Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Temperament (formerly "mean" tone)

Before continuing on the List, it is important to take a look around. While
I have tried to keep my personal temperament even tempered, some are more
explosive. Specifically, there are those who have wolves in their
personalities.

Some, like Margo, seem to use wolves only in music. One rarely meets
(through the Internet, because we have never actually met) someone who has
apparently domesticated all their wolves.

Some like Paul, have their wolves pop out when inappropriate, usually
regretted, if not forgotten. Remember, many read this List. But screaming "Man"
to Margo when she is only quoting a list on Scala is problematic. So is
regularly putting me down for having some numbers on a dead tuning that are no
more than a few cents off from perfection.

Paul: Not that I think it is
important audibly, it just keeps you from starting down that slippery
slope which leads to really wanky values like Johnny gave us.

Johnny: I don't know where those first numbers came from. It seems no one
has gotten numbers directly from the copperplate monochord of Werckmeister's.
So, it is all second hand. And guess what? This is what the List is for.

As for Wiki, I usually mistrust it, although I am most happy that WIV is
correct on Wiki (fingers crossed). What is really wanky is a person's
temperament that makes it difficult to explore new things. No one wants to rehash
anything here. As for my wanky WIV numbers, I am please to report that we have
recrunched all the numbers and can now proceed.

Tom also offers so much on this List. I am grateful for the information he
provides. But when I get to the last sentence of his article on Fischer
(whom I have never had an opportunity to hear, or to see), he decides to end in a
snide fashion, unnecessarily mean. It is not a joke to me, or anyone else,
to impugn professional performances because of an exploration into numbers.

For the record, I am not a numbers person. I have to determine a final on
those tunings I am interested in for various personal reasons. Maybe, if I
found a piece that begs to be performed in WIV or WV or WVI I would proceed.
Until then, my record should be secure for the successes the AFMM has had in
many different tunings.

Some look down upon musicians. Occasionally, Carl demonstrates a bigotry
that is uncalled for in this regard. While people on this list thrust about,
Peter Serkin, Ton Koopman, Mitsuko Uchida, and Johnny Reinhard have chosen
particular tunings for particular music. Without the performances there would
be nothing but monk like research, unavailable to the world at large.

Once again, this post does not require any actual responses. But
temperament starts in the person. Temperamental is usually reserved for the creative
artists. And creativity is what gets trounced every time someone poopoos new
approaches, whether by Brad or by Charles.

I don't want to lose any of you on this List, but can't use guys modify your
temperaments, at least while posting internationally? I'm sure, SURE,
others feel similarly.

best, Johnny

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

🔗Paul Poletti <paul@polettipiano.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
> Before continuing on the List, it is important to take a look
around. While
> I have tried to keep my personal temperament even tempered, some are
more
> explosive. Specifically, there are those who have wolves in their
> personalities.
>

Hey man, gimme a break! I'm half Irish and half Italian, neither one
of which is recognized for being cool-headed. Plus I live in a culture
where shouting, gesticulation, and dramatized over-statement is the
normal mode of communication.

But you're a funny guy. On the one hand, you go on about how important
it is to show respect for people and tunings, and in the next breath
you nonchalantly toss off a serious misrepresentation of
Werckmeister's temperaments by claiming they only represented a "few
cents" from "perfection" of some "dead" tuning. Was does "dead" mean
in this context? That it no longer has any relevance for making music?
That we shouldn't care if we represent it correctly or not for those
musical necrophiliacs who might want to try making music in it? That
getting data right isn't important for analyzing the nature of "dead"
things? Isn't your beloved Kirnberger equally "dead"?

Furthermore, the Werckmeister Wiki page says:

"The tunings I (III), II (IV) and III (V) were presented graphically
by a cycle of fifths and a list of major thirds, giving the
temperament of each in fractions of a comma. Werckmeister used the
organbuilder's notation of ^ for a downwards tempered or narrowed
interval and v for an upward tempered or widened one."

Show why do you persist in calling these figures "second-hand" simply
because they don't come from the copperplate monochord engraving?
Seems to me Werckmeister's own table of which fifths are tempered up
or down by the stated amount is less "second hand" than some nameless
engraver's work.

Just wonderin'...

Ciao,

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Paul: Hey man, gimme a break! I'm half Irish and half Italian, neither one
of which is recognized for being cool-headed. Plus I live in a culture
where shouting, gesticulation, and dramatized over-statement is the
normal mode of communication.

Johnny: Hah, hah, hah. :)

Paul: But you're a funny guy. On the one hand, you go on about how important
it is to show respect for people and tunings, and in the next breath
you nonchalantly toss off a serious misrepresentation of
Werckmeister's temperaments by claiming they only represented a "few
cents" from "perfection" of some "dead" tuning.

Johnny: S'funny, you misunderstood me. Those who know me know how much I
love hearing music in the past in different tunings, surpassed only by my
actually playing the music, or at least directing the music. That is my career.
So, you must have had too little sleep and jumped at what you thought was a
reflex against a previously perceived slight. I was only referring to my
"personal" math errors that were no more than a few cents off of a tuning that
(WIV) that was prevalent in Halberstadt and Quedlinburg and Wittenburg before
Andreas Werkmeister was on the scene. It is dead only in the sense that it
needs to be brought to life. The "perfection" was in reference only to my
numbers from Wiki and you.

Paul: Isn't your beloved Kirnberger equally "dead"?

Johnny: Last time I checked!

Paul: Furthermore, the Werckmeister Wiki page says:

Show why do you persist in calling these figures "second-hand" simply
because they don't come from the copperplate monochord engraving?

Johnny: Guess if there is no difference there is no issue. Only, I was
wondering if there could be some variance. The fact you bring up an arcane
organbuilder's notation that I had never heard about before is exactly why I raise
these questions. I see them now on the monochord representation. For you,
it certainly should be hard to read the monochord down cold. It would be
cool if you found any variance...and shouldn't take too much time. Do you have
the monchord? I have Rasch's.

Paul: Seems to me Werckmeister's own table of which fifths are tempered up
or down by the stated amount is less "second hand" than some nameless
engraver's work. Just wonderin'...Ciao, P

Johnny: Good point. 'Ceptin' that Werckmeister would refer to the
monochord as the authority for him through his entire life. If there were an error
by the nameless engraver, it would clearly be more of an issue than who was
following orders, even if sometimes disagreeable.

I wonder if Tom believe there was no engraver because there is nobody
credited. Or maybe Werckmeister did the engraving, but chose an alter ego to
withstand some of the heavy criticism he was experiencing. Somethings never
change.

choos, man
Johnny

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

🔗Paul Poletti <paul@polettipiano.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
>
> Johnny: Guess if there is no difference there is no issue. Only, I
was
> wondering if there could be some variance. The fact you bring up
an arcane
> organbuilder's notation that I had never heard about before is
exactly why I raise
> these questions.

Really? "Arcane"? "Never heard about before"? I thought you said you
had read Werckmeister...

http://www.polettipiano.com/temporary/Werckmeister1681.jpg

> I see them now on the monochord representation. For you,
> it certainly should be hard to read the monochord down cold. It
would be
> cool if you found any variance...and shouldn't take too much time.
Do you have
> the monchord? I have Rasch's.

I have Werckmeister's. But I don't have the time nor the interest to
work it out. As far as I'm concerned, a difference would be of little
importance. I don't need a monochord to set any temperament specified
in fractions of either comma, nor do I believe any good organ builder
in Werckmeister's time did. With the "arcane organ builder's notation"
I have more than enough, which seems to be have been enough for W in
1681. Monochords are for those who can't work it out from the table,
regular musician types and amateurs, and perhaps less gifted organ
builders, all those whose understanding of temperament and mastery of
tuning is not so advanced.

Generally, I don't trust monochord lengths because it is so easy to
make an error, and in any event, rounding errors can introduce
mistakes, whereas the pure simple uncorrupted and uncorruptable logic
says it all.

> Paul: Seems to me Werckmeister's own table of which fifths are
tempered up
> or down by the stated amount is less "second hand" than some nameless
> engraver's work. Just wonderin'...Ciao, P
>
> Johnny: Good point. 'Ceptin' that Werckmeister would refer to the
> monochord as the authority for him through his entire life.

Hmm, he seems to have abandoned that authority in the 1698 continuo
treatise. He *does* say that "by means of a monochord demonstration,
one gains the certainty and guidance of how the ear can tackle the
problem, in that with our monochord, the different manners of
tempering and tuning can be found out." Once you've got "the certainty
and guidance of how the EAR [my emphasis] can tackle the problem", you
don't need the crutch of the monochord anymore.

> If there were an error
> by the nameless engraver, it would clearly be more of an issue than
who was
> following orders, even if sometimes disagreeable.

I don't understand your point here. But in any event, Tom has written
a very compelling analysis of W VI which implies that the engraver did
indeed make a mistake.

>
> I wonder if Tom believe there was no engraver because there is nobody
> credited.

"Nameless" does not equal "nonexistent". I really wonder why you
persist in making these illogical alterations of meaning. Nobody
suggested there was "no" engraver, merely that the engraver was
nothing more than that: an engraver, a printer's assistant, a 17th
century illustrator who himself had no understanding of what he was
hired to illustrate. Engravers' errors are legion in all manner of
historical publications. I'm surprised you have to be reminded of this.

Ciao,

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

--- In _tuning@yahoogroups.com_
(/tuning/post?postID=BB8T1G4UR2OSycY6n8tIrAgVOdyCvQl8wzAKAnSDu4dYm3XzvwOYEUuJbsj3YDIu0D6
cT1eLl8o3BnGgOyodF84) , Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
>
> Johnny: Guess if there is no difference there is no issue. Only, I
was
> wondering if there could be some variance. The fact you bring up
an arcane
> organbuilder's notation that I had never heard about before is
exactly why I raise
> these questions.

Paul: Really? "Arcane"? "Never heard about before"? I thought you said you
had read Werckmeister...

_http://www.polettipiano.com/temporary/Werckmeister1681.jpg_
(http://www.polettipiano.com/temporary/Werckmeister1681.jpg)

Johnny: Yes, arcane, and thank you. I have never been able to get my hands
on the 1681 Orgel Probe, only the later one which I believe omits this page.
(can't seem to locate my Orgel Probe now, and I am off for a presentation
at NYU.) Werckmeister dropped this, didn't he, in his revised edition once
the 1691 Musicalische Temperatur was ready for publication? Thanks for making
this page available.

Arcane: Secret, hidden (Funk and Wagnalls). Do you need the page number? ;)

Paul: ...monochords are for those who can't work it out from the table,
regular musician types and amateurs, and perhaps less gifted organ
builders, all those whose understanding of temperament and mastery of
tuning is not so advanced.

Johnny: How ironic then that you don't dare do it. I won't ask about it
again.

Paul: Generally, I don't trust monochord lengths because it is so easy to
make an error, and in any event, rounding errors can introduce
mistakes, whereas the pure simple uncorrupted and uncorruptable logic
says it all.

Johnny: Says it all.

Hmm, he seems to have abandoned that authority in the 1698 continuo
treatise.

Johnny: Yeah, but he still favored the diatonic keys in the last published
work, Musical Paradox. And he still referred back to that nasty monocohord of
his that I shouldn't really be mentioning here. ;)

Paul: He *does* say that "by means of a monochord demonstration,
one gains the certainty and guidance of how the ear can tackle the
problem, in that with our monochord, the different manners of
tempering and tuning can be found out." Once you've got "the certainty
and guidance of how the EAR [my emphasis] can tackle the problem", you
don't need the crutch of the monochord anymore.

Johnny: Yes, it's true. Werckmeister was a master tuner. He could teach
the use of the monochord and then tune without it. He could tune WIII in 15
minutes flat, and says so. Werckmeister, no doubt stunned by the dull wave to
follow his publication, generally speaking, sought to appeal to all sides, a
good politician, one who intends to survive. He spoke of ET as a
pedagogical approach for those of less tuning ability. It was never his ideal. And
yes, Kirnberger could tune, too. He was a violinist, you know.

> If there were an error
> by the nameless engraver, it would clearly be more of an issue than
who was
> following orders, even if sometimes disagreeable.

Paul: I don't understand your point here. But in any event, Tom has written
a very compelling analysis of W VI which implies that the engraver did
indeed make a mistake.

Johnny: This is indeed very interesting to me.

> I wonder if Tom believe there was no engraver because there is nobody
> credited.

Paul: "Nameless" does not equal "nonexistent".

Johnny: That would be my understanding of it.

Paul: I really wonder why you
persist in making these illogical alterations of meaning.

Johnny: How wonderful!

Paul: Nobody
suggested there was "no" engraver, merely that the engraver was
nothing more than that: an engraver, a printer's assistant, a 17th
century illustrator who himself had no understanding of what he was
hired to illustrate. Engravers' errors are legion in all manner of
historical publications. I'm surprised you have to be reminded of this.
Ciao, P

Johnny: Honestly, it was a fine reminder. I especially like to know of the
mistakes. Choos.

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

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

Hi Paul, Johnny, and Tom,

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

> Paul: Really? "Arcane"? "Never heard about before"?
> I thought you said you had read Werckmeister...
>
> _http://www.polettipiano.com/temporary/Werckmeister1681.jpg_
> (http://www.polettipiano.com/temporary/Werckmeister1681.jpg)
>
> Johnny: Yes, arcane, and thank you. I have never
> been able to get my hands on the 1681 Orgel Probe,
> only the later one which I believe omits this page.

I thank you for that too, Paul.

> Paul: I don't understand your point here. But in
> any event, Tom has written a very compelling analysis
> of W VI which implies that the engraver did
> indeed make a mistake.
>
> Johnny: This is indeed very interesting to me.

I buy Tom's argument all the way.
http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~tdent/septenarius.html

If someone can furnish a representative piece (or
a few different ones) from c.1691 which could plausibly
have been performed in Werckmeister VI "Septenarius" tuning
at the time, i'd like to make some Tonescape files of them.

I'm assuming that Werckmeister intended the Septenarius
to be a temperament of 5-limit JI, yes? If he intended
for any other prime-factors (or any other numbers, for
that matter) to be used as generators of the pitchspace,
i'd like to know about it.

-monz

email: joemonz(AT)yahoo.com
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software