Fischer - how many 'keys'?

Johnny's assertions about JCF Fischer's Ariadne Musica are hard to
understand. In fact we do not know anything about the tuning he might
have had in mind, or experienced on some organ or pedal
clavichord/harpsichord. There is nothing that shows that it could not
be equal temperament ... to speak of a 'Fischer temperament' is
meaningless.

Fischer did not write in '20 major or minor keys' - he wrote in 10
major keys (C D Eb E F G Ab A Bb B), 9 minor keys (C# D E F F# G A B
C) and the Phrygian mode on E. Apart from B major, the major and minor
keys are those which in modern notation have up to 4 flats or sharps.

The 20 tonalities encompass every chromatic degree, in that the set of
tonics is the familiar 12-note chromatic scale.

So every fifth round the circle should then be musically employable,
since every fifth is involved in either a tonic major or tonic minor
chord or both. Moreover the use of the dominant chord with major third
in the minor tonality means that the range of chords used is rather
wider than the mere list of tonic triads. The tuning has to be
circulating in the narrow sense of the word.

There are various reasons why Fischer might not have written in F# and
C# major and G#, D# and Bb minor - perhaps he considered them simply
too inconvenient to read, to play or even to notate.

By the way, considering Schlick's text, it seems extremely unlikely
that any player in the early 1500's would try to go beyond the tonal
range of *his* tuning, which is between the chords of Ab major/F minor
and E major/F# minor (G# is marginally usable as a third, but not as a
perfect fifth).
Only a French text is currently online:
http://perso.orange.fr/organ-au-logis/Pages/Schlick.htm

'Et quoique le post-ut en question soit trop bas par rapport à sa
quinte supérieure post-sol, cela n'a pas d'importance car on ne
l'utilise pas, à moins de jouer intégralement per fictam musicam;
c'est-à-dire sur toutes les touches noires, ce qui est sans nécessité;
et les compositeurs n'écrivent aucun chant intégralement en notes
étrangères. A moins que l'un d'eux cependant se mette, par curiosité
ou par goût de l'étrange, à progresser per fictam musicam, le premier
ton en b-fa-b-mi, par exemple, ou le cinquième en e-la-mi etc. ..
L'organiste cependant n'est pas tenu pour autant de le jouer selon ces
notes, mais pourra au contraire le transposer vers le haut ou vers le
bas afin d'éviter l'usage des demi-tons qui sont les plus dissonants,
a savoir post-ut et post-sol.'

Essentially: The fifths that fall between the sharps (primarily C#-G#)
are not important because no-one uses them, no chants are written in
modes transposed onto the sharps. And even if someone composed a piece
in that way, the organist could transpose it to avoid using the most
dissonant sharps, that is C# and G#.

One point sometimes overlooked is that Schlick's keyboard could be
moved a tone relative to the pipes...

~~~T~~~

Hi Tom,

You can speak directly, you know. :)

Tom: Johnny's assertions about JCF Fischer's Ariadne Musica are hard to
understand. In fact we do not know anything about the tuning he might
have had in mind, or experienced on some organ or pedal
clavichord/harpsichord. There is nothing that shows that it could not
be equal temperament ... to speak of a 'Fischer temperament' is
meaningless.

Johnny: Meaningless for me is to ignore the problem. At least try some
mental algebra with an unknown variable and set up an equation, at least
metaphorically. He had to use something!

While theoretically it is possible that Fischer used equal temperament, that
is the least likely possibility for a number of reasons. It was not what
was done at that time for keyboard. It would have been noted as such (most
likely scenario). After 20 keys, using the last 4 would make a lot of sense.
Bach followed Fischer up with 24, aware that he was using a full circle.

Tom: Fischer did not write in '20 major or minor keys' - he wrote in 10
major keys (C D Eb E F G Ab A Bb B), 9 minor keys (C# D E F F# G A B
C) and the Phrygian mode on E. Apart from B major, the major and minor
keys are those which in modern notation have up to 4 flats or sharps.

Johnny: Thank you for specifying in more detail. My point is that it is
most likely that Fischer did not use keys with 2 fifths, the same 2 fifths that
limit's Schlick's tuning. In other words, there are at least 2 dogs. With
this reality, a composer would avoid the dogs in composed works unless trying
to portray an extra-musical idea in the music.

Within an aesthetic of variegation in keys, it may be more forgivable to
stray to a poodle or a goat, as Margo and I have been discussing. But there are
definitely badlands to be avoided. Unfortunately, I do not have the Fischer
music, nor have I seen it. But it makes intuitive sense that there is no
enclopedic effort by Fister to catalogue all possibilities as contrasted to
Bach's almost scientific Well-tempered Clavier, Musical Offering, Art of the
Fugue. Fischer's use of the E Phrygian mode only underscores more of a bouquet
of flowers in presentation. It is quite possible Fisher had audible
distinctions between his keys, more like experienced with a mixed sushi selection.

Tom: The 20 tonalities encompass every chromatic degree, in that the set of
tonics is the familiar 12-note chromatic scale.

Johnny: Curious, are there only 12 pitch notations, or like with
Werckmeister, does he use enharmonic identities? This would be most telling.

Tom: So every fifth round the circle should then be musically employable,
since every fifth is involved in either a tonic major or tonic minor
chord or both.

Johnny: Please consider the difference between employable and being
functional. Do doubt all chromatics can be used; however, using C# major as a
functional tonic for a key with a wonky fifth was simply not done.

Tom: Moreover the use of the dominant chord with major third
in the minor tonality means that the range of chords used is rather
wider than the mere list of tonic triads. The tuning has to be
circulating in the narrow sense of the word.

Johnny: Yes, circulating in the narrow sense of the word. It is not a well
temperament. Nor is it a meantone. And it is not equal temperament. What
you describe above can be legitimate for a rare circumstance.

That leaves us with an irregular tuning that favors most of the keyboard
with differences between keys. This is anathema to meantone, and this is one
reason why I have not been comfortable with the term "modified meantone."

Tom: There are various reasons why Fischer might not have written in F# and
C# major and G#, D# and Bb minor - perhaps he considered them simply
too inconvenient to read, to play or even to notate.

Johnny: Good try, but it sounds too administrative a reason to be true.
Fischer's choice of keys (and mode) are indicative of having a good ear for
what sits best in each -- distinctive -- scale (or mode). As an irregular
tuning, especially a personal one like the kind some believe Bach possessed, it
would be difficult to impossible to analyze with key is which when listening,
for lots of reasons.

Tom: By the way, considering Schlick's text, it seems extremely unlikely
that any player in the early 1500's would try to go beyond the tonal
range of *his* tuning, which is between the chords of Ab major/F minor
and E major/F# minor (G# is marginally usable as a third, but not as a
perfect fifth).

Essentially: The fifths that fall between the sharps (primarily C#-G#)
are not important because no-one uses them, no chants are written in
modes transposed onto the sharps. And even if someone composed a piece
in that way, the organist could transpose it to avoid using the most
dissonant sharps, that is C# and G#.

One point sometimes overlooked is that Schlick's keyboard could be
moved a tone relative to the pipes...

~~~T~~~

Johnny: Great information, Tom. But I will no longer overlook that there
could be a move up "a tone relative to the pipes. Wow! If that is true (just
want to be sure) and Schlick is following his own irregular tuning, then it
is even more fantastic that he could modulate up a whole tone and completely
changing the relationships of the variegated keys.

One interesting thing about Schlick, he is the only proponent of irregular
tuning that doesn't come from Thuringia.

best wishes, Johnny

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> He had to use something!

Well, why not an organ in ET? Perhaps the instrument was built by some
now-forgotten equality enthusiast and they wanted some
widely-modulating pieces to show it off; but Fischer's musical
imagination, or his comfort in handling exotic notation, only went as
far as five sharps and four flats.

> While theoretically it is possible that Fischer used equal
temperament, that
> is the least likely possibility for a number of reasons. It was not
what
> was done at that time for keyboard.

That is only your assumption. Werckmeister mentions the possibility of
it being done in the last decade of the century. During the 17th
century we get occasional hints of ET being applied in practice (e.g.
Galle in Paris around the time of Mersenne!). Of course, it was not
*usual*, and the musical effects were usually not welcomed. But
Ariadne is not a usual or normal collection of organ music either.

Look at the rest of Fischer's works: they are much more conventional
in choice of keys. Ariadne was an exception, which *could* have been
due to an exceptional instrument.

> It would have been noted as such (most likely scenario).

What does that mean? There was no way for any early 18th century
composer to have 'noted' or notated equal temperament.

> After 20 keys, using the last 4 would make a lot of sense.

From the perspective of someone who routinely notated music with
double sharps, double flats and naturals, yes. Not for someone who
used the old convention of only sharps and flats, with the sharp signs
doubling as naturals in flat keys, and vice versa.

Ariadne does not include a single double-sharp, double-flat, or
natural sign. B major and E major never modulate to the relative minor
- even though the requisite dominants (D# major and G# major) were
enharmonic to Eb and Ab major, perfectly usable chords. I think there
may be a good reason for the lack of double sharps: Fischer didn't
know how to notate them.

> Bach followed Fischer up with 24, aware that he was using a full
circle.

But Fischer used a full circle of tonalities too! Consider the
following: 10 major keys (C D Eb E F G Ab A Bb B), 9 minor keys (C# D
E F F# G A B C). Rearrange according to tonic:

Ab Eb Bb F/f C/c G/g D/d A/a E/e/Phrygian B/b f# c#

This makes twelve tonics, and twelve tonic major and/or minor chords
which have to have good fifths. C# minor uses C#-G#, which Schlick
says is *not* used, Ab major uses Ab-Eb. If one assumes enharmonic
equivalence, this is a complete circle.

> Johnny: Curious, are there only 12 pitch notations, or like with
> Werckmeister, does he use enharmonic identities? This would be most
telling.

The tonal range is from Db round to B#, apart from one Cb in a
diminished chord (above D natural and F) in the Ab major prelude.

> using C# major as a
> functional tonic for a key with a wonky fifth was simply not done.

The C# minor prelude finishes on precisely that chord.

> It is not a well temperament.

Why not? Every major chord round the circle is used conspicuously,
either as tonic or dominant or both.

> Nor is it a meantone.

Why not? It could be 1/4-comma meantone on an instrument with 18 notes
in the octave (Db through to B#) where the rogue Cb is simply played
as a B. In this case the lack of double sharps is due to their absence
on the instrument.

> And it is not equal temperament.

Why not?

> Fischer's choice of keys (and mode) are indicative of having a good
ear for
> what sits best in each -- distinctive -- scale (or mode).

How could you judge this if you don't know the tuning and you don't
know the music?

The usual historian's fallacy is to assume some kind of tuning for a
given piece of music; then remark simultaneously 1) how well the music
is written to match the tuning 2) how well the tuning suits the music;
then to imagine that this has proved something worth knowing. Johnny
has gone one better: he doesn't know either the tuning or the music,
yet he can still praise the choice of keys.

By the way, since Fischer's range of fifths goes round the entire
circle, can we count him as a non-Thuringian advocate of circulation?
Same thing could be remarked about Heinichen, whose continuo exercises
(1711) include each element of the circle, and who actually invented
the 'musical circle' as a practical graphical device.

'Heinichen in his 1711 treatise showed that it was while a harpsichord
student of Kuhnau that the concept of a "musical circle" relating all
the major and minor keys originated.'
http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/acc/heinichen.html

Saxony, and to be precise Leipzig, emerges as another nest of
circulating activity around 1700.

If you want to make something unequal out of Fischer, you could get a
copy of the music (Performers' Facsimiles, New York, Broude Bros.) and
count the number of times each major third appears in a consonant
chord, like Barnes did with part of the WTC. Ariadne is a lot shorter,
so you should be able to do a more complete job!

~~~T~~~

> If you want to make something unequal out of Fischer, you could get
a
> copy of the music (Performers' Facsimiles, New York, Broude Bros.)
and
> count the number of times each major third appears in a consonant
> chord, like Barnes did with part of the WTC. Ariadne is a lot
shorter,
> so you should be able to do a more complete job!

For any who would like to listen to Fischer's complete book: please
consider buying my recording of it.
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/cd1002.html
It's "very nice-uh and not too expensive" getting this and 2 1/2
other hours of music, all for $30 USD. 3-CD set.

I also have Joseph Payne's, where he split it across two different
organs and omitted the five chorale ricercars. And Serge
Schoonbroodt's, where he pressed the whole thing through a 1714 organ
in meantone, wolves be embraced (and there are only about five or six
of the pieces that *don't* run into these wrong enharmonics!). I
don't have the old one by Franz Haselböck.

That's pretty much the pickings. The piece gets argued about more
than it gets recorded.

It's fashionable to point out the obvious borrowing that Bach did
from this in the E major: reusing Fischer's E major fugue subject for
his own E major fugue of WTC book 2. But there's another one in
Bach's book 1: the F major fugue from Fischer's F major fugue,
reusing at least half of Fischer's subject.

Brad Lehman

Tom, it sounds like you believe Fischer is ET. Fine. As this Fischer
business is only tangential to my actual work, I find it intriguing. Brad made
certain assertions that Bach used actual motives from Fischer's music. If that
is true, even partially, then it serves my purpose that Bach was impressed
by Fischer. Even more so, is the coincidence of the use of many keys.

Now, I do not have Fischer and have never heard or seen it. Damn, I wish
you could give medicine that tasted better. I will have to await my acquiring
originals. Here, where you can be so helpful as a musicologist, you (and
Paul) kick dust in the face. Frankly, I will be surprised if you genuinely
believe Fischer used ET, even if that's how you prefer listening to it.

Tom: Well, why not an organ in ET? Perhaps the instrument was built by some
now-forgotten equality enthusiast and they wanted some
widely-modulating pieces to show it off; but Fischer's musical
imagination, or his comfort in handling exotic notation, only went as
far as five sharps and four flats.

Johnny: Yes, you have little expectation for a musician to know any better.
Poor Fischer didn't know how to get past five sharps and four flats,
although he wrote the piece with the most variety of keys in history. Maybe, as you
say, there was no variety because it was in ET. What a waste it would be
then. BTW, have you knowledge of pieces certifiably in ET that makes use of
every major and minor key? Inquiring minds would like to know.

> While theoretically it is possible that Fischer used equal
temperament, that
> is the least likely possibility for a number of reasons. It was not
what
> was done at that time for keyboard.

Tom: That is only your assumption.

Johnny: Back off! Yes, I am being creative. Pardon me from seeing things
in different ways, and simultaneously, it is my curse. It works quite well
for me in improvisation. Sometime the passion that is useful for playing
colors a verbal argument, only to make it less valid to the emotionally even.
Maybe an emotional person is best equated with a circular tuning with wide
variety?

> It would have been noted as such (most likely scenario).

Tom: What does that mean? There was no way for any early 18th century
composer to have 'noted' or notated equal temperament.

Johnny: It was always possible for someone to describe a tuning. And it
should be possible to check for chromatic pairs. I have mentioned this before
but it didn't stick.

If in a single piece of music, defined as music for which there is no time
for a break to retune an instrument, a par of chromatics are notated (e.g.,
C#/Db, A#/Bb, etc.) we are probably dealing with an "enharmonic identity."
Now, I know Andreas Werckmeister promoted the idea of enharmonic identities,
realizing that it was unlikely to retain only one notation for one pitch.

In other words, if Fischer uses enharmonic identities, it will be as a
result of Werckmeister's contributions. Although a Bohemian in Baden, Johann
Caspar Ferdinand Fischer (1670-1746) wrote Ariadne in 1702.

So, Fischer was 32 years old when he wrote his bouquet of keys collection,
20 years after Werckmeister published Orgel Probe in 1681, and 11 years after
Werckmeister's Musicalische Temperatur. Looking at this evidence, although
without the genuine item which will eventually acquire, Fischer may have used
Werckmeister III tuning, if not another variant.

If, as you maintain, ET was a likely tuning for Fischer, pre-Neidhardt,
based only on an allusion to less popularized tracts to be read by musicians,
WIII is a better choice. Besides what would you have against WIII as Fischer's
tuning. You have already concluded he may not be very smart (using no double
sharps or flats), and that he may be limited in his ability to describe what
he is doing. Have you ever heard anywhere that Fischer's music was so
supposed to demonstrate identical keys? How stupid that would be with the
insistence of a B phrygian mode for inclusion.

Tom: Ariadne does not include a single double-sharp, double-flat, or
natural sign. B major and E major never modulate to the relative minor
- even though the requisite dominants (D# major and G# major) were
enharmonic to Eb and Ab major, perfectly usable chords. I think there
may be a good reason for the lack of double sharps: Fischer didn't
know how to notate them.

> Bach followed Fischer up with 24, aware that he was using a full
circle.

But Fischer used a full circle of tonalities too!

Johnny: But consider that JS Bach declared his full circle of tonalities and
Fischer did not.

Tom: Consider the
following: 10 major keys (C D Eb E F G Ab A Bb B), 9 minor keys (C# D
E F F# G A B C). Rearrange according to tonic:

Ab Eb Bb F/f C/c G/g D/d A/a E/e/Phrygian B/b f# c#

This makes twelve tonics, and twelve tonic major and/or minor chords
which have to have good fifths. C# minor uses C#-G#, which Schlick
says is *not* used, Ab major uses Ab-Eb. If one assumes enharmonic
equivalence, this is a complete circle.

Johnny: And a likely candidate for WIII. Tom, without the music experience
I don't know how the collection was used. For example, did Fischer use each
piece as a training exercise for players, also achievable with the
Well-tempered Clavier? Maybe Fischer just ran out of creativity so as to stop where he
did. Still, maybe Bach sensed his opportunity historically to plant his
name on the circle of 12 major and 12 minor keys. Brad provided information, if
true, that would confirm this.

Surely, if Bach heard of Fischer, Fischer heard of Werckmeister. Put on
your creativity cap; a top form musician/composer would be abreast of every
latest development. Werckmeister was a musical revolution. ET was an idea that
some individuals supposed could work, like in China, but that rarely was
heard, or even approved of, unless it was in an instrument of short resonance,
like a lute. And did Fischer intend his music to be passed on anonymously for
others in his time, or for posterity?

Tom, there are other ways of thinking than simply yours. It does not help
to hide among others who feel the same way that you do either. History is not
Herstory. History is the story of the winners. There are plenty of
chestnuts to drop.

> Johnny: Curious, are there only 12 pitch notations, or like with
> Werckmeister, does he use enharmonic identities? This would be most
telling.

The tonal range is from Db round to B#, apart from one Cb in a
diminished chord (above D natural and F) in the Ab major prelude.

Johnny: Thank you, this is good information. If there is a B#, then we
have enharmonic equivalence. I don't a subsemitonia keyboard is intended. Just
a gut reaction. Too post-Praetorius. Too post-Werckmeister. If we can use
Walthe's lexicon, the B# would be played on the keyboard note that is a C.
(Look E# and it is played as an F, Walther). Once again, Werckmeister III
makes the best example as a tuning for a piece of music that is circulating to
other musicians. (can I use circulating in this way?).

> using C# major as a
> functional tonic for a key with a wonky fifth was simply not done.

Tom: The C# minor prelude finishes on precisely that chord.

Johnny: Perfect. In WIII this is a wonderful triad: 0 300 702.
Sounds great for a prelude to something, or for anything else. It is a set mood
of a triad. And we all know today its sound because 300 is modern ET. Have
we all had advanced ear training, dictation, solfege. Many have learned 300
cents minor by rote through a lifetime of experience. But this Fischer chord
goes one better with the just fifth.

> Nor is it a meantone.

Tom: Why not? It could be 1/4-comma meantone on an instrument with 18 notes
in the octave (Db through to B#) where the rogue Cb is simply played
as a B. In this case the lack of double sharps is due to their absence
on the instrument.

Johnny: You rogue, you, trying to disguise a Cb. It has been pretty obvious
to me which composer notations are for subsemitonia. Colonna, Vicentino.
Mostly, subsemitonia help prevent retuning, not for extended chromatics. Do
you know of a(ny) piece intended for subsemitonia in the baroque? I can't
think of one, and I think it a wrong response for Fischer. Any subsemitonia
keyboards in Bohemia at any time?

> And it is not equal temperament.

Tom: Why not?

Johnny: a hunch.

> Fischer's choice of keys (and mode) are indicative of having a good
ear for
> what sits best in each -- distinctive -- scale (or mode).

Tom: How could you judge this if you don't know the tuning and you don't
know the music?

Johnny: That's what composers do. That's what Bach did. That's likely what
Fischer did. Otherwise, composing is just crunching numbers.

Tom: The usual historian's fallacy is to assume some kind of tuning for a
given piece of music; then remark simultaneously 1) how well the music
is written to match the tuning 2) how well the tuning suits the music;
then to imagine that this has proved something worth knowing. Johnny
has gone one better: he doesn't know either the tuning or the music,
yet he can still praise the choice of keys.

Johnny: Hopefully, some of what I wrote above is a fitting response to my
exploration of music of the past. I looked to you, with information at hand,
to further inform on Fischer. To some degree, you have been very helpful,
even if you don't like conclusions different than yours. Tom, do you snap your
fingers on 1 and 3 in compound measures in Jazz? Musicians don't indicate
everything on paper. Swing is a tough concept to extend on paper, and I don't
think it every has. But it's everywhere in the music.

Keys have had sentiments attached to them as long as they were perceived as
different from each other. Your listening back is limited at best, as it is
for everybody until they have hands on opportunities to listen and experience
music in different tunings. Thankfully, some of us have had these
experiences. You are right to point out some of the prejudices.

More to the point, I'm using a multiple choice idea for discovery the tuning
of Bach. (Ready to LOL or to cry?). If I can categorize tunings in such a
way as to delimit all the possibilities to the fewest possible choices, only
to disprove them one at a time, I should be left with only won of the
possible multiple choice answers.

Tom: By the way, since Fischer's range of fifths goes round the entire
circle, can we count him as a non-Thuringian advocate of circulation?

Johnny: Obviously, only my remarks about Thuringians were about an
aesthetic for unequal scales that are clearly distinctive from one another. Fischer
was clearly in Germanic culture, like Neidhardt, so they must be attuned to
the proclamations of Werckmeister.

Tom: Same thing could be remarked about Heinichen, whose continuo exercises
(1711) include each element of the circle, and who actually invented
the 'musical circle' as a practical graphical device.

Johnny: Um, 1711 years after Werckmeister died. The circle as an idea is
Werckmeister's, even if the graphic representation is Heinichen's. The idea
of a closed circle was spreading, as were enharmonic identities, like found
apparently in Fischer.

Tom: 'Heinichen in his 1711 treatise showed that it was while a harpsichord
student of Kuhnau that the concept of a "musical circle" relating all
the major and minor keys originated.'
_http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/acc/heinichen.html_
(http://www.classical.net/music/comp.lst/acc/heinichen.html)

Johnny: I haven't looked yet at your link. I hope to soon. But let me add
that Kuhnau would have been quite familiar with Werckmeister's
accomplishments, even long distance friends, as Werckmeister was to have with Walther.

Tom: Saxony, and to be precise Leipzig, emerges as another nest of
circulating activity around 1700.

Johnny: Yes, it comes out of the liberation of the keyboard as a virtuoso
instrument in improvisation. Saxony and Thuringia, with the huge percentage
of churches they have, would be at the cutting edge of this interest, a
circular tuning where every key would function acceptably to norms.

Remember, Werckmeister worked in cities that began with what is Werckmeister
IV. Barring the confusion created by number an earlier tuning to a more
recent innovation (WIII), the Wiki use of 2 names for each tuning, ala Barbour,
is unfortunate. Musicians accept the English horn as neither English nor a
horn. But when you, Wiki, give choices, it's screwy.

Andreas Werckmeister determined the name of each of six tunings on a
monochord in 1691. They should remain consistent. On the hand, gee, there may be
some mathematical errors in Werckmeister. There's a big mathematical error in
John Dowland's fretted tuning that has been corrected. As a mathematically
challenged individual, I would be indignant to unfair responses that miss the
forest for the tree.

Tom: If you want to make something unequal out of Fischer, you could get a
copy of the music (Performers' Facsimiles, New York, Broude Bros.) and
count the number of times each major third appears in a consonant
chord, like Barnes did with part of the WTC. Ariadne is a lot shorter,
so you should be able to do a more complete job!

~~~T~~~

Johnny: Thanks for the extra work. Guess you attacking Barnes for not
doing a more complete job?

I'll get back to you on Fischer when I obtain the materials. Promise.

Johny

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Tom, it sounds like you believe Fischer is ET. Fine. As this Fischer
> business is only tangential to my actual work, I find it
intriguing. Brad made
> certain assertions that Bach used actual motives from Fischer's
music. If that
> is true, even partially, then it serves my purpose that Bach was
impressed
> by Fischer. Even more so, is the coincidence of the use of many keys.

If you read the published obituary of JS Bach put together by CPE
Bach, you will find that Fischer was one of JS's favourite composers
to study.

Clearly it is no coincidence that Bach developed musical ideas from
Fischer - either individual themes, or the general idea of writing in
a lot of unusual keys, or even all possible keys (for some definition
of 'possible').

However, given the large distance between Baden and Thuringia, we
cannot suppose that Bach heard Fischer playing, or even ever heard any
organ that Fischer had played in his musical duties. The only thing we
know is that Bach knew his music in print or in manuscript.

I am at a loss to know what to tell Johnny about his gut feelings and
hunches. Either he is really interested in investigating Fischer, or
he doesn't have the time. If you don't have any information, and you
don't intend to spend time studying, is there any substitute? Anyway,
a start:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Caspar_Ferdinand_Fischer

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Caspar_Ferdinand_Fischer
(the German page has some interesting information about his early life
in what is now Bohemia...)

Fischer's surviving keyboard music runs over >100 pages, and *all* of
it is potentially interesting from the point of view of tunings:
either by virtue of its wide range of keys (Ariadne) or restricted
range of keys (eg Blumen-Strauss). However, it is obviously impossible
for me to give any meaningful or useful summary that would enable
anyone to draw informed conclusions without actually studying the
music. And I don't think it is a good use of my time, or this list, to
spend hours carefully cataloguing the key and tonal extent of each
piece, let alone the thematic content, etc. etc. so that Johnny can
marginally improve his speculations.

Even then we couldn't get very far, simply because of the lack of
clear contemporary evidence, and the historian's fallacy that I
mentioned before: in only very few cases is it possible just by
looking at the music to know what temperament was expected or wanted.
Johnny mentions enharmonics used within the same piece: but all
circulating tunings, and some not-really-circulating ones such as
temperament ordinare, permit the use of enharmonics without (much)
dissonance.

And even then, some 'wrong' enharmonics can sound perfectly OK in
context. (Try C#-B-F-A in quarter-comma meantone, as a modified
dominant for F# minor.) Louis Couperin used Eb and D# within the same
piece (a long chaconne or passacaglia in G/g) but I don't think that
shows anything except that this note was probably adjusted between the
two meantone extremes according to taste. And your taste (and mine) is
probably not very much like that of Louie's harpsichord-playing comrades.

The reason why I am sceptical is that we are not putting on a
performance here, we are (hopefully) trying to do history. In the case
of Ariadne, there are half a dozen reasonable hypotheses. ET; some
kind of Werckmeister-like or Trost-like (whatever that might mean)
circulating tuning; an extended meantone with 18 or 19 keys per
octave; the whole thing could be a composition for pedal clavichord
rather than organ, intended for students to learn their key signatures
rather than for public performance; anything else I've missed?

Now what reason could you have to put one of these possibilities in
front of any other, as a historical fact - rather than as something
you would personally like to be true?

By the way, Froberger had 19-note instruments in Vienna; and in 1722 a
certain Friedrich Suppig wrote a little pamphlet about a tuning with
31 pitches to the octave and the special instruments that could play
it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enharmonic_keyboard

Also, C# m a j o r (which is the chord Fischer's C# minor prelude
finishes in) in 'Werckmeister III' has a major third of 408 cents.

This is the eternal question for WIII-fans: how much Pythagorean
intonation are you prepared to tolerate. Werckmeister himself said
that if you tune 4 pure fifths one after another, the result is
unpleasant... Fischer certainly doesn't avoid using the chords of F#
major, C# major, Ab major, often fully voiced. Rather than thinning
down the harmony in supposedly 'difficult' keys (as Bach seems to do
in some preludes of WTC 1), Fischer often loads the table.

By the way, I am responsible for many aspects of the current state of
the wiki page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werckmeister_temperament
and I believe the explanation of the numbering is clear, transparent
and accurate. To try and simplify it by omitting one or other system
would actually create confusion, because both systems are currently in
use.

Since Werckmeister said 'The first good temperament' referring to what
we usually call WIII, I think it is equally justifiable to call it
'I'. That has the benefit that we don't end up with 'Werckmeister I'
and 'Werckmeister II' tunings that are nothing to do with him.

But what he would have thought of us talking about 'Werckmeister
tuning' in the first place ? He didn't take out a patent on it.
~~~T~~~

Tom: If you read the published obituary of JS Bach put together by CPE
Bach, you will find that Fischer was one of JS's favourite composers
to study.

Johnny: Hi Tom, Yes. I have read all of the New Bach Reader. But CPE's
comments are less interesting than were Brad's use of an actual music
connection regarding motives. Don't you agree?

Tom: The only thing we
know is that Bach knew his music in print or in manuscript.

Johnny: This means that Fischer could assume that players in his time would
know how to tune his music. That would explain why there was no explanation.

Tom: I am at a loss to know what to tell Johnny about his gut feelings and
hunches. Either he is really interested in investigating Fischer, or
he doesn't have the time. If you don't have any information, and you
don't intend to spend time studying, is there any substitute? Anyway,
a start:

Johnny: I wish Tom would talk directly. I'm over here...Tom! over here.
Someone thank Tom for me for putting up Wiki for Fischer. Guess he doesn't
have any control on the Fischer article.

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Caspar_Ferdinand_Fischer_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Caspar_Ferdinand_Fischer)

Johnny: According to Wiki, "This is a collection of _pipe organ_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pipe_organ) pieces (most written for _manuals_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_(music)) only or have optional _pedal_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedal_clavier) ) in two parts. So why all the discussion
on subsemitonia? Clearly Wiki doesn't think it likely or even worth
mentioned?

Similarly, you now seem to agree that a Werckmeister tuning is quite
possible for Fischer. But there is no mention of Werckmeister at all in the Wiki
article on Werckmeister?

And may have recalled incorrectly, but didn't you say the Fischer Phrygian
scale was on B; Wiki says it is based on E.
* The first part contains twenty preludes and _fugues_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugue) in nineteen different _keys_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_(music)) and one in the _Phrygian mode_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phrygian_mode) based on E. It is considered a significant precursor to
_Johann Sebastian Bach_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Sebastian_Bach) 's
_The Well-Tempered Clavier_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Well-Tempered_Clavier) . Bach held Fischer's work in high regard.

Johnny: And I agree, enough from me about Fischer since I have not seen the
music itself.

Tom: Johnny mentions enharmonics used within the same piece: but all
circulating tunings, and some not-really-circulating ones such as
temperament ordinare, permit the use of enharmonics without (much)
dissonance.

Johnny: I am not familiar that much with temperament ordinaire; was it used
throughout Germany at any time?

Tom: And even then, some 'wrong' enharmonics can sound perfectly OK in
context. (Try C#-B-F-A in quarter-comma meantone, as a modified
dominant for F# minor.) Louis Couperin used Eb and D# within the same
piece (a long chaconne or passacaglia in G/g) but I don't think that
shows anything except that this note was probably adjusted between the
two meantone extremes according to taste. And your taste (and mine) is
probably not very much like that of Louie's harpsichord-playing comrades.

Johnny: Absolutely, our taste is suspect. Can anyone on the list state when
enharmonic identities arrived pre-Werckmeister? If not, it is not pertinent
to Fischer, not if a different series of tuning traditions are in place.

Tom: The reason why I am sceptical is that we are not putting on a
performance here, we are (hopefully) trying to do history. In the case
of Ariadne, there are half a dozen reasonable hypotheses. ET; some
kind of Werckmeister-like or Trost-like (whatever that might mean)
circulating tuning; an extended meantone with 18 or 19 keys per
octave; the whole thing could be a composition for pedal clavichord
rather than organ, intended for students to learn their key signatures
rather than for public performance; anything else I've missed?

Johnny: Thank you, no. (I guess that was directed to me.) Except that the
Wiki says that use of the pedals was optional for only 2 pieces. And there
was nothing about extra chromatics. This leaves ET, and a Werckmeister-like
tuning, which has been left out all together by Wiki, even though it is more
likely, historically, than ET for Fischer's piece.

Tom: Now what reason could you have to put one of these possibilities in
front of any other, as a historical fact - rather than as something
you would personally like to be true?

Johnny: The most important reason of all is that 99.99% of all recordings
of music is recorded in ET. Only by an emphasis on a new recognition of a
historical likelihood that baroque music in the Germanic lands used a non-ET
aesthetic in their tunings will there ever be a likelihood of new recordings,
and performances, in historically sensitive tunings. It's not what I want to
be true, it's that any unequal tuning will sound more like another unequal
tuning that it does to an ET tuning. It's not only about pitch height, and not
only about training the fingers to play in different keys, there is also the
sentiments. Read about it, it's in the literature.

Tom: Also, C# m a j o r (which is the chord Fischer's C# minor prelude
finishes in) in 'Werckmeister III' has a major third of 408 cents.

Johnny: Problem with not having the score. You said...Tom said....a C#
minor prelude ending on C#, but he didn't indicate the Piccardy third major
chord on C#. I think I have already made it clear I will research Fischer
further...if not...I do declare it hereforth.

Tom: This is the eternal question for WIII-fans: how much Pythagorean
intonation are you prepared to tolerate. Werckmeister himself said
that if you tune 4 pure fifths one after another, the result is
unpleasant...

Johnny: True that.

Tom: Fischer certainly doesn't avoid using the chords of F#
major, C# major, Ab major, often fully voiced. Rather than thinning
down the harmony in supposedly 'difficult' keys (as Bach seems to do
in some preludes of WTC 1), Fischer often loads the table.

Johnny: Bach did not, especially if one supposes an unequal like WIII, try
to emphasize different keys. Exceptions include the Chromatic Fantasy and
Fugue in D minor and the St. Matthew's Passion, which I believe should be
thought of as beginning in D minor.

Tom: By the way, I am responsible for many aspects of the current state of
the wiki page
_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werckmeister_temperament_
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werckmeister_temperament)
and I believe the explanation of the numbering is clear, transparent
and accurate. To try and simplify it by omitting one or other system
would actually create confusion, because both systems are currently in
use.

Johnny: Well defended. Thank you for your thoughtful editing.

all best.
Since Werckmeister said 'The first good temperament' referring to what
we usually call WIII, I think it is equally justifiable to call it
'I'. That has the benefit that we don't end up with 'Werckmeister I'
and 'Werckmeister II' tunings that are nothing to do with him.

But what he would have thought of us talking about 'Werckmeister
tuning' in the first place ? He didn't take out a patent on it.
~~~T~~~

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