Werckmeister 1698

Re: Werckmeister (1698)

Thank you for your thoughts! Tom, I agree with you. And yes, they were my
words using the Archambault translation. Werckmeister would also agree with
you, which is why he offered students different ways to tune. Werckmeister
1698 is not a mathematical tuning as you describe it.

Brad: D'oh! While waiting for Paul to respond to a previous posting I put
some extra work into making my own opinion, rather than sheepishly following
another's. Hope you understand. Seems Paul and I don't see the same things
looking at the same information. That's exciting and necessary, if can remain
civil. You are aces at being civil, and I appreciate that.

Paul: Aay! Welcome back. Um, you can attack me head on. Archambauldt is
guiltless. You see, it is my professional experience as a performer not to
listen to another's interpretation before developing my own. When I did a
realization of the Charles Ives "Universe Symphony" I made certain that it was
only my own work, basically refusing to discuss with other that had their own
set views. These set views easily become territory to defend, and it gets
worse from there. I'd rather be 100% responsible for my views. I'll try to
make some cogent remarks -- and look past the unnecessary explosiveness. (Hope
you are a bit kinder with your actual students. wink wink ).

--- In _tuning@yahoogroups.com_
(/tuning/post?postID=SnGd96CBFd48hnfX8RMTFzILaOe4fWSS5W5j3sSYI-O5IR_CLPMgPRdDaj6geeTxxYl
g91YzaBZB7xRHlCpR) , Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
>
> Hi Tunas! Following up on Paul Poletti's discussions of what we
could even
> call Werckmeister VII tuning (unless I missed one along the way).

Paul: I wouldn't. If anything other than what it is -Werckmeister's continuo
temperament- I would call it "Werckmeister's Ordinaire".

Johnny: What was wrong with Werckmeister 1698? There is no possible cause
of confusion. It even takes in Tom's views (yes, Tom?)
Ordinaire sounds too French for a Werckmeister tuning. Personally, I see an
argument against WVII simply because it is not on the monochord.

> I have
> deduced its identity using a translation by Ellen J. Archambault
from her PhD
> dissertation at Florida State University's School of Music in 1999.
Let me
> hear your thoughts. Johnny

Paul: My first thought is, if you want to "deduce" it's structure, why don't
you just sit down and tune it according to Werckmeister's quite clear
instructions, rather than relying on some modern mislead
interpretation? Doing so will in fact demonstrate precisely how
mislead said interpretation is.

Johnny: Ah, then you should have waited for a later thought. ; )
On my own initiative I tried to figure out from Werckmeister's instructions
how the tuning might be represented using cents. Unlike you, I am very
comfortable in cents. I performing polymicrotonally on bassoon, recorder, and
voice.

Paul: Failing that, you can always download the spreadsheet I made which
allows one to tweak things around without straying off the fairly
narrow though by no means inflexible path W. described:

_http://polettipiano.com/Media/Werckmeister1698.xls_
(http://polettipiano.com/Media/Werckmeister1698.xls)

(BTW, just noticed this link was broken, now it's fixed again)
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------------------------------

Johnny: Glad to hear that!
(no means inflexible...is this a double negative? do you mean Werckmeister
1698 is flexible pitch, but not in interpretation?)

> This new 1698 tuning was not included
> on the published copper-plate monochord, and it was distinguished
from its
> predecessors for being easier to tune, and without having to split
commas.

Paul: This is absolute Bullkrap! The continuo temperament is far more
difficult to tune than WIII!! Any idiot can tune WIII with one ear
tied behind his back;
How is this easier?!

Johnny: I am just trying to arse some questions.

> Essentially, it is simpler language for getting started.

Bollocks!

Johnny: It's easier because:
1. no monochord needed, nor any of the skills associated with it
2. no intellectual knowledge of commas, etc. of tuning, and no organs
3. there is a new flexibility in using inexact size fifths which are
harmonized to Werckmeister's suggestions
4. no need to refer back to his Musicalische Termperatur (1691), or pay for
it
5. the white notes of the keyboard are the same as sixth comma meantone,
which some believe was increasing prevalent
6. is is declared by its creator for non-experts (there are plenty of
quotes).
7. It's easier because there is intended leeway for errors which the
Monochordo temperaments did not have

That's a start.

Paul: 1/6 Syn. comma is but one of the tempered fifths that will work. It
could be anything from about 1/5 Syntonic to 1/7 Pythagorean and still
work.

Johnny: I believe it had to be something. I give good reasons why I think a
schisma of 2 cents is a good way to go for the majority sixth comma
intervals. Besides, why fly in the face of sixth comma (Telemann, Silbermann, Tosi,
Frederick the Great). Even if you want to quibble, there is nothing to be
heard from the others. Besides, even further, it had to be something!

> It is likely a nod by Werckmeister to the realities
> on the ground.

Paul: It is much more likely to be a nod by this modern author to the
current fad for thinking that 1/6th comma meantone is some sort of
default late 17th/early 18th century temperament.

Johnny: You're half right. I am, by definition, a modern author, but I am
not the only one. And yes, like Monzo, and many others on this List, I think
sixth comma had a long bout as the basic tuning of the orchestra until the
20th century. It had to start sometime. Werckmeister 1698 showed me that
this might be the first description of any sixth comma tuning, if only
partially. The partial part might be more because of his need to close the circle in
improvisation, and a different aesthetic.

> Besides, they would need the odder
> intervals for improvisation that Buxtehude, Werckmeister, and Bach
needed.

I suppose they is a typo for "they woundN'T need". Bullkrap again. It
is quite easy to push the Contiunuo scheme to a point where it is
actually BETTER than WWIII in providing distant keys; in it's mildest
version, it only has ONE Pythagorean major third, whereas WIII has
three. Ugh!

Johnny: Ugh! You misunderstand, rewrite me, and still make a rude noise.
(why do i bother.)
There is no need to deny me, or anyone on this list there experience.
Werckmeister would have wanted it that way.

Buxtehude, Werckmeister, and Bach were exemplary improvisers, who needed a
full circle on the organ to think and play freely. They also need to visit
different areas of the circles in order to entreat different sounding
intervals, but not necessarily wolves.

Unlike you, I do not believe that the German aesthetic in the Bach cities in
its environs was for an irregularity in tuning, and a closed circle. It was
not about Tom's idea of trying to get home to just intonation at all times
possible. Odd intervals sound great for what they are. Everyone on this List
should understand that. Why else explore different tunings. With names
like Werckmeister, Kirnberger, & Forkel expressing the banality of equal
temperament, it is important to supply the tuning to the music. Leaving
Werckmeister 1698 as having its majority of fifths somewhere between fifth comma and
seventh comma, with the others equally flexible in bandwidth might mean
something really special to you as a harpsichord tuner. I have a different
interpretation. As already expressed, these different tunings (which you may call
temperaments) are loved by their populations for their irregularity.

> They
> might not rally around depicting gloomy sentiments.

Paul: Cute but pointless.

Johnny: Not pointless to a professional improviser at the organ. I'd like
to put the passion back into St. Matthew's Passion. All we have is equal
temperament. All of the alternatives are better than equal temperament. The
music is not played the same way. Faster tempos are faster in equal
temperament. Slow movements seem to slow in equal temperament. No variation.

> The eventual scale, in
> comparison with the primary tuning of Musicalische Temperatur
(1691), or
> Werckmeister III tuning, demonstrates they sound much alike with no
more than six
> cents difference, and on only one note, A. The other distances are
much
> less.

Paul: This is where this author shows her real ignorance. One does not
compare historical temperaments by how much the individual notes of
their "scales" differ, but rather by how much the major and minor
TRIADS differ.

Johnny: Ever hear of heuristics? Different ways to tackle problems? I
don't do things like you. You don't do things like me. This does not mean that
only one of us can be right and the other must be wrong. But I do listen
differently than you do, I'll bet.

I am the one that works with cents, and made the deduction. Nowhere did I
claim that only my interpretation was accurate. I understand you are coming
from a different place, a different profession, and that you see a flexible
bandwidth with the W1698. Let us agree not to denigrate the ignorant...more
humble, at least fake it.

sincerely, Johnny

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
>
> Paul: Aay! Welcome back. Um, you can attack me head on.
Archambauldt is
> guiltless.

Oh, then my apologies to her, should she ever wander by.

>
> Paul: I wouldn't. If anything other than what it is -Werckmeister's
continuo
> temperament- I would call it "Werckmeister's Ordinaire".

That's just a bit of a jab those who think modified meantones are
"French", despite the fact that the first mod mean I know of 4 shur is
Preatorius. Some would argue Shlick, other (like Ibo) think it is more
a Pythag mod.
>
> Johnny: What was wrong with Werckmeister 1698? There is no
possible cause
> of confusion.

I agree that's best 'cause it identifies the source.

>
> Paul: My first thought is, if you want to "deduce" it's structure,
why don't
> you just sit down and tune it according to Werckmeister's quite clear
> instructions, rather than relying on some modern mislead
> interpretation? Doing so will in fact demonstrate precisely how
> mislead said interpretation is.
>
> Johnny: Ah, then you should have waited for a later thought. ; )
> On my own initiative I tried to figure out from Werckmeister's
instructions
> how the tuning might be represented using cents. Unlike you, I am
very
> comfortable in cents. I performing polymicrotonally on bassoon,
recorder, and
> voice.
>
What's missing from this picture, of course, is a keyboard. It's a
keyboard temperament designed for realizing basso continuo. You might
get an idea of it by playing around with numbers, but I doubt you will
get the same idea W had as a keyboard player.

> Paul: Failing that, you can always download the spreadsheet I made
which
> allows one to tweak things around without straying off the fairly
> narrow though by no means inflexible path W. described:
>

> Johnny: Glad to hear that!
> (no means inflexible...is this a double negative? do you mean
Werckmeister
> 1698 is flexible pitch, but not in interpretation?)

No. I mean flexible interpretation, within limits. ALL historical
tuning instructions are flexible in pitch, 'cause they had to be.

>
> Paul: This is absolute Bullkrap! The continuo temperament is far more
> difficult to tune than WIII!! Any idiot can tune WIII with one ear
> tied behind his back;
> How is this easier?!
>
> Johnny: I am just trying to arse some questions.
>
> > Essentially, it is simpler language for getting started.
>
> Bollocks!
>
> Johnny: It's easier because:
> 1. no monochord needed, nor any of the skills associated with it

Who on earth needs a monochord to tune WIII??! It's a "baby"
temperament. I teach it to the kids (by ear) first before doing things
more complicated, like Young, or Neidhardts, or Sorges. It
soooooooooooooooo incredibly simple, as the Dutch say, "A child could
do the wash".

> 2. no intellectual knowledge of commas, etc. of tuning, and no organs

The amount of knowledge of commas required is about as complicated as
finding your way downstairs and around the corner. Say what you want,
but I can tell a student how to do WIII in 3 simple sentences. I can't
do that with W1698.

> 4. no need to refer back to his Musicalische Termperatur (1691), or
pay for
> it

Who needs it? One look at the table in the earlier work and you've got
it forever. After all, there's only 4 tempered fifths to remember! A
child can do the wash.

> 5. the white notes of the keyboard are the same as sixth comma
meantone,
> which some believe was increasing prevalent

Some believe, but where's any evidence? Some believe dinosaur bones
and the Grand Canyon are tricks of Satan. I'm not one of those.

> 6. is is declared by its creator for non-experts (there are plenty of
> quotes).

That much is true, but it's still not easier to impliment,. Have you
ever TRIED to set it on a harpsichord or a regal, Johnnie?

> 7. It's easier because there is intended leeway for errors which the
> Monochordo temperaments did not have

Again, have you ever TRIED to set it on a harpsichord or a regal,
Johhnie? Try it on what it was designed for in the way it is described
instead of tooting your various horns according to cents deviation
charts before making all sorts of pronouncements about which is easier.
>
> That's a start.
>
>
> Paul: 1/6 Syn. comma is but one of the tempered fifths that will
work. It
> could be anything from about 1/5 Syntonic to 1/7 Pythagorean and still
> work.
>
> Johnny: I believe it had to be something. I give good reasons why
I think a
> schisma of 2 cents is a good way to go for the majority sixth comma
> intervals. Besides, why fly in the face of sixth comma (Telemann,
Silbermann, Tosi,
> Frederick the Great).

Ah, the old myth of the 55 comma division = 1/6 meantone? Telemann,
for one, specifically said NOT to do this. BTW, what did Freddie say
about this? Any evidence?

> Even if you want to quibble, there is nothing to be
> heard from the others. Besides, even further, it had to be something!

Why?

Do you mean "it had to be ONE thing"? I think not. It is OBVIOUSLY
undefined as to the basic size fifth, which is why he gives all that
flexibility about the number of almost pure and wide fifths, and
doesn't pin down the last fifth F-C. If he had ONE "something" in
mind, he wouldn't need to leave all this flexibility, obviously.
>
> > It is likely a nod by Werckmeister to the realities
> > on the ground.
>
> Paul: It is much more likely to be a nod by this modern author to the
> current fad for thinking that 1/6th comma meantone is some sort of
> default late 17th/early 18th century temperament.
>
> Johnny: You're half right. I am, by definition, a modern author,
but I am
> not the only one. And yes, like Monzo, and many others on this
List, I think
> sixth comma had a long bout as the basic tuning of the orchestra
until the
> 20th century.

Where's the evidence? Is there any, or is it such empty musings of a
bunch of 20th century guys projecting their ideas onto the past?

> It had to start sometime.

Ah, because some BELIEVE it was around, logically we must also BELIEVE
it had to start sometime. Nothun' but a bunch of Satanic dinosaur
bones as far as I'm concerned.

>
> Buxtehude, Werckmeister, and Bach were exemplary improvisers, who
needed a
> full circle on the organ to think and play freely. They also need
to visit
> different areas of the circles in order to entreat different sounding
> intervals, but not necessarily wolves.

Yes. Agreed completely. But none of this excludes 1698, which has no
wolf and allows the use of all keys. And also has a variety of structure.
>
> Paul: Cute but pointless.
>
> Johnny: Not pointless to a professional improviser at the organ.
I'd like
> to put the passion back into St. Matthew's Passion. All we have is
equal
> temperament.

Uh, I don't know what you mean by that. As a tuner for the Nederlands
Bach Vereeniging, which does a huge St. Mat tour every year, all with
original instruments, I've tuned for and heard more "passionate"
passions than I care to think about. We've done WIII, Vallotti, a
modified Vallotti, and several different Neidhardts. The majority of
the musicians preferred the Neidhardts.

We never tried equal.

> All of the alternatives are better than equal temperament. The
> music is not played the same way. Faster tempos are faster in equal
> temperament. Slow movements seem to slow in equal temperament. No
variation.

Right. So what else is new?

>
> > The eventual scale, in
> > comparison with the primary tuning of Musicalische Temperatur
> (1691), or
> > Werckmeister III tuning, demonstrates they sound much alike with no
> more than six
> > cents difference, and on only one note, A. The other distances are
> much
> > less.
>
> Paul: This is where this author shows her real ignorance. One does not
> compare historical temperaments by how much the individual notes of
> their "scales" differ, but rather by how much the major and minor
> TRIADS differ.
>
> Johnny: Ever hear of heuristics? Different ways to tackle
problems? I
> don't do things like you. You don't do things like me. This does
not mean that
> only one of us can be right and the other must be wrong. But I do
listen
> differently than you do, I'll bet.
>
> I am the one that works with cents, and made the deduction.
Nowhere did I
> claim that only my interpretation was accurate. I understand you
are coming
> from a different place, a different profession, and that you see a
flexible
> bandwidth with the W1698.

That's all very fine and good, it's when you start making comments
like 1698 "was easier" for it's target audience than WIII, when I
don't think anybody who ever mimicked the target audience, that is,
sat down and tuned them both on a keyboard instrument, would agree.
It's just more work, a more complicated structure, and more trouble
balancing. And when you reject judging the temperament by triad
quality, you are rejecting Werckmeister himself, who gave a table of
the thirds for WIII and kept harping about the quality of the thirds
in the 1698 instructions. Neidhardt also give tables of major and
minor thirds for all his temperaments. You can do what you want, of
course, but if it is going to have any relevance to old music, which
you seem to want to do, you ought to at least try judging the
temperaments the way the old guys did.

Have you ever tried making a monochord, by the way, and actually using
it to temper a harpsichord? I have, and I can tell you it's not nearly
as easy nor as accurate as the old texts would have us believe,
especially not with a 2 foot string like many of them suggest. The
slightest bit of error in marking out the ruler, the slightest bit of
error in bridge displacement, the slightest flexibility in the
structure, the slightest change of tension as you push the string
against the bride, and the whole thing goes wanky. The ear is a far
better tool, as long as the instrument is fairly bright, like a harpsi
or as W recommends a regal.

I dunno, Johhnie. I'm beginning to see that you have an emotional
attachment to WIII, and just like dinosaur bones, the presence or
absence of any real evidence is of little importance to you. As you
say, we're coming from different places, aiming at different goals.

Happy Trails,

Ciao,

P

First off, let me say I very much enjoy parlaying on these matters. NYC is
a small town when it comes to these matters.

Paul: That's just a bit of a jab those who think modified meantones are
"French",

Johnny: Paul, remember, I don't use the term modified meantone. It has no
meaning for me. I must be challenged that way.

Paul: What's missing from this picture, of course, is a keyboard. It's a
keyboard temperament designed for realizing basso continuo. You might
get an idea of it by playing around with numbers, but I doubt you will
get the same idea W had as a keyboard player.

Johnny: That really prejudicial on your part. I suspect I hear as well as
Werckmeister, maybe better than you. Reminds me when Oz said I should stay
out of Bach because I was not a keyboard player. Or maybe because I'm a
German. Or...(it's a long list). Answer: I promise fresh insight backed up with
research and citations. It's coming, and it's been years in coming like
anything of value.

> Johnny: It's easier because:
> 1. no monochord needed, nor any of the skills associated with it

Who on earth needs a monochord to tune WIII??! It's a "baby"
temperament. I teach it to the kids (by ear) first before doing things
more complicated, like Young, or Neidhardts, or Sorges. It
soooooooooooooooo incredibly simple, as the Dutch say, "A child could
do the wash".

Johnny: It's not about you, Paul. It's how a pioneer found a way to
influence civilization. The copper-plate monochord was the special device that
Werckmeister devised to get his ideas across. BTW, do you know if there any of
the 1691 copper-plate monochords still extant? I'd love to see it.

And yes, I understand how simple WIII is to tune, and have done so
successfully, several times. And no, I have not tuned Werckmeister 1698 because I only
looked into it this week. Thanks to you! I've 4 concerts to tune up in the
next 2 months so I can't get to it till then. But I'd love the opportunity
to tune it up and hear some music in it. I love what I have found, although
we disagree about intervals sizes.

Paul: Some believe, but where's any evidence? Some believe dinosaur bones
and the Grand Canyon are tricks of Satan. I'm not one of those.

Johnny: I will post on this later. It deserves a different topic. But I
will state that the cents I deduced make good sense for the era. And that the
white notes can all be the same as the white notes in sixth comma meantone.

Paul: Again, have you ever TRIED to set it on a harpsichord or a regal,
Johhnie? Try it on what it was designed for in the way it is described
instead of tooting your various horns according to cents deviation
charts before making all sorts of pronouncements about which is easier.

Johnny: I bet no one in the world has tried it except for you and someone
you helped to tune it. Am I right?
There must be some grace period to trying it out once it has been deduced.
Isn't there a union call on this?

Paul: Ah, the old myth of the 55 comma division = 1/6 meantone? Telemann,
for one, specifically said NOT to do this. BTW, what did Freddie say
about this? Any evidence?

Johnny: For starters Freddie was in meantone. His flutes were built with
subsemitones, if I can borrow a keyboard term for a woodwind. As long as there
is no argument that Freddie was playing flute in meantone, I will get back
soon with the sixth comma argument.

> Even if you want to quibble, there is nothing to be
> heard from the others. Besides, even further, it had to be something!

Why?

Johnny: Because the musician wants it to be one thing. It's the musical
thing to do. The musician doesn't want to tune it differently each time. "Oh,
let's make this not higher this time." And for a continuo that
inconveniences lots of other musicians.

And when it is heard, in real time performance, the keyboard is plastic in
its tuning. Other than slippage, heat, aging, and the usual whine of pitch
dangers, there are no flexible fifths bandwidth of anywhere from a fifth to a
seventh of a comma.

That's why I dispatched Brad's comments about your work. I admire you for
it. However, I must work with it in a way that is best for the natural growth
of my idiosyncratic path. Hands on with Werckmeister's instructions gave me
a sense of sixth comma meantone quite strongly. Quarter comma to me is 696
cents. If you think it is something else, please, let's hear it.

696 cents is an old familiar interval for me. When in 1698 W. says he thinks
them lame, even though they are built into WIII, two cents less flat would
be the right accommodation. If an oboist tuned to the 1698 tuning one day,
and it is different on the second, and still different on the third, you are
messin' with that oboist's head.

To me this "continuo" tuning (I'm not sure about this yet because the tuning
is in an addenda to the continuo treatise) may not be so great. Are you
sure the addenda says the word continuo at least once?

Paul: Do you mean "it had to be ONE thing"? I think not. It is OBVIOUSLY
undefined as to the basic size fifth, which is why he gives all that
flexibility about the number of almost pure and wide fifths, and
doesn't pin down the last fifth F-C. If he had ONE "something" in
mind, he wouldn't need to leave all this flexibility, obviously.

Johnny: Another read is that it was a way to communicate to amateurs.
Okay, not such a flat fifth. If the lowest fifth was constantly heard as the 696
cent fifth, which many of us moderns love, than 698 is the first clearly
variegated pitch. I have known about bandwidth theories for years and have
usually poopooed them. But now I'm dealing with one from Werckmeister.

Why wouldn't the tuner learning Werckmeister 1698 tune it the same way for
themselves each time the tried it?

Paul: Uh, I don't know what you mean by that. As a tuner for the Nederlands
Bach Vereeniging, which does a huge St. Mat tour every year, all with
original instruments, I've tuned for and heard more "passionate"
passions than I care to think about. We've done WIII, Vallotti, a
modified Vallotti, and several different Neidhardts. The majority of
the musicians preferred the Neidhardts.

Johnny: This is fantastic news! Do you have or know of available
recordings of St. Matthew's passion in any tuning but equal? I want to buy! Of
course they'd have to start the whole piece in D minor instead of the usual E
minor.

Paul: We never tried equal.

Johnny: Good for you! Any of the ones you tried would be better than equal
temperament for a Bach passion.

Paul: That's all very fine and good, it's when you start making comments
like 1698 "was easier" for it's target audience than WIII,

Johnny: Blah, blah, blah, of course. Can't wait to tune it for myself.
And yes I made a primitive monochord. And yes, I know it is hard to get the
exact pitch hear it and apply it, especially to an organ. And W. only had a
model on one, after all. I am not fighting the old arguments. I am making new
ones.

Paul: ..., the slightest flexibility in the
structure, the slightest change of tension as you push the string
against the bride, and the whole thing goes wanky. The ear is a far
better tool, as long as the instrument is fairly bright, like a harpsi
or as W recommends a regal.

Johnny: Reminds me of tuning a chinese sheng with wet wax dripped on the
tongues in Pythagorean tuning. When Brad Catler would put the pipes in its
holder, the pitches would change. We spent hours getting the pitches to be right
when the instrument was all put together.

Re W. 1698, I don't know right now a single piece of music that would be
appropriate to be heard in it. Do you?

Paul: I dunno, Johhnie. I'm beginning to see that you have an emotional
attachment to WIII,

Johnny: I do to the spelling of my name.

Paul: and just like dinosaur bones, the presence or
absence of any real evidence is of little importance to you. As you
say, we're coming from different places, aiming at different goals.
Happy Trails, Ciao, P

Johnny: You might say that I have the ability to see past the lack of
evidence, until different evidence becomes visible.

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

!!!

----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 15 Mart 2008 Cumartesi 3:53
Subject: [tuning] Werckmeister 1698

First off, let me say I very much enjoy parlaying on these matters. NYC is a small town when it comes to these matters.

Paul: That's just a bit of a jab those who think modified meantones are
"French",

Johnny: Paul, remember, I don't use the term modified meantone. It has no meaning for me. I must be challenged that way.

Paul: What's missing from this picture, of course, is a keyboard. It's a
keyboard temperament designed for realizing basso continuo. You might
get an idea of it by playing around with numbers, but I doubt you will
get the same idea W had as a keyboard player.

Johnny: That really prejudicial on your part. I suspect I hear as well as Werckmeister, maybe better than you. Reminds me when Oz said I should stay out of Bach because I was not a keyboard player. Or maybe because I'm a German. Or...(it's a long list). Answer: I promise fresh insight backed up with research and citations. It's coming, and it's been years in coming like anything of value.

When and where did I say that?

SNIP

> And yes, I understand how simple WIII is to tune, and have done so
> successfully, several times. And no, I have not tuned Werckmeister
> 1698 because I only looked into it this week.

Successfully tuning the easy WIII only "several" times?! Um...I played in that thing regularly (but not by my choice) for five consecutive years, 1989-94, and I've also set it myself at least a hundred times before and after that. I don't like it. It makes music sound awful whenever it gets beyond two flats in the signature, and it's not great with three or more sharps in the signature either. It's trivially easy to do on harpsichord, but that's not a compelling reason to DO it on harpsichord. It's trivially easy to give a kid a haircut with four straight snips of scissors, too, but it's going to be a bad haircut.

The Werckmeister 1698 continuo temperament is trivially easy, too, especially if one is bringing any experience from setting a tasteful regular meantone anywhere in the 1/5 to 1/6 comma range (which takes 8-10 minutes, tops, to do a whole 8-foot set of strings). Narrow the 5ths gently and check that the major 3rds come out a little bit sharp, to taste; duh. Nine of the twelve notes are already in place. To convert a regular layout of this type to that Werckmeister 1698, just crank up the G# a little bit higher (making C#-G# either slightly narrow or slightly wide, to preference, testing Ab-C), bring Eb down until it's just barely wide from that G#, and then fit Bb so it's slightly wide from Eb and pure (or nearly so) from F. Three minutes, tops, to convert all the G#-Eb-Bb on an 8-foot set of strings. I did it again this afternoon just to remind myself how easy it is. The result still sounds crappy in the same four major triads that traditionally sound crappy in any regular meantone, but more gently. That is, instead of really solving that problem it merely tames it a bit. It's still usable as a modified meantone (9 regular notes, 3 modified notes finessed). And it sounds way better than WIII, on harpsichord.

Brad Lehman

Brad: Successfully tuning the easy WIII only "several" times?! Um...I played
in that thing regularly (but not by my choice) for five consecutive
years, 1989-94, and I've also set it myself at least a hundred times
before and after that. I don't like it.

Johnny: Firstly, you misunderstand me. Yes, I have tuned WIII only several
times, but as a performer leader, I have coordinated the tuning for strings,
vocalists, and woodwinds. Why would you miss that?

Secondly, I love listening to J.S. Bach's music, and music of others, in
WIII. Why must you denigrate the experience of those that love listening and
performing in it?

Brad: It makes music sound awful

Johnny: Blah, blah, blah. Shoulda looked at more wiggles, right? As Ives
would ask, are your ears on right? : )

Brad: The result still sounds
crappy in the same four major triads that traditionally sound crappy in
any regular meantone, but more gently.

Johnny: Gently crappy...cute.

Brad, I have tried all of your caveats out. And they flopped. The F Major
Duetto in Werckmeister III on piano in particular was gorgeous. Played it on
the radio several times to great effect. Mayhaps your hearing has been
damaged by bad music making in WIII. To my ear and audience, WIII is beautiful
music for J.S. Bach, non paralleil. Your attack upon it won't change that.

best, Johnny

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> > And yes, I understand how simple WIII is to tune, and have done so
> > successfully, several times. And no, I have not tuned Werckmeister
> > 1698 because I only looked into it this week.
>
> Successfully tuning the easy WIII only "several" times?! Um...I played
> in that thing regularly (but not by my choice) for five consecutive
> years, 1989-94, and I've also set it myself at least a hundred times
> before and after that. I don't like it. It makes music sound awful
> whenever it gets beyond two flats in the signature, and it's not great
> with three or more sharps in the signature either.

With as much drubbing as I've given Brad over various things in the
past, I have to say that here he is spot on.

> It's trivially easy
> to do on harpsichord,

You are too kind. "Trivially easy" makes it sound much more difficult
than it really is.

> but that's not a compelling reason to DO it on
> harpsichord. It's trivially easy to give a kid a haircut with four
> straight snips of scissors, too, but it's going to be a bad haircut.

We must wonder if the "bad haircut" analogy is in fact why
Werckmeister in 1698 did NOT recommend the beginner put it on a
harpsichord.
>
> The Werckmeister 1698 continuo temperament is trivially easy, too,
> especially if one is bringing any experience from setting a tasteful
> regular meantone anywhere in the 1/5 to 1/6 comma range (which takes
> 8-10 minutes, tops, to do a whole 8-foot set of strings).

Right again, although it is important to point out that this
experience is exactly what the beginner does NOT bring. As
Werckmeister literally says, the beginner often does not even know
what a "tempered keyboard" is.

> Narrow the
> 5ths gently and check that the major 3rds come out a little bit sharp,
> to taste; duh. Nine of the twelve notes are already in place. To
> convert a regular layout of this type to that Werckmeister 1698, just
> crank up the G# a little bit higher (making C#-G# either slightly
narrow
> or slightly wide, to preference, testing Ab-C), bring Eb down until
it's
> just barely wide from that G#, and then fit Bb so it's slightly wide
> from Eb and pure (or nearly so) from F.

Easy indeed, but look how much longer your description is than one of
WIII would needs be.

> Three minutes, tops, to convert
> all the G#-Eb-Bb on an 8-foot set of strings.

Right. Starting from an already in-place meantone. Starting from
scratch, it's still easy, but it will take you somewhat longer than
WIII, simply because one must balance and check so many fifths/thirds.
In WIII, you don't balance/check anything, except the relative beat
rates of the fifths between C-E, a process made even easier by the
fact that neither note is movable.

> The result still sounds
> crappy in the same four major triads that traditionally sound crappy in
> any regular meantone, but more gently.

How crappy they sound depends a lot on which size of basic fifth you
use. The instructions do not specify anything, though logically there
is a limit.

> That is, instead of really
> solving that problem it merely tames it a bit.

As do all modified meantones.

> It's still usable as a
> modified meantone (9 regular notes, 3 modified notes finessed).

Johhny steadfastly refuses to learn what that term means, even though
you are now the third (I think) person to give him a reasonably
precise illustrative example. So he won't understand your point, I
fear. Reminds me of a quote I read somewhere recently, can't remember
where or who it was from, but it went something like this:

I admire stupidity much more than ignorance; ignorance is natural, but
stupidity requires dedication.

;-)

> And it
> sounds way better than WIII, on harpsichord.

Agreed completely. Which is precisely why Werckmeister proposed it, I
would guess.

Johhny is of course free to enjoy whatever sounds turn him on, and to
find beauty in whatever dissonant clashes may appear. However, when he
starts saying things like W 1698 is "easier" to set than WIII,
especially for a beginner, or that WIII requires the use of a
monochord, he simply leaves the realms of credibility. None of his
arguments presented so far for the absence of WIII from the continuo
treatise hold any water at all. Whatever his arguments may be in
general for a preference among the Bach circle for WIII, this sort of
stuff undermines everything he says because it is so obviously false.

Ciao,

P

Dear Pool,

I'm afraid I am a bit to complex for you to get a grip on. By nature, it is
understandable, you being in a different profession, far away in a different
land, etc.

But it is not cool to charge stupidity or ignorance when someone is honest
with their reactions. Brad may have the Stockholm Syndrome with all the
attacks you have given him, but my background is Brooklyn.

Brad: The Werckmeister 1698 continuo temperament is trivially easy, too,
> especially if one is bringing any experience from setting a tasteful
> regular meantone anywhere in the 1/5 to 1/6 comma range (which takes
> 8-10 minutes, tops, to do a whole 8-foot set of strings).

Pail: Right again, although it is important to point out that this
experience is exactly what the beginner does NOT bring. As
Werckmeister literally says, the beginner often does not even know
what a "tempered keyboard" is.

Johnny: That must be why Werckmeister sacked the beginner with an even
harder venture. One thing the two of you erudite harpsichordists have missed is
that amateurs and beginners have plenty more time to do their tuning. They
would not be harmed by the extra time they needed to check things. For that
matter, it should be expected that amateurs and beginners would need to check
their work in many different ways. The mere fact that have the fifths could
be anywhere from a fifth to a seventh of a comma flat indicates to me that it
wasn't that critical. This is not as serious an affair lacking any specific
goal (as the temperaments of 1691 demonstrate).

Brad: Narrow the
> 5ths gently and check that the major 3rds come out a little bit sharp,
> to taste; duh. Nine of the twelve notes are already in place. To
> convert a regular layout of this type to that Werckmeister 1698, just
> crank up the G# a little bit higher (making C#-G# either slightly
narrow
> or slightly wide, to preference, testing Ab-C), bring Eb down until
it's
> just barely wide from that G#, and then fit Bb so it's slightly wide
> from Eb and pure (or nearly so) from F.

Pail: Easy indeed, but look how much longer your description is than one of
WIII would needs be.

Johnny: Maybe that should be the real criterion for the importance of a
tuning, its length of description.

I must say, I am losing patience with this. For weeks I have been asking
piano tuners, friends, scholars, etc, which is easier to tune quarter comma
meantone or WIII. Besides guessing, no one without experience could offer
anything convincing. The tuners all said they were the same because each tuning
takes the same time to do it well. That was surprising so I didn't want to
get into which is mechanically easier to tune.

That mechanical ease is irrelevant to the outcome. 1698 appears quite
vague, eager to please, an extra thrown in with a new book, one of many. The
description directions are so wishy washy that there are many acceptable
results...not true WIII.

Pohl: How crappy they sound depends a lot on which size of basic fifth you
use. The instructions do not specify anything, though logically there
is a limit.

Johnny: I bet when you get to the crappy fifths your eyes goes ballistic
and you begin to sweat uncontrollably. Voices in your head scream, "No! No!"
and you run away from the harpsichord as quickly as your feet will take you.

Pill: Johhny steadfastly refuses to learn what that term [modified
meantone] means, even though
you are now the third (I think) person to give him a reasonably
precise illustrative example. So he won't understand your point, I
fear.

Johnny: You have nothing to fear but fear itself. I understand that
modified meantone makes sense from a limited point of view. From a microtonal
view, with all music considered microtonal, it is a useless term.

This is not a court room. And it is not an insane assylum. We are here to
discuss things that are important to us. Rather than jab at my interest in
recategorizing for a specific purpose of understanding the musical conditions
in Bach's world, what should I care if Brad and Pool think my idea is crappy.
About the same as they think the music is crappy, I guess, not. This is
not an ideal way to approach these matters.

1698 is only less elementary to you because it takes more time to explain
and to fulfill. There is more to consider.

Re Modified Meantone: it reminds me of a harsh review Rudolf Rasch wrote
about Gardner Read's new book on Microtonal Notation. Rudolf was hitting Garder
hard for not explaining where the notation came from, its pedigree. Read
did this intentionally, and was quite upset. I do understand both positions.
However, you may not understand that I would have agreed with Gardner. It is
not important to the musician where the notation comes from, only what it
is. Rudolf is not a musician so it is understandable that he would think that
more was needed. But I play music of 1200 tones per octave and direct others
to do likewise. I don't care where the note came from, only how it sounds
among its mates.

Brad: > And it
> sounds way better than WIII, on harpsichord.

Johnny: Value judgment. That's it. You call crappy what makes 31-tone
equal temperament so beautiful. Have either of you ever heard 31-ET? It's
gorgeous stuff, and so is much quarter comma meantone. Charles Lucy likes this
fifth, no? Modern aesthetics are inathema to the realities on the ground.
Have you heard the sharp quartertone harmonies in Haiti? How about the harsh
Appalacian music? Do your international language skills inform you about the
meaning of Inuit music? How are your Sapmi joiking skills. Don't repeat
any prominent intervals there!

Poil: Johhny is of course free to enjoy whatever sounds turn him on, and to
find beauty in whatever dissonant clashes may appear.

Johnny: That's one for Varese and Xenakis!

Paul: However, when he
starts saying things like W 1698 is "easier" to set than WIII,
especially for a beginner,

Johnny: This would be a lie since I never said that. I have enough
experience in tuning to know better. I have explained above.

Piel: or that WIII requires the use of a
monochord,

Johnny: Why do you behave as if we are running for office? Why put words in
my mouth? I said that Werckmeister always referred his readers to the
monochord and Musicalische Temperatur (1691) for greater tuning detail. This was
true past 1698, to include his posthumously published book. The monochord
clearly made it easier for some to conceptualize the different tunings. You
don't like it, fine for you. But heuristically there are other ways. I use
cents. Get over it.

Pool: he simply leaves the realms of credibility. None of his
arguments presented so far for the absence of WIII from the continuo
treatise hold any water at all.

Johnny: Wow, you're swift boating me. Amazing! Guess there are things to
learn from American politics.

Pisl: Whatever his arguments may be in
general for a preference among the Bach circle for WIII, this sort of
stuff undermines everything he says because it is so obviously false.
Ciao, P

Johnny: And with this the discussion is closed.

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

What is the definition of 'successfully' here, though - if the
mathematical specification is just an aid to the real goal of
producing a musically good temperament (by whoever's standards). WIII
can, in my opinion, be musically improved by deliberate inaccuracies
away from the 'exact' mathematically specified temperament...

I am really curious as to why Brad would persist for so long with
'WIII', if feeling at the time that it was not very good musically.

I had a very long period of using Rameau-style 'equal' temperament
(i.e. tuned by fifths round the circle checking triads) - and of
playing almost nothing but Bach - and I was happy enough with that
tuning at the time. Then I lent out the instrument to someone who
claimed an interest in historical tuning, and who sometimes put it in
WIII - to which I quickly developed aversions... triggering a search
for something better.
~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
>
> Successfully tuning the easy WIII only "several" times?! Um...I played
> in that thing regularly (but not by my choice) for five consecutive
> years, 1989-94, and I've also set it myself at least a hundred times
> before and after that. I don't like it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
>
> Dear Pool,
>
> I'm afraid I am a bit to complex for you to get a grip on.

No no, not at all. I have lots of experience with those who loose it
when they get pushed up against a wall of objectivity and can't defend
their positions with anything reasonably concrete. That's quite alright.

>
> But it is not cool to charge stupidity or ignorance when someone is
honest
> with their reactions.

Uh, think you missed the smiley face, Johhny.

> Brad: The Werckmeister 1698 continuo temperament is trivially
easy, too,

> Pail: Right again, although it is important to point out that this
> experience is exactly what the beginner does NOT bring. As
> Werckmeister literally says, the beginner often does not even know
> what a "tempered keyboard" is.
>
> Johnny: That must be why Werckmeister sacked the beginner with an
even
> harder venture. One thing the two of you erudite harpsichordists
have missed is
> that amateurs and beginners have plenty more time to do their
tuning. They
> would not be harmed by the extra time they needed to check things.
For that
> matter, it should be expected that amateurs and beginners would
need to check
> their work in many different ways. The mere fact that have the
fifths could
> be anywhere from a fifth to a seventh of a comma flat indicates to
me that it
> wasn't that critical. This is not as serious an affair lacking any
specific
> goal (as the temperaments of 1691 demonstrate).

On the contrary, you have a long chain of uniformly tempered fifths (W
says that each time) which must end up within a fairly narrow limit in
order to require the stated amount of correction.

But in any case, you seem to be trying to argue both sides at once,
first stating that they had lots of time to check things out (a
dubious assertion, considering who amateurs were in these days), and
then secondly saying that it wasn't so serious after all, implying
that maybe they didn't need to check. Which was it?
>
> Brad: Narrow the
> > 5ths gently and check that the major 3rds come out a little bit
sharp,
> > to taste; duh. Nine of the twelve notes are already in place. [etc]
>
> Pail: Easy indeed, but look how much longer your description is
than one of
> WIII would needs be.
>
>
> Johnny: Maybe that should be the real criterion for the importance
of a
> tuning, its length of description.

We weren't debating it's IMPORTANCE, we were debating it's complexity
for an amateur.

>
> I must say, I am losing patience with this.

Now there's someting we can agree upon!

> For weeks I have been asking
> piano tuners, friends, scholars, etc, which is easier to tune
quarter comma
> meantone or WIII.

Why? According to you, 1/6th comma meantone fifths "are core to
Werckmeister 1698." Later on you seem to agree that the believable
range is from about 1/5th to 1/8th comma. Why have you been asking
everyone about 1/4 comma?

You see, having that pure major third to set the confines of the first
four fifths is already a great advantage. Secondly, after having
manipulated only three notes to get 4 uniformly tempered fifths, you
can tune all the rest of the notes by setting pure major thirds. NO
MORE TEMPERING, thus. In any other flavor of meantone (excepting 1/3),
you don't have either of these advantages, so they naturally take
longer to set.

> Besides guessing, no one without experience could offer
> anything convincing. The tuners all said they were the same
because each tuning
> takes the same time to do it well.

Actually if they had been thinking clearly enough they would have said
they take the same amount of time because the process is identical. In
both cases, you establish a limit and uniformly temper the four fifths
within it. This tempering is precisely the same amount of work in both
cases. In both cases, ALL of the rest of the notes are established by
tuning pure intervals; the only difference is that in WIII you do most
of it at the beginning, and in 1/4 mean you do most of it at the end.
But just about anyone can tune pure thirds as quickly as pure fifths,
including all the amateurs I've ever worked with.

> That was surprising so I didn't want to
> get into which is mechanically easier to tune.

Not surprising at all when you realize the above. Perhaps if you had
taken the effort to "get into" the mechanics of setting them, you and
your friends would have realized the obvious.
>
> That mechanical ease is irrelevant to the outcome.

Not true at all. Ease of construction means a more consistent and
accurate product in a faster amount of time. WIII wins hands down in
this respect.

> 1698 appears quite
> vague,

Oh. Last time you were arguing that it "had to be something". Now
you've gone from there to way beyond my "flexible within narrow
limits" all the way to "quite vague".

> eager to please,

Please whom?

> an extra thrown in with a new book, one of many.

One of many new books? Can't be one of many temperaments in the new
book, 'cause it's the only one, granted in a variety of forms.

> The
> description directions are so wishy washy that there are many
acceptable
> results...not true WIII.

I wouldn't call them "wishy washy". His limits are fairly well
described. You just want to discourage anyone from seriously wondering
why he proposed this temperament instead of WIII, so you are doing
everything you can to undermine it's credibility. Good luck! Most of
the folks I know who might be a target audience for your book are too
savvy to fall for this ruse.
>
>
>
> Pohl: How crappy they sound depends a lot on which size of basic
fifth you
> use. The instructions do not specify anything, though logically there
> is a limit.
>
> Johnny: I bet when you get to the crappy fifths your eyes goes
ballistic
> and you begin to sweat uncontrollably. Voices in your head scream,
"No! No!"
> and you run away from the harpsichord as quickly as your feet will
take you.

Earth to Johnny! Earth to Johnny! Please state your position!!

In other words, what's this got to do with anything?
>
> Pill:

Funny how after I make an effort to repsect your request and make sure
I spell your name correctly (am a bad typist, and admit to being a
worse speller) you have to rub rub RUB it in until it becomes
rediculous. Everything OK there, Johnny?! Seems to me like you're
losing it.

Johhny steadfastly refuses to learn what that term [modified
> meantone] means, even though
> you are now the third (I think) person to give him a reasonably
> precise illustrative example. So he won't understand your point, I
> fear.
>
> From a microtonal
> view, with all music considered microtonal, it is a useless term.

Why?
>
> This is not a court room. And it is not an insane assylum. We are
here to
> discuss things that are important to us. Rather than jab at my
interest in
> recategorizing for a specific purpose of understanding the musical
conditions
> in Bach's world, what should I care if Brad and Pool think my idea
is crappy.
> About the same as they think the music is crappy, I guess, not.
This is
> not an ideal way to approach these matters.

Neither is ranting on on trying each time come up with yet another way
to misspell my name. Neither is tossing out vague statements with no
support. But then, as the Dutch say, en kat in het nauw maakt rare
sprongen (a cat in a tight spot will make strange leaps). I think your
just up against a wall and realize you are out of any real ammunition.
>
> 1698 is only less elementary to you because it takes more time to
explain
> and to fulfill. There is more to consider.

Like what, for instance? Do tell! Seems to me like more complex in
both structure (hence the longer description) and implementation
pretty much covers a lot of ground toward "less elementary".
>

>
>
> Brad: > And it
> > sounds way better than WIII, on harpsichord.
>
> Johnny: Value judgment. That's it. You call crappy what makes
31-tone
> equal temperament so beautiful. Have either of you ever heard 31-ET?

Uh, let's DO try to stay on point, Johnny. We were discussing Bach and
Werckmeister. As far as I knew, neither one of them had anything to do
with a 31 note per octave instrument. 12 is the unfortunate
restriction. Another indication that you are out of real things to
say: dragging in tangentially related though specifically
inconsequential aspects.

>
>
> Paul: However, when he
> starts saying things like W 1698 is "easier" to set than WIII,
> especially for a beginner,
>
> Johnny: This would be a lie since I never said that.

Memory lapses, Johnny? Here's your own words regarding the 1698:

/tuning/topicId_75568.html#75568

"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...This new 1698
tuning was not included on the published copper-plate monochord, and
it was distinguished from its predecessors for being easier to tune,
and without having to split commas. Essentially, it is simpler
language for getting started...The audience for this new tuning is
would not be expected to understand the intricacies to tune any other
way."

>
> Piel: or that WIII requires the use of a
> monochord,
>
>
> Johnny: Why do you behave as if we are running for office? Why put
words in
> my mouth?

In:

/tuning/topicId_75615.html#75615

Johnny, in explaining why W1698 was easier to tune (oops! sorry, I
forgot yo never said that) than WIII said the following:

"Johnny: It's easier because:
1. no monochord needed, nor any of the skills associated with it
2. no intellectual knowledge of commas, etc. of tuning, and no organs
3. there is a new flexibility in using inexact size fifths which are
harmonized to Werckmeister's suggestions
4. no need to refer back to his Musicalische Termperatur (1691), or
pay for it
5. the white notes of the keyboard are the same as sixth comma
meantone, which some believe was increasing prevalent
6. is is declared by its creator for non-experts (there are plenty of
quotes).
7. It's easier because there is intended leeway for errors which the
Monochordo temperaments did not have"

I specifically direct the reader, including the author of these very
words who unfortunately no longer seems capable of remembering that he
penned them, to reason No.1

> I said that Werckmeister always referred his readers to the
> monochord and Musicalische Temperatur (1691) for greater tuning detail.

No you didn't, you said "no monochord was needed" for 1698, which is
logically implies that a monchord IS needed to tune WIII

> The monochord
> clearly made it easier for some to conceptualize the different tunings.

I don't think any monochord diagram or values make it easier to
conceptualize any tuning or temperament, quite the contrary; they are
intended to assist the REALIZATION of same, precisely as Neidhardt
says. As simple table of "schweben" in fractions of a comma is far
more illustrative in conceptualizing a system of tuning an intrument.
Werckmeister himself says:

"Meanwhile, by means of a monochord demonstration, one gains the
certainty and guidance of how the ear can tackle the problem, in that
with our monochord, the different manners of tempering and tuning can
be found out."

In other words, it is for training the ear, not the mind.

>
> Pisl: Whatever his arguments may be in
> general for a preference among the Bach circle for WIII, this sort of
> stuff undermines everything he says because it is so obviously false.
> Ciao, P
>
> Johnny: And with this the discussion is closed.

In short, Johnny is in fact completely out of ammunition.

Well, then, in closing I would only say should one want to argue that
WIII represents the epitome of Werckmeister's temperament theorizing
in terms of providing the best possible solution to the problems of
performing music of his time and place, the fact that he did NOT
present it in the 1698 treatise is indeed a very difficult stumbling
block, especially in light of the fact that the work is specifically
intended to set the reasonably accomplished though inexperienced
keyboard player on the right path to begin tackling the complicated
task of realizing continuo. Logically there is no reason why he would
saddle the reader with a more complex solution which is more difficult
to implement if it were musically less useful. Perhaps a convincing
argument can be made; time will tell.

Happy Trails.

P

Paul, can you show in simple steps how to tune this W1698 on a piano? I
assume it involves 1/5 comma tempering of fifths making up the C major
scale. How does one calculate 1/5 comma tempering by ear?

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Poletti" <paul@polettipiano.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 17 Mart 2008 Pazartesi 0:20
Subject: [tuning] Re: Werckmeister 1698

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
>
> Dear Pool,
>
> I'm afraid I am a bit to complex for you to get a grip on.

No no, not at all. I have lots of experience with those who loose it
when they get pushed up against a wall of objectivity and can't defend
their positions with anything reasonably concrete. That's quite alright.

>
> But it is not cool to charge stupidity or ignorance when someone is
honest
> with their reactions.

Uh, think you missed the smiley face, Johhny.

> Brad: The Werckmeister 1698 continuo temperament is trivially
easy, too,

> Pail: Right again, although it is important to point out that this
> experience is exactly what the beginner does NOT bring. As
> Werckmeister literally says, the beginner often does not even know
> what a "tempered keyboard" is.
>
> Johnny: That must be why Werckmeister sacked the beginner with an
even
> harder venture. One thing the two of you erudite harpsichordists
have missed is
> that amateurs and beginners have plenty more time to do their
tuning. They
> would not be harmed by the extra time they needed to check things.
For that
> matter, it should be expected that amateurs and beginners would
need to check
> their work in many different ways. The mere fact that have the
fifths could
> be anywhere from a fifth to a seventh of a comma flat indicates to
me that it
> wasn't that critical. This is not as serious an affair lacking any
specific
> goal (as the temperaments of 1691 demonstrate).

On the contrary, you have a long chain of uniformly tempered fifths (W
says that each time) which must end up within a fairly narrow limit in
order to require the stated amount of correction.

But in any case, you seem to be trying to argue both sides at once,
first stating that they had lots of time to check things out (a
dubious assertion, considering who amateurs were in these days), and
then secondly saying that it wasn't so serious after all, implying
that maybe they didn't need to check. Which was it?
>
> Brad: Narrow the
> > 5ths gently and check that the major 3rds come out a little bit
sharp,
> > to taste; duh. Nine of the twelve notes are already in place. [etc]
>
> Pail: Easy indeed, but look how much longer your description is
than one of
> WIII would needs be.
>
>
> Johnny: Maybe that should be the real criterion for the importance
of a
> tuning, its length of description.

We weren't debating it's IMPORTANCE, we were debating it's complexity
for an amateur.

>
> I must say, I am losing patience with this.

Now there's someting we can agree upon!

> For weeks I have been asking
> piano tuners, friends, scholars, etc, which is easier to tune
quarter comma
> meantone or WIII.

Why? According to you, 1/6th comma meantone fifths "are core to
Werckmeister 1698." Later on you seem to agree that the believable
range is from about 1/5th to 1/8th comma. Why have you been asking
everyone about 1/4 comma?

You see, having that pure major third to set the confines of the first
four fifths is already a great advantage. Secondly, after having
manipulated only three notes to get 4 uniformly tempered fifths, you
can tune all the rest of the notes by setting pure major thirds. NO
MORE TEMPERING, thus. In any other flavor of meantone (excepting 1/3),
you don't have either of these advantages, so they naturally take
longer to set.

> Besides guessing, no one without experience could offer
> anything convincing. The tuners all said they were the same
because each tuning
> takes the same time to do it well.

Actually if they had been thinking clearly enough they would have said
they take the same amount of time because the process is identical. In
both cases, you establish a limit and uniformly temper the four fifths
within it. This tempering is precisely the same amount of work in both
cases. In both cases, ALL of the rest of the notes are established by
tuning pure intervals; the only difference is that in WIII you do most
of it at the beginning, and in 1/4 mean you do most of it at the end.
But just about anyone can tune pure thirds as quickly as pure fifths,
including all the amateurs I've ever worked with.

> That was surprising so I didn't want to
> get into which is mechanically easier to tune.

Not surprising at all when you realize the above. Perhaps if you had
taken the effort to "get into" the mechanics of setting them, you and
your friends would have realized the obvious.
>
> That mechanical ease is irrelevant to the outcome.

Not true at all. Ease of construction means a more consistent and
accurate product in a faster amount of time. WIII wins hands down in
this respect.

> 1698 appears quite
> vague,

Oh. Last time you were arguing that it "had to be something". Now
you've gone from there to way beyond my "flexible within narrow
limits" all the way to "quite vague".

> eager to please,

Please whom?

> an extra thrown in with a new book, one of many.

One of many new books? Can't be one of many temperaments in the new
book, 'cause it's the only one, granted in a variety of forms.

> The
> description directions are so wishy washy that there are many
acceptable
> results...not true WIII.

I wouldn't call them "wishy washy". His limits are fairly well
described. You just want to discourage anyone from seriously wondering
why he proposed this temperament instead of WIII, so you are doing
everything you can to undermine it's credibility. Good luck! Most of
the folks I know who might be a target audience for your book are too
savvy to fall for this ruse.
>
>
>
> Pohl: How crappy they sound depends a lot on which size of basic
fifth you
> use. The instructions do not specify anything, though logically there
> is a limit.
>
> Johnny: I bet when you get to the crappy fifths your eyes goes
ballistic
> and you begin to sweat uncontrollably. Voices in your head scream,
"No! No!"
> and you run away from the harpsichord as quickly as your feet will
take you.

Earth to Johnny! Earth to Johnny! Please state your position!!

In other words, what's this got to do with anything?
>
> Pill:

Funny how after I make an effort to repsect your request and make sure
I spell your name correctly (am a bad typist, and admit to being a
worse speller) you have to rub rub RUB it in until it becomes
rediculous. Everything OK there, Johnny?! Seems to me like you're
losing it.

Johhny steadfastly refuses to learn what that term [modified
> meantone] means, even though
> you are now the third (I think) person to give him a reasonably
> precise illustrative example. So he won't understand your point, I
> fear.
>
> From a microtonal
> view, with all music considered microtonal, it is a useless term.

Why?
>
> This is not a court room. And it is not an insane assylum. We are
here to
> discuss things that are important to us. Rather than jab at my
interest in
> recategorizing for a specific purpose of understanding the musical
conditions
> in Bach's world, what should I care if Brad and Pool think my idea
is crappy.
> About the same as they think the music is crappy, I guess, not.
This is
> not an ideal way to approach these matters.

Neither is ranting on on trying each time come up with yet another way
to misspell my name. Neither is tossing out vague statements with no
support. But then, as the Dutch say, en kat in het nauw maakt rare
sprongen (a cat in a tight spot will make strange leaps). I think your
just up against a wall and realize you are out of any real ammunition.
>
> 1698 is only less elementary to you because it takes more time to
explain
> and to fulfill. There is more to consider.

Like what, for instance? Do tell! Seems to me like more complex in
both structure (hence the longer description) and implementation
pretty much covers a lot of ground toward "less elementary".
>

>
>
> Brad: > And it
> > sounds way better than WIII, on harpsichord.
>
> Johnny: Value judgment. That's it. You call crappy what makes
31-tone
> equal temperament so beautiful. Have either of you ever heard 31-ET?

Uh, let's DO try to stay on point, Johnny. We were discussing Bach and
Werckmeister. As far as I knew, neither one of them had anything to do
with a 31 note per octave instrument. 12 is the unfortunate
restriction. Another indication that you are out of real things to
say: dragging in tangentially related though specifically
inconsequential aspects.

>
>
> Paul: However, when he
> starts saying things like W 1698 is "easier" to set than WIII,
> especially for a beginner,
>
> Johnny: This would be a lie since I never said that.

Memory lapses, Johnny? Here's your own words regarding the 1698:

/tuning/topicId_75568.html#75568

"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...This new 1698
tuning was not included on the published copper-plate monochord, and
it was distinguished from its predecessors for being easier to tune,
and without having to split commas. Essentially, it is simpler
language for getting started...The audience for this new tuning is
would not be expected to understand the intricacies to tune any other
way."

>
> Piel: or that WIII requires the use of a
> monochord,
>
>
> Johnny: Why do you behave as if we are running for office? Why put
words in
> my mouth?

In:

/tuning/topicId_75615.html#75615

Johnny, in explaining why W1698 was easier to tune (oops! sorry, I
forgot yo never said that) than WIII said the following:

"Johnny: It's easier because:
1. no monochord needed, nor any of the skills associated with it
2. no intellectual knowledge of commas, etc. of tuning, and no organs
3. there is a new flexibility in using inexact size fifths which are
harmonized to Werckmeister's suggestions
4. no need to refer back to his Musicalische Termperatur (1691), or
pay for it
5. the white notes of the keyboard are the same as sixth comma
meantone, which some believe was increasing prevalent
6. is is declared by its creator for non-experts (there are plenty of
quotes).
7. It's easier because there is intended leeway for errors which the
Monochordo temperaments did not have"

I specifically direct the reader, including the author of these very
words who unfortunately no longer seems capable of remembering that he
penned them, to reason No.1

> I said that Werckmeister always referred his readers to the
> monochord and Musicalische Temperatur (1691) for greater tuning detail.

No you didn't, you said "no monochord was needed" for 1698, which is
logically implies that a monchord IS needed to tune WIII

> The monochord
> clearly made it easier for some to conceptualize the different tunings.

I don't think any monochord diagram or values make it easier to
conceptualize any tuning or temperament, quite the contrary; they are
intended to assist the REALIZATION of same, precisely as Neidhardt
says. As simple table of "schweben" in fractions of a comma is far
more illustrative in conceptualizing a system of tuning an intrument.
Werckmeister himself says:

"Meanwhile, by means of a monochord demonstration, one gains the
certainty and guidance of how the ear can tackle the problem, in that
with our monochord, the different manners of tempering and tuning can
be found out."

In other words, it is for training the ear, not the mind.

>
> Pisl: Whatever his arguments may be in
> general for a preference among the Bach circle for WIII, this sort of
> stuff undermines everything he says because it is so obviously false.
> Ciao, P
>
> Johnny: And with this the discussion is closed.

In short, Johnny is in fact completely out of ammunition.

Well, then, in closing I would only say should one want to argue that
WIII represents the epitome of Werckmeister's temperament theorizing
in terms of providing the best possible solution to the problems of
performing music of his time and place, the fact that he did NOT
present it in the 1698 treatise is indeed a very difficult stumbling
block, especially in light of the fact that the work is specifically
intended to set the reasonably accomplished though inexperienced
keyboard player on the right path to begin tackling the complicated
task of realizing continuo. Logically there is no reason why he would
saddle the reader with a more complex solution which is more difficult
to implement if it were musically less useful. Perhaps a convincing
argument can be made; time will tell.

Happy Trails.

P

------------------------------------

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Paul, can you show in simple steps how to tune this W1698 on a piano?

Generally I don't recommend that people try historical tunings on a
piano, unless it is an historic piano, say pre-1830 or so. But if you
really want to, go ahead and give it a spin.

> assume it involves 1/5 comma tempering of fifths making up the C major
> scale.

Rationally I cannot exclude 1/5th comma from the list of
possibilities, though I think it is at the narrow extreme of the
range. 1/6th or 1/7th would give more gentle "harsh" keys. But go
ahead and start with 1/5th if you feel you don't need to tame the
wolves too much.

> How does one calculate 1/5 comma tempering by ear?

Any rational tempering of the Syntonic comma (i.e. simple fraction)
can be realized by ear by simply doing exactly what the fraction
indicates, the numerator indicating the number of commas to be divided
and the denominator the number of divisions, or in other words, the
number of 5ths which will be uniformly narrowed to arrive at a
cancellation of exactly one comma. In any case, use this technique:

Assuming you are starting from C (common practice in earlier times),
set E pure to it. This establishes a virtual correction of one
Syntonic comma; virtual, because you haven't yet tempered any fifths,
but the mere fact that the third is pure means it's position
represents one which requires the elimination of one S comma.

Now that you have your comma, you proceed in dividing up the
correction among the required number of fifths. If it is 1/4, you're
all set to go, just temper C-G-D-A-E uniformly without touching C or
E. If you want 1/5, first tune B pure above E, which gives you a chain
of five (4 virtual + 1 real) pure fifths minus a Syntonic comma, which
is the very definition of 1/5th comma meantone: minus one comma spread
out over five fifths. All you have to do now is temper the five fifths
C-G-G-A-D-E-B without touching C nor B in the process. Of course, you
will have to retune the E you originally set pure.

This little trick works for anything: 1/6th, 1/7th, even (with a
twist) Young's 3/16th comma. If you want to do bi-comma meantones,
like 2/7 or 2/9, again, just do what the fractions tell us: tune TWO
pure thirds, one atop the other, and you've established two S commas.
Then either expand or contract the virtual chain of fifths by one
fifth, and use those notes as your extremes.

All that said, we should not forget that Werckmeister said he didn't
want to get into specifying any (fraction of a) comma, so an
irrational division would be completely kosher as well, as long as it
was between about 1/5th S comma and 1/8th P comma, and as long as all
of the fifths between C and C# are uniformly tempered (the latter
being clearly stated by W).

Beyond that, let your fancy be your guide. Read Werckmeister's
instructions and play with the variations allowed for by the width of
the wide fifths, their number, and the quality of the final fifth F-C.
Contrary to Johnny's assertion, I believe that Werckmeister would have
had no qualms whatsoever with tuning it slightly differently each
time, depending upon the harmonic requirements of the literature at
hand. Personally, I would favor solutions in which F-C is the same
size as the fifths in the main sequence, but that's just my opinion.
If you don't have to play a lot of adventurous literature that
evening, tune it more towards 1/5th with more wolfy thirds out in the
wide fifth zone. This gives you better natural key thirds and the
possibility of sharper contrast if you stray into the minefield. On
the other hand, if you have to do some nasty transposition, up or down
a minor third, for example, to accompany someone playing a wind
instrument built at another pitch, tune it more towards 1/8th P comma,
and the wolf thirds will all but disappear (certainly much better than
in WIII).

Do let us know what flavors you end up with, what music you try, and
what you think of it.

Have fun!

P

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Poletti" <paul@...> wrote:
> Generally I don't recommend that people try historical tunings on a
> piano, unless it is an historic piano, say pre-1830 or so.

Why on earth not?

-Carl