Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Is it a reasonable hypothesis?

Hello John,

Please permit another point of view in your squiggle discussion. I do not
think listening to Bradley's squiggle tuning "sounding good" is proof of Bach's
tuning as you presented it.

To the modern ear there are many different ways to listen to music. However,
the dirty little secret is that any tuning that is irregular, like the
squiggles, is more interesting, and hence "musical," as compared with identical
equal temperament.

John: Somehow Bach notating a tune of Anna's making
doesn't quite ring true. IMHO.

Johnny: Doesn't bother me at all as a possibility.

John: The squiggle remains a fact.

Johnny: Actually, it remains an ornament, common to the title pages of music
of many composers over decades. There is plenty of evidence available.

John: Its strange (for Bach) even unevenness
remains a mystery. Its very existence calls for an explanation because
of that asymmetry. Since he was reported not to have liked the dry
mathematics of tuning theory, it just could possibly be his
explanation, to the examining board for the job, of how he turned the
tuning pegs on his harpsichord. Or not.

Johnny: I was liking the "unevenness" mystery, but you lost me on its roots.
Irregularness was the "coin of the Thuringian realm." Most everything was
based on an irregular aesthetic among Thuringian Germans. It was Bach's death
that set the stage for keyboard equal tempermanet. But even that hegemony
awaited the mid-nineteenth century.

John: Since the proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating, does a
harpsichord tuned in the way Mr Lehman proposes sound reasonable or
not?

Johnny: I think not. But that is only because I am working to explore all
the tuning designs. One conclusion reached is there are a myriad of irregular
well temperament, but only one identical equal temperament. Equal temperament
composition uses the idealization of its tuning for composing in the mind
long before it is heard on an instrument. Bach did this with an unequal tuning,
IMHO.

John: If it does then it could be (note "could" be) a plausible
explanation, whoever first noticed the Snörkel. It seems that
several/many musicians think that it does, however well or poorly they
express themselves upon paper. Which surely isn't the issue.

Johnny: Lehman is a nice guy. With all the dissonance in the world I find
it best to speak well of the nice. But once again, the dirty little secret is
that - at least to modern ears - ANY unequal and circular well temperament
(meaning a full circle of 12 major and 12 minor keys) sound: better, more
interesting, more musical, introduce a new dimension of understanding the composers
wishes, provide a greater etching of voices to separate them in recognition of
long standardized counterpoint rules, changes tempi considerations, alters
phrases, influences trills...

John: All the rest is merely noise from those with an axe to grind IMO, the
fundamental issue is whether the explanation of the squiggle leads to
a satisfactory tuning.

Johnny: You simplified the question, IMO. Choosing Bach's tuning for future
performances based on one of many possibilities negates its eligibility
somewhat. With electronic tuning and multitracking for "enharmonic" intervals, the
only real question for the public domain J.S. Bach is to continue the hunt
for the most informed musical performances. Squiggle Personality Disorder has
nothing to do with it.

John: From what I've heard, it does. Was it what Bach
used? We'll likely never know. Is it a reasonable hypothesis?
Best regards,
JohnG.

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>

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

Hi John, Johnny & all others,

>Johnny:
> To the modern ear there are many different ways to listen to music.

Agreed.
So many, that many more went lost forever
alike in JSB's case.

>
> John: Somehow Bach notating a tune of Anna's making
> doesn't quite ring true. IMHO.
I think so too.

> John: The squiggle remains a fact.
At least there's agreement that they can be considered
as "decorative ornament".
It's up to you to see in them nothing more else,
or whatsoever more byond of that
you want to (over-)interpret into them.
>
> Johnny: Actually, it remains an ornament,
> common to the title pages of music
> of many composers over decades.
> There is plenty of evidence available.

Just consider
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tablature
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabulatur

Consits that barely in an:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/b/b2/Bruhns_Prld_e_Manuskript.png
plain ornament, without any deeper meaning?

>
> John: ....Since he was reported not to have liked the dry
> mathematics of tuning theory, it just could possibly be his
> explanation, to the examining board for the job, of how he turned
> the tuning pegs on his harpsichord. Or not.

Bach-Dokumente, Vol. 2 #772 p240ff, Kassel 1972
"
FORKEL:
Bedeutungslosigkeit der Mathematik für Bachs Temperierings-Mehtode-...

Göttingen 1772 und 1777
There Forkel imputes his own opinions about mathematics onto Bach.

"Selbst der in der Mathematik so gelehrte JSB habe sich in diesen
Fragen nach der Natur, nicht nach der Regel gerichtet,
und die ganze Mathematisiererei habe noch nicht einmal den erfolg
gebracht, die Durchführung einer einwandfreien Temperatur zu
gewährleisten...
Forkel hielt dieses Ideal auch für dasjenige von JSB."
tr:
"Even the mathematical erudite JSB had'nt followed the rules (of the
canon) and even all the mathematification (literally Forkel's own
derogative term) had none success, in assuring an clean temperature...
Forkel considered that (his own) ideal also as that of JSB"

Dkument #803 Letter:
C.P.E. Bach, dated: Hamburg Jan/13/1775

Polemics against Mizler.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_Christoph_Mizler

"...Mizler hat bloß das, was von den Worten:
In die ~Societät~ angeht bis ans Ende dazu gesetzt.
Es ist nicht viel wert.
Der seelige war, wie ich u. alle eigentliche Musici,
kein Liebhaber, von trockenem mathematischen Zeuge."

"...concerning the ~society~
Mizler had added that only in other words.
I think no good of that.
The blessed was, alike I and all real musician none lover
of dry mathematical stuff."

That was coined as an side-swip against his elder brother W.F.Bach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Friedemann_Bach
"On graduating in 1729, W. F. Bach enrolled in Leipzig University, a
renowned institution at the time. He maintained a lifelong interest in
mathematics, and continued to study it privately during his first job
in Dresden."

Dokument #993 p.903
The scholar Chr. Fr. Michaelis, Prof at Leipzig Univ.
"Ästhetische Beurteilung von Bachs Fugen-Kunst"
"Esthetic assessment of Bach's art (composing) fuges'
Philosohpical lecture Leipzig, 1795

"Uns gefällt durch eine schnelle Reflexion der Urteils-Kraft
das Verhältnismäßige, Mathematische, Symmetrische, Geodnete und
Planmäßige, das wechselseitig bezogene in der Musik.
Hierher gehören die wunderbaren harmonischen Verbindungen in der
gebundenen musikalischen Schreibart, z.B. in den Fugen eines JSB
oder Händel."

We like by fast reflection of the reasoning-powers,
the rational, mathematical, symmetric, the (properly) ordered
and the planned, the mutual interactive in musics.
Hither belongs the lovly harmonic transitions in the musical
counterpart composition, as for example the fuges of JSB or Händel."

Conlusion:
Appearently C.P.E.
suffered from a life long disability in maths,
in order to compensate his own deficit,
he simply declared later after JSB's death
that his father would had also disliked maths.

No wonder, that some outdated scholars,
that are same inept in maths. alike C.P.E.,
refer again and again to C.P.E. misleading quote.

> Johnny: .... It was Bach's death
> that set the stage for keyboard equal tempermanet. But even that
> hegemony
> awaited the mid-nineteenth century.

Recently
http://www.orgelbau-rohlf.de/vita/vita.htm
doubts about that in the actual:
http://www.gdo.de/veroeffentlichungen/ars_organi/
"Rohlf, Johannes: Hören:
Vom Klang und seinen Eigenschaften.
Ars Organi 56, 2008, 168-170."
p.170 #12.

"Nach Gehör gestimmte Gleichstufigkeit
zeigt Abweichungen bis zu 4 Cent"
'Tuning ET by ear shows deviations up to 4 Cents'

"Eine nach Gehör gestimmte Temperierung kann nie die Präzision der
12ten Wurzel aus 2 erreichen."
'Tempering an tuning by ear can never exceed (exactly)
the precision 12th root of 2.'
....[to be continued later]

> Johnny: ....One conclusion reached is there are a myriad of irregular
> well temperament, but only one identical equal temperament. Equal
temperament
> composition uses the idealization of its tuning for composing in the
mind
> long before it is heard on an instrument.
Agreed.

> John: .... Was it what Bach
> used? We'll likely never know.
Probably sure.

> Is it a reasonable hypothesis?
Sorry but,
IMHO unanswerable for ever?

bye
A.S.

🔗John Garside <garsidejl@...>

Hello Johnny, Andreas, et al,

> Please permit another point of view in your squiggle discussion. I
do not think listening to Bradley's squiggle tuning "sounding good" is
proof of Bach's tuning as you presented it.

John: Other points of view are always permitted. And, as has been said
by others more illustrious than I, even though I don't agree with you
I'll defend to the death your right to express your opinion. I think
if you re-read my post you will see that I don't use the word "proof"
but hypothesis. There is room here IMHO for many hypotheses (?).

> To the modern ear there are many different ways to listen to music.
However, the dirty little secret is that any tuning that is
irregular, like the squiggles, is more interesting, and hence
"musical," as compared with identical equal temperament.

John: Indeed so, and I fully understand and appreciate the efforts of
those here to experiment and to publish their ideas here and
elsewhere. But I don't think that is the point of the discussion. We
are discussing, correct me if I have it wrong, what Bach may (N.B.
"may") have used to tune his harpsichords with the "accepted" keyboard
layout of 12 keys (or 13 if you like) per octave. The prerequisite,
anecdotally, is that he took typically up to 15 minutes to tune the
instrument. IMHO that excludes ET. BTW did Bach have a tuning fork? We
know Händel had one as one was found in his effects after his death,
but Bach? It was invented I believe in England during his lifetime. We
can be fairly sure he didn't have our electronics! We have, again
anecdotally, the information that Bach wasn't keen on the mathematics
of it. We know that he had come from an era of meantone which just
won't do when one wants to play in all keys. (of course, common
knowledge here.) So just how did he tune his instruments? By ear, and
very quickly. The scheme Mr Lehman offers is one scheme that fulfils
the criteria of being simple to tune (once practised), allows
modulation through all the keys and offers the "tone colour" of
different keys that we believe was what Bach enjoyed. One other
important criterion, at least for me, is that it must be easy for the
players of other instruments to play with such a tuning, especially
the violin in a small group, e.g. a baroque quartet. It fills that
bill too. IMO. So, IMHO, a possibility. Proof? No.

> John: Somehow Bach notating a tune of Anna's making
doesn't quite ring true. IMHO.
> Johnny: Doesn't bother me at all as a possibility.

John: Chacun a son gout. (that probably needs some accents somewhere!)

> John: The squiggle remains a fact.
> Johnny: Actually, it remains an ornament, common to the title pages
of music of many composers over decades. There is plenty of evidence
available.

John: Indeed so, if you want to split hairs. But a rather strange one.
Most ornaments, at least the ones that I have seen, (I don't claim
much research here) are regular and don't impinge upon the work, or
the title of the work. If I, and I suspect you, were ornamenting
something, we wouldn't have said ornament collide with the title of
the article, and make it such a strange irregular shape. Again IMO.

> John: Its strange (for Bach) even unevenness
remains a mystery. Its very existence calls for an explanation because
of that asymmetry. Since he was reported not to have liked the dry
mathematics of tuning theory, it just could possibly be his
explanation, to the examining board for the job, of how he turned the
tuning pegs on his harpsichord. Or not.
> Johnny: I was liking the "unevenness" mystery, but you lost me on
its roots. Irregularness was the "coin of the Thuringian realm."
Most everything was based on an irregular aesthetic among Thuringian
Germans. It was Bach's death that set the stage for keyboard equal
tempermanet. But even that hegemony awaited the mid-nineteenth century.

John: I didn't offer any opinion on its roots! If Bach's manuscripts
were full of such strange "squiggle" ornamentations we probably
wouldn't give it another thought. However the fact remains that it
heads his treatise on playing in all different keys and nowhere else.
This must give cause for conjecture. It does to me. Such conjecture
may be completely spurious, I happen to think not.

> John: Since the proof of the pudding, they say, is in the eating,
does a
harpsichord tuned in the way Mr Lehman proposes sound reasonable or
not?
> Johnny: I think not. But that is only because I am working to
explore all the tuning designs. One conclusion reached is there are a
myriad of irregular well temperament, but only one identical equal
temperament. Equal temperament composition uses the idealization of
its tuning for composing in the mind long before it is heard on an
instrument. Bach did this with an unequal tuning, IMHO.

John: Again chacun ... Well you may think in equal, I "think" and then
vocalise in "just". Sadly I've done it since I was a child and a
little later a treble in a boys choir, and was accused of being out of
tune. I learned to sing in equal, as I had a good voice at the time
and the school needed it, but since then have returned to being "out
of tune". I've since learned that I was in tune, but sang a different
tune. Poor attempt at humour.

> John: If it does then it could be (note "could" be) a plausible
explanation, whoever first noticed the Snörkel. It seems that
several/many musicians think that it does, however well or poorly they
express themselves upon paper. Which surely isn't the issue.
>Johnny: Lehman is a nice guy. With all the dissonance in the world
I find it best to speak well of the nice. But once again, the dirty
little secret is that - at least to modern ears - ANY unequal and
circular well temperament (meaning a full circle of 12 major and 12
minor keys) sound: better, more interesting, more musical, introduce a
new dimension of understanding the composers wishes, provide a greater
etching of voices to separate them in recognition of long standardized
counterpoint rules, changes tempi considerations, alters phrases,
influences trills...

John: I fully concur with all the points you make here, but would add
"most" modern ears. To some, the out of tuneness of ET can, at times,
grate dreadfully. To me the timbre of the clarinet can occasionally
evoke an indrawn breath and a wincing facial expression.

> John: All the rest is merely noise from those with an axe to grind
IMO, the
fundamental issue is whether the explanation of the squiggle leads to
a satisfactory tuning.
> Johnny: You simplified the question, IMO. Choosing Bach's tuning
for future performances based on one of many possibilities negates its
eligibility somewhat. With electronic tuning and multitracking for
"enharmonic" intervals, the only real question for the public domain
J.S. Bach is to continue the hunt for the most informed musical
performances. Squiggle Personality Disorder has nothing to do with it.

John: I'm not sure I follow you here! Did I propose that the search
for other possible "Bach tunings" cease? I can't see it anywhere. Do I
propose it? No, categorically not. Even if I did, I think I'm not
naive enough to think I would be listened to. Not here anyway. Good!
BUT, is the tuning Mr Lehman proposes as a possibility usable, yes,
easily tunable, yes, playable with, yes, etc. At least IMO. Is it too
a possible interpretation of the squiggles as a method of tuning, if
indeed that is what they are? Well, I for one am reasonably convinced,
at least more so than all other explanations to date. Does that mean
Mr Lehamn is right? Is it "the Rosetta Stone"? All I can say is that
it was an unfortunate choice of title. But at the end of the day it is
only a title. I can forgive that. It's the body of work that underlies
it that is interesting, at least to me.

Was it what Bach used? We'll likely never know. Of course, some
undiscovered document may yet come to light that ezplains all. I
shan't be holding my breath! But is it a reasonable hypothesis?
Maybe one of the believers can ask him at the day of resurrection. I
shan't be at that party.
I suspect, if there is an afterlife, that he is having a good laugh at
our expense.
It'll probably turn out that it was one of the people who interviewed
Bach at Leipzig "what did it"!
I suspect some analysis of the ink, if that's possible, might throw
some further light on the subject.
But it makes a "jolly fine topic for discussion. Eh? What!"

Best regards,
JohnG.

🔗Afmmjr@...

Thank you, John, for your thoughtful response. Just a few new points to add
with your indulgence.

John: If I, and I suspect you, were ornamenting
something, we wouldn't have said ornament collide with the title of
the article, and make it such a strange irregular shape. Again IMO.

Johnny: Your opinion is most welcome. But it does not weigh at all for
Baroque Thurignia and Saxony, particularly Thuringia. In my new book Bach and
Tuning, a chapter is devoted to the Thuringian aesthetic of the irregular. Yes,
I would not ornament with much irregularity. But again that is a modern
annecdotal position. Thuringia, the center of Germany at its highest elevation,
was different. More evidence of that will be in the chapter. A visit to
Quedlinburg and Eisenach make it clear. Besides most of the ornamentation on title
pages of the period ARE unequal, or in "such a strage irregular shape."

Johnny: Sorry to hear that. We have each had our painful experiences. I
had an out of tune bassoon that caused me to play like a singer in order to be
in tune with the orchestra. With a professional bassoon, I would later play
polymicrotonally. My carreer inculdes the regular performances of the Harry
Partch Li Po Songs with their more than 43 JI intervals. My mental scheme, which
I recommend to all, is to develop a polymicrotonal theory for all tuning
systems and approaches. The single cent is as good a threshold for pitch accuity
as one can find. THEN, just and equal and Werckmeister III and Lehman, can
all fit on the same page.

John: I fully concur with all the points you make here, but would add
"most" modern ears. To some, the out of tuneness of ET can, at times,
grate dreadfully.

Johnny: My true hope is that the right tunings will be assigned by consensus
and over time to match composers that intended them. At some stage the
myriad of different tunings take on stronger impressions, per se. Brahms in
Vallotti, Telemann in sixth comma meantone, Ives in Pythagorean, and IMO, J.S. Bach
in Werckmeister III.

John: To me the timbre of the clarinet can occasionally
evoke an indrawn breath and a wincing facial expression.

Johnny: Ha ha! I remember many a poingnant squeak! from an immature
clarinetist. Do you like the smoky Balkan style? The honks are much less offensive.

John: "Was it what Bach used? We'll likely never know. Of course, some
undiscovered document may yet come to light that ezplains all. I
shan't be holding my breath! But is it a reasonable hypothesis?

Johnny: Yes, Werckmeister III explains everything. Brad doesn't like it and
he has explained why. However, in the same manner as you or I, it doesn't
matter what he thinks, believes, or feels as a modern explaining his own
aesthetics. On the other hand, it is valuable to hear all the variety of modern
views on hearing ancient music. It serves to point the way away from the chatter.
I hope to have a CD available of my fuller explanations by December 25th.

To music!

Johnny Reinhard

**************Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW
AOL.com.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000002)

🔗John Garside <garsidejl@...>

🔗Andreas Sparschuh <a_sparschuh@...>

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

> >Johnny:
> > To the modern ear there are many different ways to listen to music.
A.S:
> Recently
> http://www.orgelbau-rohlf.de/vita/vita.htm
> doubts about that in the actual:
> http://www.gdo.de/veroeffentlichungen/ars_organi/
> "Rohlf, Johannes: Hören:
> Vom Klang und seinen Eigenschaften.
> Ars Organi 56, 2008, 168-170."
> p.170 #12.
>
> "Nach Gehör gestimmte Gleichstufigkeit
> zeigt Abweichungen bis zu 4 Cent"
> 'Tuning ET by ear shows deviations up to 4 Cents'
>
> "Eine nach Gehör gestimmte Temperierung kann nie die Präzision der
> 12ten Wurzel aus 2 erreichen."
> 'Tempering an tuning by ear can never exceed (exactly)
> the precision 12th root of 2.'
> ....[to be continued later]
>
> > Johnny:
> >....One conclusion reached is there are a myriad of irregular
> > well temperament, but only one identical equal temperament.

But back again to Johannes Rholf's lecture-note:

"Deshalb wurde bis zur Anwendung des elektronischen Stimmgerätes
auch diese, um es polemisch zu sagen *ereignislose* mathematische
Teperatur weder gestimmt noch wahrgenommen."
----
'Polemic said:
Before the arise of electronic tuners,
nobody tuned nor cared a pap about that (stupid)
*event-less* mathematically tempering.'

"Im Grunde muß man sich ja fragen,
wieso bis ins 20.Jh. hinein es möglich war
den Tonarten Gemüts-Stimmungen zuzuordnen, obschon
doch intendiert gleich-stufig gestimmt wurde."
----
'Quest:
Why remained until the 20th-century
an allocation of key-characteristics,
if ET was (ostensible) intended?'

"Kann denn alleine die Tonhöhen-Lage einer Ton-Art
für deren Charakteristik zuständig sein?"
----
'Can pitch alone be responsible for the characteristics
of an particular key?'

"4 Cent Abweichung von der gleichstufigkeit ist nicht wenig,
und wenn man allein diesen Wert bewusst einsetzt,
dann kann man innerhalb der Tempereierung gebräuchliche
Terzen reiner stimmen, als weniger gebrauchte, wie es besonders beim
Stimmern von Klavieren immer praktiziert wurde."
----
'4 Cents deviation from ET is not less,
and if one applies that value concoius,
then you can tune the common usual 3rds more pure,
than the less frequently used ones,
as especially piano-tunes had always done before.'

"Man kann sich also der Frage nach der richtigen oder günstigsten
Temperatur nicht entziehen."
----
'There is no way out to get rid of the question
about the right or most convenient temperature.'

"Jedenfalls gibt man ein für die musikalische Gestaltung wirksames
Mittel aus der Hand, wenn dieses Thema ausgelassen wird"
----
'Anyway one gives up an efficient musical aid out of hands,
when neglecting that (important) topic.'

"Und daß die mathematisch genau angelegte,
erst seit der Existenz des elektronischen Stimmgeräts gegenwärtige
Tempereierung, miter 12ten Wurzel aus 2 die farbloseste und kälteste
Stimmung ist, erklärt sich von selbst."
----
'It's selfevident:
ET is the most colorless and coldest tuning,
that became primary avialable
with the existence of electronic tuning-devices.'

bye
A.S.