Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning continuo with keyboard meantones, continued

As Brad correctly pointed out, Baroque music *does* employ a 'double
standard' with respect to its melodic, or at least monophonic,
instruments. In chamber music, in almost all cases, the score consists
of one or more upper 'melody' lines, and a continuo or thorough-bass
(Ger.: General-Bass).

The difference is that the upper lines are played by solo instruments,
while the continuo line is played by a bass instrument and the left
hand of the accompanying keyboard (or other chord-playing instrument)
in unison.

The remainder of the keyboard accompaniment is then improvised given a
(usually) set harmonic structure (specified by symbols printed below
the bass notes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figured_bass). This
improvised keyboard part may include various rhythmic and melodic
elements. The point is that the keyboard in general does *not* double
the solo melody lines at the unison.

I think it quite reasonable to expect that there will be a closer
correspondence of tuning between the bass instrument and the left hand
of the keyboard, than between any melodic solo lines and the keyboard.
The bass instrument in unison with the regularly tempered keyboard is
then the least intonationally flexible part of the ensemble, apart of
course from the keyboard itself. It forms a predictable base from
which the solo instruments can achieve more (or less) pure intervals
that the keyboard can only approximate.

The extent to which a tempered or detuned unison in the bass line is
acceptable (or desirable?!), without leading to unclarity, is
debatable. What range of deviation does Brad think is realistic? I
explicitly mentioned a 1/4 comma or 3 NU fudge factor (which could
equally apply to the bass viol or to the violin), but that was only a
guess.

Back to my little composition, where the bass line is
C-B-C-A-E-D-G-C and the melody line is an ascending scale of C major.
I will take three cases of regular keyboard temperament: 1, 2 and 3
Neidhardt-unit meantone respectively, realized in 612edo 'skhisma'
units (slightly under 2 cents). 1NU meantone is essentially 12-equal;
2NU is 1/6-comma; and 3NU is slightly more than 1/4-comma - more like
3/11 comma.

To each note of the bass line after the initial C I add 161, 197, 415,
161, 358, 197 sk, the pure thirds, fifths and sixths. The resulting
violin scales are:

0 110 197 262 365 460 554 612 (1NU MT keyboard)
tones: 110, 87, 103, 95, 94; semitones: 65, 58

0 105 197 259 361 458 553 612 (2NU)
tones: 105, 92, 102, 97, 95; semitones: 62, 59

0 100 197 256 357 456 552 612 (3NU)
tones: 100, 97, 101, 99, 96; semitones: 59, 60

For comparison, a 12-ET tone and semitone are 102 and 51, while the
3NU meantone tone and diatonic semitone are 98 and 61.

The result for the 1NU tempered keyboard is striking: it is extremely
awkward for the violin to play pure 5-limit intervals above the bass -
even allowing for 3 or 4 units deviation, three different sizes of
tone are needed (say 106, 95, 87). The two semitones might be
approximated to an average one at say 61. Note that only one of the
tones, and neither of the semitones, is close to those present in the
keyboard. Even without any right-hand chords from the keyboard, the
mere presence of its bass-line strongly disfavours pure 5-limit
intonation.

But the 3NU tempered keyboard makes it child's play: all the violin's
tones are within 5 units (less than half a comma) of each other, the
semitones are extremely close, and their values also lie extremely
close to the regular intervals already present in the keyboard. This
is hardly surprising: given that all pure 5-limit intervals are
present in the keyboard within a 3-unit deviation, the melody
instrument needs only tiny adjustments away from regularity to obtain
truly pure intervals above the bass.

The 2NU tempered keyboard case is of course halfway between the two
numerically, but qualitatively it resembles 12-ET more, because the
difference between different tones is still somewhat large (slightly
over a comma).

The conclusion is a restatement of what you perhaps already knew from
considering adaptive JI: if you start from somewhere around
quarter-comma meantone then it is very easy to get chords in tune;
from somewhere around 12-ET, not so. Therefore it seems obvious to use
quarter-comma, unless there are other keyboard-related considerations,
in particular the use of enharmonics.

~~~T~~~

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@...> wrote:
>
on Tom's remark:
> > T.D.: The point is that the keyboard in general does *not*
> > double the solo melody lines at the unison.
>
B.P.L.:
> Somebody should have taught Mr Bach that lesson. In every single one
> of his harpsichord concertos (BWV 1052-1058), and in all the multi-
> harpsichord concertos (BWV 1060-1065), he wrote extended passages in
> which one or more violins double a long melody in one or more
> harpsichords.
>
> If I recall correctly, Rameau's "Pieces de clavecin en concerts" have
> plenty of unison doubling of melody between harpsichord right hand and
> violin, too.
>
Here C.P.E. Bach's comment on Rameau vs. Kirnberger:

http://www.tamino-klassikforum.at/print.php?threadid=5062&page=1&sid=2804ba2c5b637bed99687c9758514824
"Daß mein sel. Vater Anti-Rameau wahr, können Sie laut sagen !"
'you may say aloud: my blessed father was anti-Rameau!"

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0027-4631(194701)33%3A1%3C64%3ABA%22AOT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W
... C. P. E. Bach, however, who has often been mentioned with his
father as a strong...
..." my fundamental principles and those of my late father are anti-
Rameau ". ...

> It would seem self-evident here that the string players ought to play
> in tune, i.e. matching the harpsichord's pitches, and to heck with any
> attempt to make pure 5-limit intervals above the notes of the bass.
>
Never the less, conversely to Brad's hypothesis:
there survived coeval reports of ear-wittnesses about
their remarkable skills in violin playing:
JSB and Rameau were exceptionally gifted violinists:
Were they really inable to play JI 5-limit pitched intervals
correctly in tune over any fundamental on their strings
without any detuning by temperament induced by an accompaning
keyboard instrument?
The harpsichord simply omits the corresponding near
pythagorean 3-limit ditonic approximation in the worse keys
of an Baroque well-temperament:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonartencharakter
....
My personal doubts:
***Who ever belives such broadly-based layperson's claims? ***
That allege wrongly as bold as brass in imputing
JBS's and Rameau's incompetence to perform 5-limit JI properly
in the violin part when the continuo simply omits
most of the to much sharp 5-approx. near 12-EDO or even the worser
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditonus
81/64.

***Observing***:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
demands to include here also tuning laywomans too,
in regarding to an other kind of PC =/= 3^12/2^19 = 720 TUs.

Conclusion:
http://www.fres.ch/bd/content/music/bach.html
"Wissenschaftlich kann die Frage nach der originalen Bach-Stimmung
aufgrund der heutigen Quellenlage jedoch nicht beantwortet werden."
tr:
'But todays knowledge of the historically sources doesn't
allow yet to answer the question about the original Bach-tuning
in a scientifically way.'

Quest:
Who in that group -except Brad- disagrees with that appropriate
statement?
that reveals his modern 'Rosetta-stone'd squiggle-squabble as
blatant ahistorically nonsene,
clearly beloning into the corresponding category:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crackpot_index
http://www.crank.net/

sorry for my gluing and flogging
that dead horse again and again,
when obviously needed on actual demand.

yours sincerely,
in trying to handle any kinds of PC correct :-)
A.S.

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

> JSB and Rameau were exceptionally gifted violinists:
> Were they really inable to play JI 5-limit pitched intervals
> correctly in tune over any fundamental on their strings
> without any detuning by temperament induced by an accompaning
> keyboard instrument?
> The harpsichord simply omits the corresponding near
> pythagorean 3-limit ditonic approximation in the worse keys
> of an Baroque well-temperament:
> http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonartencharakter

The context here, as clearly stated, was the performance of Bach
harpsichord concertos (for one or more harpsichords), and
Rameau's "Pieces de clavecin en concerts". The keyboard parts of
those compositions are completely written-out.

And the harpsichordist *performing a Bach harpsichord concerto* is
simply supposed to omit any chord tones, anywhere/everywhere, where
it would conflict with 3-limit intonation in the strings so the
string players can play their notes adjusted up or down? That would
really be a coup. Especially so, in the Bach harpsichord concertos
in E major and F minor, and the two two-harpsichord concertos in C
minor. The harpsichordist(s) would be leaving out most of the music!

Pull the other one.

It also wasn't about Bach and/or Rameau themselves being fine
violinists. It's about whoever happened to be playing the several
violin parts in their ensemble(s) being able to match *unison
melodies* reasonably well in their compositions (violins doubling
harpsichord lines, in the right-hand section of the keyboard), such
that these gentlemen *as composers* wrote music that does that.

> Conclusion:
> http://www.fres.ch/bd/content/music/bach.html
> "Wissenschaftlich kann die Frage nach der originalen Bach-Stimmung
> aufgrund der heutigen Quellenlage jedoch nicht beantwortet werden."
> tr:
> 'But todays knowledge of the historically sources doesn't
> allow yet to answer the question about the original Bach-tuning
> in a scientifically way.'

You're quoting an article from 2000, with "today's knowledge of the
historical sources", as ammunition against research of 2004-7?

Pull the other one.

You're running out of legs to pull.

Brad Lehman

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

Actually, the context was the discussion I initiated of the *typical*
situation in Baroque music, where the instrument of fixed pitch
provides chordal accompaniment, and when the continuo part requires
few or no enharmonics beyond the range of a regular keyboard temperament.
This situation held through most of the 17th century, i.e. the
majority of the Baroque period, and also holds for quite a lot of
18th-century music if it is not very tonally adventurous. Of course,
if you choose to go into the most adventurous and innovative composers
of the late Baroque, the assumptions have to change considerably.
Remarks relevant to the late Baroque are not necessarily useful or
relevant to earlier (say, pre-Werckmeister) practice.

Bach's harpsichord concertos and Rameau's Pieces en Concert are
clearly extremely *non*-typical, in that the harpsichord plays a
leading melodic role with fully-written out right-hand lines.

If I am not mistaken, Bach even invented the genre of keyboard
concerto - where the usual functions of melody and accompanying
instrument (violin/keyboard resp.) are actually reversed.

Bach's harpsichord music is non-typical in the Baroque, and clearly
irrelevant to my discussion, because it requires frequent enharmonics
(in terms of a Halberstadt keyboard) and so is in any case not well
served by regular meantone - except possibly something like 1/11-comma.

In any case, we know perfectly well that Bach was no fan of pure
5-limit consonances... 'All the thirds sharp'. Neither was Rameau in
his later years, after he switched to 12-ET.

But what does all this have to do with a mid-17th-century composition,
e.g. sonatas for violin(s) and bass with keyboard continuo? That was
the typical situation I was envisaging.

It seems quite likely that the tuning appropriate to Bach's unusual
and forward-looking use of the keyboard was actually very different
from the common tuning practice of the 17th century (i.e. the majority
of the Baroque period), and more akin to that required by Haydn's
early piano trios, for example, where the keyboard is the main focus
and the violin and cello mainly provide reinforcements.

One might also recall Quantz's mention that the melodic instruments
play in the 'correct' musical proportions, in contrast to the
keyboard. Either Quantz, or some other textbook writer, recommends
that one should leave out the third of the chord in the keyboard if it
is too impure, in order to allow the melody instruments the
intonational freedom to play better in tune.

~~~T~~~

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@> wrote:
> >
> on Tom's remark:
> > > T.D.: The point is that the keyboard in general does *not*
> > > double the solo melody lines at the unison.
> >
> B.P.L.:
> > Somebody should have taught Mr Bach that lesson. In every single one
> > of his harpsichord concertos (BWV 1052-1058), and in all the multi-
> > harpsichord concertos (BWV 1060-1065), he wrote extended passages in
> > which one or more violins double a long melody in one or more
> > harpsichords.
> >
> > If I recall correctly, Rameau's "Pieces de clavecin en concerts" have
> > plenty of unison doubling of melody between harpsichord right hand
and
> > violin, too.
> >

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

> One might also recall Quantz's mention that the melodic instruments
> play in the 'correct' musical proportions, in contrast to the
> keyboard. Either Quantz, or some other textbook writer, recommends
> that one should leave out the third of the chord in the keyboard if
it
> is too impure, in order to allow the melody instruments the
> intonational freedom to play better in tune.

Wanna go to Quantz? OK, let's go to Quantz. In the several places
where he writes about intonation, it is abundantly clear that he's
referring to a basic system of approximately 1/6 comma 5ths, as he
says repeatedly that enharmonic pairs (such as Eb and D#) are a comma
apart from one another. He even suggests that a violinist holding a
tied note from G# to Ab, during an enharmonic modulation, is supposed
to slide the finger a little bit to the new note during the beat.

And in his section specifically for keyboard players, he admonishes
the keyboardist to pay special attention to the notes Cb, Db, Eb, G#,
A#, D#, and E# when they come up for the right hand, as candidates to
be omitted (or at least buried lower into the texture), since those
are the ones that most readily will cause a conflict with somebody
playing better in tune. Don't stick those notes onto the top of your
continuo chords; well, that's pretty normal thinking anyway, at least
for me when playing in anything that's regular. When a "wrong"
enharmonic is being played, don't put it into an aggressively obvious
place on top. Duh.

From this, Quantz's list of problematic notes, it appears there's the
expectation of a rather wide C#-G# (i.e. the G# cranked all the way
up to Ab, or nearly so), and a compromised position for the Eb/D#,
but otherwise a normal (1/6 comma) position for each of Bb, C#, and
F#. And, if the B is raised any off its normal regular position,
and/or if the F is lowered any, it's not enough to make the Cb or the
E# really good..."good" being the satisfaction of ensemble players
who are trying to hit the 1/6 comma marks for correctly-spelled
notes, of course. If Bb and F# are in normal spots, it's unlikely
that the F and B would be off-spot by much, if any.

It's also possible to infer, instead of having a compromised Eb/D#,
that that particular note might be retuned on the keyboard to play
different compositions. There's a different spot in the book where
he advises the flautist to adjust the whole flute a little bit to
play compositions in A-flat major or E-flat major. (Near the
beginning of chapter 16, "What a flautist must observe if he plays in
public concerts".)

If you'd care to look up Quantz's remarks about the Cb, Db, Eb, G#,
A#, D#, and E# for yourself, it's pages 260-261 of the Reilly
translation. According to the way he describes the typical problems,
the triads to watch out for are Ab minor, Bb minor, C minor, E major,
F# major, B major, and C# major. Those are the ones where the
keyboardist should consider *maybe* leaving out the third, or voicing
it low in the texture. All the other major and minor triads are
presumably decent enough not to merit mention as problematic. And,
the Ab minor incident is because of a too-low Cb, not any stated
problem with the 5th. Ab major isn't cited as needing any special
attention.

I defy anyone to come up with a system suiting Quantz's requirements,
if the 5ths on the keyboard are any tighter than 1/6 comma. I
haven't found one yet. And, no making up any dodgy excuses about a
comma not really being a normal comma, to Quantz, when distinguishing
the sharps vs flats!

Brad Lehman

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

> From this, Quantz's list of problematic notes, it appears there's the
> expectation of a rather wide C#-G# (i.e. the G# cranked all the way
> up to Ab, or nearly so), and a compromised position for the Eb/D#,
> but otherwise a normal (1/6 comma) position for each of Bb, C#, and
> F#. And, if the B is raised any off its normal regular position,
> and/or if the F is lowered any, it's not enough to make the Cb or the
> E# really good..."good" being the satisfaction of ensemble players
> who are trying to hit the 1/6 comma marks for correctly-spelled
> notes, of course. If Bb and F# are in normal spots, it's unlikely
> that the F and B would be off-spot by much, if any.

p.s. Here's the Quantz-esque temperament that I have on one of my
harpsichords, right now:

Bb-F-C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C# all in regular 1/6. Nice pure ringing tritones
at Bb-E, F-B, C-F#, and G-C#. Obvious consistency of quality in all
the major 3rds Bb-D, F-A, C-E, G-B, D-F#, and A-C#.

Bb-Eb descending 5th pure (or could be made very slightly wide, to
taste, if B-D# needs to be any better for some particular composition).

Place the G#: within C#-G#-D# ascending 5ths each slightly wide, and
favoring G#-D# to be more nearly pure than C#-G# is.

About 8 minutes to do five octaves of this, from nothing but an A
tuning fork (or C).

I then flipped open (randomly) a book of Fischer suites, to one in E
minor, and played through four or five movements. And, I improvised
around a bit through various other keys.

This convinced me to go back and lower the Eb a little bit more so it's
now pure from Ab, and the Eb-Bb is a little bit wide. C minor is
starting to get to the point where (following Quantz's comment about
the Eb in C minor) it's noticeably off from a normal 1/6 comma minor
triad, and one might want to consider not putting Eb on top of the
texture. Eb major is still fine, and B major is still considerably
spicy. Again, this is a layout that is entirely regular except for the
two notes G#/Ab and D#/Eb. The two worst major triads are C# major and
F# major.

Brad Lehman

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

Can you give this in cents?

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brad Lehman" <bpl@umich.edu>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 19 Kasï¿½m 2007 Pazartesi 19:52
Subject: [tuning] Re: continuo with keyboard meantones, continued

> > From this, Quantz's list of problematic notes, it appears there's the
> > expectation of a rather wide C#-G# (i.e. the G# cranked all the way
> > up to Ab, or nearly so), and a compromised position for the Eb/D#,
> > but otherwise a normal (1/6 comma) position for each of Bb, C#, and
> > F#. And, if the B is raised any off its normal regular position,
> > and/or if the F is lowered any, it's not enough to make the Cb or the
> > E# really good..."good" being the satisfaction of ensemble players
> > who are trying to hit the 1/6 comma marks for correctly-spelled
> > notes, of course. If Bb and F# are in normal spots, it's unlikely
> > that the F and B would be off-spot by much, if any.
>
> p.s. Here's the Quantz-esque temperament that I have on one of my
> harpsichords, right now:
>
> Bb-F-C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C# all in regular 1/6. Nice pure ringing tritones
> at Bb-E, F-B, C-F#, and G-C#. Obvious consistency of quality in all
> the major 3rds Bb-D, F-A, C-E, G-B, D-F#, and A-C#.
>
> Bb-Eb descending 5th pure (or could be made very slightly wide, to
> taste, if B-D# needs to be any better for some particular composition).
>
> Place the G#: within C#-G#-D# ascending 5ths each slightly wide, and
> favoring G#-D# to be more nearly pure than C#-G# is.
>
> About 8 minutes to do five octaves of this, from nothing but an A
> tuning fork (or C).
>
> I then flipped open (randomly) a book of Fischer suites, to one in E
> minor, and played through four or five movements. And, I improvised
> around a bit through various other keys.
>
> This convinced me to go back and lower the Eb a little bit more so it's
> now pure from Ab, and the Eb-Bb is a little bit wide. C minor is
> starting to get to the point where (following Quantz's comment about
> the Eb in C minor) it's noticeably off from a normal 1/6 comma minor
> triad, and one might want to consider not putting Eb on top of the
> texture. Eb major is still fine, and B major is still considerably
> spicy. Again, this is a layout that is entirely regular except for the
> two notes G#/Ab and D#/Eb. The two worst major triads are C# major and
> F# major.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

Since I did it with 1/6 syntonic comma, I suppose it's approximately
this:

C 0
C# 88.6
D 196.7
Eb 297.7
E 393.5
F 501.6
F# 590.2
G 698.4
Ab 795.8
A 895.1
Bb 1003.3
B 1091.9

Or, with 1/6 Pythagorean comma, it would work out to approximately:

C 0
C# 86.3
D 196.1
Eb 296.1
E 392.2
F 502.0
F# 588.3
G 698.0
Ab 794.1
A 894.1
Bb 1003.9
B 1090.2

Both of those are from running regular 1/6 all the way around, and
then putting G# as high above C# (somewhat wide) as I could tolerate
in context, and then D# pure from G#. Eb-Bb ends up being a little
bit wide, also, but not as much as C#-G#. Since we're messing around
with only two irregular notes (G#/Ab and D#/Eb) there's some fudging
room to tweak them to taste, spanning that gap from C# to Bb. Put
your two or three little poodles in there where you will.

I should add: it's anathema to me to force this into cents! It took
at least twice as long to do this post-tuning calculation with my
spreadsheet, to report this, than the 8 minutes it took to do the
whole harpsichord by ear.

Brad Lehman

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Can you give this in cents?
>
> Oz.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Brad Lehman" <bpl@...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 19 Kasým 2007 Pazartesi 19:52
> Subject: [tuning] Re: continuo with keyboard meantones, continued
>
>
> > > From this, Quantz's list of problematic notes, it appears
there's the
> > > expectation of a rather wide C#-G# (i.e. the G# cranked all the
way
> > > up to Ab, or nearly so), and a compromised position for the
Eb/D#,
> > > but otherwise a normal (1/6 comma) position for each of Bb, C#,
and
> > > F#. And, if the B is raised any off its normal regular position,
> > > and/or if the F is lowered any, it's not enough to make the Cb
or the
> > > E# really good..."good" being the satisfaction of ensemble
players
> > > who are trying to hit the 1/6 comma marks for correctly-spelled
> > > notes, of course. If Bb and F# are in normal spots, it's
unlikely
> > > that the F and B would be off-spot by much, if any.
> >
> > p.s. Here's the Quantz-esque temperament that I have on one of my
> > harpsichords, right now:
> >
> > Bb-F-C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C# all in regular 1/6. Nice pure ringing
tritones
> > at Bb-E, F-B, C-F#, and G-C#. Obvious consistency of quality in
all
> > the major 3rds Bb-D, F-A, C-E, G-B, D-F#, and A-C#.
> >
> > Bb-Eb descending 5th pure (or could be made very slightly wide, to
> > taste, if B-D# needs to be any better for some particular
composition).
> >
> > Place the G#: within C#-G#-D# ascending 5ths each slightly wide,
and
> > favoring G#-D# to be more nearly pure than C#-G# is.
> >
> > About 8 minutes to do five octaves of this, from nothing but an A
> > tuning fork (or C).
> >
> > I then flipped open (randomly) a book of Fischer suites, to one
in E
> > minor, and played through four or five movements. And, I
improvised
> > around a bit through various other keys.
> >
> > This convinced me to go back and lower the Eb a little bit more
so it's
> > now pure from Ab, and the Eb-Bb is a little bit wide. C minor is
> > starting to get to the point where (following Quantz's comment
about
> > the Eb in C minor) it's noticeably off from a normal 1/6 comma
minor
> > triad, and one might want to consider not putting Eb on top of the
> > texture. Eb major is still fine, and B major is still
considerably
> > spicy. Again, this is a layout that is entirely regular except
for the
> > two notes G#/Ab and D#/Eb. The two worst major triads are C#
major and
> > F# major.
> >
> >
> > Brad Lehman
> >

🔗Tom Dent <stringph@gmail.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> > One might also recall Quantz's mention that the melodic instruments
> > play in the 'correct' musical proportions, in contrast to the
> > keyboard. Either Quantz, or some other textbook writer, recommends
> > that one should leave out the third of the chord in the keyboard if
> it
> > is too impure, in order to allow the melody instruments the
> > intonational freedom to play better in tune.
>
> Wanna go to Quantz?

(Sigh... Yet another evasion.) No, I don't want to give people an
excuse to start hareing off into the mid- and late 1700's, I would
like to think just a little about what might have been the usual
intonational practice during the majority of the Baroque era, which
was actually in the 17th century. But somehow the question keeps
getting hijacked.

While claiming expertise on historical tunings, Brad appears totally
uninterested in Baroque music before 1700 - or else, why would he
deliberately ignore everything I say about it, and continually change
the subject? Were there no Baroque masterpieces for instrumental
ensemble before that date? Were most 17th-century musicians totally
uninteresting?

I have actually read the relevant bits of Quantz, so there is no need
for Brad to take such a didactic and condescending tone. I find it
extremely tiresome when people write as if talking to 10-year-old
children.

Quantz is certainly irrelevant to the practice of mid-Baroque music,
and I don't think everything he says on intonation, with or without
keyboard, can be taken to be 100 percent accurate with the
mathematical certainty that Brad seems to attach to the text. (Why
would he write a book that assumed one, and only one, type of regular
keyboard temperament, with one, and only one, possible type of
deviation from it?!)
But since there are no 100-percent accurate statements about tuning in
music (just as there are no 100-percent accurate rhythmic notations)
this is not something one should hold against him.

However, I can't resist one quotation from Quantz (via Haynes):

"... the other instruments play [notes such as Cb, D#] in their
correct ratios, whereas on the harpsichord they are merely tempered.
For this reason, it is better to omit them entirely [from the
harpsichord], rather than offend the ear."

Now, what does this mean to you? (Anyone?)

Brad wants us to believe that 'correct ratios' means that a major
third should be about 3/12 comma sharp and a minor third about 5/12
comma flat; whereas 'merely tempered' would (according to him) mean
that the thirds were somewhat more radically out of tune.

I think any sane person reading this passage would recognize a
distinction between (audibly) pure and tempered intervals at face
value and deduce, quite simply, that the non-keyboard instruments play
(as close as practicable to) pure thirds. Which, if the player was
competent, could be a lot purer than those occurring in 1/6-comma
meantone. It then makes sense to omit the keyboard third if and when
it is too obviously discrepant from the instrumental pitch. Quantz is
not making any exact statement about keyboard temperament: he is
simply saying that some thirds on the keyboard are definitely too
mistuned.

His list of obviously impure keyboard thirds is clearly either not
complete or inaccurate: he calls Cb'', Db'', and Eb'' too flat, and
G#', D#'', A#' and E#'' too sharp. But if Eb is too flat, how can Ab
not be? If Db is too flat, how can Gb not be? And, in Brad's imagined
scheme where G-B is already sharp, how can Eb be too flat and D# too
sharp at the same time? That would be really unfortunate.

What can we make of this contemporary description (Early Music August
1997 p.429):
"M. Quantz's flutes differ from all others in their tuning. Usually
the F on the transverse flute is not flat enough and the F#
is correct; in his, on the contrary, the F is true and the F# a
little flat. ..."

Seems to me one ought to pay more attention to Quantz's flutes, rather
than his (inevitably incomplete) verbal descriptions, to find out what
he could have expected.
I suspect people would be quite surprised by the degree of inequality
one actually gets out of a Quantz flute. How's that Hazelzet recording?

Here's one modern flute maker (who made Hazelzet's replica):
www.baroqueflute.com/models/Quantz.html

"The Quantz flute plays with a magnificent golden tone, particularly
strong and clear in the lower part of the first octave. Its excellent
intonation makes playing pure 3rds and low leading-tones easy ..."

Another: www.toene-in-holz.de/quantz.htm
"Die Original-Intonation überrascht zunächst, wird aber verständlich,
wenn man die Quantz'sche Überlegung nachvollzieht(..) Also ist ein
gutes F viel wichtiger als ein gutes Fis etc. Diese Radikalität der
Intonation lässt viele moderne Spieler zurückschrecken (...)"

basically: 'The original intonation is surprising, radical, and
perhaps will make modern players wince. But Quantz thought it much
more important to have a good F than a good F#'.

This couldn't be anything like 1/6 comma: surely 'radical' cannot mean
anything but much *more* unequal - a *surprisingly* low F#.

And how about Tromlitz, a famous player in the late 18th century who
radically developed the flute's mechanisms, in order to realize his
belief that: "intervals, either between melodic steps in the flute
part, or between the flute and its accompanying bass part[!], should
be played 'pure', and that tempering intervals on melody instruments
was both impractical and undesirable."

And:
"It is possible for [the flute] to be more perfectly in tune than the
keyboard, on which no interval except the octave can be quite pure
[clearly 1/4-comma meantone had then been forgotten], so that it
cannot agree in tuning all the time with a good flute-player who
scrupulously observes everything that has been said above, or with a
good violinist who plays in tune."

Could this be a clearer example of a demand for JI, or
as-J-as-possible-I? Brad may try to reinterpret this via the
sludge-tinted spectacles of 'Pure-actually-means-1/6-comma-tempered',
but it just isn't possible without instant absurdity.

No matter how often people try to deny history, many good musicians in
the 18th century (and earlier!) clearly did recognize and care about
pure intervals, including pure thirds. Why should one see them as
living with tempered consonances everywhere and at all times?

~~~T~~~

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

> I have actually read the relevant bits of Quantz, so there is no need
> for Brad to take such a didactic and condescending tone. I find it
> extremely tiresome when people write as if talking to 10-year-old
> children.
>
> Quantz is certainly irrelevant to the practice of mid-Baroque music,
> and I don't think everything he says on intonation, with or without
> keyboard, can be taken to be 100 percent accurate with the
> mathematical certainty that Brad seems to attach to the text. (Why
> would he write a book that assumed one, and only one, type of regular
> keyboard temperament, with one, and only one, possible type of
> deviation from it?!)
> But since there are no 100-percent accurate statements about tuning in
> music (just as there are no 100-percent accurate rhythmic notations)
> this is not something one should hold against him.
>
> However, I can't resist one quotation from Quantz (via Haynes):
>
> "... the other instruments play [notes such as Cb, D#] in their
> correct ratios, whereas on the harpsichord they are merely tempered.
> For this reason, it is better to omit them entirely [from the
> harpsichord], rather than offend the ear."
>
> Now, what does this mean to you? (Anyone?)
>
> Brad wants us to believe that 'correct ratios' means that a major
> third should be about 3/12 comma sharp and a minor third about 5/12
> comma flat; whereas 'merely tempered' would (according to him) mean
> that the thirds were somewhat more radically out of tune.

"Brad wants us to believe"? No; Brad wants us to believe that one
should read Quantz's entire book (which I have done), and not merely
"the relevant bits of it" as cited in an _Early Music_ article (which
I also have on hand). I'm not the one who is pulling quotations out
of their context here.

As for my alleged dodging of questions about the 17th century, that's
equally silly. The 17th century had some of my favorite music in it,
whether for instrumental or vocal ensembles or for harpsichord. And I
play much of that 17th-C repertoire myself, on harpsichords and
organs, both solo and continuo.

Dodging? No, quite the opposite! It is the adventurous use of
uncommon notes, itself, which in part suggests to me that that they
were *not* using 1/4 comma anymore in that period as much as you keep
alleging they did. As I've already written about on-list, most
recently I played a 17th-18th century concert with a Baroque violinist
who specializes in the 17th (and recently finished his dissertation in
it)...and the *17th* century repertoire (let alone the 18th) in the
recital wouldn't have worked in 1/4 comma meantone, either. We did
the program once with organ, and again a few weeks later with
harpsichord. We're not schleps speculating what works or what doesn't
work, here; we're professional musicians, Baroque specialists, doing
our job in the real world.

At one of our rehearsals he told me he'd just come from playing a gig
with some other group that used a 1/4 comma C-G-D-A-E on their
harpsichord, and he complained to me that it's nasty trying to tune to
that...whether matching all the open strings to the harpsichord or
not. Either the 5ths get too sour on the violin (when matched to the
hpsi), or the other notes get ludicrously far out (if tuning pure 5ths
on the violin and then trying to fit into the hpsi's chords...even the
correctly-spelled chords).

One of the pieces in our first half was a Corelli sonata in D major,
published 1700, that had a bunch of B major and F# major and C# major
(!) moments in it. What would you have us do?

Brad Lehman

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

> It is the adventurous use of
> uncommon notes, itself, which in part suggests to me that that they
> were *not* using 1/4 comma anymore in that period as much as you
keep
> alleging they did. As I've already written about on-list, most
> recently I played a 17th-18th century concert with a Baroque
violinist
> who specializes in the 17th (and recently finished his dissertation
in
> it)...and the *17th* century repertoire (let alone the 18th) in the
> recital wouldn't have worked in 1/4 comma meantone, either. We did
> the program once with organ, and again a few weeks later with
> harpsichord. We're not schleps speculating what works or what
doesn't
> work, here; we're professional musicians, Baroque specialists, doing
> our job in the real world.
> (...)
> One of the pieces in our first half was a Corelli sonata in D major,
> published 1700, that had a bunch of B major and F# major and C#
> major (!) moments in it. What would you have us do?

And to complete the picture of these several concerts, the rest of
our first half (the 17th century half) was an Uccellini sonata in A
minor, Venice 1649, which happened to have some B major triads in it
(cadencing into E minor, repeatedly), and an F# major triad. And the
other accompanied piece was a Schmelzer sonata in G minor from 1664,
which happens to need the note A-flat. [And then he played the Biber
unaccompanied Passacaglia, and then we went on to the Corelli as I
mentioned above.]

Again: what would you have us do? 1/4 comma meantone doesn't really
work for *any* of these pieces, unless we're supposed to put up with
ridiculous-sounding B major and F# major in normal cadencing
situations.

Then, the second half was a Leclair suite in A minor/major, and
Bach's Chromatic Fantasy and Fugue, and Bach's sonata 1030 in its
earlier G-minor version; extremely chromatic stuff.

Even if it had been possible to have two separate keyboard
instruments, one per half, the first half of the concert alone
wouldn't have worked in 1/4 comma, or even in regular 1/5 or 1/6. We
used modified 1/6 (i.e. my Bach temp) for the whole program because
of its flexibility and harmoniousness.

Brad Lehman

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Brad and Tom each have spoken about Quantz. Each speaks with an invested
point of view, which makes for impassioned writing. There is good in it all,
although I see some weaknesses.
My views have been along the lines of Brad’s regarding Quantz. That is,
Quantz was promoting (if not promulgating) meantone, and sixth comma at that.
Neither has mentioned that Quantz made at least three flutes for Frederick with
2 pairs of chromatic split keys. In normal parlance, with which I agree
with Ozan, this spells a non-1/4 comma extended meantone, due to Quantz's
discussion on not doubling a third and performing just intervals on
flexibly-pitched instruments.
Tom has passionately presented his view that the flexibly pitched players
would over-ride keyboard pitches (by six cents and more) in order to play just.
As a flexibly pitched instrumentalist, I have an observation: Only in a
slow movement would “some” of the notes be possibly altered to permit
non-beating consonances to be recognized by an audience. In certain exceptional
instances this could indeed be permitted. But not enough to persuade me that
this was any more in vogue than just now described.
It is understandable to be dubious of Brad’s assertions, due to his past
history of arguing a Rosetta Stone for Bach’s tuning based on a puff of smoke.
That he found a tuning he and others like is good for just that, a pleasant
constellation of relationships that work for chromatic music in a non-ET, or
variegated, fashion. If he could find himself lucid enough one day so that
he could argue favorably for his invented "Lehman tuning" (as opposed to
describing it as a definitive "Bach’s tuning") it will be most welcome.
Unfortunately, not doing so will continue to color his assertions about the basic
issues of “good and bad” in terms of any meaningful understanding intervals in
period practice.
Brad has dismissed WIII for Bach, which I think is unfortunate. He hears a
JS Bach Duetto in F major as a “Werckmeister III killer” in that it will
sound awful. When I told of our successful performance of Joshua Pierce
performing the work on a piano in WIII, Brad countered that it was not such a
Werckmeister killer on the piano. Every piece I ever experienced by Bach performed
in WIII worked in a revelatory manner.
But I do love Brad's experimentation. I like his willingness to try things
out, and to report it to the List, even if his conclusions are to be taken
with more than a grain of salt due to his past thesis publication.
My take on Bach is that there are virtually no places to throw in a just
interval as his music is regularly chromatic, and busy. Having seen the scores
to Frederick’s music, it can be easily theorized that the King wanted to get
real D#s and real Ebs, so he had them built into his last 3 flutes built for
him by Quantz. My take of Frederick’s court is that he discounted most
Germans in literature, art, and to a lesser extent music, and he was proud that he
couldn’t speak the German language. It would be hard to force onto Frederick
the many tuning practices popular in Germany and throughout Europe.
Quantz came from Dresden, which was a meantone hotbed during the Baroque;
Silbermann made the keyboards in Dresden, and for the King, and Silbermann was
a sixth comma meantone enthusiast according to contemporary sources.
Tom seems to feel he has found a just intonation hotbed in Potsdam.
(Frederick rarely went to Berlin.) In contrast to Tom, I think it perfectly
reasonable to believe that Frederick and others performed in tune with a sixth comma
meantone keyhboard. Performing on flexibly pitched instrument in a set
tuning like sixth comma meantone, or even 15-tone equal temperament in a modern
vocal piece, is much easier than many suppose. It is its own aesthetic.
JS Bach has proved that “all thirds tuned sharp” is a laudatory tuning, and
the genie was out of the bottle, regardless of later preferences (possibly
retro- preferences) of meantone tuning. The term "modified meantone" is a
phrase I find confusing (much as pentatonic tuning); it’s just more of a catch
all than anything specific to be recognized by the ear. But the ear, my
musical sense screams loudly to me, must take into account the tuning of the
keyboard when a duplication of a pitch is desired, as well as when determining a
just relationship off of an established pitch on the keyboard. This seems an
impractical solution for any but the most prolonged harmonies, used as a
nuance to the temperament. Perhaps there is a recording Tom might recommend?
Best, Johnny

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

Johnny wrote (among other things):

> Tom has passionately presented his view that the flexibly pitched
> players would over-ride keyboard pitches (by six cents and more)
> in order to play just. As a flexibly pitched instrumentalist,
> I have an observation: Only in a slow movement would âsomeâ
> of the notes be possibly altered to permit non-beating
> consonances to be recognized by an audience. In certain
> exceptional instances this could indeed be permitted. But not
> enough to persuade me that this was any more in vogue than
> just now described.

This position (i.e. only slow movements give enough opportunity to
bend things that far...) makes sense to me, too.

Furthermore: if Tom really would allow a six-cent leeway for bending
things up or down, especially in the placement of major or minor
thirds, then I don't see what his complaint is against Dr Ross
Duffin's book. Duffin recommends that ensembles playing 18th century
music start from a basis of extended 1/6 comma, and if they want to
bend the occasional open 5th up to pure 3:2, or the occasional major
3rd down to pure 5:4, they can. By going down the middle with 1/6
here, as the basis, both these options present themselves.
Welllll...bend your regular 1/6 comma major 3rd down *six cents* at a
cadence and there you are! So: what's Tom's complaint against either
Duffin, or against 18th century musicians such as Tosi and Quantz
*also* setting 1/6 as a standard, if such a six-cents fudging is
going to come into it too?

> It is understandable to be dubious of Bradâs assertions, due to
> his past history of arguing a Rosetta Stone for Bachâs tuning
> based on a puff of smoke.

Ummm...."puff of smoke"? The whole main paper (two printed sections
plus five more PDF files) is available for free here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/outline.html

I invite any and all to read *all* the way through all that, and try
out all the principles therein on good harpsichords and organs, and
*then* decide if it's smoke or not. It frankly takes a couple of
months to play through all the pieces that I say are important to the
argument, listening closely to the way these pieces sound
unconvincing in *other* temperaments:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/testpieces.html

> That he found a tuning he and others like is good for just that, a
> pleasant constellation of relationships that work for chromatic
> music in a non-ET, or variegated, fashion.

This sounds a bit like your preference for Werckmeister III, Johnny:
you like it so much for all your own and your ensemble's
musicianship, in music of that period, no other temperaments need
apply. If you fancy Werckmeister III, you're certainly welcome to
use it as much as you want. I had five solid years of experience
playing in Werckmeister III myself (in grad school) and hearing all
my classmates play *everything* in it, since it was a temp in
standard use at that school...and I find it hard to listen to with
any pleasure anymore. It misshapes the music (in my opinion). The
only major composer in whose music I can hear it *maybe* applying
appropriately is Buxtehude: who (notably) didn't use extended flats
in much of his organ or harpsichord music. WIII is much kinder to
sharps than flats....

> If he could find
> himself lucid enough one day so that he could argue favorably for
> his invented "Lehman tuning" (as opposed to describing it as a
> definitive "Bachâs tuning") it will be most welcome.
> Unfortunately, not doing so will continue to color his assertions
> about the basic issues of âgood and badâ in terms of any
> meaningful understanding intervals in period practice.

I believe I'm plenty lucid....

> Brad has dismissed WIII for Bach, which I think is unfortunate. He
> hears a JS Bach Duetto in F major as a âWerckmeister III
> killerâ in that it will sound awful.

Which it does, played on harpsichords and organs. The whole middle
section of its A-B-A structure is a mess, in Werckmeister III, on
those instruments. As for my argued "dismissal" of WIII for Bach,
that's mostly in the printed section 2 of my article as cited above:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/outline.html
...with some additional remarks about "O Mensch, bewein" BWV 622 in
the PDF file that goes with that. I needn't repeat myself, to any
who have already read my opinions about it there.

> When I told of our successful performance of Joshua Pierce
> performing the work on a piano in WIII, Brad countered that it was
> not such a Werckmeister killer on the piano. Every piece I ever
> experienced by Bach performed in WIII worked in a revelatory
> manner.

OK, but "revelatory" within what context? And on what instruments?
I listened to your CD samples on the web last year, and no offense
intended to either you or Ms Pechevsky (the harpsichordist), but the
Bach D minor prelude/fugue sounded frankly ugly to me. Tastes
differ. I don't fancy that Bach would have written something to
sound that crunchy on purpose, but maybe I just haven't been open to
the same type of "revelation" in that direction. Playing all of
Bach's harpsichord for myself, in dozens of different temperaments
for experimentation, WIII gives some of the (in my opinion) ugliest
effects. If Bach really intended such, it's an image of Bach I have
a hard time stomaching.

As for pianos: modern pianos have such a different harmonic structure
in their tone, as compared with harpsichords, they allow more leeway
for major 3rds and minor 3rds to be grossly vigorous. (That's a
subjective assessment, of course, but the weakness of piano overtones
is a physical fact....)

How else could some other people come up with the following scheme
using the Bach drawing, present *only* piano samples, and promote
their temperament as "The Temperament of God"?
- F-C-G-D-A-E narrowed by 1/4 comma;
- E-B-F#-C# pure;
- C#-G#-Eb-Bb wide 1/12 comma each;
- Bb-F pure.
http://bach1722.com/

They say they've presented the entire Well-Tempered Clavier played
this way on a piano. Welllll...I set it up for myself on my best
harpsichord and gave it a try, and it didn't survive any four
consecutive preludes/fugues anywhere in the book! I've written up
some additional comments about it at the
section "Interbartolo/Venturino" here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/bachtemps.html

And where's their schisma? Either they used 1/4 syntonic comma and
their "1/12" leftovers are really closer to 1/19 than 1/12...or they
used 1/4 Pythagorean and the thing as a whole is even more garish.

> But I do love Brad's experimentation. I like his willingness to
> try things out, and to report it to the List, even if his
> conclusions are to be taken with more than a grain of salt due to
> his past thesis publication.

Ummm...thanks, I think! :)

By the way, I've put up another selection of 25 free samples from my
CDs at:
http://www.ilike.com/artist/Bradley+Lehman
Have a listen. The CDs:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/cd1003.html
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/cd1002.html

> My take on Bach is that there are virtually no places to throw in a
> just interval as his music is regularly chromatic, and busy.

Agreement!

> In contrast to Tom, I think it perfectly
> reasonable to believe that Frederick and others performed in tune
> with a sixth comma meantone keyhboard. Performing on flexibly
> pitched instrument in a set tuning like sixth comma meantone, or
> even 15-tone equal temperament in a modern vocal piece, is much
> easier than many suppose. It is its own aesthetic.

Agreement!

Brad Lehman

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Hi Brad,

As I suspected, you agreed with my comments re Tom, but you went into reflex
mode when the comments were suspected critical of your position(s). The
"puff of smoke" is the so-called secret code from upside down ornamental
squiggles. It has been increasingly clear that other composers ornamented music in
the same manner. But you go further, claiming exact intervals to be
interpreted. And then to say it was for his Leipzig audition. It does not pass the
believability test.

However, I certainly do understand how important is to stay to long held
convictions. There are a number of prominent composers/writers who have
published their convictions, changed them, but refused to republish the changes.
Perhaps it is simply human nature. Maybe that's why you think I have a similar
fixation on WIII? Could be, but I don't think so. :)

> It is understandable to be dubious of Bradâ€™s assertions, due to
> his past history of arguing a Rosetta Stone for Bachâ€™s tuning
> based on a puff of smoke.

When you say "these pieces sound
unconvincing in *other* temperaments" I truly wonder. After all, doesn't
Bach sound convincing in 12 ET for the great unwashed? With Tom ready to
smudge by 6 cents in a non-vibrato world, or more, do you not realize that we are,
in the general sense, victims of our own experiences? Isaac Newton wrote
about this, Bosanquet, too. Every time Tom brings up Marpurg, I feel
revulsion. This is not about Tom, or what he said, only that I am a historical
"friend" of Kirnberger, as Paul could tell you. And Marpurg treated K like crap,
and undeservedly so. Compared to K, Marpurg was an amateur. Although it was
clever of Tom to connect a modified meantone to a published Marpurg keyboard
temperament.

> That he found a tuning he and others like is good for just that, a
> pleasant constellation of relationships that work for chromatic
> music in a non-ET, or variegated, fashion.

Right on cue! Only, there isn't any competition. There is no basis for
your temperament in Bach's world, while Werckmeister III is the only circular
well temperament widely disseminated in the generation just before Bach's, and
in his very Thuringian neighborhood.

Johnny: That's a valuable, and honest, admission. Many orchestral
musicians revile Beethoven's Fifth for its familiarity. Bassoonists can have a life
long battle with the Mozart Bassoon Concerto. It was an early wind concerto
which moderns want to over think it and make it more complex than it is. It
is the basis of all audition criticism, with each critic in a bassoon jury
packed with opinions about "how" it should be played, usually differently one
bassoonist to the other. And students playing anything? Well, that reminds
me of the old saying that if one is a band director for a high school for too
long the acceptance of what is good music sinks. ;)

I agree Buxtehude sounds good in WIII. Later Buxtehude, once he was using a
non-meantone tuning does have a magic that ET certainly dissolves. Dowland
is boring as all get out when it is in ET, as regularly attested to by The
New York Times Reviews I have read. And not one lute player has played Dowland
in the irregular tuning proscribed by his son Robert. (still waiting).
Thanks to Wim Hoogewerf for playing Dowland on a microtonal guitar!

Brad, by revelatory I first and foremost mean the comparison of WIII to ET.
That is always revelatory. Next comes the conclusion that other irregularly
tuned tunings have some of the valuable elements that demand recordings in
non-ET tunings. Then there is the certitude that I know that JS Bach was
thoroughly familiar with WIII, even more than you were. And since it was the
very first and only circular tuning for the only fully chromatic composer of the
Baroque era, it is not a big leap for me.

To that end I am compiling scholarship that will lead others to this
understanding. I will look forward to your comments once it is unveiled. It
certainly one be my first unpublished scholarly work in music.

> I listened to your CD samples on the web last year, and no offense
intended to either you or Ms Pechevsky (the harpsichordist), but the
Bach D minor prelude/fugue sounded frankly ugly to me. Tastes
differ. I don't fancy that Bach would have written something to
sound that crunchy on purpose, but maybe I just haven't been open to
the same type of "revelation" in that direction.>

A well-tuned D minor, as above, as well as the F major "Werckmeister killer"
Duetto are the minor and major keys, respectfully, closest to just
intonation. That you find any of these intervals "ugly" is exactly my point.

Maybe you got disoriented from all the experimentation? Musical car
sickness? Maybe you wouldn't care for other Thuringian cultural aspects: food?
architecture? politics? etc.

Grossly vigorous? One thing for sure, we all have different precisions of
our ears. Aaron K. might counter, but that's only your opinion. And I would
turn sad. The fact is that there are differences in all human abilities.
Most importantly, this is not meant towards any individual, nor is it ever to
be involved in an embarrassment. It's a fact. In my group, I have become the
monochord, the electric tuner. It is my ear that makes the judgments. And
yes, mistakes can be made, but they are just that, mistakes.

When new information comes that dismisses WIII as the most likely tuning for
JS Bach, especially in his Arnstadt, Muhlhausen, and Weimar years, then I
will jump off WIII like rats off a ship. But the history of the Bach period
has been so distorted that I am making an effort to reevaluate everything.
Like just intonation afficiando Descartes in his "Meditations," I simply cannot
trust my senses. And the aforementioned puff of smoke does not at all
substitute with an intellectual truth. It needn't. Lehman tuning, Lucy tuning,
two different approaches for creating modern performances.

all best, Johnny

**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)