Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Werckmeister III Tuning

Welcome to our world, Paul. I have been teaching microtonal music to public
school children all week.
Tuning is indeed vast, or is it "temperamenting?" While I could not add to
the discussion this past week, I feel strengthened in the belief that my
instincts are correct. I was hoping for just such a reaction.

"Modified Meantone" is for me a useless term. It holds no valuable context
in my life's work of producing microtonal music, or in understanding history.
Sorry, realizing how other have invested heavily in it for one reason or
another.

The realization that Werckmeister III had no name in its inception is
underscored by the variants in the present discussion regarding terms, thanks to
members of the List.

Rather than argue adverbs versus nouns, to the musical ear all is a tuning.
On the face of it, we experience music passively though our ears as
interpreted by our minds. Temperament is "tamperment" in one sense. In another, the
receiver (listener) embosses the sensations with his or her own personality,
or "temperament," and emotional mood. Modifying anything, including
meantone, cannot require the severe requirements that you would impose on it because
of your expertise with hammering metal, for instance. I suspect the world
takes modifying in a general sense, with little if any specifics.

While an adverb modified a verb on the title page of Werckmeister's treatise
on tuning (1691), the concept of doing this only makes sense as a noun.

Paul: Ultimately, though, I think it doesn't
really matter as long as we realize we are creating an approximation
of an unreachable ideal, that being the use of pure consonances for
every triad.

Johnny: Ah, but it is for J.S. Bach that I have centered my focus. J.S.
Bach's music sucks in just intonation, as previously discussed on this list.
It is less musical in equal temperament than well temperament, probably of any
kind of well temperament. To find the true tuning of well temperament he
used would not be about notes, but about intervals, a seeming myriad of musical
intervals. Bach's music needs temperament, almost as a raison d'etre, but
there has been a conspiracy to limit his music to the modern hegemony of
12-tone ET. (Denial is a river in Egypt.) With no certainty as to which
irregular well temperament Bach used, I will present a case that WIII is the one to
choose for modern performance, and to better understand still another
dimension in the music of Bach.

A modern theory of moderns imposed on a baroque composing sensation such as
Bach punches a hole in the theory almost immediately. Quantz has no
relevance here.

Paul: I think it is wrong to ask which specific system or which specific
tuning Werckeister had in mind as the starting point to deviate from.

Johnny: And I would completely disagree. There is strong preference for
Werckmeister III tuning over any of the other tunings, period. The 1681 first
publication produces only 2 tuning possibilities (tuning as a verb), both
nameless. The subtitle of Orgel Probe (1681) has the tuning topic up front on
the organ examination book. Werckmeister was trying to slip his own tuning in
past conservative clerics, courts, the musicians, and those previously
invested in a different system. He was under extreme criticism from the WIV
people. His youngest son, who took over his former position in Quedlinburg
actually retained WIV tuning on the organ.

WIV was the status quo tuning used by Trost on the Halberstadt and
Quedlinburg organs, where Werckmeister was later to work. While WIV had no name
(though Trost tuning is appealing), it would become much later known as
Werckmeister IV tuning. (Perhaps the word "tuning" sounds more apealing to American
English ear than does the word "temperament".) There were no other mentions of
variants, nor is there much recognition of them in any of the literature.

Regardless, as an accomplished and professional improviser Werckmeister
required an organ tuning that played in a full circle of keys, and in this
Werckmeister III was superior to the older W IV.

Read this: Werckmeister wanted to replace Trost with his own circle. This
circle is definitive well temperament, at least in my book. WIV would be an
irregular tuning in my book because a pro-irregular set of scales (as opposed
to meantone) was on the ground in Thuringia and neighboring environs. There
was an aesthetic prevalent in central Germany that loved that irregularity
and has been ignored by those that favor the sameness of the just intonation
model, recognized instrumentally as meantone.

To avoid misrepresenting you, I am retaining your comments below. We can
keep different beliefs. No one need change their position. We can only
present and leave it to others to make their way. In my work on Bach's Tuning
(much more preferable title to me than Bach's Temperament, and which may be
actually misleading in American English), there is no meantone. I believe there
is a different aesthetic present in Bach's music that is missed by the
meantone model you promote, let alone any ambiguous modified meantone model. As you
noted, Werckmeister described the relative ease of retuning a meantone
keyboard into WIII.

It has been wonderful having this spirited discussion. The List is a
wonderful place for getting perspective,

all best, Johnny Reinhard

------------------------------------
Paul: That's why I don't agree that a temperament is always an
approximation of some definite tuning. If pressed, I would have to say
that all traditional temperaments are approximations of an
unrestrained flexible 5-limit JI applied independently to each and
every harmony. And yes, that includes sequential harmonies which
contain common notes sustained from one harmony to the other and which
change function as the harmony changes, like a G# becoming an Ab.
These notes would have been altered slightly in pitch at the moment
the harmony changes, precisely as Quantz TELLS us to do.

**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)

🔗Paul Poletti <paul@polettipiano.com>

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

> With no certainty as to which
> irregular well temperament Bach used, I will present a case that
WIII is the one to
> choose for modern performance, and to better understand still another
> dimension in the music of Bach.
>
> A modern theory of moderns imposed on a baroque composing sensation
such as
> Bach punches a hole in the theory almost immediately.

Are you referring to your own theory?

;-)

> Quantz has no
> relevance here.

>
> Paul: I think it is wrong to ask which specific system or which
specific
> tuning Werckeister had in mind as the starting point to deviate from.

> Johnny: And I would completely disagree. There is strong preference
for
> Werckmeister III tuning over any of the other tunings, period.

Right. So when Werckmeister sat down to devise his three "correct"
temperaments", listed in the 1691 book as, er, well, ah gee: "three
correct temperaments" (not "tunings"), the first of which is what we
know now call WIII, his point of departure was ...

...WIII!

That was easy work! Off to the pub!

> As you
> noted, Werckmeister described the relative ease of retuning a meantone
> keyboard into WIII.

No, not the relative EASE, but the fact the the tuner can leave
several pipes unchanged, which saves lots of time and $$$$. VERY
important when the organist goes to the penny-pinching Lutheran church
council and says, "If it please the council, I would like to request
enough funds to keep three people (organ builder, key holder, bellow
pumper) gainfully employed for several months rebuilding the organ so
that it sounds in this new-fangled temperament of Hr. Werckemister."

The funny things I can't wrap my head around in all this, are the
following:

I think he just went bonkers in his old age. Must have had a bad case
of Alzheimers to forget The One True Tuning. Poor old guy...

Ciao,

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Re: Werckmeister III Tuning
JR: of moderns imposed on a baroque composing sensation
such as
> Bach punches a hole in the theory almost immediately.

Are you referring to your own theory?

;-)
Johnny: No, your theory. Meantone is so wrong a tuning for JS Bach. A
theory that promulgates a yen for just, except for Bach, is no theory for the
Baroque.

> Quantz has no
> relevance here.

Yeah, you're right. Born 12 years after Bach. Far too modern to give
us any clues about Baroque intonation practice. And he certainly never
had any contact with any of the Bach circle, now, did he? Let's see,
now... can't quite remember the name of the keyboard player in
Freddie's band...
Johnny: Ah, now this is sarcasm. Do you think I am unaware of any of this?
Quantz was theorizing in meantone and JS Bach was not.
Werckmeister set the new rules that Bach followed.

>
> Paul: I think it is wrong to ask which specific system or which
specific
> tuning Werckeister had in mind as the starting point to deviate from.

> Johnny: And I would completely disagree. There is strong preference
for
> Werckmeister III tuning over any of the other tunings, period.

...WIII!

That was easy work! Off to the pub!
Johnny: I thought Werckmeister wrote in German? Yes, to the pub.

> As you
> noted, Werckmeister described the relative ease of retuning a meantone
> keyboard into WIII.

(a) If Werckmeister (and his cirlce) was so enamored of WIII, then why
on earth in 1698 did he recommend to the "beginner" that he use
another entirely different temperament that is actually MUCH more
difficult to set?
Johnny: This is also the year of the revised Orgel-Probe (1698) which now
omitted the tuning info from the first edition. Erweiterte und verbesserte
Orgel-Probe (1698) points towards the earlier published monochord treatise of
Musicalische Temperatur (1691) with the following direction:
"With regard to the matter of temperament, there is no need to add anything
in particular, since the kind reader can find a detailed discussion and
demonstration in our treatise on temperament with an appendix on the monochord"
(Werckmeister, Orgel-Probe, p. 65).
As to why he recommended it to beginners, he must have thought that with the
average of beginner errors that are most likely, the tuning would be more
acceptable with a different set of goals. The 1698 you refer to is from
Here's a bit I have now about this; please let me know if you find anything
factually wrong:
Another Werckmeister publication that contained important tuning information
came in the form of a 1698 essay entitled “Short Lesson and Addition, how
one can tune and temper well a clavier.” It was added to “Essential
Annotations and Rules Concerning the Proper Realization of the Basso Continuo or
Thorough-Bass” (Die nothwendigsten Ammerckungen und Regeln, wie der Bassus
continuus oder General-Bass wohl könne tractiret warden). Werckmeister directed this
amendment towards beginners in tacet recognition that organs will always
need to be tuned by trained professionals. Werckmeister once again attempted to
aid the more naïve readers in the actual tuning of a harpsichord.
Throughout “Essential Annotations…,” Werckmeister invites the reader to
consult his copper-plate Monochordo contained in Musicalische Temperatur to “
find more exact information throughout the proportional numbers” (Archambault,
p. 225). The title page of Musicalische Temperatur hugely enlarged the word
MONOCORDI so that the eye quickly catches the second largest word, MONOCHORDO.
This indicates that the copper-plate comparison of tunings was the real
draw for the purchase of the book. For the more serious tuners in his audience,
it was imperative that the reader consult Musicalische Temperatur (1691).
Musical Temperament or the clear and authentic mathematical instruction of
how, through the analysis of the monochord, one can tune a keyboard
instrument (especially organs, positives, regals, spinets, and such) in a
well-tempered manner, in order that according to the practice of today, all modi ficti
can be accepted in a pleasing and tolerable harmony; with a preliminary
perfection and lesser perfection of the musical numbers, proportions, and consonants
which in the process of setting up the temperament, are to be seriously
considered. In addition, a monochord is depicted distinctly and completely in a
copper-plate (Hehr, p. 1).
While Werckmeister did pay lip service to equal temperament in some of his
writings, he always stated his clear preference for more consonance in the
thirds of the diatonic keys; he always referred readers back to Musicalische
Temperatur (1691) for further information and detail. Upon examination, it
seems Werckmeister did not shift gears; there never was a paradigm shift. He
just wanted more customers available by marketing equal temperament to eager
newbies and curious amateurs. It was never meant for “haut couture.”

(b) What a vast world of difference must live in 1/4 of the schisma,
since he rants quite forcefully that "no healthy ear" can withstand
1/4 Syntonic comma tempered fifths, recommending instead fifths
tempered by only 1/8th to 1/12 comma (not specifying which one).
Funny, that.
Johnny: Here's a nice quote about this. Werckmeister appears more
circumspect regarding the influence of his personal taste on others.
“Indeed Werckmeister could have written his 1698 defense of his new
temperament with Buxtehude’s music in mind.” Andreas Werckmeister wrote:
Since through the grace of God, music has so progressed and changed, it
would be absurd if we had not tried to improve the keyboard, so that
well-composed modern pieces should not be ruined, and a howl came out of them…Some would
like to say that one should not compose in every key, such as C#, F# and G#.
But I say that if one does not do it, another will…And why should I set
limits for this person or that, and want to prohibit him from composing in this
key?...the free arts want free geniuses (Werckmeister in Snyder re:
Buxtgehude, p. 84).
Where did you get your quote?

Paul: I think he just went bonkers in his old age. Must have had a bad case
of Alzheimers to forget The One True Tuning. Poor old guy...
Ciao, p
Johnny: Nah, he was consistent. He was simply an equal opportunity nice
guy trying to be okay with different fronts. Sort of a John McCain type. He
kept letting in different possibilities while maintaining that WIII was for
the professionals. Walther might have reported that there was a change in
their relationship due to dementia. I think you've been reading too much
propaganda.

;-)

**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)

🔗Paul Poletti <paul@polettipiano.com>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Hi Paul, I hope this is better for reading, and for attribution:
JR: ...of moderns imposed on a baroque composing sensation
such as
> Bach punches a hole in the theory almost immediately.

Are you referring to your own theory?
;-)
Johnny: No, your theory. Meantone is so wrong a tuning for JS Bach. A
theory that promulgates a yen for just, clearly wrong for Bach, is no theory for
the Baroque.

> Quantz has no
> relevance here.

Paul: Yeah, you're right. Born 12 years after Bach. Far too modern to give
us any clues about Baroque intonation practice. And he certainly never
had any contact with any of the Bach circle, now, did he? Let's see,
now... can't quite remember the name of the keyboard player in
Freddie's band...
Johnny: Ah, now this is sarcasm. Do you think I am unaware of any of this?
Quantz was theorizing in meantone and JS Bach was not. Werckmeister set
the new rules that Bach followed.

>
> Paul: I think it is wrong to ask which specific system or which
specific
> tuning Werckeister had in mind as the starting point to deviate from.

> Johnny: And I would completely disagree. There is strong preference
for
> Werckmeister III tuning over any of the other tunings, period.

Paul: Right. So when Werckmeister sat down to devise his three "correct"
temperaments", listed in the 1691 book as, er, well, ah gee: "three
correct temperaments" (not "tunings"), the first of which is what we
know now call WIII, his point of departure was ...
...WIII!
That was easy work! Off to the pub!
Johnny: I thought Werckmeister wrote in German? Yes, to the pub.

> As you
> noted, Werckmeister described the relative ease of retuning a meantone
> keyboard into WIII.

(a) If Werckmeister (and his cirlce) was so enamored of WIII, then why
on earth in 1698 did he recommend to the "beginner" that he use
another entirely different temperament that is actually MUCH more
difficult to set?
Johnny: This is also the year of the revised Orgel-Probe (1698) which
omitted the tuning info from the first edition. Erweiterte und verbesserte
Orgel-Probe (1698) points towards the earlier published monochord treatise of
Musicalische Temperatur (1691) with the following direction:
"With regard to the matter of temperament, there is no need to add anything
in particular, since the kind reader can find a detailed discussion and
demonstration in our treatise on temperament with an appendix on the monochord"
(Werckmeister, Orgel-Probe, p. 65).
As to why he recommended it to beginners, he must have thought that with the
average of beginner errors that are most likely, the tuning would be more
acceptable with a different set of goals. The 1698 you refer to is from
Also, I have a translation of “Die nothwendigsten… made by Ellen Jane
Archambault, including the addenda you have been referring to. I’ll reread and
comment later on. Here's a bit I have now about this (which I wrote). Please
let me know if you find anything factually wrong:
Another Werckmeister publication that contained important tuning information
came in the form of a 1698 essay entitled “Short Lesson and Addition, how
one can tune and temper well a clavier.” It was added to “Essential
Annotations and Rules Concerning the Proper Realization of the Basso Continuo or
Thorough-Bass” (Die nothwendigsten Ammerckungen und Regeln, wie der Bassus
continuus oder General-Bass wohl könne tractiret warden). Werckmeister directed
this amendment towards beginners in tacet recognition that organs will always
need to be tuned by trained professionals. Werckmeister once again attempted
to aid the more naïve readers in the actual tuning of a harpsichord.
Throughout “Essential Annotations…,” Werckmeister invites the reader to
consult his copper-plate Monochordo contained in Musicalische Temperatur to “
find more exact information throughout the proportional numbers” (Archambault,
p. 225). The title page of Musicalische Temperatur hugely enlarged the word
MONOCORDI so that the eye quickly catches the second largest word,
MONOCHORDO. This indicates that the copper-plate comparison of tunings was the real
draw for the purchase of the book. For the more serious tuners in his
audience, it was imperative that the reader consult Musicalische Temperatur (1691).
Musical Temperament or the clear and authentic mathematical instruction of
how, through the analysis of the monochord, one can tune a keyboard
instrument (especially organs, positives, regals, spinets, and such) in a
well-tempered manner, in order that according to the practice of today, all modi ficti
can be accepted in a pleasing and tolerable harmony; with a preliminary
perfection and lesser perfection of the musical numbers, proportions, and
consonants which in the process of setting up the temperament, are to be seriously
considered. In addition, a monochord is depicted distinctly and completely in a
copper-plate (Hehr, p. 1).
While Werckmeister did pay lip service to equal temperament in some of his
writings, he always stated his clear preference for more consonance in the
thirds of the diatonic keys; he always referred readers back to Musicalische
Temperatur (1691) for further information and detail. Upon examination, it
seems Werckmeister did not shift gears; there never was a paradigm shift. He
just wanted more customers available by marketing equal temperament to eager
newbies and curious amateurs. It was never meant for “haut couture.”

(b) What a vast world of difference must live in 1/4 of the schisma,
since he rants quite forcefully that "no healthy ear" can withstand
1/4 Syntonic comma tempered fifths, recommending instead fifths
tempered by only 1/8th to 1/12 comma (not specifying which one).
Funny, that.
Johnny: Here's a nice quote about this. Werckmeister appears more
circumspect regarding the influence of his personal taste on others. Buxtehude
scholar Kerala J. Snyder wrote:
“Indeed Werckmeister could have written his 1698 defense of his new
temperament with Buxtehude’s music in mind.” Andreas Werckmeister wrote:
Since through the grace of God, music has so progressed and changed, it
would be absurd if we had not tried to improve the keyboard, so that
well-composed modern pieces should not be ruined, and a howl came out of them…Some would
like to say that one should not compose in every key, such as C#, F# and G#.
But I say that if one does not do it, another will…And why should I set
limits for this person or that, and want to prohibit him from composing in this
key?...the free arts want free geniuses (Werckmeister in Snyder re: Buxtehude,
p. 84).

;-)

**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)