Re: Re: Werckmeister Paradoxes

In a message dated 2/7/00 11:44:35 AM Eastern Standard Time,
manuel.op.de.coul@ezh.nl writes:

> Another piece of evidence that Werckmeister was later not quite proud of
> his irregular temperament is _Erweiterte Orgel-Probe_ of 1698. This is
> an improved and extended reprint of _Orgel-Probe_ of 1681. In the
> last chapter the tuning issue is brought up, but the tunings given in the
> first edition of 1681 are not repeated. So why would he remove his tunings
> if he was so proud of them?

They were removed in 1698 because he referred totally to his major work on
the subject, _Musicalische Temperatur_ of 1691, since it deals with
temperament in depth. "With regard to the matter of temperament, there is no
need to add anything in particular, since the kind reader can find a detailed
discussion and demonstration in out treatise on temperament with an appendix
on the monochord."

My English translation of Orgel-Probe (1698?), then it is full of non-equal
tuning preference ("chock full"). "Therefore, it is better to reserve the
best temperament for the most used thirds" - Werckmeister.

> In _Die nothwendigsten Anmerckungen und Regeln wie der Bassus continuus..._
> of 1698 there is an appendix on how to tune and well-temper a keyboard.
> He gives two tunings: equal temperament and an unequal one which is close
> to equal temperament.

This is interesting. However, Werckmeister may be responding to criticism
that he has not properly represented ET. He did not appreciate the huge
amounts of criticism his earlier published works received. (Of course, he
received great honors as well.)

> I'm not a musicologist but I believe that unlimited transposition and
> enharmonic exchanges in the time of Werckmeister and Bach are much more
> important than key characteristics, which becomes more important in the
> time after Bach.

Werckmeister (Orgel-Probe) "Nowadays however, when one has to make use of the
entire keyboard as though in a circle, it is quite impossible to make do with
such a keyboard. Since music, by the grace of God, has risen to such heights
and changed so much, it would, indeed, be incongruous not to think of ways to
improve keyboard instruments also; if for no other reason than to avoid
ruining contemporary pieces, some of which are well composed, and making a
mess of them.

Here Werckmeister can be understood as supporting either ET or an irregular
12. This is the confusion that persisted, I suspect, that makes Mr.
Werckmeister's genuine contribution to musical art. As I understand it,
Werckmeister's explanation of the full "circle" of keys is ground breaking.
It should be understandable that this accomplishment overshadowed the
particular distinctions of particular keys.

> W. was very devote and perhaps more obsessed with Christianity, God,
> mysticism and numerology than with tuning. To understand him and his
> way of thinking even in regard with tuning it might well be worthwhile
> to investigate this aspect of his personality.
>
Jan Chiapusso, author of an essay entitled "Bach's Attitude Towards History,"
wrote: "For practical purposes Bach certainly did not have any recourse to
mathematical calculations, although he surely was thoroughly acquainted with
Werckmeister's scientific treatment of that subject.

"Werckmeister, for reasons of his Lutheran orthodoxy, the religious feeling
in his writings and his practical attitude towards tempered tuning, must have
appealed most to Bach. Werckmeister was also a warm, personal friend of
Johann Gottfried Walther, who, as is well known, had considerable influence
upon Bach during the Weimar period." (Jan, Chiapusso, The Musical Quarterly,
39, p. 413, 1953)

I think that tuning was an expression of God for Werckmeister.

Werckmeister does show awareness of the expressive nature of distinct keys,
though. "Thus, this temperament must also incorporate variance, consistent
with all of nature; one day is not quite so warm or cold as the next."

_Paradoxical Discourse_ has never been translated and I don't know what is in
it. This is a problem. I am influenced by the fact that it was published
after Werckmeister died. There is a certain paradox in this whole
discussion. It is a delicate operation to imagine yourself a witness to a
distant past, to separate the specific from the general. Thank you, Manual
for your take.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM