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

[Ed Sutton]

Fred, let me toss in another speculation about Father Bach.
When we look at the suites and partitas, and the Goldberg variations, we see 
that, like other Baroque composers, Bach was content to play in one key for 
a very long time. When I combine this with the comment that he tuned the 
harpsichord when he sat down to play, it seems conceivable that, knowing, 
say, that he intended to play in G major, he did his quick tuning, making 
sure that the G related harmonies were good, and didn't worry too much about 
refining F# or C# triads. As a practical musician of his day, he would have 
known all the tricks for getting things done quickly. (Anyone who plays 
harpsichord knows some of these tricks.) When he really intended to play 
through the circle of keys, he might have given more care to the extreme 
keys. Despite the connection with the WTC and extreme keys, most of Bach's 
music is written in the common Meantone keys, and does not need to make it 
around the circle of fifths. What he did in improvisation is, I suppose, 
mostly lost to us.

Ed Sutton

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fred Sturm" <fssturm at unm.edu>
To: <caut at ptg.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [CAUT] Speaking of Bach (was: temperament for Schubert)


> 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
>
>
>