Re: Werckmeister in specifics

We moved from the general to the specific on the topic of Werckmeister and
his support/lack of support for 12TET. The information below, provided
thanks to Daniel Wolf, has now been proved wrong through the series of posts
that have followed since it was first posted.

> From the Brockhaus Riemann Musik Lexikon: "Seine (Werckmeisters)
> Erfahrungen
> und Kenntnisse al Orgelpr�fer legte er in der _Orgel-Probe_ (Ffm. u. Lpz.
> 1681, erw. Quendlinburg 1698) nieder. In _musikalische Temperatur_ (Ffm.
u.
> Lpz. 1686/87) beschreibt er f�nf Temperierungen, die durch Verteilung des
> pythagoreischen Kommas entstehen; ein gleichschwebende Temperierung ist
> zuerst in den _Hypomnemata musica oder musicalisches Memorial_
(Quedlinburg
> 1697) erw�hnt."
>

We know now that _Hypomnemata..._ does not endorse ET, but favors the
irregular circle. As well, the _Orgel-Probe_ also does not endorse ET.

As Manuel has said there is still a posthumously published work, _Paradoxical
Discourse_, which no one on the list has read, but which Mark Lindley in the
Groves believes inadequate to indicate a full reversal of Werckmeister's
opinion to later in life favor ET.

After reading Kirnberger, who studied with J.S. Bach during Bach writing Book
II of the Well-Tempered Clavier, I now believe the specific and no longer
accept the general approach.

The general approach here is to continue hearsay, and to encourage wishful
thinking onto different ideologies and/or aesthetics. I started this thread
at the top of 2000 to try to put to rest suspicion that Andreas Werckmeister
favored ET by the end of his life. On the strictly human level, there is too
much ego at stake for Werckmeister to switch from his own originality and to
deny his ears only in a publication printed after his death. It smells wrong.

Here, a generalist approach is the wrong approach. The terminology, itself,
is explosive. For example, Meantone (Werckmeister's "Praetorian") is "equal
temperament" in that the diatonic scales are identical to each other, and the
major third is spit into 2 equal whole steps. However, each key does not
play "equally" identical, requiring "subsemitonium" or split keys for more
than 7 major and 2 minor keys.

Now, Werckmeister III is "equal temperament" for the fact that each of 12
major and minor keys can be used equally well. For W. to describe for the
first time in history of full circle of keys, is for him to be confused with
a supporter of ET. Additionally, there were those pushing for identical
scales who pressured W. to reassess his point of view. W. allowed 12TET with
increasing frequency, consistent with a tolerant acceptance of different
irregular temperaments. No where did W. claim them as his own invention, but
that they were already current by the best composers of his day.

Politics has always been a part of human history, and it was no less true in
1706. The noble brown nosing and the sensitivity to criticism expressed by
W. in his writings is enough to recognize extreme conditions. W. merely is
trying to keep from being skinned alive. The Marpurg and Kirnberger wars are
the extent to which W.'s irregular preferences were active. It is no more a
cul-de-sac than any other phase of music. It is significant that Kirnberger
does not mention Werckmeister at all in his "Art of Strict Composition" which
details harmonic theory with an irregular bias, all in the service of his
teacher, J.S. Bach.

If one's modern aesthetic does not allow for listening to Bach in
Werckmeister III (thank you John Sankey, Ton Koopman, Igor Kipnis, Pertis),
than that is your wont. Hell, some wonderful people can't match pitch;
others have perfect pitch that interferes with their reception of
irregularity with no absolute pitch concerns.

For those that "hear the difference" in the a Werckmeister III-tuned
"Chromatic Fantasy" by Bach will know what I am talking about. What a shame
that the musicology world never thought it important enough to translate a
single published work of Werckmeister (except the early _Orgel-Probe_). This
is a major reason why I do not trust the generalist approach to music
history. It is dishonest to the truth, in one sense, that these works are
only in Thuringian dialect, and rare to find at that. It almost seems a
conspiracy of later times to "tell Werckmeister's story" and keep W. silent,
and ultimately misrepresented.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

Johnny Reinhard:

There is an unfortunate tendency to believe that if something is not
translated into English then it simply doesn't exist. (Joe Monzo is to be
praised for taking the time and a dictionary and trying to work things out
for himself). Werckmeister is perfectly readable by modern readers in the
original, although the orthography and gothic letters may slow one down. A
native of the Harz mountain region (today in the western German state of
Lower Saxony), his writings were in the contemporary form of Hochdeutsch,
not in Thuringian.

Your opinion differs from the received one in German language scholarship.
Until you are able to make your case based on the complete, original record,
I think you ought to refrain from calling others "dishonest" or claiming any
proof.

Daniel Wolf

>What a shame
> that the musicology world never thought it important enough to translate a
> single published work of Werckmeister (except the early _Orgel-Probe_).
This
> is a major reason why I do not trust the generalist approach to music
> history. It is dishonest to the truth, in one sense, that these works are
> only in Thuringian dialect, and rare to find at that. It almost seems a
> conspiracy of later times to "tell Werckmeister's story" and keep W.
silent,
> and ultimately misrepresented.
>
> Johnny Reinhard
> AFMM
>
>
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Get what you deserve with NextCard Visa. Rates as low as 2.9 percent
> Intro or 9.9 percent Fixed APR, online balance transfers, Rewards
> Points, no hidden fees, and much more. Get NextCard today and get the
> credit you deserve. Apply now. Get your NextCard Visa at
> <a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreative1 ">Click Here</a>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.
>
>

In a message dated 2/12/00 12:25:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, djwolf@snafu.de
writes:

> There is an unfortunate tendency to believe that if something is not
> translated into English then it simply doesn't exist.

Daniel Wolf, why do you persist in personalizing my posts? Saying it is
dishonest to the truth that Werckmeister has remained untranslated certainly
isn't the same thing as accusing a particular person of being dishonest.

When studying German I realized that my language ability was not going to be
satisfactory for direct translation. Similarly, you might not think it
adroit to begin a professional career as a bassoonist. However, because I
care, I have explored every available avenue for uncovering the true
Werckmeister role in Western Art Music.

Daniel, you have presented incorrect information by Riemann. It would seem
that he never read Werckmeister. If you think it significant to check the
original Hochdeutsch plates and to report your findings to the list of the
posthumously published _Paradoxical Discourse_ that would negate all the
evidence I have heretofore presented, I would be eternally grateful.

Please, it is not personal for me, only passionate.

Johnny Reinhard
AFMM

> Daniel, you have presented incorrect information by Riemann>

For the record, the _Brockhaus Riemann Musik Lexikon_ (Schott, 2nd ed. 1989)
I cited was edited by Carl Dahlhaus and Hans Heinrich Eggebrecht. The entry
for Werckmeister is not initialed, but it is reasonable to assume that
Eggebrecht, author of _Die Orgelbewegung_ (1967) was the author. (The German
"organ movement" has been an attempt in the 20th century to restore the
sound of the pre-romantic organ, encompassing all elements of instrument
construction and performance practice).

Within the _Orgelbewegung_, the question of Werckmeister's possible
advocacy or dismissal of ET has been an important and, indeed, controversial
one. The record is clear only in that he first mentions a _gleichschwebende
Temperierung_ (ET, but literally "equal beating temperament") in the
_Hyponemata..._ of 1697, the second (1698) edition of the _Orgel-Probe_
eliminates the unequal tunings mentioned in the first edition and 1698's
_Die nothwendigsten Anmerckungen und Regeln wie der Bassus continuus..._
gives instructions for only two tunings, ET, and an easier-to-tune
approximate ET. This absence of unequal tunings in the 1698 publications
has to be resolved before any claim can be resolved; I suspect that this is
impossible.

Finally, in the _Musicalische Paradoxal-Discourse_ of 1707 that we encounter
the controversial sentence:

"Indessen bin ich doch nicht ungeneigt / und bleibe dabey / dass man die
diatonischen Tertian etwas reiner lasse / als die andern so man selten
gebraucht / es giebet auch gute Ver�nderung". (In this I am indeed not
disinclined / and maintain / that one leaves the diatonic thirds somewhat
purer / as the others that one seldom uses / it (this method of tuning) also
yields good (chromatic) alterations.")

It's just not possible to say whether Werckmeister thought one _could_ leave
the diatonic thirds purer or one _should_ leave them purer!

Kelletat (whose work is excellent, but focused on later generations,
especially Kirnberger, deals with Werckmeister only in passing) takes a
position similar to that of Reinhard but does not mention any of
Werckmeister's publications between 1691 and 1707. The consensus reading
(represented by Raasch) interprets the above as indicating that Werckmeister
had made the theoretical advance to advocating ET in the intervening
publications but was not, in fact, able to implement it in his own practice.
Indeed, one can detect a sense of resignation in the tone of his late
writings.

Daniel Wolf