[CAUT] Speaking of Bach (was: temperament for Schubert)

[Fred Sturm]

On Jan 18, 2009, at 9:57 AM, Israel Stein wrote:

> Speaking of Bach, there's actually quite a bit known about how he  
> felt about meantone. For one, he was reputed to be an expert tuner,  
> capable of tuning a harpsichord in 15 minutes (think at last 3 stops).

	My take on that anecdote: First, it was said he tuned his instrument  
daily, spending 10 to 15 minutes or so. So he was doing what we do in  
the concert hall, essentially touching up most of the time. Second. it  
seems likely that he went straight to the pitch/interval relation he  
was after. He did not fuss like modern piano tuners tend to do, but  
found what was "good enough" and went on. I am sure from other  
evidence that he was quite particular, but it seems likely that the  
range of what would be acceptable was somewhat wide by current  
standards.
	On the subject of how important the specific tuning was to him, I  
think it is instructive to read CPE Bach's short section on tuning in  
his True Art of Playing the Klavier. This book is pretty detailed in  
many ways, and he was by no means "writing to save paper" (when he  
wanted to, he went on at considerable length). CPE was very close to  
his father, and was a champion of many of his ideas. For example, the  
second volume of his work is devoted to thorough bass, and in it he is  
clear in advocating for the "good taste" of the past, sometimes  
mentioning his father, against the modern theoretical school of  
Rameau. The difference here is between a harmonic theory based on  
triads and one based on intervals. Rameau's triadic theory won out,  
and was already prevalent at that time. CPE is reaching back to his  
father's past, explaining the "true art."
	In any case, in his half a page about tuning, he spends most of it  
praising the circulating temperament, where "the keyboard plays  
equally in tune with all twenty-four tonalities." Some take him as a  
proponent of ET. I do not. His statement that one should "take away  
from _most_ of the fifths a barely noticeable amount of their absolute  
purity" implies that there are a few just fifths. But what is missing?  
There is no mention of the importance of a gradation of keys, not even  
bare minimal instruction in where those pure/just fifths should be. If  
he had strong ideas of "just exactly how" a keyboard should be tuned,  
he didn't find it important enough to write them down and promote  
them. So goes my interpretation.
	This is born out in other parts of the text, where he goes into great  
detail of how to create a melody and how to fill in chords (speaking  
particularly of the thorough bass volume - the first volume is mostly  
about fingering and finger technique). In no instance does he say that  
key center/tonality should be taken into account. In fact, he gives  
exercises in transposition, suggesting that one choose keys at random,  
in order to build up the chops for reading from figures. The  
implication is that no alteration need be made for one key as opposed  
to another.
	None of this says that temperament was completely unimportant to him  
or to JS Bach. But I think it is rather telling to note their relative  
silence on this, when they were so outspoken on many matters. It seems  
that what was most important to both of them (and to many other  
composers and musicians) was the principle that all keys should be  
usable. They were pushing against mean tone more than they were  
pushing for some defined alternative. At least that is how it appears  
to me.


Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu