Simple and practical musicianship -- was: "Squiggles, why no earthly use to Bach or any pupil"

> I also find this argument really, really flawed:
> > > Sparschuh is a professional mathematician, Zapf was a financial
> > > analyst, Brad had already spent hundreds of man-hours on
> > > mathematical analysis of theoretical temperaments, and so on.
> > > These people are not normal musicians - they're not even normal
> > > keyboard players. (None of us are, either!) It took possibly
> > > the most mathematically sophisticated, not to say obsessed,
> > > keyboard experts in the world, to even get started on the idea
> > > of 'tuning squiggles'. Prior to that, and even after, the normal
> > > musicians said, if they said anything: 'who cares, it's a
> > > decoration'; played their instruments tuned in the usual way;
> > > and were quite happy!
> >
> What is a 'normal musician'?----and what makes you think Bach was a
> normal musician?! Certainly, one of the great geniuses of Western
> music's ways shouldn't be compared with the average Kapellmeister.
> > Also, this argument offers nothing enlightening in the way of the truth
> of the matter, just an opinion.

Hear, hear!

I must point out also: that argument (such as it is) DOES misrepresent me rather severely by leaving out important facts. But I'll take the compliment of being "mathematically sophisticated", at least. :) I happen to have an undergraduate degree in math, but to me that's mostly a red herring.

My own primary focus on all this is, and has always been, PRACTICAL MUSICIANSHIP. Sit down at a real harpsichord, pop it into tune quickly by ear (no post-18th-century technology allowed), and play real music. Not calculations. Not fussing around with spreadsheets. And certainly not electronic tuning devices; I've never owned one.

Here are the parts of my background that I do consider relevant:

- 25 years tuning harpsichords by ear almost every week, for regular maintenance and for concert use (both as player myself, and in tuning for hire); never using electronic devices. I have three harpsichords and a clavichord at my house, and I keep them in playing shape.

- Playing the whole Bach keyboard repertoire on harpsichord, clavichord, and substantial chunks of it on organ. This was my doctoral study in performance: harpsichord with strongest interest in mid-17th and early 18th century music. Intimate familiarity with the actual music is crucial here, to understand the nature of the problem and the behavior of enharmonic notes, hands on.

- Ten years of service as a regular church organist, having to play every week and rehearse singers, etc etc, for all that that entails. The milieu of those responsibilities is perhaps worth something, perhaps not. At the very least, it compels one to go through a huge amount of extant music finding stuff to play, and writing or improvising or arranging new music as well. Music is something to play, more than something to speculate about.

- Grad degree (master's) in musicology, for what that's worth: at least some research and writing skills coming out of that, although I try not to let such "book learning" interfere too much with my direct musical approach to any pieces I'm studying. The music either communicates effectively with young children directly in performance, or it's being done too stuffily. In church or in theatrical settings, the music either serves the story/theme/liturgy or it's been poorly chosen for its point within the whole. The place of musicology (and other academic study) in all this, for me, is: it broadens and deepens the field of possibilities that can be brought in to solve any given problem.

- I'm a "concept" guy, not a calculator. Numbers bore me. Shapes and interrelationships fascinate me. Musical temperament is, to me, fundamentally an analog process, not a digital one. Intervals are either directly in tune or they're slightly off (by control), along a smooth continuum...not by counting up frequencies or calculating anything. Just turn the tuning pin a little bit clockwise or counterclockwise, and the pitch slides up or down smoothly. How do you make a 5th very slightly narrow when tuning the upper of the two notes? Make it pure first, and then give it the very slightest bit of nudge counterclockwise on the top note until it sounds with the right quality. It's a physical motion.

- My personal model of aesthetics: People don't listen to temperaments as numbers, rather, they listen to music. Either it's beautiful or it's less beautiful; or if a temperament is severely unsuited to the composition that is being played in it, there are downright ugly spots. These things can be perceived without any recourse to numbers. The music either sounds fantastic or it sounds like crap, or something in between. If any individual notes stick out sounding wrong for their musical contexts, either melodically or harmonically, there's a problem to be solved; the player or tuner haven't properly matched a tuning style to the repertoire. And that basic problem boils down mostly to the handling of enharmonic choices, or tasteful compromises, between notes that have to share the same key lever on the instrument.

- Spreadsheets and other calculating devices are (to me) only a tool to measure and report upon sounds and concepts that are ALREADY INSTALLED by ear on the instrument. The harpsichord has to be tuned from start to finish in 10-20 minutes without any calculations, but only by a careful and musical listening skill. 5ths/4ths are either pure or they're nudged a little bit off pure, by practiced taste. Ditto for 3rds. It's not even about counting beats; it's recognition of interval quality with a slight and deliberate impurity to it...which is a MUSICAL skill foremost, and only secondarily a mathematical thing to try to measure.

- Some readers take a look at the tables of numbers and calculations in my writings, and mistakenly assume that it's all about such things. But it's not. Even the 1/6th and 1/12th comma modeling is only (again) a way to measure RESULTS that have already been installed tastefully by ear, i.e. explaining WHY it all works out not only in practice but also on paper.

There, for what it's worth, is my _ad hominem_ defense of my own character and work, as for understanding where all this stuff comes from.

Within all that background, in my opinion: those "squiggles" represent physical motion on the tuning pin, just knocking it one or two little jots out of purity on purpose. All other modeling by commas and cents and beats and frequencies and anything else...it's merely reportage of a process already installed by the analog process of nudging tuning pins at a real harpsichord.

And I must second the point that Bach was no "normal" musician [either]. I, for one, don't require him to be mathematically sophisticated in any way. I only require him to have had the close listening skills and taste that anyone would have had to have to do his appointed jobs. He composed and performed in ways that reached people, and that challenged them in productive directions. I find him to be an excellent role model in that. I believe he merely drew a little picture on paper of what he already knew, as a shape, not as a basis for calculation. He drew a picture of the good taste required to play that book of music. Did he know or care about chopping up bits of commas, or counting ANY beats anywhere? I don't know. I don't require him to have known it. I only take it that he was capable of (and inclined towards) drawing a picture of the practical nudges necessary to get the job done...teaching, as he always did, by example and masterful demonstration rather than by theoretical pages of precepts.

Brad Lehman

Brad,

What you say is good and true, but.......I would only point out that there's nothing wrong with theoretical precepts, either. Some people love numbers (I am one of them).

Numbers and math, etc. sometimes give insights that couldn't have happened any other way. It's a perfectly valid way of thinking. And nothing to attack. It gets old to constantly hear the "practical musician vs. theoretical mind" arguments constantly, esp. when people have both aspects in their makeup (I sure do)

People get heated when they feel like what they do and love is being attacked (on both sides)...no wonder nothing gets established without bloodied fists.

-A.

Brad Lehman wrote:
>> I also find this argument really, really flawed:
>> > > Sparschuh is a professional mathematician, Zapf was a financial
>> > > analyst, Brad had already spent hundreds of man-hours on
>> > > mathematical analysis of theoretical temperaments, and so on.
>> > > These people are not normal musicians - they're not even normal
>> > > keyboard players. (None of us are, either!) It took possibly
>> > > the most mathematically sophisticated, not to say obsessed,
>> > > keyboard experts in the world, to even get started on the idea
>> > > of 'tuning squiggles'. Prior to that, and even after, the normal
>> > > musicians said, if they said anything: 'who cares, it's a
>> > > decoration'; played their instruments tuned in the usual way;
>> > > and were quite happy!
>> >
>> What is a 'normal musician'?----and what makes you think Bach was a
>> normal musician?! Certainly, one of the great geniuses of Western
>> music's ways shouldn't be compared with the average Kapellmeister.
>>
>> Also, this argument offers nothing enlightening in the way of the truth
>> of the matter, just an opinion.
>> >
> Hear, hear!
>
> I must point out also: that argument (such as it is) DOES misrepresent > me rather severely by leaving out important facts. But I'll take the > compliment of being "mathematically sophisticated", at least. :) I > happen to have an undergraduate degree in math, but to me that's mostly > a red herring.
>
> My own primary focus on all this is, and has always been, PRACTICAL > MUSICIANSHIP. Sit down at a real harpsichord, pop it into tune quickly > by ear (no post-18th-century technology allowed), and play real music. > Not calculations. Not fussing around with spreadsheets. And certainly > not electronic tuning devices; I've never owned one.
>
> Here are the parts of my background that I do consider relevant:
>
> - 25 years tuning harpsichords by ear almost every week, for regular > maintenance and for concert use (both as player myself, and in tuning > for hire); never using electronic devices. I have three harpsichords > and a clavichord at my house, and I keep them in playing shape.
>
> - Playing the whole Bach keyboard repertoire on harpsichord, clavichord, > and substantial chunks of it on organ. This was my doctoral study in > performance: harpsichord with strongest interest in mid-17th and early > 18th century music. Intimate familiarity with the actual music is > crucial here, to understand the nature of the problem and the behavior > of enharmonic notes, hands on.
>
> - Ten years of service as a regular church organist, having to play > every week and rehearse singers, etc etc, for all that that entails. > The milieu of those responsibilities is perhaps worth something, perhaps > not. At the very least, it compels one to go through a huge amount of > extant music finding stuff to play, and writing or improvising or > arranging new music as well. Music is something to play, more than > something to speculate about.
>
> - Grad degree (master's) in musicology, for what that's worth: at least > some research and writing skills coming out of that, although I try not > to let such "book learning" interfere too much with my direct musical > approach to any pieces I'm studying. The music either communicates > effectively with young children directly in performance, or it's being > done too stuffily. In church or in theatrical settings, the music > either serves the story/theme/liturgy or it's been poorly chosen for its > point within the whole. The place of musicology (and other academic > study) in all this, for me, is: it broadens and deepens the field of > possibilities that can be brought in to solve any given problem.
>
> - I'm a "concept" guy, not a calculator. Numbers bore me. Shapes and > interrelationships fascinate me. Musical temperament is, to me, > fundamentally an analog process, not a digital one. Intervals are > either directly in tune or they're slightly off (by control), along a > smooth continuum...not by counting up frequencies or calculating > anything. Just turn the tuning pin a little bit clockwise or > counterclockwise, and the pitch slides up or down smoothly. How do you > make a 5th very slightly narrow when tuning the upper of the two notes? > Make it pure first, and then give it the very slightest bit of nudge > counterclockwise on the top note until it sounds with the right quality. > It's a physical motion.
>
> - My personal model of aesthetics: People don't listen to temperaments > as numbers, rather, they listen to music. Either it's beautiful or it's > less beautiful; or if a temperament is severely unsuited to the > composition that is being played in it, there are downright ugly spots. > These things can be perceived without any recourse to numbers. The > music either sounds fantastic or it sounds like crap, or something in > between. If any individual notes stick out sounding wrong for their > musical contexts, either melodically or harmonically, there's a problem > to be solved; the player or tuner haven't properly matched a tuning > style to the repertoire. And that basic problem boils down mostly to > the handling of enharmonic choices, or tasteful compromises, between > notes that have to share the same key lever on the instrument.
>
> - Spreadsheets and other calculating devices are (to me) only a tool to > measure and report upon sounds and concepts that are ALREADY INSTALLED > by ear on the instrument. The harpsichord has to be tuned from start to > finish in 10-20 minutes without any calculations, but only by a careful > and musical listening skill. 5ths/4ths are either pure or they're > nudged a little bit off pure, by practiced taste. Ditto for 3rds. It's > not even about counting beats; it's recognition of interval quality with > a slight and deliberate impurity to it...which is a MUSICAL skill > foremost, and only secondarily a mathematical thing to try to measure.
>
> - Some readers take a look at the tables of numbers and calculations in > my writings, and mistakenly assume that it's all about such things. But > it's not. Even the 1/6th and 1/12th comma modeling is only (again) a > way to measure RESULTS that have already been installed tastefully by > ear, i.e. explaining WHY it all works out not only in practice but also > on paper.
>
> There, for what it's worth, is my _ad hominem_ defense of my own > character and work, as for understanding where all this stuff comes from.
>
> Within all that background, in my opinion: those "squiggles" represent > physical motion on the tuning pin, just knocking it one or two little > jots out of purity on purpose. All other modeling by commas and cents > and beats and frequencies and anything else...it's merely reportage of a > process already installed by the analog process of nudging tuning pins > at a real harpsichord.
>
> And I must second the point that Bach was no "normal" musician [either]. > I, for one, don't require him to be mathematically sophisticated in > any way. I only require him to have had the close listening skills and > taste that anyone would have had to have to do his appointed jobs. He > composed and performed in ways that reached people, and that challenged > them in productive directions. I find him to be an excellent role model > in that. I believe he merely drew a little picture on paper of what he > already knew, as a shape, not as a basis for calculation. He drew a > picture of the good taste required to play that book of music. Did he > know or care about chopping up bits of commas, or counting ANY beats > anywhere? I don't know. I don't require him to have known it. I only > take it that he was capable of (and inclined towards) drawing a picture > of the practical nudges necessary to get the job done...teaching, as he > always did, by example and masterful demonstration rather than by > theoretical pages of precepts.
>
>
> Brad Lehman
>
>
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>