Once again, Bach

Nobody knows what tunings Bach used...whatever Brad or Johnny or Wendy Carlos or anybody else says, no matter what kind of scholarship they bring to bear on the subject...nobody knows for sure. So, whatever conclusions anybody comes to, it's a theory...best...Hstick
microstick.net myspace.com/microstick

Nobody knows that there is a god, but people believe in one.

Neil: Nobody knows what tunings Bach used...whatever Brad or Johnny or
Wendy Carlos or anybody else says, no matter what kind of scholarship they bring
to bear on the subject...nobody knows for sure. So, whatever conclusions
anybody comes to, it's a theory...best...Hstick
microstick.net myspace.com/microstick

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <microstick@...> wrote:
>
> Nobody knows what tunings Bach used...whatever Brad or Johnny or
Wendy Carlos or anybody else says, no matter what kind of scholarship
they bring to bear on the subject...nobody knows for sure. So,
whatever conclusions anybody comes to, it's a theory...best...Hstick
> microstick.net myspace.com/microstick
>

I agree. Nobody knows for sure. It's theory at best. And the best
we can do, as part of that theory, is to study the music itself
closely and try out different possibilities, to hear what's plausible
within the techniques and practices of his time/place.

I, for one, don't expect that Bach pinned himself to any *published*
schemes by anybody. Harpsichord tuning by ear is an art of listening,
and dealing with each individual instrument's range of quirks. Bach
had already been doing it, hands on, for many years (and probably half
his lifetime or more) before the 1720s (WTC 1: 1722).

Some of his earliest pieces, with the circulating accidentals in them,
argue circumstantially that he already had something smooth -- and
allowing modulation to anywhere -- before he was 25 years old. A good
example among many is the F# minor Toccata from c1710, +/-3 years,
when Bach was in his mid-20s. The way it uses E#, B#, Fx, and other
exotic notes -- plus its long sequence of spiral-of-5ths modulation in
a middle section -- suggests that Bach had a good way of handling all
those enharmonic difficulties. The B-flat Capriccio is another fine
example, going adventurously into the flat side.

Bach wasn't a theoretician; he was a practicing musician and a very
busy man both professionally and personally. He taught through
example, through hands-on work. He was efficient: tuning a whole
harpsichord in 15 minutes or less, as his usual practice. And I have
to take it as axiomatic that he tuned in such a way (on any given
occasion) that the music to be played would sound good and proper, to
him. It also had to work in some way that he could play with other
instrumentalists and singers.

Did he tune in different ways per composition (adjusting temperaments
to match various key requirements per day), or did he have some
fine-sounding "one size fits all -- set it and forget it" scheme of
his own in his 15-minute tuning sessions? We don't know for sure.
The extant music suggests, to me, that the latter is more likely than
the former. Straightforward two-page compositions, such as many of
the Inventions, so often use A#/Bb, D#/Eb, G#/Ab, etc pairs in the
same piece: it argues (to me, anyway) that adjust-as-you-go-per-piece
schemes would have been too fussy...especially on fretted clavichords,
where the temperament *can't* be adjusted in that way without bending
the tangents left or right. The notes E#/F, B#/C, Fx/G also have to
work, in some way, without any speculative split-key arguments.

So anyway, these are some of the bricks on which my theory is based.
I'll never know for sure how Bach tuned. I've never said I did.
Those who focus on the graphology (how should we read Bach's drawing,
if at all, in any meaningful way?) are missing at least 95% of the
point. The music comes first. Any candidate temperaments have to be
easy to do in just a few minutes, entirely by ear, and they have to
fit all the available musical and historical evidence.

Brad Lehman (the pancake breakfast was yummy)

Brad: I agree. Nobody knows for sure. It's theory at best. And the best
we can do, as part of that theory, is to study the music itself
closely and try out different possibilities, to hear what's plausible
within the techniques and practices of his time/place.

Johnny: I agree, only I hear WIII as working eminently for all of Bach's
chromatic music. The harpsichord does not negate what works on a piano. The
AFMM has done both, many times. Simply put, we - the greater we (audiences,
musicians, critics, etc.) find WIII almost placid in every piece as far as any
conceivable objections.

Brad: I, for one, don't expect that Bach pinned himself to any *published*
schemes by anybody. Harpsichord tuning by ear is an art of listening,
and dealing with each individual instrument's range of quirks. Bach
had already been doing it, hands on, for many years (and probably half
his lifetime or more) before the 1720s (WTC 1: 1722).

Johnny: Here we differ. The published scheme of WIII (sitting on his book
shelf) makes a lot of sense for an 18 year old judging the Wender organ in
Arnstadt. Bach was as chromatic at 18 as he was in 1722, certainly as an
improviser on the organ.

Brad: Some of his earliest pieces, with the circulating accidentals in them,
argue circumstantially that he already had something smooth -- and
allowing modulation to anywhere -- before he was 25 years old.

Johnny: And WIII does just that. We must have different ears! ;)
.............

Brad: Did he tune in different ways per composition (adjusting temperaments
to match various key requirements per day), or did he have some
fine-sounding "one size fits all -- set it and forget it" scheme of
his own in his 15-minute tuning sessions? We don't know for sure.

Johnny: Yes, he had a one size fits all organ tuning. He fit into the
organ tuning like a hand into a glove.
.............................

Brad: So anyway, these are some of the bricks on which my theory is based.
I'll never know for sure how Bach tuned. I've never said I did.

Johnny: This is a more balance explanation. However, it does not remove
the hyperbole of musicians worldwide that "think" you believe otherwise, as
evidenced by the CD Baby WT Clavier item I posted at first.

Brad: Those who focus on the graphology (how should we read Bach's drawing,
if at all, in any meaningful way?) are missing at least 95% of the
point. The music comes first. Any candidate temperaments have to be
easy to do in just a few minutes, entirely by ear, and they have to
fit all the available musical and historical evidence.

Johnny: And here we disagree most profoundly...there is nothing missing
from WIII for full chromatic use, just as it was intended.

Brad Lehman (the pancake breakfast was yummy)

Johnny: Sounds delicious.

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

Not to mention all the previous historic, aesthetic, and anecdotal
evidence, but recent sales figures have shown the WII to be outselling
all the other gamebox systems, in large numbers. I guess people really
like the feel of that controller.

What?

*WIII*

Oh. Nevermind.

Cheers,
Jon (who still reads the list, believe it or not...)

> Not to mention all the previous historic, aesthetic, and anecdotal
> evidence, but recent sales figures have shown the WII to be
> outselling all the other gamebox systems, in large numbers.
> I guess people really like the feel of that controller.
> What?
> *WIII*
> Oh. Nevermind.

Good one.

Workmaster Tools. Genuine metal. For When The Job Really Has To Be
Done Without New Materials. Available from Dollar stores nationwide.

> The published scheme of WIII (sitting on his book shelf) makes a lot
> of sense for an 18 year old judging the Wender organ in Arnstadt.
> Bach was as chromatic at 18 as he was in 1722, certainly as an
> improviser on the organ.

That would indeed be a nice piece of evidence if it existed. Can you
please supply the item number in _Bach-Dokumente_ (the NBA's allegedly
comprehensive volumes of written historical source materials related
to Bach) in which any 18th century source asserts that Bach ever read,
understood, or allied himself with any Werckmeister book? One could
of course *hope* or *wish* that he as an 18-year-old had it on his
bookshelf and followed it religiously, but that hope/wish doesn't
prove that it happened. Source, please?

And by the way, the only indexed reference to "Werckmeister" in _The
New Bach Reader_ is just a thing by J G Walther, saying that he
himself (Walther) had got some Buxtehude manuscripts from W. There's
no connection offered between W and Bach there; just cousin JGW
happening to collect some stuff himself from both of them.

Brad Lehman

Regarding Bach's knowledge of Werckmeister's ideas, 3 paragraphs from Bach's
Tuning:
Werckmeister’s mathematics for the fundamental laws of tuning in Musicae
mathematicae Hodegus curiosus, in addition to the generous monochord comparisons
he provided in Musicalische Temperatur, kept the book on Bach’s book shelf.
Flip-flopping, Schweitzer could also write that “Bach thus worked like the
mathematician, who sees the whole of a problem at once, and has only to
realize it in definite values” (Schweitzer I:211). One can not have it both ways.
It is more reasonable to believe that Johann Sebastian Bach didn’t need to
compound the writings on tuning already made available by the likes of
Werckmeister.
As reported by Bach chronicler Christoph Wolff, Bach had acquired a solid
scientific foundation in the art of organ building by studying Andreas
Werckmeister’s revised organ manual, Erweiterte und verbesserte Orgel-Probe
(Quedlinburg, 1698). Bach’s vast organ knowledge and expertise in organ construction
made manifest with his Mühlhausen organ renovation proposal in 1708 uses
principles, methods, and terminology that rely heavily on Werckmeister’s
influential treatise (Wolff, Essays, p. 70). Many have since commented that
Werckmeister’s Orgel-Probe was a mainstay in Johann Sebastian Bach’s personal
library. When Johann Sebastian was a child, his extended family was devouring
Werckmeister’s Orgel-Probe which effectively announced the new era of chromatic
organ playing with its introduction.
Bach scholar Russell Stinson is certain “Bach clearly relied on Werckmeister’
s Orgel-Probe in testing organs” (Stinson, Bach: The Orgelbüchlein, p. 29).
In the second published edition of Orgel-Probe, retitled Erweiterte und
Verbesserte Orgel-Probe (1698) Werckmeister decided to delete the previous
material on temperament he had exposed in the first edition. Werckmeister, an
author of over 13 books published out of the city of Quedlinburg, probably
decided not to include the previous tuning material because he had already
published his first version of a tuning specialty book, Musicalische Temperatur
(1687-1688). This was more a decision of editorial house keeping and a
reformatting than it was a shaking of any deeply held conviction. Besides, 1698 was
the same year Werckmeister published a new tuning for continuo in an addenda he
called, ShortLesson and Addition, how one can tune and temper well a
clavier. Along with an introduction to a brand new tuning for students and
beginners without recourse to a monochord, the revised Orgel-Probe was released
without its tuning details omitted. This seems to me an example of
consolidation. Througout his life, Werckmeister would refer the serious reader to his
2-foot long copper-plate monochord published along with Musicalische Temperatur
(1691).

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

Sorry, this is cleaned up, with codes taken out:
Werckmeister’s mathematics for the fundamental laws of tuning in Musicae
mathematicae Hodegus curiosus, in addition to the generous monochord comparisons
he provided in Musicalische Temperatur, kept the book on Bach’s book shelf.
Flip-flopping, Schweitzer could also write that Bach thus worked like the
mathematician, who sees the whole of a problem at once, and has only to realize
it in definite values (Schweitzer I:211). One can not have it both ways.
It is more reasonable to believe that Johann Sebastian Bach didn’t need to
compound the writings on tuning already made available by the likes of
Werckmeister.
As reported by Bach chronicler Christoph Wolff, Bach had acquired a solid
scientific foundation in the art of organ building by studying Andreas
Werckmeister’s revised organ manual, Erweiterte und verbesserte Orgel-Probe
(Quedlinburg, 1698). Bach’s vast organ knowledge and expertise in organ construction
made manifest with his Muhlhausen organ renovation proposal in 1708 uses
principles, methods, and terminology that rely heavily on Werckmeister’s
influential treatise (Wolff, Essays, p. 70). Many have since commented that
Werckmeister’s Orgel-Probe was a mainstay in Johann Sebastian Bach’s personal
library. When Johann Sebastian was a child, his extended family was devouring
Werckmeister’s Orgel-Probe which effectively announced the new era of chromatic
organ playing with its introduction.
Bach scholar Russell Stinson is certain Bach clearly relied on Werckmeister’
s Orgel-Probe in testing organs (Stinson, Bach: The Orgelbuchlein, p. 29).
In the second published edition of Orgel-Probe, retitled Erweiterte und
Verbesserte Orgel-Probe (1698) Werckmeister decided to delete the previous material
on temperament he had exposed in the first edition. Werckmeister, an author
of over 13 books published out of the city of <ST1><ST1>Q, probably decided
not to include the previous tuning material because he had already published
his first version of a tuning specialty book, Musicalische Temperatur
(1687-1688). This was more a decision of editorial house keeping and a
reformatting than it was a shaking of any deeply held conviction. Besides, 1698 was the
same year Werckmeister published a new tuning for continuo in an addenda he
called, Short Lesson and Addition, how one can tune and temper well a
clavier. Along with an introduction to a brand new tuning for students and
beginners without recourse to a monochord, the revised Orgel-Probe was released
without its tuning details omitted. This seems to me an example of consolidation.
Throughout his life, Werckmeister would refer the serious reader to his
2-foot long copper-plate monochord published along with Musicalische Temperatur
(1691).

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
> As reported by Bach chronicler Christoph Wolff, Bach had acquired a
solid
> scientific foundation in the art of organ building by studying Andreas
> Werckmeister’s revised organ manual, Erweiterte und verbesserte
Orgel-Probe
> (Quedlinburg, 1698). Bach’s vast organ knowledge and expertise
in organ construction
> made manifest with his Muhlhausen organ renovation proposal in 1708
uses
> principles, methods, and terminology that rely heavily on
Werckmeister’s
> influential treatise (Wolff, Essays, p. 70).

I don't know what you're referring to on p. 70 of Wolff's _Essays_
book. I have it open right here in front of me. Page 70 is about
Reincken's fugues and the "permutation technique" structure in them.
There is not a thing about tuning on that page, or any nearby page.

This Wolff book *does* have two indexed references to Werckmeister,
namely on pages 43 and 46. Page 43 is about Walther's friendship with
Werckmeister and his acquisition of Buxtehude manuscripts from him.
Not about any Bach connection, not even a speculative one, with
Werckmeister. And page 46 is about Buxtehude's (not Bach's) expertise
in organ technology, with two sentences connecting Buxtehude and
Werckmeister. Wolff even reproduces the speculation from Kerala
Snyder's book (about Buxtehude) that Buxtehude was "the most prominent
advocate of Werckmeister's new systems of temperament...." But again,
there's no Bach connection drawn there explicitly by Wolff. If Wolff
has any expectation that Bach picked up any of this tuning stuff in
his couple of weeks visiting Buxtehude, he certainly doesn't say so
here. Wolff's discussion is about compositional matters, not
technical issues of tuning.

It doesn't do to cite Wolff on things he didn't say!

Let's track this down.

You apparently meant to say it's from page 70 of a different Wolff
book: _The Learned Musician_. Wolff wrote there:
"Most important, he [Bach] had acquired a solid scientific foundation
in the art of organ building by studying Andreas Werckmeister's
manual, _Erweiterte und verbesserte Orgelprobe_ (Quedlinburg, 1698).
[58] The earliest extant evidence of Bach's organ expertise, his
Muhlhausen organ renovation proposal of 1708, [59] demonstrates that
in his principles, methods, and terminology he relied heavily on
Werckmeister's influential treatise. [60]

Let's track *those* down, through those three endnotes in Wolff's text.

[58] says Wolff is referring to the "expanded version" of
Werckmeister's 1681 book. N.B., it's NOT a reference to the 1691 book
that has the temperaments in it. It's the 1681/1698 book.

[59] refers to item #31 in the _New Bach Reader_, edited by Wolff
himself, which I have right here: it's a page where young Bach listed
parts of the organ specification with remarks about how all those
items need to be redone, better. There's not a thing about any
selection of temperament; Bach merely wrote: "And finally, in addition
to a complete tuning of the whole organ, the tremulant must be
regulated so that it flutters at the proper rate." Wolff as editor,
here, makes no explicit connection about any resemblance here to the
1681/1698 Werckmeister book, as if Bach cribbed anything from it, or
even an outline from it. At any rate, it's not the 1691 book anyway;
so, the connection here is moot on any expectation (by Johnny
Reinhard, not by Christoph Wolff!) that Bach picked up one specific
Werckmeister temperament from any of this.

[60] is a reference out to an article by Peter Williams in the 1982
_Bach-Jahrbuch_. Unfortunately, I don't have that article at hand
myself...but I do hope that Johnny has dutifully read all of it, to
see *exactly* what Williams said there in any presumed
Werckmeister/Bach connection. Still, it's about the 1681/1698 book,
not the 1691.

I do have Williams's 2003 second edition of _The Organ Music of Bach_,
and in there (page 227-228) Williams asserts with no reference:
"'Anfahend', an old-fashioned term (...) feature[s] in the dedication
of Werckmeister's book about a famous rebuilt organ, _Organum
gruningense redivivum_ (Quedlinburg, 1705), a description surely known
to Bach." "Surely known to Bach"...how does Williams "know" this, and
why hasn't he presented evidence? And how would the 1705 book have
any connection with Werckmeister's 1691 ideas about temperament?
(Williams doesn't assert here that it does; neither does Wolff.) What
about other ways in which Bach could have learned the word 'Anfahend'
with respect to organs, for what that's worth? Did he *have to* get
it only from a Werckmeister book? (Williams, in fact, cites its use
in an Ammerbach book from 1571, for which there *is* documentation in
_Bach-Dokumente_ p.269 that Bach knew it. Bach's connection with the
Ammerbach book is documented in an extant source; but, his connection
with the 1705 Werckmeister book is only Williams's asserted speculation.)

Let's sum up.

Wolff says nothing here, in any of the three books I have open here
(_Essays_, _Learned Musician_, and _New Bach Reader_) about any
connection, speculative or otherwise, about any Bach connection with
any Werckmeister temperament. I've checked all the "Werckmeister"
entries in the indices of all three books. *If* Bach used anything by
Werckmeister (which in turn relies on speculation by Peter
Williams...), according to Wolff, it was apparently in the area of
organ specification -- stops, materials, registrational combinations.
Wolff doesn't suggest any connection with a specific selection of
temperament.

Please, at least cite the correct Wolff book, and track down its
threads to see what the arguments are really built upon.

Brad Lehman

I wrote, a few minutes ago:
> Wolff says nothing here, in any of the three books I have open here
> (_Essays_, _Learned Musician_, and _New Bach Reader_) about any
> connection, speculative or otherwise, about any Bach connection with
> any Werckmeister temperament. I've checked all the "Werckmeister"
> entries in the indices of all three books. *If* Bach used anything by
> Werckmeister (which in turn relies on speculation by Peter
> Williams...), according to Wolff, it was apparently in the area of
> organ specification -- stops, materials, registrational combinations.
> Wolff doesn't suggest any connection with a specific selection of
> temperament.

I should clarify one small point of that, further. Wolff's closest
discussion of Werckmeister + Bach is on pages 228-229 of _The Learned
Musician_ (which see). Wolff references Bach's borrowing of the term
"wohl temperirt", which happened to have been used by Werckmeister
[and could have been used by anyone else discussing circulating
temperaments of any kind...]. Wolff also points out that
Werckmeister, among other scholars of the time, had a "spirit of
discovery" that allowed musicians to play in all 24 keys at all, "to
expand and systematize the conventional tonal system"...and that it
fell to Bach to provide the first good practical example doing so.

Again, nothing tying Bach to any single selected temperament of
Werckmeister's.

Carry on.

Brad Lehman

Ease up, Brad. Just coming out of concerts, only to pack the schedule
teaching and playing for rent. I can't get into detail. This summer is the
necessary time to clean things up. Guess it makes sense for you to go on the
offensive. ;)

Brad: Again, nothing tying Bach to any single selected temperament of
Werckmeister's.

Johnny: Firstly, and this has to be general memory, Werckmeister was a
famous personage. Any organist worth his salt had Orgel-Probe. That's why it was
so easy for Wolff, Schweitzer, and many other historians

On page 597 of Walther’s Lexicon, under the word “temperament,” one finds
this quote from Andreas Werckmeister’s Musicalische Temperatur (1691), word
for word:
Temperamento (ital.) temperament (gall.) Temperatur, is in der
musicalischen Stimmung, ein kleiner Abschnitt von der Vollkommenheit der musicalischen
Proportionen, wodurch die Zusammenbindung der progressen fuglich geschiehet,
und das Gehor vergnuget wird. s. Werckmeisters Musicalische Temperatur, p. 3.
With all of Werckmeister's renown -- Buxtehude, Schnittger, a veritiable
neighbor of the Bach's...walking distance, it is to Werckmeister's famous tuning
that W. was most recognized, at least among others.

I will present circumstantial evidence that will bring the liklihood that
Bach was acquainted with Werckmeister in many respects in his formative years.
Also, I will examine Walther's special relationship with Bach (as close a
cousin as his wife). He was tuning through Werckmeister if you look all the
mentions. And Walther was a proud student of Werckmeister...yes the met and
Walther remained attached to Werckmeister until W.'s death.

When the full picture is presented it will seem impossible for Bach not to
know all about Werckmeister's chromatic well temperament. If you want more
anal retentive specificity, it will have to wait until sometime this summer.
But I appreciate your attention to the importance with which I treat this
matter.

On another note, you mentioned what connection there is between Mozart and
Werckmeister: were you not aware of Leopold Mozart's Violin tutor that
specifically mentions Werckmeister? A more thorough examination of the tunings
leads to WIII as the most representative W. tuning. Clearly, Paul P. and I
disagree about W1698. I think if for the younger generalist in music, precisely
because of its in exactitude, Paul sees it as an evolution for W.'s aesthetic.
Yes, Paul?

For now it is enough that if Bach had the second Orgel Probe, he would still
be fully knowledgeable of the tunings of the first version. He might not
need that book on his shelf. But scholars (such as Stinson) see clear
connections between Bach's organ understanding and W's writings.

My position is most rationale: WIII was in the air just as JS Bach was on
the horizon. It was all in the timing. And Wender was historically described
as a follower of Werckmeister.

Sorry if this doesn't satisfy you. It works for me, but I have more
material to present.

best, Johnny

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)

That would imply that you should be believing too since you are so convinced that Bach's one and only temp is WIII.

Oz.

On May 17, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Afmmjr@... wrote:

> Nobody knows that there is a god, but people believe in one.
>
>
> Neil: Nobody knows what tunings Bach used...whatever Brad or Johnny > or Wendy Carlos or anybody else says, no matter what kind of > scholarship they bring to bear on the subject...nobody knows for > sure. So, whatever conclusions anybody comes to, it's a > theory...best...Hstick
> microstick.net myspace.com/microstick
>
>

That would imply that you should be believing too since you are so convinced
that Bach's one and only temp is WIII.

Oz.

Actually, it would imply that some people do not. For an organist, one temp
is paramount due to its relative permanence. WIII serves as a better model
than current ET. No other tuning has better credentials.

May I add, there is no written evidence that Bach ever ate eggs, but this
should not suggest that Bach never ate eggs!. Werckmeister's tuning ideas were
the rage.

One more point, I am only saying that Werckmeister III is the most likely
tuning for Bach based on my research. Each researcher brings different skills
and different gifts to the task. It is clear that this is an emotional
subject for us music-minded tuners.

all best, Johnny

On May 17, 2008, at 4:45 PM, _Afmmjr@..._
(/tuning/post?postID=wFsFIsFqvgJ8EYj55eUlWszsC_v7OImvAUWWhR7gryvdPZn0i0LmwoN6Q
rwMdpPJSuHtZptx_IQ) wrote:

Nobody knows that there is a god, but people believe in one.

Neil: Nobody knows what tunings Bach used...whatever Brad or Johnny or
Wendy Carlos or anybody else says, no matter what kind of scholarship they bring
to bear on the subject...nobody knows for sure. So, whatever conclusions
anybody comes to, it's a theory...best...Hstick
microstick.net myspace.com/microstick

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)