egarr recording (Harmonia Mundi) which has been mentioned here
> before. It sounds damned good; a very recommendable Goldberg, whatever
> your position on the squiggle issue.

Egarr's program note for that recording is also a feature on the Academy of Ancient Music web site, this summer:
http://www.aam.co.uk/features/0702.htm

I used that tuning for a concert here (Virginia) this past Saturday night, Sept 8. It was on this continuo pipe organ:
http://www.taylorandboody.com/opuses/opus_51.htm
which looks exactly the same as this one:
http://www.taylorandboody.com/opuses/opus_44.htm

We set it up entirely by ear on Friday morning. It was very easily done from a single A reference (or from C if one prefers). On this particular organ the tuning is done by moving stoppers, shades, or sleeves. We tuned 200 pipes in about 90 minutes; the task would have gone more quickly but we were fighting against custodians trying to vacuum-clean the hall at the same time! Beats of an organ pipe against both a vacuum cleaner and an air conditioning unit at the same time, pretty frustrating...... We didn't bother tuning the Sesquialtera as we didn't need it for this gig. Just the 8, 4, 2, and 1 1/3.

Anyway, the program included three very chromatic pieces by Bach: the Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue (played on organ!), the sonata BWV 1030 (usually in B minor with flute/hpsi, but we used violin/organ in the earlier G minor version), and the chorale prelude "O Mensch, bewein" from _Orgelbuechlein_. There were also pieces by Leclair, Corelli, Schmelzer, and Uccellini. Basically it was a 90-minute survey of violin sonata rep from the beginning of the 17th century leading up to Bach.

Brad Lehman

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
> Any clear difference from 12-et? Most of the relevant chords in
> 'squiggle' - ie G, D, A, B majors, Eb and Bb majors for the relative
> minor variations, are only a few cents off equal.

That's of course true, but..., IMO a focus on listening to "chords"
rather misses the point. The Goldberg Variations have all kinds of
linear motion that's at least as important as any triads that happen
to occur. Some of it is diatonic motion and some is chromatic, and
all this passing stuff creates thousands of sonorities that aren't
chords. Sure, the discrepancy from equal temperament is rather low
compared to funkier temperaments, if we're merely examining triads;
but even so, those various major triads on G, D, A, B, Eb, and Bb
sound (or are at least perceptible through feeling/Affekt) distinct in
quality from one another. That is to say: when the music modulates to
new keys, the scales and triads seem more tense or less tense, as
musical contexts. That's an important point that is lost if one is
merely observing that the thing as a whole is not-very-unequal (i.e.
not obtrusively weird) by counting up the cents.

And one might listen also for the way the enharmonic equivalencies are
handled, both melodically and harmonically, in the minor variations:
25, 21, and 15. In #25 all of this is obvious from bar to bar with
the extreme chromaticism. But even in #15: there are A-flats all
through the second half, but a G# in bar 4, and a bunch of G#s in the
next variation (16). Or the E-flats in these minor variations, vs the
D#s through the rest of the piece. The notes obviously aren't going
to be retuned from variation to variation, but have to serve well in
both functions. And their different tensions, in doing so, are part
of the musical expressivity. Some of them are tuned closer to the
flat position (i.e. higher), while others are closer to the sharp.
Equal temperament can never deliver that, because the sharps and flats
are simply at the consistent halfway point within the whole
steps...having no nuances.

Do this on a real harpsichord. Play through variation 25 listening
closely to the way the appoggiaturas and suspensions are behaving,
with tensions different from one another. And as early as bar 1 vs
bar 2, the two upward leaps of minor sixths (melodically) are
differently-sized enough from one another that the modulation has
accomplished something expressive...this early in the variation! Bar
3's upward leap from Bb to F# is a third size, sounding different
enough that we don't mistake it for a minor sixth at all, but rather
it's an augmented fifth: and sure enough, it resolves upwards next.
By bar 20, where we've modulated so far from the home key of G minor
that we're in E-flat minor, the whole landscape just "feels"
different. Different and exotic, yet not so much as to be on some
other planet. It all has to be a careful balance.

The goal of a good temperament, IMO, is not to call attention to
itself but rather to heighten attention to the music.

Brad Lehman

Gene et al,

I have somehow missed the squiggle issue. I've even
missed the musical *definition* of squiggle. Will
Monz or Carl or some other benefactor enlighten me?
Thanks.

Mark Rankin

--- Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

> I'm listening to the Goldberg Variations in squiggle
> temperament, the
> Richard Egarr recording (Harmonia Mundi) which has
> been mentioned here
> before. It sounds damned good; a very recommendable
> Goldberg, whatever
> your position on the squiggle issue.
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search
that gives answers, not web links.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/mobileweb/onesearch?refer=1ONXIC

Hi Mark,

A number of authors have speculated that J.S. Bach
encoded his personal temperament of choice in the
artwork on the cover page of The Well Tempered Clavier
manuscript, leaving it as an 'Easter egg' to be
discovered later. In particular, the caligraphic
flourish ("squiggle") above the title.

Brad Lehman has got a lot of attention recently for
an article in which he suggested that by turning the
title page upside down and throwing a pinch of salt
over your shoulder, you can deduce Bach's secret
tuning. When confronted with criticism about the
uniqueness of his interpretation, he generally
backpedals that, at least, his proposed 'Bach'
temperament is a very good one for Bach's music (as
determined by subjective listening).

The first person to suggest this squiggle holds
significance was apparently Andreas Sparschuh, who
is also a member here.

My view: while Bach was certainly not above such
sport, there simply isn't enough in the squiggle to
deduce a tuning from.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rankin <markrankin95511@...> wrote:
>
> Gene et al,
>
> I have somehow missed the squiggle issue. I've even
> missed the musical *definition* of squiggle. Will
> Monz or Carl or some other benefactor enlighten me?
> Thanks.
>
> Mark Rankin

> Brad Lehman has got a lot of attention recently for
> an article in which he suggested that by turning the
> title page upside down and throwing a pinch of salt
> over your shoulder, you can deduce Bach's secret
> tuning. When confronted with criticism about the
> uniqueness of his interpretation, he generally
> backpedals that, at least, his proposed 'Bach'
> temperament is a very good one for Bach's music (as
> determined by subjective listening).

If anybody would like to read what I actually wrote, instead of that
rather uncharitable synopsis, it's all freely downloadable from here:
http://www.larips.com

There are also four recent videos on YouTube where I explain and
demonstrate some of the basic concepts directly at a harpsichord.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9IqD_04G0s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__tbvLNH6FI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfK3blfKE04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21eocx96sGM

Bradley Lehman

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:

On this
> particular organ the tuning is done by moving stoppers, shades, or
> sleeves. We tuned 200 pipes in about 90 minutes;

What's the range of tuning on an organ like this?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@> wrote:
>
> On this
> > particular organ the tuning is done by moving stoppers, shades, or
> > sleeves. We tuned 200 pipes in about 90 minutes;
>
> What's the range of tuning on an organ like this?
>

By "the range" do you mean the keyboard compass? Single manual, 50
notes from C up to d'''. We tuned the 8, 4, 2, and 1 1/3 foot ranks.

It was this instrument:
http://www.taylorandboody.com/opuses/opus_51.htm
Here's a photo of a twin instrument from the same factory:
http://www.taylorandboody.com/opuses/opus_44.htm

Brad Lehman

Muchas gracias, Carlos, para explicando los
esquigglos!

Marco Ranquine

--- Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hi Mark,
>
> A number of authors have speculated that J.S. Bach
> encoded his personal temperament of choice in the
> artwork on the cover page of The Well Tempered
> Clavier
> manuscript, leaving it as an 'Easter egg' to be
> discovered later. In particular, the caligraphic
> flourish ("squiggle") above the title.
>
> Brad Lehman has got a lot of attention recently for
> an article in which he suggested that by turning the
> title page upside down and throwing a pinch of salt
> over your shoulder, you can deduce Bach's secret
> tuning. When confronted with criticism about the
> uniqueness of his interpretation, he generally
> backpedals that, at least, his proposed 'Bach'
> temperament is a very good one for Bach's music (as
> determined by subjective listening).
>
> The first person to suggest this squiggle holds
> significance was apparently Andreas Sparschuh, who
> is also a member here.
>
> My view: while Bach was certainly not above such
> sport, there simply isn't enough in the squiggle to
> deduce a tuning from.
>
> -Carl
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mark Rankin
> <markrankin95511@...> wrote:
> >
> > Gene et al,
> >
> > I have somehow missed the squiggle issue. I've
> even
> > missed the musical *definition* of squiggle. Will
> > Monz or Carl or some other benefactor enlighten
> me?
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Mark Rankin
>
>
>
>

____________________________________________________________________________________
Luggage? GPS? Comic books?
Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@...> wrote:
>
>
> Any clear difference from 12-et? Most of the relevant chords in
> 'squiggle' - ie G, D, A, B majors, Eb and Bb majors for the relative
> minor variations, are only a few cents off equal.

I thought some of the chords had a sweeter, more ringing quality than I
would expect from equal.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@> wrote:
> >
> > On this
> > > particular organ the tuning is done by moving stoppers, shades,
or
> > > sleeves. We tuned 200 pipes in about 90 minutes;
> >
> > What's the range of tuning on an organ like this?
> >
>
> By "the range" do you mean the keyboard compass? Single manual, 50
> notes from C up to d'''. We tuned the 8, 4, 2, and 1 1/3 foot ranks.

I meant, how much can you tune/detune each pipe?