Re: Handel, Carrillo, Ives, Kirnberger, enharmonic

Now that we have entered a new time I thought it time to re-evaluate some of
the assumptions that have been made on this list. Rather than make a
different post for each subject, I will list them below. Hopefully, we can
all work together to find the truth wherever we may.

1. Handel had 14 keys per octave as specified by Bosanquet. Paul, you have
ascertained that he had 16 keys as referenced by Helmholtz. Well, after
finally unearthing my copy of "On the Sensations of Tone," I found no
reference at all to Handel and the number of keys he may or may not have
utilized. Paul, unless I missed something, please reconsider your position
here.

2. Did Julian Carrillo _really_ coin the term "microtonal" or even
"microtones"? Though we've taken it upon tradition that he did, now I am not
so sure. Besides the different language (Spanish), I am unaware of any
particular reference to these terms. Does anyone have an exact reference of
Carrillo using these terms (not merely the concepts)? I have copies of all
of his publications as translated and I don't recall ever noticing this
before.

3. Ives's take on an extended Pythagorean scale as I have previously
outlined is completely outlined by Helmholtz on page 438. Helmholtz states
on page 312 that "Hence the tone B# is higher than the Octave of C by the
small interval of 74/73" which is equivalent to 24 cents, essnetially an
eighthtone (as specified by Ives). Helmholtz is quite clear on page 322 that
"According to our system of notation we may identify C# with Db, but we must
distinguish the C# found from the relation of Fifths, from the C# found from
the relation of Thirds." On page 438 Helmholtz writes "The notation of music
was adapted to either Pythagorean or Meantone intonation, in which there was
a Diesis or inteval between a sharp and a flat, not to the equal where the
Diesis disappears and sharp coalesces with flat." Ives was on firm ground in
interpreting notation in the way I have suggested, as extended Pythagorean
tuning, since Helmoltz was introduced to Ives by his father early on.

4. It appears that Helmholtz never read Kirnberger, a true explainer of just
intonation being the basis of music (1776), especially for J.S. Bach.
Helmholtz missed out on a great resource as have most all scholars, as it now
appears. Kirnberger was an outstanding microtonalist in theory and practice,
a violinist and keyboardist in Berlin. An antherm of Kirnberger's opens
Bosanquet's book on temperament. "Greater certainly would be the gain of
song if we really had the enharmonic intervals in our system. For then
singers would accustom themselves, throm their youth up, to sing correcty the
smallest enharmonic intervals, and the ear of the listener to appreciate
them; and thereby would it be possible, in many cases, to make the expression
of the passions very much stronger." Kirnberger's work is published by Yale
University Press and I hope to report on it further.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

>1. Handel had 14 keys per octave as specified by Bosanquet. Paul, you
have
>ascertained that he had 16 keys as referenced by Helmholtz. Well, after
>finally unearthing my copy of "On the Sensations of Tone," I found no
>reference at all to Handel and the number of keys he may or may not have
>utilized. Paul, unless I missed something, please reconsider your position

>here.

The reference was Mandelbaum, not Helmholtz, as well as the Ear Magazine
East chart, and also Ithink the now-defunct web page on organs with
subsemitones. I will be able to look at Mandelbaum again hopefully tomorrow,
since a long-awaited interlibrary loan finally came through today. And
again, the keyboard itself had only 12 keys, but stops were used to shift
between what today are considered enharmonic equivalents. Whether the actual
number of pitches turns out to be 14 or 16, the arguments I've been making
on this subject stand.

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

>Helmholtz is quite clear on page 322 that
>"According to our system of notation we may identify C# with Db, but we
must
>distinguish the C# found from the relation of Fifths, from the C# found
from
>the relation of Thirds." On page 438 Helmholtz writes "The notation of
music
>was adapted to either Pythagorean or Meantone intonation, in which there
was
>a Diesis or inteval between a sharp and a flat, not to the equal where the
>Diesis disappears and sharp coalesces with flat." Ives was on firm ground
in
>interpreting notation in the way I have suggested, as extended Pythagorean
>tuning, since Helmoltz was introduced to Ives by his father early on.

So where is your evidence that the "relation of Thirds", as well as the
related "Meantone intonation", have no place in Ives' music? Surely it's not
just a handful of examples -- Dan Stearns has already pointed out isolated
examples that would indicate something different -- for example, something
along the lines of "B is taken sharp when leading up to C, but taken flat in
descent from C"?

Paul, take a deep breath. There is no mention of Handel having more than 12
keys in Joel Mandelbaum's dissertation. After checking from my copy, I spoke
with Joel on the telephone. He was aware of the topic but couldn't find any
reference to Handel either...I think he's still checking as I write this.

The primary source is Bosanquet (an authority well-respected by Alexander J.
Ellis as evidenced by his regular mention in the Helmholtz book. It is 14
and I bring it out, along with other "assumptions" that have been made on
this list that I think should be re-examined.

"There can be no doubt that, with the musicians of Handel's time, the
good keys of the old unequal temperament, i.e. the mean-tone system, formed
the ideal of the 'best' tuning attainable. The proof of this is to be found
in the fact that Handel took the trouble to employ an arrangement, by which
the range of good keys available on the ordinary board with this system could
be somewhat extended. It is well known that he presented to the Foundling
Chapel an organ possessing additional keys for this purpose. The organ at
the Temple Church in its original state, as built by Father Smith, possessed
a similar arrangement." Bosanquet goes on to describe the 1688 Temple Church
organ which had 14 notes in the compass of an octave: Ab-G# and D#-Eb were
the alternates chromatics.

The Ear cover is a graphic and should not be used as an authoritative source,
as I have said before. And incidentally, Joel Mandelbaum told me that when
he did his dissertation, no one had yet used the world "microtonal" at
Indiana University. When he discovered the word he had to rewrite his paper
since finding 33 new resources in the library.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

In a message dated 1/4/00 5:49:55 PM Eastern Standard Time,
PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com writes:

<< So where is your evidence that the "relation of Thirds", as well as the
related "Meantone intonation", have no place in Ives' music? Surely it's not
just a handful of examples -- Dan Stearns has already pointed out isolated
examples that would indicate something different -- for example, something
along the lines of "B is taken sharp when leading up to C, but taken flat in
descent from C"?
>>

My point was to provide the theory of extended pythagorean and notation in
Helmholtz, which was presented positively by George Ives throughout his life.

Paul, please try to understand the concept of Ives's polymicrotonality, at
least as a concept that I conceive. Charles Ives did use mutltiple tunings,
and he gives directions for deeper interpretation. Perhaps it is the
experiential doing of his music that reinforces this concept, in contrast
that sense only mere hints of a solid theory of intonation.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

Afmmjr@aol.com wrote:

> From: Afmmjr@aol.com
>
> Paul, take a deep breath. There is no mention of Handel having more than 12
> keys in Joel Mandelbaum's dissertation. After checking from my copy, I spoke
> with Joel on the telephone. He was aware of the topic but couldn't find any
> reference to Handel either...I think he's still checking as I write this.
>
> The primary source is Bosanquet (an authority well-respected by Alexander J.
> Ellis as evidenced by his regular mention in the Helmholtz book. It is 14
> and I bring it out, along with other "assumptions" that have been made on
> this list that I think should be re-examined.
>
> "There can be no doubt that, with the musicians of Handel's time, the
> good keys of the old unequal temperament, i.e. the mean-tone system, formed
> the ideal of the 'best' tuning attainable. The proof of this is to be found
> in the fact that Handel took the trouble to employ an arrangement, by which
> the range of good keys available on the ordinary board with this system could
> be somewhat extended. It is well known that he presented to the Foundling
> Chapel an organ possessing additional keys for this purpose. The organ at
> the Temple Church in its original state, as built by Father Smith, possessed
> a similar arrangement." Bosanquet goes on to describe the 1688 Temple Church
> organ which had 14 notes in the compass of an octave: Ab-G# and D#-Eb were
> the alternates chromatics.

From Sybil Marcus, _A Survey of Musical Instruments_: "The Second requirement
[(In transposition) Prior to ET, to furnish accidentals not otherwise
available..although this defect was sometimes remedied by split keys] was met in
certain organs (such as that of the Foundling Hospital, London) a special
transposition register whereby those accidental keys normally tuned C# D# G# A#
could be changed to provide Db Eb Ab Bb."

and

"Organs of former centuries also made use of a transposition stop that brought
different pipes into play without recourse to a shifting keyboard; many
eighteenth and nineteenth-century Kammertone... stops fall into this category..."

Clark

Johnny, we now have at least one source for the 16-tone organ. Maybe all the
sources will turn out to be traceable to one erroneous reference, and the
true number is 14. But who cares? I have no stake in either outcome. The
point that I've been trying to make by bringing it up is the same one made
by Bosanquet, whom you were kind enough to quote:

>"There can be no doubt that, with the musicians of Handel's time, the
>good keys of the old unequal temperament, i.e. the mean-tone system, formed

>the ideal of the 'best' tuning attainable. The proof of this is to be
found
>in the fact that Handel took the trouble to employ an arrangement, by which

>the range of good keys available on the ordinary board with this system
could
>be somewhat extended."

Why the fuss over insignificant details when this, the important point, is
glossed over by most "authorities" and suppressed by the JI extremists?

Interestingly, Bosanquet wrote that the 14 notes were through actual keywork
on the manual. On p. 26 of his book, quoting Hopkins, On the Organ (1855),
"These quarter tones are produced by the ordinary G# and Eb keys being
divided crossways iin the middle; the back halves of which rise as much above
the front portions, as do the latter above the naturals." Apparently, the
organ was still in use in Bosanquet's day for he wrote "These extra keys have
long been removed."

Today is day 1 for checking on issues that had been up in the air or
confuted. Sorry for the fuss. It is important though for historical
accuracy, and possibly for future performances of Handel's music, that we
have good sources for our positions. It was very unsettling to hear that my
recollection of the issue was "wrong," just as it must be unsettling to you
to be challenged on something you've taken for granted.

Folks, there are other points that are being taken for granted and that need
greater light shined upon. (e.g. Carrillo and the term "microtonal"?, first
uses of in print of "microtonal" and by whom, what Werckmeister did and did
not believe and say, etc.)

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

>Interestingly, Bosanquet wrote that the 14 notes were through actual
keywork
>on the manual. On p. 26 of his book, quoting Hopkins, On the Organ (1855),

>"These quarter tones are produced by the ordinary G# and Eb keys being
>divided crossways iin the middle; the back halves of which rise as much
above
>the front portions, as do the latter above the naturals." Apparently, the
>organ was still in use in Bosanquet's day for he wrote "These extra keys
have
>long been removed."

While this is a discussion of the Temple Church organ, it seems the
Foundling Chapel one was the one with 16 notes using not split keys but
stops.

I just wanted to say that I have been enjoying the MP3 files on Tuning
Punks. Keep up the good work!

Micah

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul H. Erlich [SMTP:PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 10:43 AM
> To: 'tuning@onelist.com'
> Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Handel, Carrillo, Ives, Kirnberger,
> enharmonic
>
> >Interestingly, Bosanquet wrote that the 14 notes were through actual
> keywork
> >on the manual. On p. 26 of his book, quoting Hopkins, On the Organ
> (1855),
>
> >"These quarter tones are produced by the ordinary G# and Eb keys being
> >divided crossways iin the middle; the back halves of which rise as much
> above
> >the front portions, as do the latter above the naturals." Apparently,
> the
> >organ was still in use in Bosanquet's day for he wrote "These extra keys
> have
> >long been removed."
>
> While this is a discussion of the Temple Church organ, it seems the
> Foundling Chapel one was the one with 16 notes using not split keys but
> stops.
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> GRAB THE GATOR! FREE SOFTWARE DOES ALL THE TYPING FOR YOU!
> Tired of filling out forms and remembering passwords? Gator fills in
> forms and passwords with just one click! Comes with $50 in free coupons!
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/gator4 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

>It is important though for historical
>accuracy, and possibly for future performances of Handel's music, that we
>have good sources for our positions.

As far as future performances of Handel's music are concerned, regardless of
how this particular issue is resolved, is there any reason to question the
ideal of extended meantone? I assume all of Handel's manuscripts clearly
differentiate what today we consider enharmonic equivalents.

In a message dated 1/5/00 1:59:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,
PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com writes:

<< As far as future performances of Handel's music are concerned, regardless
of
how this particular issue is resolved, is there any reason to question the
ideal of extended meantone? I assume all of Handel's manuscripts clearly
differentiate what today we consider enharmonic equivalents.
>>

No question here regarding any ideal of extended meantone that might have
been current in the Baroque era. However, I wouldn't assume out of hand
that modern notation of Handel uses a changed accidental from the
manuscripts.

To date I have never heard of any meantone recordings of Handel, except for
the recorder sonatas played on recorder by Frans Bruggen. Over the radio, a
decade back, I would play along with the Sonata in F recording, but on a
12TET recorder. Then, while talking over the recording, I would explain to
the listening audience that I was taking 4 pieces of adhesive tape and
placing them over my recorder tone holes in an exact way. This was to put me
in perfect quarter-comma extended meantone. Yes, it's very doable on the
recorder. And it takes way under a minute when you get some experience in
doing it.

The traditional method was bees wax, or it was a recorder built to play in
meantone. When tuning went 12TET, the recorder's tone holes had to be
enlarged to match 12TET. This gave me the idea of going in the other
direction by closing up the holes. Today's manufacturers of recorders make
meantone proprietary recorders that cannot play in 12TET, but there is a
limited market.

I would hope that the scholarship for Handel be very clear, as it has become
for Bach.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

>However, I wouldn't assume out of hand
>that modern notation of Handel uses a changed accidental from the
>manuscripts.

Then one would have to dig up the originals (if they still exist).

>I would hope that the scholarship for Handel be very clear, as it has
become
>for Bach.

Me too. Perhaps the third-greatest Baroque composer, Telemann, named 55-tone
equal temperament as his ideal, thus indicating an extended 1/6-comma
meantone for his music (again restoring any changed accidentals that may
have accumulated).

>No question here regarding any ideal of extended meantone that might have
>been current in the Baroque era. However, I wouldn't assume out of hand
>that modern notation of Handel uses a changed accidental from the
>manuscripts.

Maybe here and there in parts, but scores and keyboard should be unchanged.
And nowhere in an urtext edition.

>Me too. Perhaps the third-greatest Baroque composer, Telemann, named 55-tone
>equal temperament as his ideal, thus indicating an extended 1/6-comma
>meantone for his music (again restoring any changed accidentals that may
>have accumulated).

Telemann is one of my favorite composers! Where did he speak about 55-tone
ET?

-Carl

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

>Paul, take a deep breath. There is no mention of Handel having more than
12
>keys in Joel Mandelbaum's dissertation. After checking from my copy, I
spoke
>with Joel on the telephone. He was aware of the topic but couldn't find
any
>reference to Handel either...I think he's still checking as I write this.

Now breathe and call Joel again (tell him I say hi and I think he'd really
like my paper). On page 251f, Mandelbaum writes,

"While Bach in Germany was advocating and using an almost equal temperament
of 12 tones, Handel, in England, had been using an organ with 16 keys to
realize a broad range in what may well have been a temperament of more than
1/6 of a comma."

So we now have three reliable sources, Mandelbaum, Ellis, and Marcus, and
two "unreliable" ones, Partch and Ear Magazine East, for Handel having used
16-tone meantone.

Great work, Paul! I spoke with Joel Mandelbaum and we were wondering about
whether he had seen Ellis when he wrote that Handel had 16 tones, and he said
yes. (Mandelbaum attributed Bosanquet only).

Interesting that Joel thinks that 1/4 comma was superceded by 1/6th comma by
the time of Handel and that Handel probably used 1/6th comma or more.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

Johnny Reinhard wrote,

>Great work, Paul! I spoke with Joel Mandelbaum and we were wondering about
>whether he had seen Ellis when he wrote that Handel had 16 tones, and he said
>yes. (Mandelbaum attributed Bosanquet only).

>Interesting that Joel thinks that 1/4 comma was superceded by 1/6th comma by
>the time of Handel and that Handel probably used 1/6th comma or more.

By "more," Joel undoubtedly means "more than 1/6th comma," i.e., as much as 1/4-
comma. Although 1/6-comma was by then superceding 1/4-comma on the Continent,
in England 1/4-comma would remain the norm for some time to come.

Frankly, it has been a long time since the dissertation was written and Joel
couldn't be sure why he had said 1/6th comma. Then I looked a bit more and
saw that he had written, "Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, the fifths
and thirds grew generally larger as meantone temperament of 1/4-comma was
superseded by 1/6-comma temperament and finally by equal temperament."

To me it looks like Joel is saying that the third is getting larger,
chronologically, and that is why Handel might be a likely candidate for 1/6th
comma. I mentioned that maybe since Handel was from Germany where Telemann
and Silbermann were tied to 1/6th comma. He was a bit fuzzy on it and
suggested that it might be in Bosanquet that he wrote this, feeling there
must be a reason. I gave him the page that Paul indicated (et al.) Joel
feels that Handel could have demanded 1/6th comma for his extended organ,
even if it was personal to him and not au courant.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

>Telemann is one of my favorite composers! Where did he speak about 55-tone
>ET?

Quoting Brian McLaren:

"Georg Andreas Sorge mentions Telemann by name in his 1748 text "Gespra"ch
zwischen einem musico theoretico und einmen studioso musices" (Conversation
between a music theorist and a student of music): "Besser gefa"llt mir das
beru"hmten Herrn Capellmeister Telemanns `Systema Intervallorum' also
welcher die Octav in 55. geometrische Beschnitte (commata) die von Stufe zu
Stufe keiner werdern, theilet." (A rough translation: "The well-known Herr
Cappelmeister Telemann's `Systema intervallorum' pleases me better, in which
the octave is sliced up into 55 units [commata] which become smaller from
top to bottom.")"

>Quoting Brian McLaren:
>
>"Georg Andreas Sorge mentions Telemann by name in his 1748 text "Gespra"ch
>zwischen einem musico theoretico und einmen studioso musices" (Conversation
>between a music theorist and a student of music): "Besser gefa"llt mir das
>beru"hmten Herrn Capellmeister Telemanns `Systema Intervallorum' also
>welcher die Octav in 55. geometrische Beschnitte (commata) die von Stufe zu
>Stufe keiner werdern, theilet." (A rough translation: "The well-known Herr
>Cappelmeister Telemann's `Systema intervallorum' pleases me better, in which
>the octave is sliced up into 55 units [commata] which become smaller from
>top to bottom.")"

Thanks! Doesn't quite sound like ET, though.

-Carl

> [Paul Erlich, TD 486.15]
>
>> Telemann is one of my favorite composers! Where did he
>> speak about 55-tone ET?
>
> Quoting Brian McLaren:
>
>> "Georg Andreas Sorge mentions Telemann by name in his 1748
>> text "Gespra"ch zwischen einem musico theoretico und einmen
>> studioso musices" (Conversation between a music theorist and
>> a student of music): "Besser gefa"llt mir das beru"hmten
>> Herrn Capellmeister Telemanns `Systema Intervallorum' also
>> welcher die Octav in 55. geometrische Beschnitte (commata)
>> die von Stufe zu Stufe keiner werdern, theilet."
> (A rough translation: "The well-known Herr Cappelmeister
> Telemann's `Systema intervallorum' pleases me better,
> in which the octave is sliced up into 55 units [commata]
> which become smaller from top to bottom.")"
>

There are two problems with this.

What McLaren (or Erlich?) quotes as 'werdern' should apparently
be 'werden' (I have not been able to find 'werdern' in any of
my German books, so apparently it is a typo).

And McLaren's translation mistakenly renders 'keiner' as
'smaller': that word would have been 'kleiner'; 'keiner'
means 'none'.

When I first read this posting, altho Sorge clearly states
that Telemann's scale was a *geometrical* (i.e., logarithmically
equal) division, the last part of the sentence seems to be
referring to a 55-part *arithmetical* division, in which
the steps get gradually smaller as the scale rises. So
the German here is correct and 'smaller' is clearly wrong.

My German leaves a lot to be desired, but this literal
translation seems to be more accurate. Perhaps a German-
speaker (hopefully with access to the original text)
can correct it so that it makes sense in English.

> [Monzo translation of Sorge]
> Better pleases me the famous Mr. Capellmeister Telemann's
> 'Systema Intervallorum' in which the octave into 55th
> geometrical sliced (commas) from step to step none are,
> divided.

-monz

Joseph L. Monzo Philadelphia monz@juno.com
http://www.ixpres.com/interval/monzo/homepage.html
|"...I had broken thru the lattice barrier..."|
| - Erv Wilson |
--------------------------------------------------

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

>>(A rough translation: "The well-known Herr
>>Cappelmeister Telemann's `Systema intervallorum' pleases me better, in
which
>>the octave is sliced up into 55 units [commata] which become smaller from
>>top to bottom.")"

>Thanks! Doesn't quite sound like ET, though.

"smaller from top to bottom" could refer to frequency (then known as
vibration number) differences, rather than the logarithmic units we're
accustomed to using today.

Joe Monzo wrote,

>What McLaren (or Erlich?) quotes as 'werdern' should apparently
>be 'werden' (I have not been able to find 'werdern' in any of
>my German books, so apparently it is a typo).

>And McLaren's translation mistakenly renders 'keiner' as
>'smaller': that word would have been 'kleiner'; 'keiner'
>means 'none'.

>When I first read this posting, altho Sorge clearly states
>that Telemann's scale was a *geometrical* (i.e., logarithmically
>equal) division, the last part of the sentence seems to be
>referring to a 55-part *arithmetical* division, in which
>the steps get gradually smaller as the scale rises. So
>the German here is correct and 'smaller' is clearly wrong.

Thanks, Joe! I'd never accuse McLaren of being accurate! I unfortunately
never took German, though it would have been far more useful than my Spanish
and French combined for studying tuning theory.

Telemann, in the last year of his life (1767) wrote a musical Sound- and
Interval Table, specifying 63 different notations of pitch.

Telemann used a solfege as follows: Cexces, Cex, Ces, C, Ceb, Cess, Cessceb,
dexces, dex, des, d, deb, dess, dessdeb, etc. I have presumed this to be an
extended meantone, but the jury is out. 55 would be simply a logical
curtailing of an even more expensive 63. Telemann acknowledges that the
double sharp and flat are as much as music truly needs, however. But there
is a wild ultra-chromatic setting of 9 bars in 4 part harmony...a true
microtonal experiment.

This source material is from "Georg Philip Telemann "Singen ist das fundament
zur Music in allen Dingen" (Verlag Philipp Reclam jun. Lipzig, 1985) I
picked it up in a wonderful music store in East Berlin before the wall came
down. It is all source material.

Johnny Reinhard
microtonalist

>Telemann acknowledges that the double sharp and flat are as much as music
>truly needs, however. But there is a wild ultra-chromatic setting of 9 bars
>in 4 part harmony...a true microtonal experiment.

OOoo, I _must_ obtain a copy of that!

-C.

A few little things to tie up the thread from my end, at least until more
material presents itself.

To Dale, the safe road may not be the most lucrative path re Bux. Again,
there is a hard-cover, hefty text on the St. Jacobi church organs, and I do
believe there is involvement of a regular kind with Bux. Clearly, that text
must be uncovered and explored.

To questions about whether to trust Handel's accidentals in modern editions,
well, Barbour misrepresented Kirnberger in his book: Barbour thought nothing
of changing a C# to a Db when describing K.'s tuning in his now-unavailable
book.

According to some internet searches, Thuringians are now considered to be
southern Angles, Angle Germans that went south. This would make Buxtehude
and Werckmeister closer ethnically. More important is that they were early
buddies, and both died in 1707.

Kirnberger, also a Thuringian, studied with JS Bach when the master was 55.
Kirnberger would have had to have been on a different planet to think that
Bach was so staunchly unequal. It seems that the Thuringians were the
staunchest believers in irregular circular tunings and that outside Germans
either bought in to what they were hearing, or dismissed it as Marpurg did.

After Werckmeister's death, there is almost no mention of W., and he is
regularly misrepresented. (Slonimsky claimed the 1691 "Musical Temperament"
work endorsed ET, the editor of the Telemann documents inserted a foot-note
explaining erroneously that Werckmeister was a promoter of ET, Rasch mis-read
into what Werckmeister said-as earlier mentioned, Helmholtz went by hearsay,
etc.).

Kirnberger does not mention Werckmeister at all, with only a slight against
Telemann for poor understanding of the harmonc rules. Interesting that
Reinhard Kaiser was self-taught.

Even Rita Steblin ("A History of Key Characteristics in the Eighteenth and
Early Nineteenth Centures") in her seemingly exhaustive work, never mentions
Werckmeister. She does outline a virtual war between Marpurg and Kirnberger
("Marpurg versus Kirnberger: The Tuning Controversy in Germany"). The "war"
was fought in the French world between Rameau and Rousseau and her chapter
hear reads "Equal Temperament versus Unequal Temperament."

There seems to have been some serious fall-out from the Kirnberger/Marpurg
war, involving a supression of information, especially published information
from the area of focus. It seems to me that Rameau's reversal to support ET
is the strategy employed to say that Werckmeister likewise reversed himself
to ET. This would indicated that the master J.S. Bach would have also chosen
ET when all was offered. The Werckmeister material would challenge these
assumptions and have significantly remained untranslated, unmentioned unless
mispreresented,

Johnny Reinhard

Apparently, Werckmeister was hired at the same time as Buxtehude to a post of
administrative assistant. This is from a biography of Buxtenude on the net.

"Buxtehude est choisi le 11 avril 1668. Au meme moment, il faut omme
Werkmeister, un poste comprenant les taches de secretaire, de tresorier et
d'agent administratif de l'eglise; ce poste, comportant un salaire distinct,
etait normalement devolu a l'organiste."

Wim, can you or someone else help give a specific translation?

Well, this helps explain the close connection between Bux and W.

Johnny Reinhard