Re Meantone, was Metastable intervals, re Margo

Hello Margo, and everyone. After checking out the canines in Schlick, I
found some variance in the calculations.
Firstly, there are indeed 2 dogs in Schlick’s temperament, not one. The
larger dog is from C# to G# at 711 cents according to Lindley’s numbers, and the
smaller dog is three cents sharp from just between G# and D#, as exists on
the Halberstadt keyboard.
J. Murray Barbour found different values for Schlick, making the smaller dog
a bit bigger at four cents sharp of just. With all other fifths flatter
than just, this smaller dog is even more noticeable. This is the reason I
consider Schlick an irregular tuning musician, someone that relished a variety of
keys, is that I read this about him. Sadly, I do not know of a full
translation for Schlick. (It really is hard to trust second and third hand
sources.)
And Fischer, too, had only 20 ueable keys that were easily distinguishable
with 2 dogs. And Werckmeister IV/Trost as well. In contrast, meantone is
indistinguishable in chord function interval quality, with only non-harmonic
tones providing color/or meantone variant distinction as per Tom. My sense is
that meantone provides the greatest real impetus to ET, while deriving as well
from a homogenization of well temperaments, while taking the ultimate
advantage of the properties of the number 12, and the development of the modern
piano.
But back in the Baroque, there seems to have been rival aesthetics, one
leading to equalness and one in praise of variegation. Such a perspective
reshuffles the deck with ramifications for new analyses. Frankly, it is
enthomusicologically sound to derive the irregular variegation principle share by
Grammateus, Trost, Werckmeister, Kirnberger, and J.S. Bach to the Thuringian/Harz
environs of central Germany.
I loved the use of dog and goat intervals in your writing. It makes for
easier reading and understanding. Using this turn of speech, I guess the major
third in C# major in sixth comma meantone at 416 cents is a goat third,
because it bleets. How about the large major second in that same key, at 220
cents; perhaps it is a frog second because it jumps higher?
A friend, John Sprague, brought up some fairy tales dealing with wolves that
might invite a metaphor to music, The Three Little Pigs with the blowing
down of the harmony of the triad of pigs, for example. Dogs nip at the heels,
they are not invisible, and really cannot be humored beyond their nature.
Yes, I do appreciate Barnes’s work. Jorgensen has done a lot of good, but
I don’t understanding how he could mislead listeners to Anthony Newman’s
harpsichord performance of The Well-tempered Clavier by describing the tuning as
Aron-Neidhardt II, rather than as Kirnberger III. As to no one tuning
accurate ET in the Baroque, how about Neidardt doing so quite publicly in Jena in
1703, using a monochord. (Where there’s one there’s many.)
Back to meantone alternatives, it is the variegation of the harmonic notes
of keys that distinguished the irregular tunings. Even though these irregular
tunings (to include both Grammateus and Schlick) have different derivations,
the ear only hears the variety of harmonic connections in irregulars. With
every key a different sounding tuning, no one can tell them apart!
It was funny to read today in a biography of Frederick the Great how
horrified the King was of the irregulars on the other side in war. In his meantone
court, the soldiers were clearly intended to be regular. As you may know,
Quantz built meantone distinctive keys into his new flutes/ D#-Eb, for example
has a different key for each chromatic identity.
Margo, you might want to revisit your idea that “If we see a fifth Ab-Eb, I’
d take that as a hint that the piece is intended for an instrument which
actually has both notes!” This is exactly true, unless it is a circular well
temperament, and of course, 12-tET. Werckmeister was explicit, though, that
chromatics like Eb and D# were to be intended as enharmonic identities, while
recognizing it might not take. Obviously, I think is ideas took big time,
contrary to some on this List.
I guess I don’t care for the very idea of modified meantone. It creates a
hazy distinction between the 2 categories I am looking at. It's
understandable that there were individuals that tuned every which way. However, I am
against imaginative contemporary interpretations as akin to the way
anthropologists whitewashed their studies of native American music.
It was quite enjoyable reading your thoughts.
All best, Johnny Reinhard

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

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

> But back in the Baroque, there seems to have been rival aesthetics,
one
> leading to equalness and one in praise of variegation. Such a
perspective
> reshuffles the deck with ramifications for new analyses. Frankly,
it is
> enthomusicologically sound to derive the irregular variegation
principle share by
> Grammateus, Trost, Werckmeister, Kirnberger, and J.S. Bach to the
Thuringian/Harz
> environs of central Germany.

You can imagine whatever sort of great aesthetic dichotomy you want,
Johnny, but if you actually take the time to read the sources instead
of drawing conclusions from 20th century literature and free-floating
postulation, you would find that what a lot of musicians were saying
at the time was that the main thing they were struggling with was the
combination of instruments built at different pitch levels, requiring
the keyboard player to transpose by 1/2 step, a whole step, or a minor
third up or down. This was the No.1 push towards ET, not some Great
Intonation Shift. ET is obviously the best solution to that particular
problem, though its bad thirds and lack of key variation are the exact
reasons why most musicians of the time rejected it (in their own
words). And as Neidhardt said, the wind instruments were not built in
ET either, which created a conflict. It is curious to note that a
large number of organs apparently remained tuned in straight up 1/4
comma meantone until the 19th century, which means that they had no
key variation, so lack of key color was not the only thing that let
most to reject ET.

> I guess I don’t care for the very idea of modified meantone. It
creates a
> hazy distinction between the 2 categories I am looking at.

As I said, you can put on whatever colored glasses you want to do your
looking, but the truth is that there are a lot of original sources
describing how to set modified meantones, and the Neidhardt temps are
more or less rationalizations of typical mod mean systems. I would go
so far as to say that I personally believe that mod means represent
general practice for anything but the big church organs for much of
the 17th and 18th centuries. Young's temperament (the real one) could
be viewed as a sort of "missing link" between mod means and
rationalized (P comma) circulating, using the S comma for all critical
bearings. Brad's proposed Bach temperament is a mod mean at heart,
even though he uses the P comma to construct it, one of the reasons
why I tell people that as a temperament for that period it is quite
believable, even though I have a lot of doubt about the squiggles. So
maybe you don't like them, but if you want your musings to have any
grounding in historical reality at all, you'd better deal with it.

Ciao,

P

Ah, hello Paul,

How nice to have your response. Actually, except for very few treatises, I
do have, and have read as many early writings as available. You, on the
other hand have already expressed your views against Kirnberger, against
Pythagorean tuning, and more. Thankfully, I have an independent point of view to
express.

Most often, an email post is not the place to detail an important new frame
of analysis, and for that reasons I am aiming to complete a larger effort
ASAP. Bach's Tuning was my Masters Thesis at Columbia in 1980, and I have since
been devoted to performing and understanding performing music from the past.
No doubt, this is true for you, and Bradley, and others. But there are
obvious differences between us.

PP: You can imagine whatever sort of great aesthetic dichotomy you want,
Johnny, but if you actually take the time to read the sources instead
of drawing conclusions from 20th century literature and free-floating
postulation, you would find that what a lot of musicians were saying
at the time was that the main thing they were struggling with was the
combination of instruments built at different pitch levels, requiring
the keyboard player to transpose by 1/2 step, a whole step, or a minor
third up or down.

JR: Besides the condescending perspective you bring to your new bully
pulpit, you are not correct. Keyboard players could not change pitch levels in
circular well temperament, for instance. If it were possible there would be no
need for different pitch standards. Only meantone allowed for such
transposition.

PP: This was the No.1 push towards ET, not some Great
Intonation Shift. ET is obviously the best solution to that particular
problem, though its bad thirds and lack of key variation are the exact
reasons why most musicians of the time rejected it (in their own
words).

JR: Yes, I have been underscoring ET's connection to meantone.
There are plenty around to disagree with that, especially since ET has a
number of different derivations. Feel free to focus on the one you mentioned.

PP: And as Neidhardt said, the wind instruments were not built in
ET either, which created a conflict.

JR: While a modern publishing of Neidhardt's writing is not available,
though I am hunting it down, I do know a thing or two about wind instruments. You
might say that I can play in any tuning on a bassoon or a recorder, even ET.

PP: It is curious to note that a
large number of organs apparently remained tuned in straight up 1/4
comma meantone until the 19th century, which means that they had no
key variation, so lack of key color was not the only thing that let
most to reject ET.

JR: Actually, we weren't dealing with ET at all in our discussion. And
there is key color in meantone, if only in the non-harmonic tones. I am sure
you know this even if you are merely skirting over it.

> I guess I don’t care for the very idea of modified meantone. It
creates a
> hazy distinction between the 2 categories I am looking at.

PP: As I said, you can put on whatever colored glasses you want to do your
looking, but the truth is that there are a lot of original sources
describing how to set modified meantones, and the Neidhardt temps are
more or less rationalizations of typical mod mean systems.

JR: You might try a different metaphor other than glasses, especially since
I use ears and intellect over eyes. Don't you? Anyway, my work is based on
Bach's tuning and Neidhardt is late for Bach based on chronology.

PP: I would go
so far as to say that I personally believe that mod means represent
general practice for anything but the big church organs for much of
the 17th and 18th centuries.

JR: You may be speaking about mod in terms of derivation, but I am focusing
on the unequalness between keys that Kirnberger and Werckmeister and many
others wrote about as an aesthetic. Feel free to continue to ignore this, but it
is in their writings. I will be happy to put up some pertinent quotes at a
later date if you like. But don't make this a pissing contest.

PP: Young's temperament (the real one) could
be viewed as a sort of "missing link" between mod means and
rationalized (P comma) circulating, using the S comma for all critical
bearings. Brad's proposed Bach temperament is a mod mean at heart,
even though he uses the P comma to construct it, one of the reasons
why I tell people that as a temperament for that period it is quite
believable, even though I have a lot of doubt about the squiggles. So
maybe you don't like them, but if you want your musings to have any
grounding in historical reality at all, you'd better deal with it.
Ciao, P

JR: I have no difficulty understanding what you are saying. But please
allow me to disagree with your hegemony on history. I don't buy it. There are
other ways at looking thing. If you want to stick to the Linnaeus categories
of life, feel free, but it is dated. DNA has changed things around.
Microtonality has allowed the mind to understand differently than people did in the
past. My experiences 25 years ago with tuning were quite different than they
are now. People went apoplectic when I "claimed" to perform in 31-tone
equal temperament, and now they are rather blase.

all best, Johnny Reinhard

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Ah, hello Paul,
>
> How nice to have your response. Actually, except for very few
treatises, I
> do have, and have read as many early writings as available. You,
on the
> other hand have already expressed your views against Kirnberger,
against
> Pythagorean tuning, and more.

Are these two contradictory in any way? I've read Kirnberger, and
still think it is a load of bunk, and doubt seriously that it was ever
used by professional musicians because it doesn't solve any of the
practical problems they were facing. Pythagorean definitely has it's
place, I just don't think the standard approach to teaching about
"scales" as found in dozens of acoustics books for musicians is valid:
first Pythag, then Just, then ET. This puts the cart before the horse,
because JI preceded Pythag.

>
> Keyboard players could not change pitch levels in
> circular well temperament, for instance. If it were possible there
would be no
> need for different pitch standards. Only meantone allowed for such
> transposition.

Huh???!!!! I don't get any of this. There was no "need" for different
pitches, they just were, the result of various preexistent conditions
which had no origin in temperament. I fail to understand how you think
that transposition by 1/2 step, often mentioned in late 17th and 18th
treatises on how to be a good oranist, how to realize continuo, etc,
is possible. I fail to understand how you think that transpositon was
not possible in circulating temperaments, when so many sources say
that is what they are for. Maybe you like the sound of howling wolf
thirds, but if I'm gonna have to play in c# major or f# major, I'll
take a Neidhardt over meantone any day, no question!

> PP: And as Neidhardt said, the wind instruments were not built in
> ET either, which created a conflict.
>
> JR: While a modern publishing of Neidhardt's writing is not available,

Try Tom Dent's wiki tuning page.

> though I am hunting it down, I do know a thing or two about wind
instruments. You
> might say that I can play in any tuning on a bassoon or a recorder,
even ET.

I have had extensive exposure to players of early winds, as many of
them have been or are friends and colleagues, including Lowell Greer,
R. J. Kelly, Alfredo Bernardini, Lorenzo Coppola, Eric Hoeprich, Josep
Borras, and many more. I was married to a Dulcian and
Baroque/Classical bassoonist for 9 years. And finally, whenever I'm on
a professional tuning gig, I was talk to the wind players about the
intonation of there instruments and what temperaments best suit them.
I would have to say that from all this experience, no one, not once,
has ever told me that they like playing in ET. They can do it, but on
many instruments, it is difficult, and on some, like natural horns,
its a real bitch.

But all that is beside the fact. I'm not really interested in what you
or any other 20th c musician CAN do, only in what 17th and 18th c
musicians SAID was problematic.

>
> > I guess I don’t care for the very idea of modified
meantone. It
> creates a
> > hazy distinction between the 2 categories I am looking at.
>
> JR: You might try a different metaphor other than glasses,
especially since
> I use ears and intellect over eyes.

Um, I was just following yor lead about haziness when looking.

> Anyway, my work is based on
> Bach's tuning and Neidhardt is late for Bach based on chronology.

Once again, I can't fathom what you are on about. Neidhardt and Bach
were born in the same year. Neidhardt spent his early adult years in
Jena, where he studied with JN Bach, who reportedly had a new organ
there tuned in one of Neidhardt's temperaments. This puts him smack
dab in the middle of Bach territory, both in terms of geography and
professional contacts. Even if we want to restrict ourselves to the
rather unlikely prospect that the only communication between N and JSB
was by means of N's published tracts, his first publication was while
he was still in Jena, in 1706. Er, let's see now, by my reckoning,
that leaves a good 44 years of JSB output that could have been
influenced by N's ideas. I don't understand your concept of chronos.
Perhaps you could explain?

> PP: I would go
> so far as to say that I personally believe that mod means represent
> general practice for anything but the big church organs for much of
> the 17th and 18th centuries.
>
> JR: You may be speaking about mod in terms of derivation, but I am
focusing
> on the unequalness between keys that Kirnberger and Werckmeister and
many
> others wrote about as an aesthetic. Feel free to continue to
ignore this, but it
> is in their writings.

I'm not ignoring it all, and I'm quite familiar with many texts citing
it. What I doubt is that there was a conflicting aesthetic that
preferred the sound of ET. Sure, it appealed to some folks because of
it's mathematical purity, and to others because of its solution to the
problem of transposition, but how many people say it actually sounds
better?

Ciao,

P

Dear Margo,

It was great to read your post, at time I broke into laughter...but the good
kind. Maybe we should have a sheep second that baaahhs at 220 cents.

We seem to have covered some good area, although there would be no new
writing if everything was settled. For example the poodle at 4 cents sharp of
just is not yet so finalized for the following reason: the distance heard and
perceived between it and the other fifths in the system is still greater, than
it is "theoretically" from just. With fifths of 696 cents in a system, a
poodle might well be considered to be at 8 cents.

Calling the poodle a four cents "gentle" may not seem so to the listener of
the time, or in my case, to a listener of this time. I do believe that
modern ears have been opened wide to the acceptance of new sounds as legitimate
musical materials and vocabulary, including most spectacularly, noise. Sure, 4
cents seems modest, but at 8 cents difference and in the opposite direction
of just, it places itself as an irregular tuning that an improvisor would
adhere to. The player of the time did improvise to shock, as Bach was accused
of doing in Arnstadt as a youth, or Charles Ives was accused of in a church
organist job he had as a youth. Youthful indiscretion aside, there was no
advantage to procuring even a poodle to the ear when the audience was not
expecting dogs of any stripe.

Margo: Certainly I understand your point that both meantone and 12-tET
provide uniform interval sizes as to the "usual" intervals, such
as regular major and minor thirds. As someone to whom "modern"
often means "around 1600," I give weight to those "unusual"
intervals, and to chromatic progressions as well. From a
perspective of 1750 or 1850, I can see your point. Someone who
likes the uniform sweetness of a meantone organ might conclude
that if we need a 12-note circulating system, let's at least make
everything as uniform as possible -- thus 12-tET.
The next issue raised was about my general comment that listening to

Johnny: Thank you for understanding me here, though I might start the
perspective at 1700. Once Werckmeister's ideas were widespread in central Germany,
the idea of an equal temperament became obvious. As we know, ideas can
precede practice. Neidhardt played out the idea most dramatically in Jena.

Another question raised to my comment, Do you mean that given that
Grammateus and Schlick are both
variegated, no one can tell these two tunings apart?, brought a fine
response. You do understand me, that I was speaking generally. If one trains the
ear to look for distinctive features, and maybe with a bit of perfect pitch
ability, maybe, one could look for this like testing for beats. Your point is
taken. However, with a multitude of irregular tunings, probably consisting
of what have heretofore been called modified meantones.

With more variegation, it becomes more difficult to distinguish between
systems. More importantly, a comparison of irregular systems would have no cause
in the past to be compared with each other. What would be the purpose?

with best wishes, Johnny

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

--- In _tuning@yahoogroups.com_
(/tuning/post?postID=VJSUiQXL36Ol6n7-vgaWorTF6Lmtf9fRL90w8_NNQODaII2YVkRKWlS-UXCv1_zkiOv
IzUhDudkMhy23m7KfkLg) , Afmmjr@... wrote:
You, on the other hand have already expressed your views against Kirnberger,
against Pythagorean tuning, and more.

PP: Are these two contradictory in any way? I've read Kirnberger, and
still think it is a load of bunk, and doubt seriously that it was ever
used by professional musicians because it doesn't solve any of the
practical problems they were facing.

JR: Hello Paul. While I appreciate your honesty, we disagree. Kirnberger
was used as a resource by no less than Beethoven. google "Beethoven
Kirnberger" and read how Beethoven used Kirnberger's book to teach his students near
the latter part of his life. Besides, Kirnberger's discussion of the minor
seventh resolving down as a distinctive harmonic functional dissonance is
profound. Additionally, his description of variegation in well temperament as
distinguished from ET is profound. His generosity in giving the world his
copies of the Brandenburg Concerti, and so much more makes him worthy of much more
respect than you would give him. From a temperament point of view, he
merely brought a more just intonation bias to what had been done earlier. I would
agree that he shot himself in the foot by claiming to represent his teacher,
Bach, and then substituting his own tuning in the beginning of the book.

PP: Pythagorean definitely has it's
place, I just don't think the standard approach to teaching about
"scales" as found in dozens of acoustics books for musicians is valid:
first Pythag, then Just, then ET. This puts the cart before the horse,
because JI preceded Pythag.

JR: That is not what you said before. More measured, I agree with you.
Tracing Pythagorean to city dwellers in the connection that I would make.
Earth's original inhabitants seem to have an innate understanding of just
intonation, but it was Sumerians that introduced a spiral of fifths.
The neolithic had given way to the cities.

Also, maybe we disagree here, but I trust that music composed in Pythagorean
tuning would be more sincere than if it was transposed. I would say that,
by extension, this is true for any music composed in a specific tuning.

>
> Keyboard players could not change pitch levels in
> circular well temperament, for instance. If it were possible there
would be no
> need for different pitch standards. Only meantone allowed for such
> transposition.

PP: Huh???!!!! I don't get any of this. There was no "need" for different
pitches, they just were, the result of various preexistent conditions
which had no origin in temperament.

JR: Yes, it is true, you do not get any of this. :)
There are a number of reasons why there was a difference between church
organs and keyboards tuned for wind instruments like oboes and bassoons.
Firstly, woods sound better when they can be elongated a bit (note the early music
fixation on 415 herz). This is why English Horn and bass clarinet developed.
Secondly, organ parts are cheaper when the pipes are smaller. Thirdly,
higher pitch is symbolically closer to God, angel like, for an instrument
designed to get God's attention. Fourthly, there was no pitch standard, with
pitches set at different rates in different churches in the same city. And there
was no standard of pitch between Chor and Kammer pitches. A whole tone apart
does not tell anyone what kind of whole tone is intended.

PP: I fail to understand how you think
that transposition by 1/2 step, often mentioned in late 17th and 18th
treatises on how to be a good organist, how to realize continuo, etc,
is possible.

JR: Somehow, your meaning is not clear here. What I am saying is that in
well temperament re Bach changing a key from D minor to E minor means that the
intervallic values are different, so there is no smooth transposition. That
is why Bach would re write the orchestra in St. Matthew's Passion to reflect
E minor, even though the organs parts were written in D minor. D minor was
different than E minor is well temperament, of which I use Werckmeister III
as a model. D minor is the most just minor key in Werckmeister III and E
minor is much more non-descript in this context. It is not a simple
transposition. Meantone, due to its regularity is a natural for such transposition,
however.

PP: I fail to understand how you think that transpositon was
not possible in circulating temperaments, when so many sources say
that is what they are for. Maybe you like the sound of howling wolf
thirds, but if I'm gonna have to play in c# major or f# major, I'll
take a Neidhardt over meantone any day, no question!

JR: yes, you do not understand, but please don't put words in my mouth. I
like Howling Wolf the blues artist. But I am not radical in my appreciations
of early music. Taking "Neidhardt" like the "A Train" doesn't say very much.
I am not a generalist. I work to match the tuning to the composer in a
manner that reflects said composer's intentions. If a piece in meantone, say a
work by Kuhnau, wants to emphasize a wolf in meantone to demonstrate
something in David and Goliath, I would honor that.

> PP: And as Neidhardt said, the wind instruments were not built in
> ET either, which created a conflict.
>
> JR: While a modern publishing of Neidhardt's writing is not available,

PP: Try Tom Dent's wiki tuning page.

JR: Thank you, I already have. Thank you, Tom. (And by the way, I loved
your recent post.)

> though I am hunting it down, I do know a thing or two about wind
instruments. You
> might say that I can play in any tuning on a bassoon or a recorder,
even ET.

PP: I have had extensive exposure to players of early winds,

JR: In this case you are second hand to the knowledge, and I am first hand.
There is intelligence gained in different ways. It is interesting to
suppose that what one can do in the present indicates it could have been done in
the past. But I am not drawing and hard conclusions.

> Anyway, my work is based on
> Bach's tuning and Neidhardt is late for Bach based on chronology.

PP: Once again, I can't fathom what you are on about. Neidhardt and Bach
were born in the same year. Neidhardt spent his early adult years in
Jena, where he studied with JN Bach, who reportedly had a new organ
there tuned in one of Neidhardt's temperaments. This puts him smack
dab in the middle of Bach territory, both in terms of geography and
professional contacts. Even if we want to restrict ourselves to the
rather unlikely prospect that the only communication between N and JSB
was by means of N's published tracts, his first publication was while
he was still in Jena, in 1706. Er, let's see now, by my reckoning,
that leaves a good 44 years of JSB output that could have been
influenced by N's ideas. I don't understand your concept of chronos.
Perhaps you could explain?

JR: The chronology has JS Bach at 18 years old adjudicating Wender's new
organ in Arnstadt in a circular well temperament, most likely in Werckmeister
III tuning. At this time, Neidhardt was outside of Thuringia and a law
student. By the time Neidhardt studies in Jena, JS Bach is already on his tuning
path. Changing views for Neidhardt are of interest, and of course a changing
course for Bach would be of interest. I do not think there is any profound
change in Bach's tuning preferences as of 18 years old in Arnstadt. The Bach
family, probably under the expertise Johann Christoph Bach in Eisenach, who
died just before the judging in Arnstadt, set the project up when JS was 16
years old. I believe, and will produce this material supporting this belief,
as soon as I can in a book.

> PP: I would go
> so far as to say that I personally believe that mod means represent
> general practice for anything but the big church organs for much of
> the 17th and 18th centuries.
>
> JR: You may be speaking about mod in terms of derivation, but I am
focusing
> on the unequalness between keys that Kirnberger and Werckmeister and
many
> others wrote about as an aesthetic. Feel free to continue to
ignore this, but it
> is in their writings.

PP: I'm not ignoring it all, and I'm quite familiar with many texts citing
it.

JR: Ah, that wasn't clear.

PP: What I doubt is that there was a conflicting aesthetic that
preferred the sound of ET.

JR: Me, too. But there were those that preferred the sound of meantone, as
opposed to irregular tunings (which you prefer to call modified meantone).

************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
.
>
> JR: Hello Paul. While I appreciate your honesty, we disagree.
Kirnberger
> was used as a resource by no less than Beethoven. google "Beethoven
> Kirnberger" and read how Beethoven used Kirnberger's book to teach
his students near
> the latter part of his life.

I did, but I didn't see anything on the first few pages that came up.
If you have some URL, why not just post it instead of sending people
on a wild goose chase?

Kinrnberger's KRS is a big work covering lots of stuff. I don't doubt
Beethoven could have used some aspects of it. It's the temperament
that I think is amateurish and of little or no practical value for
music of >1780. Most especially Beethoven. And whenever I mention
Kirnberger and temperament in the same breath, I mean his original
temperament, the one with 1/2 comma fifths.

>
> JR: Yes, it is true, you do not get any of this. :)
> There are a number of reasons why there was a difference between
church
> organs and keyboards tuned for wind instruments like oboes and
bassoons.
> Firstly, woods sound better when they can be elongated a bit (note
the early music
> fixation on 415 herz).

Woodwinds were built at many different pitches at many different
times. They sound different, I hesitate to say "better". Depends on
what you are after; a mellow, warm sound, or a bright piquant sound.
It just so happens that bassons and clarinets were largely of French
origins, and French pitch was low. Early Dulcians and cornetti, on the
other hand, were high.

> Secondly, organ parts are cheaper when the pipes are smaller.

This idea was floating around the Netherlands 15 years ago or so, but
I don't know anybody who believes it. That's because any real savings
would be next to nil. For a rise of a whole tone, the savings would
amount to 11% of the material used in making the pipes only, which is
a small fraction of the total material in the instrument when you
think about windchests, keyboards, trackers, and most of all, the
casework. Finally, then, as now, labor was by far the largest cost of
making an instrument, and pitch does not change this one iota.
Personally, I'd be surprised if any organ builder factored pitch into
the cost calculation - hardly worth the effort. Anybody got any hard
data on that? I suppose Ibo would know if anybody did, he's probably
seen more original organ contracts than any other person alive today.

> Thirdly,
> higher pitch is symbolically closer to God, angel like, for an
instrument
> designed to get God's attention.

That's very creative, but it doesn't wash. Organs were originally
pitched lower, in the old Chorton, when Cammerton was the higher of
the two because of the cornetti. As cornetti began to be used more in
churches, the organ were jacked up to agree with them. Only later did
the two switch place. Did 16th musicians somehow feel less of a need
to be close to God? Plus I don't think there is much stock in your
suggestion that intent was "to get God's attention". When we are
dealing with an ostensibly omnipotent and omnipresent being, by
definition you've already got his attention. No, I suspect it was more
so to put the FEAR of God into the church goers, and for that it
merely needs to be loud.

> Fourthly, there was no pitch standard, with
> pitches set at different rates in different churches in the same
city. And there
> was no standard of pitch between Chor and Kammer pitches. A whole
tone apart
> does not tell anyone what kind of whole tone is intended.

That is more or less true but only when you want to pin it down to
something as small as the difference between various believable whole
sizes. This assertion is generally disproved by the number of
instruments built with transposing keyboards (like the early 18th c
Frankfurt cathedral organ, that could slide manuals and pedal by a
minor third, making all half step stops along the way), and the truly
vast number of sources talking about the organist needing to transpose
up or down a whole tone in order to play with winds pitched
differently. Or works like the Krebs Fantasy for organ and oboe, with
the manuscript organ part written in f minor (!) and the oboe in g
minor (could be a case of subsemitones). Finally, we have no less than
two surviving letters by Silbermann to prospective clients advising
them that they must decide which pitch they want the organ at
(obviously they weren't feeling insecure about their distance to the
Almighty, or there would have been no question) in which he describes
all four pitches (from French Opera pitch to Cornetton) stating that
they are separated by a half step.

Have you read Haynes/Story of A?

Ciao,

P