WIII, ugh, redux

Tom Dent wondered:
> 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 never "persisted with" it. I had to play on it all the time on the practice-room and teaching harpsichords, at a school where the tuning was done by other people. It was their job. We weren't allowed to, or encouraged to, go changing it ourselves. During that same period I purchased my virginal, got it into playing shape, and tuned it myself however I wanted to...which was not WIII.

Yes, I've done WIII many times since then, mostly to remind myself of the intonation scheme and its odd motion that was so familiar from grad school (especially the weird melodic sounds from the notes Ab, Db, and Gb)...but that's only for private study at home.

I used it a little bit before that grad school sojourn too, experimentally. But way back then I much preferred Young 2 and Kirnberger 3, whenever I wasn't playing in some regular meantone or other. I have *never* preferred WIII in any serious situation where I had a choice for a public performance, and where I was in charge of the tuning myself. It's just so ugly overall, plus if there are violinists it creates the silly problem of having A-E pure while the other open string relationships are heavily tempered (if those players have any inclination to try to match the harpsichord).

=====

And Johnny quipped:
> Johnny: Value judgment. That's it. You call crappy what makes
> 31-tone equal temperament so beautiful.

No, Johnny. Apparently you don't get my point. My main objection to WIII is not primarily to the 1/4 comma 5ths. It's to the Pythagorean ditones that WIII puts forth in place of decent major 3rds, and to the way the temperament *as a whole* makes music in flats sound ugly and misshapen. 31TET doesn't have Pythagorean ditones in it masquerading as major 3rds. The point of those multiple-division systems is to play correctly-spelled notes, not enharmonic substitutions of the type that WIII serves up badly for notes such as Ab, Db, Gb, A#, E#, and B#.

Let's take a look at WIII and Young 2 side by side. Starting from C and going around the flat side, they're the same all the way around to Gb. But going around the sharp side, Young 2 is smoothly averaged out and suave from each 5th/4th to the next, while WIII is simply lumpy. WIII is like Young 2 done badly. The G, D, and A all sag progressively flat, and then the pure A-E-B makes it sort of catch up and overshoot, and then the leftover B-F# is tighter than it would have needed to be. Ugh. All that unevenness for the questionable goals of delivering a barely-sharp C-E and F-A, at the expense of so much else?

Furthermore: to play WIII on a piano, or to listen to somebody else playing in WIII on a piano, says almost nothing useful about the way it sounds on harpsichord. JP's performance of the Bach F major Duetto may have seemed just fine to you on piano, as you've asserted several times, but get your hands on a real harpsichord and play it yourself...if you want to hear how bad WIII really sounds on a harpsichord. Please! Go through it interval by interval. That middle section is excruciating, both melodically and harmonically, and the two-voiced texture makes the problems stand out with bold relief. The composition (which Bach *published* in 1739, in a book done at his own expense) makes WIII and any regular meantones sound like brutishly incompetent temperaments to play his modern music. So does the E minor Duetto, with its lightning-fast enharmonic swaps.

Brad Lehman

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Brad Lehman <bpl@...> wrote:
> My main objection to
> WIII is not primarily to the 1/4 comma 5ths. It's to the Pythagorean
> ditones that WIII puts forth in place of decent major 3rds, and to the
> way the temperament *as a whole* makes music in flats sound ugly and
> misshapen.

Exactly!

> WIII
> is like Young 2 done badly. The G, D, and A all sag progressively
flat,
> and then the pure A-E-B makes it sort of catch up and overshoot, and
> then the leftover B-F# is tighter than it would have needed to be.
Ugh.
> All that unevenness for the questionable goals of delivering a
> barely-sharp C-E and F-A, at the expense of so much else?

Actually, I think all that is ugly about WIII comes more from his
desire to come up with a cheap-o retuning of a 1/4 meantone organ.
Which is why he stuck to those extremely-tempered fifths. What he
ended up with is the worst of both worlds: very narrow fifths without
any pure thirds. Oh boy!
>
> Furthermore: to play WIII on a piano, or to listen to somebody else
> playing in WIII on a piano, says almost nothing useful about the way it
> sounds on harpsichord.

Exactly why I don't think modern piano is the instrument to explore
historical temperaments. Part of it is the tone structure of the
modern piano, which is often noticeably inharmonic, especially in the
bass and tenor, which is the basis for the harmonic identity of any
keyboard. Another aspect for me is that I simply don't like literature
not written for the modern (post 1870) cross-strung piano on the
modern cross-strung piano. I have the same aversion to Flamenco played
on the piano, as a number of "crossover" players try to do here.
Flamenco guitar is traditionally fast, rapid, and incredibly
articulate, and when you try to do that on modern piano, it's such a
truck that the notes just come out sounding like abortions, cut down
before they even begin to live. Granted, it's no so marked with Bach.
But I suppose my biggest gripe is simply, "why do it?" As if we don't
have any REAL Baroque instruments these days? I just don't get it...

JP's performance of the Bach F major Duetto may
> have seemed just fine to you on piano, as you've asserted several
times,
> but get your hands on a real harpsichord and play it yourself...if you
> want to hear how bad WIII really sounds on a harpsichord.

Right!!!! Johnny thinks he's making some great pronouncements about
Bach and his circle and he can't even be bothered to test his thoeries
on Bach's instrument. Of course, knowing how freindly (not!) NYC is to
early music, maybe there really aren't any harpsichords in town.

;-)

P

Wow, it is great to get you guys on the record! As far as the aversion that
Brad feels, there are some similarities, and yet not.

Because I worked so much on the Mozart Bassoon Concerto K191 I began to hate
the piece. Even now I have to get over old negative feelings. Many
orchestral musicians bad viscerally about Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, almost a
hatred. I'm not keen on Wagner because I can't totally divorce the man from the
music. (Stunned the NYPhil played Wagner as a first piece in Pyongyang, but
hey.)

But Brad, this is a microtonal list in that we recognize many different
tunings. My being a polymicrotonalist makes it hard for me to imagine being
nauseous about a particular interval of any stripe. I do believe you feel this
way. In some ways it makes sense that you were so vehement in stating you
found Bach's tuning. You hated the alternative I have been presenting.

Honestly, I love the tuning as used for Bach and some others (Mozart, Krebs,
Buxtehude). There is nothing wrong with me nor a large audience
internationally that does like Werckmeister III for Bach (e.g., Koopman, Wolff,
Pechefsky).

Ditones were used successfully for centuries, and tastes changes. I love
the ditone melodically. If we were to find that Bach misued the ditones in
Werckmeister III I would certainly have cause to change my tune. I just think
the composer knew what his intervallic vocabulary in advance. Your modern
distress, as real as it is, cannot influence an honest appraisal of the goings
on in the early 18th century. I would think you could agree to that.

PP: Actually, I think all that is ugly about WIII comes more from his
desire to come up with a cheap-o retuning of a 1/4 meantone organ.
Which is why he stuck to those extremely-tempered fifths. What he
ended up with is the worst of both worlds: very narrow fifths without
any pure thirds. Oh boy!

JR: This is bullkrap. Werckmeister was a pioneer, the first to put down
and promote a circle. Criticizing him as you did Kirnberger is plain wrong.
It is bullying those who are defenseless and the basis is false because you
are looking for the present backwards. In reality it was the latest of what
had preceded it, likely causing in part a sea change in music making.

While Brad does not mind the flatted fifths as much as he bemoans the
ditones, Paul, like Werckmeister in 1698 complains about the "lame" fifths. Bach
must be stupid in Paul's estimation because he insisted all major thirds must
be sharp of just. There is nothing "cheap" in pioneering work; it is
something to respect.

> Furthermore: to play WIII on a piano, or to listen to somebody else
> playing in WIII on a piano, says almost nothing useful about the way it
> sounds on harpsichord.

Brad: JP's performance of the Bach F major Duetto may
> have seemed just fine to you on piano, as you've asserted several
times,
> but get your hands on a real harpsichord and play it yourself...if you
> want to hear how bad WIII really sounds on a harpsichord.

Paul: Right!!!! Johnny thinks he's making some great pronouncements about
Bach and his circle and he can't even be bothered to test his thoeries
on Bach's instrument. Of course, knowing how freindly (not!) NYC is to
early music, maybe there really aren't any harpsichords in town.

Johnny: You guys are just plain ignorant. My group and I have been using
harpsichord for Bach and other early composer for many years. It is ignorant
for you to develop amnesia all of a sudden, Paul. Check out our CDs. We
used harpsichord in Terry Riley's In C in Just Intonation.

However, I do have a great pianist who not only wants to play Bach on piano,
but who dislikes harpsichord. Many people do. You may have noticed the
instrument kind of disappeared from history until fairly recently. But don't
jump to any conclusions, I love the instrument when it is a good instrument,
in the right balance with others playing, insightfully played, in a beautiful
experience. The piano on the Duetto is only a recent example of my
throwing a bone to a great player.

Lo and behold, I have no problems with WIII. At least as regards Bach or
Buxtehude, it sounds fantastic to equal temperament. It would sound better in
anything circular tuning compared to equal temperament if only because of it
variety, which I would love. Others have loved the variety of intervals
(e.g., Forkel, Kirnberger, Werckmeister).

Paul, I have asked you for responses and you haven't given them. If there
is a recording of St. Matthew's Passion outside of ET, I would do anything to
get it. If there is a European concert featuring the piece, I would try to
make an international trip.

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:
>

>
> PP: Actually, I think all that is ugly about WIII comes more from his
> desire to come up with a cheap-o retuning of a 1/4 meantone organ.
> Which is why he stuck to those extremely-tempered fifths. What he
> ended up with is the worst of both worlds: very narrow fifths without
> any pure thirds. Oh boy!
>
> JR: This is bullkrap. Werckmeister was a pioneer, the first to
put down
> and promote a circle.

Oh really? What are we to make of this:

"Zarlino in 1588 attributed the following prophetic arguments to
Girolamo Roselli, abbot of S Martino delle Scale in Sicily:

This way of dividing the diapason or octave into 12 equal parts …
could alleviate all the difficulties of singers, players and composers
by enabling them generally … to sing or play … DO–RE–MI–FA–SOL–LA upon
whichever of the 12 notes they wish, touring through all the notes,
making, as he [Roselli] says, a circular music; hence all the
instruments will be able to keep their tuning and be in unison, and
organs, as he says, will be neither too high nor too low in pitch."
[from Grove article on temperament, mostly by Lindley]

ET being, of course, the ultimate "circle".

> Criticizing him as you did Kirnberger is plain wrong.

Ah, did I do that? I actually think W. was a pretty sharp dude who had
his head screwed on right. I understand completely his logic of "WIII"
if you want to crow-bar a very basic circulating system onto a 1/4
meantone organ, as he said he did. I also understand why this Russian
nuclear bomb (crude but effective) temperament is NOT what he
recommends for continuo, because it is just too musically limited for
the realistic demands of the continuo player, at least as I understand
it from reading various writers of the time.

It's not W himself I fault, it's his First Real Temperament, and only
that when modern players try to elevate it to some mythical status it
never had. Kirnberger, on the other hand, I don't think much of as a
temperament theorist.

> It is bullying those who are defenseless and the basis is false
because you
> are looking for the present backwards.

I like to think not, since I first learned to tune meantone, and after
reveling in it for a year or so (Fitzwilliam, Lady Nevel, Italian
stuff, etc), started investigating the so called "well" temperaments.

But then, you are absolutely right in that we

> are looking for the present backwards.

...including you. So that's a difference without a distinction. Or is
it a distinction without a difference? I never can remember which is
which.

> In reality it was the latest of what
> had preceded it, likely causing in part a sea change in music making.

I doubt that. Generally, the temperament theory follows temperament
practice, and practice follows necessity. As the old saw goes,
necessity is the mother of invention. I think your gonna have a pretty
hard row to hoe convincing anyone that WIII caused any sort of
dramatic change in Baroque music making.
>
> While Brad does not mind the flatted fifths as much as he bemoans the
> ditones, Paul, like Werckmeister in 1698 complains about the "lame"
fifths.

You're only half right. I don't mind exceptionally narrow fifths if
they give you somethig nice in return, like the pure thirds in regular
or mdofied meantone. You just quoted me, can't you remember what I wrote?

> Bach
> must be stupid in Paul's estimation because he insisted all major
thirds must
> be sharp of just.

How does that follow? Did Bach say, "You must get these wide thirds by
having a small number of really narrow fifths"? Nope, don't think so.
Of course the thirds must be wide of pure. Otherwise it's not
circulating. So what? There are so many possibilities that fulfill
that prescription that mentioning it is pointless.

> There is nothing "cheap" in pioneering work; it is
> something to respect.

Don't go spin-doctoring what I said, Johnny. I said "cheap" in terms
of "low cost", and in regards to the expense of the process of
retuning the organ, and I've made myself clear on that several times.

>
> Paul: Right!!!! Johnny thinks he's making some great
pronouncements about
> Bach and his circle and he can't even be bothered to test his thoeries
> on Bach's instrument. Of course, knowing how freindly (not!) NYC is to
> early music, maybe there really aren't any harpsichords in town.
>
>
> Johnny: You guys are just plain ignorant. My group and I have
been using
> harpsichord for Bach and other early composer for many years. It
is ignorant
> for you to develop amnesia all of a sudden, Paul.

I don't think the two are related, Johnny. Ignorance is a state of
intellectual innocence, a state which exists prior to learning.
Amnesia is a loss of that which has been learned. One can be ignorant
of the facts, but one cannot be ignorant to do anything.

I do plead guilty to being ignorant of the existence of "your group".
What's it called? What CD's of Bach and other Baroque music have you
guys done?

But I was just responding to the praise of some performance of Bach on
the piano.

> Check out our CDs. We
> used harpsichord in Terry Riley's In C in Just Intonation.

A yes. Good freind of Bach, Terry Riley. But Riley...that's Early
English Baroque, isn't it? How do we know there is any relevance with
High German Baroque?
>
> However, I do have a great pianist who not only wants to play Bach
on piano,
> but who dislikes harpsichord. Many people do.

I'm one of them. The only thing worse than a solo harpsi concert is
harpsi and recorder.

> You may have noticed the
> instrument kind of disappeared from history until fairly recently.

Yes, of course, everybody knows of the Great Harpsichord Riots which
swept Europe in the late 18th century, when droves of dissatisfied
concert goers finally reached the breaking point and went from house
to house, hauling out the infernal plucking machines, and casting them
on huge bonfires, eventually culminating in the Council of Kontich, in
which it was agreed that the instrument would be banned forever more
and a new replacement should be invented forthwith. Where it not for
the brave souls of the mid 20th century, who gave their liberty, and
yes, at times, even their very lives to fight for the repeal of
antiquated laws forbidding the manufacture, sale, and posession of any
mechanical device for the plucking of musical strings, we would not be
able to experience the suffering of listeners of times long past, nor
would we be able to fully appreciate how lucky we are to have the
choice of a superior modern instrument.

> Lo and behold, I have no problems with WIII. At least as regards
Bach or
> Buxtehude, it sounds fantastic to equal temperament.

Just about ANY historic temperament sounds more interesting that ET.

> It would sound better in
> anything circular tuning compared to equal temperament if only
because of it
> variety, which I would love. Others have loved the variety of
intervals
> (e.g., Forkel, Kirnberger, Werckmeister).

Nobody is arguing against that, we just don't think WIII is all you
want to crack it up to be.
>
> Paul, I have asked you for responses and you haven't given them.
If there
> is a recording of St. Matthew's Passion outside of ET, I would do
anything to
> get it.

If there is a European concert featuring the piece, I would try to
> make an international trip.

Then drop everything, grab you coat and hat, and run don't walk to the
airport, my good man! There are still tickets for some of the concerts
of the NVB yearly tour/performance of same. You probably won't hear a
finer group of musicians who know this piece inside and out:

http://www.bachvereniging.nl/

If you visit the page you can hear some of it.

I'd recommend the Grote Kerk in Naarden over the Vredenburg in
Utrecht. Don't know what temperament they are using this year, cuase
I'm not doing so much with them anymore after moving to Spain; but I
can assure you it will NOT be equal. Probably a Neidhardt, which all
the players were really happy with last bunch of times I tuned for them.

they also have a CD of it for sale. Don't know what temperament it is
'cause it was recorded back in '97, just before I started tuning for
them a lot. But again, I'd bet my bottom guilder it ain't equal. I'd
be real surprised if the Collegium Vocale recording is equal as well.

Happy Trails,

P

Johnny asserted:
> Ditones were used successfully for centuries, and tastes changes. I
> love
> the ditone melodically. If we were to find that Bach misued the
> ditones in
> Werckmeister III I would certainly have cause to change my tune. I
> just think
> the composer knew what his intervallic vocabulary in advance.

Johnny, there are easy and straightforward tests to hear if WIII is plausible as any ideal for Bach, compositionally. I've already described one to you, several times, and it takes only an hour for a competent harpsichordist/tuner to do thoroughly and carefully. Allot 15 minutes to set WIII onto an 8-foot register of strings, and the other 45 minutes to play through Bach's four Duetti several times each, listening closely to the intervals and the way they interact. Do the ditones of WIII make a plausible (let alone beautiful) musical effect, playing these pieces on a harpsichord (NOT A PIANO), with the intervals exposed as nakedly as these compositions give them?

> Johnny: You guys are just plain ignorant. My group and I have been
> using
> harpsichord for Bach and other early composer for many years. It is
> ignorant
> for you to develop amnesia all of a sudden, Paul. Check out our CDs. We
> used harpsichord in Terry Riley's In C in Just Intonation.
> > However, I do have a great pianist who not only wants to play Bach
> on piano,
> but who dislikes harpsichord. Many people do. You may have noticed the
> instrument kind of disappeared from history until fairly recently.
> But don't
> jump to any conclusions, I love the instrument when it is a good
> instrument,
> in the right balance with others playing, insightfully played, in a
> beautiful
> experience. The piano on the Duetto is only a recent example of my
> throwing a bone to a great player.

Ummm...it's nice to see public approval, albeit such grudging and patronizing approval, of an instrument that I've been playing for 25 years and chose to earn a doctorate in. Having done so, I feel that I have some qualification and experience in proposing the above one-hour test with the Bach Duetti, to demonstrate to you in your own hands and
ears that Werckmeister III doesn't really work very well for that music.

I even have two recordings of other harpsichordists -- Rousset and Cates -- who did use WIII for those Duetti. I respect their decisions (or their producers' or tuners' decisions...) to have done so, years ago when they did, although I don't much fancy the sound of the results. Their playing is more than good enough to distract me away from some of the intonational problems of the setup.

But again, the test is not in recordings or in listening to anybody's opinion on the Internet; it is in going through the pieces oneself hands-on, at a real harpsichord freshly tuned in WIII, at various tempos, to hear directly what it sounds like. Would Bach really have tolerated or preferred this next to alternatives? Set aside your foregone conclusion, for the moment, and listen honestly to the music playing it yourself on a decent harpsichord, an instrument Bach himself was an expert at playing and tuning. Assuming (as we must) that Bach didn't have cloth ears, and that he really was a good and sensitive composer, can you as a sensitive musician honestly continue in the belief that Bach would have *preferred* WIII there? Would Bach harness himself knowingly and deliberately to such a system, and use it as inspiration to write these particular pieces? Why? I agree with your idea above that Bach "knew his intervallic vocabulary in advance"; but I don't think it likely that that vocabulary stemmed from WIII on harpsichords. Don't hear it from me. Hear it from Bach's own music.

And if you can't bring yourself to try that particular one-hour test in the Duetti, well then, pick some other test. (But I'm telling you in good faith that the Duetti will give you about the best and most obvious one-hour test available, working hands-on at a real harpsichord.) I've suggested a month's worth of them here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/testpieces.html
And I *have* gone through all of those myself, playing variously in WIII and other temperaments of its similar shape, to hear what they really do in interaction with Bach's extant music. If you're serious about putting WIII forth as not only something Bach tolerated but that he actually somehow preferred, please test it like that in the music. Does the music really sound optimal, tuned in that way?

Brad Lehman