Exploring the Sound of Keyboard Tunings

Gavin Black

Gavin Black is the director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center www.pekc.org. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Intervals, tuning, and temperament, part 3
In the first two columns on tuning I did not refer at all to names of temperaments—neither the rather familiar terms such as “Werckmeister,” “Kirnberger,” or “Vallotti,” nor less familiar ones such as “Fogliano-Aron,” “Ramos,” or “Bendeler.” It can be interesting or useful for a student to learn something about these historical temperaments; however, there is a reason that I have avoided framing my discussion of temperament with these established tunings. It is much more useful for students to grasp the principles that underlie any keyboard tuning. It is then possible for the student to both understand any specific tuning system—historical or hypothetical—and to invent his or her own, and also to understand some of the practical and artistic implications of different tuning approaches.

Underlying tuning principles
1) It is impossible for all twelve perfect fifths on a normal keyboard instrument to be tuned absolutely pure. This arises out of the mathematics of the fundamental definition of intervals, and it is an objective fact. If you start at any note and tune twelve perfect fifths pure, then the note that you come back to—which is supposed to be the same as the starting note—will be significantly sharp compared to the starting note.
2) Therefore, at least one perfect fifth must be tuned narrow. Anywhere from one to all twelve perfect fifths can be tuned narrow, as long as the overall amount of narrowness is correct.
3) The need to narrow one or more fifths is an objective need, and doing so is the practical side of keyboard temperament. The choice of which fifths to narrow and (bearing in mind that the overall narrowness must add up to the right amount) how much to narrow them is subjective and is the esthetic side of keyboard temperament.
From these principles it is possible to understand, or indeed to re-invent, any of the historical temperaments, each of which is of necessity simply a way of approaching and solving the issues described above.

Major historical tunings
1) Pythagorean tuning. This is the simplest practical approach, in which eleven fifths in a row are tuned absolutely pure, and the remaining fifth is allowed to be extremely narrow: so narrow that human ears will not accept it as a fifth and it has to be avoided in playing.
2) Well-tempered tuning. In this approach, the narrowness of fifths is spread out over enough fifths that the narrowed fifths sound acceptable to our ears. Practical experience suggests that this means over at least three fifths. The fifths that are not narrowed are left pure. All intervals and thus all chords and all keys are usable.
3) Meantone tuning. Here the tuning of fifths is configured in such a way as to generate pure or relatively pure major thirds. When this kind of tuning was in very widespread use (primarily the 16th and 17th centuries), this was a widely and strongly held esthetic preference. In order to generate a large number of pure major thirds, it is necessary to tune a large number of unusable intervals, both thirds and fifths—actually more than in Pythagorean tuning.
4) Equal temperament. In this temperament, each of the twelve perfect fifths is narrowed by exactly the same amount. In this tuning, alone among all possible keyboard tunings, each specific instance of each type of interval—perfect fifth, major third, and so on—is identical to all other instances of that interval.

Tuning intervals
When two close pitches are sounding at the same time we hear, alongside those notes, a beating or undulating sound that is the difference between the two pitches that are sounding. If a note at 440hz and a note at 442hz are played at the same time, we hear a beating at the speed of twice per second. If the two notes were 263hz and 267hz the beating would be at four times per second. This kind of beating sounds more or less like a (quiet) siren or alarm. It is so much a part of the background of what we hear when we listen to music that most people initially have trouble distinguishing it or hearing it explicitly. Normally once someone first hears beats of this kind, it is then easy to be able to hear them and distinguish them.
These beats are a real acoustic phenomenon. They are not psychological, or part of the physiology of hearing: they are present in the air. If you set up a recording in which one stereo channel is playing one pitch and the other is playing a close but different pitch, then if you play those two channels through speakers into the air, they will produce beats that can be heard. However, if you play them through headphones, so that the two notes never interact with one another in the air but each go directly to a separate ear of the listener, then no beats will be created and the listener will hear the two different pitches without beats.
Notes that are being produced by pipes or strings have overtones. When two such notes are played together, the pitches that mingle in the air include the fundamental and the overtones. Any of those component sounds that are very close to one another will produce beats if they are not in fact identical. It is by listening to these beats and comparing them to a template or plan (either no beats or beats of some particular speed) that we carry out the act of tuning.
For example, if we are tuning a note that is a fifth away from an already-tuned note, then the first upper partial of the higher note is meant to be the same pitch as the second upper partial of the lower note. (For a discussion of overtones see this column from July 2009.) If these overtones are in fact identical, then they will not produce any beats; if they are not quite identical they will produce beats. If the goal is to produce a pure perfect fifth, then beats should be absent. If the goal is to produce a narrow perfect fifth, then beats should be present—faster the narrower a fifth we want. In tuning a major third, the same principle applies, except that it is the third upper partial of the higher note and the fourth upper partial of the lower note that coincide.
Listening for beats produced by coinciding overtones is the essential technique for tuning any keyboard instrument by ear. Any tuning can be fully described by a list of beat speeds for each interval to be tuned. For example, in Pythagorean tuning the beat speed for each of the eleven fifths that are tuned explicitly is zero. (The twelfth fifth arises automatically.) Any well-tempered tuning can be described as a combination of fifths that have beat speeds of zero and fifths that have various moderate beat speeds. In equal temperament, all the fifths have beat speeds greater than zero, and they all reflect the same ratio, with higher notes having proportionately higher beat speeds. In most meantone systems, major thirds have no beats or very slow beat speeds, while those fifths that are tuned directly have beat speeds that are similar to those of well-tempered fifths.
These beats have a crucial effect on the esthetic impact of different tuning systems. For example, in Pythagorean tuning, while all of the perfect fifths are pure (beatless), all of the major thirds are very wide and beat quite fast. This gives those thirds, and any triads, a noisy and restless feeling. A triad with pure fifths and pure thirds—a beatless triad—is a very different phenomenon for a listener, even though it looks exactly the same in music notation. Other sorts of triads are different still: those with a pure major third and a narrow fifth, for example, or with all of the component intervals departing slightly from pure.

Temperaments throughout history
General tendencies in the beat structure of different temperaments may explain some things about the history of those temperaments, why they were used at different times, or at least how they correlate with other things that were going on musically at the time when they were current.

Pythagorean tuning
For example, Pythagorean tuning was in common use in the late Middle Ages. This was a time when the perfect fifth was still considered a much more consonant or stable interval than the major or minor third. Thus it made sense to use a tuning in which fifths were pure and thirds were wide enough—buzzy enough—to be almost inherently dissonant.
(But it is interesting to speculate about the direction of causality: did Pythagorean organ tuning suggest the avoidance of thirds as consonant intervals, or did a theory-based avoidance of those intervals suggest that a tuning with very wide thirds was acceptable?)

Meantone tuning
The rise of meantone tuning in the late fifteenth century corresponded with the rise of music in which the major third played an increasingly large role as a consonant interval and as a defining interval of both modal and tonal harmony. A major triad with a Pythagorean third does not quite sound like a resting place or point of arrival, but a major triad with a pure third does. During this same period, the harpsichord and virginal also arose, supplementing the clavichord and the organ. These new instruments had a brighter sound with a more explosive attack than earlier instruments. This kind of sound tends to make wide thirds sound very prominent. This may have been a further impetus to the development of new tuning systems in those years.
Meantone tuning, since it includes many unusable intervals, places serious restrictions on composers and players. Modulation within a piece is limited. In general, a given piece can only use one of the two notes represented by a raised (black) key, and must rigorously avoid the other. Many transpositions create impossible tuning problems. Many keys must, as a practical matter, be avoided altogether in order to avoid tremendous amounts of re-tuning.
Some keyboard instruments built during the meantone era had split sharps for certain notes, that is, two separate keys in, for example, the space between d and e, sharing that space front and back, one of them playing the d#, the other playing the e♭. Composers do not seem to have relied on it more than once in a while to write pieces in which they went beyond the harmonic bounds natural to meantone tuning. These split keys were probably intended to reduce or eliminate the need to re-tune between pieces, rather than to expand the harmonic language of the repertoire.
Meantone was no easier to tune than what came before it, or than other tuning systems that were known theoretically at the time but little used, since by limiting transposition it placed significant harmonic limitations on composers and improvisers, and thus made accompaniment more difficult. Yet it remained in use for a very long time. It seems certain that whatever it was accomplishing esthetically must have seemed very important, even crucial. Many listeners even now feel that the sonority of a harpsichord is most beautiful in meantone.

Well temperaments
In the late seventeenth century, composers and theorists began to suggest new temperaments that overcame the harmonic restrictions of meantone. These were the well-tempered tunings, in which every fifth and every third is usable as an harmonic interval. In order to achieve this flexibility, these tunings do away with most or, in some cases, all of the pure major thirds. This change can be seen as a shift from an instrument-centered esthetic—in which the beauty of the sound of the pure thirds was considered more important than perhaps anything else—to a composer-centered esthetic and philosophy, in which limitations on theoretical compositional possibilities were considered less and less acceptable. There were strong defenders of the older tunings well into the eighteenth century. It is interesting that in one well-known dispute about the merits of meantone as opposed to well-tempered tuning, the advocate of the former was an instrument builder (Gottfried Silbermann) and the advocate of the latter was a composer (J. S. Bach).
The crucial esthetic characteristic of well-tempered tunings is that different keys have different harmonic structures. That is, the placement of relatively pure and relatively impure intervals and triads with respect to the functional harmonies of the key (tonic, dominant, etc.) is different from one key to another. (An interesting experiment about this is possible in modern times. If a piece is recorded on a well-tempered instrument in two rather different keys, say C major and then E major, and the recordings are adjusted by computer so as to be at the same pitch level as one another, then they will still sound different and be easily distinguishable from each other.) Their differences are almost certainly the source of ideas about the different inherent characters of different keys. Lists of the supposed emotional or affective characteristics of different keys arose in the very late seventeenth century, at about the same time that well-tempered tuning took hold.

Equal temperament
In equal temperament, which became common in the mid- to late-nineteenth century, every interval with a given name and every triad or other chord of a particular type is the same as every other interval, triad, or chord of that type. Part of the appeal of this tuning in the nineteenth century was, probably, its theoretical consistency and symmetry. Many people have found the concept of equal temperament intellectually satisfying: it does not have what might be thought of as arbitrary differences between things that, theoretically at least, ought to be the same. Equal temperament took hold in the same era of organ history that included logarithmic pipe scalings—another theoretically satisfying, mathematically inspired idea. During this same time, designers of wind instruments were working to make those instruments sound the same—or as close as humanly possible—up and down the compass. This is another manifestation of a taste for avoiding seemingly arbitrary or random difference.
On an equal-tempered keyboard, the computer experiment described above would result in two indistinguishable performances: it is not possible to tell keys apart except by absolute pitch. The rise and dissemination of equal temperament also coincided with a general worldwide increase in travel. In a world in which equal temperament and a particular pitch standard (say a′=440hz) will be found anywhere and everywhere, a flutist, for example, can travel from Europe to America or Japan or anywhere and expect to be able to play with local musicians.
It is also likely that the general acceptance of equal temperament helped lead to twelve-tone and other atonal music by promoting the idea (and the actual listening experience) that all keys and all twelve semitones were the same.
In equal temperament, no interval is pure, and no interval is more than a little bit out of tune. This is a tuning that, just as a matter of taste or habit, appeals strongly to some people and does not appeal to others. I have known musicians with no training (or for that matter interest) in historical temperaments who could not stand to listen to equal temperament because they found equal-tempered thirds grating; I have known others who can accept the intervals of equal temperament as normal but who cannot tolerate the occasional more out of tune intervals of well-tempered tuning.
At the Princeton Early Keyboard Center website there are links to several resources describing and comparing historical temperaments and discussing further some of what I have written about here.

 

Gavin Black

Gavin Black is director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey. He can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Intervals, tuning, and temperament, part 2
Last month I wrote about some of the fundamentals underlying the art of keyboard temperament: aspects of the nature of musical sound and of intervals, the overtone series, and the so-called circle of fifths. This month I want to discuss keyboard temperament itself, using last month’s column as a foundation. I will talk about why temperament is necessary, what the major approaches to temperament have been over the centuries, some of what the different systems of temperament set out to accomplish, and about how different temperaments relate to different historical eras. Next month I will also discuss the practicalities of tuning and a few miscellaneous matters related to tuning and temperament.
As I said last month, my main point is to help students become comfortable with tuning and temperament and to develop a real if basic understanding of them, regardless of whether they are planning to do any tuning themselves. Before describing some of the essential details of several tuning systems, I want to review how we discuss tuning and how our thinking about tuning is organized, so that the descriptions of different temperaments will be easy to grasp.
1) For purposes of talking about tuning, octaves are considered exactly equivalent. (This of course is no surprise, but it is worth mentioning.) The practical point of this is that if I say, for example, that “by tuning up by a fifth, six times in a row, I get from C to F#” I do not need to say that I also have to drop the resulting F# down by three octaves to get the simple tritone (rather than the augmented twenty-fifth); that is assumed. To put it another way, simple intervals, say the perfect fifth, and the corresponding compound intervals, say the twelfth or the nineteenth, are treated as being identical to one another.
2) Intervals fall into pairs that are inversions of one another: fifth/fourth; major third/minor sixth; minor third/major sixth; whole tone/minor seventh; semitone/major seventh. For purposes of tuning, the members of these pairs are interchangeable, if we keep direction in mind. For example, tuning up by a fifth is equivalent to tuning down by a fourth. If you are starting at C and want to tune G, it is possible either to tune the G above as a fifth or the G below as a fourth. It is always important to keep track of which of these you are doing or have just done, but they are essentially the same.
3) When, in tuning a keyboard instrument, we tune around the circle of fifths, we do not normally do this:

but rather something like this:

going up by fifths and down by fourths—sometimes up by fourths and down by fifths—in such a way as to tune the middle of the keyboard first, thus creating chords and scales that can be tested.
4) In tuning keyboard instruments we purposely make some intervals impure: that is, not perfectly (theoretically) in tune. When an interval is not pure it is either narrow or wide. An interval is wide when the ratio between the higher note and the lower note is greater than that ratio would be for the pure interval; it is narrow when the ratio is smaller. For example, the ratio between the notes of a pure perfect fifth is 3:2, that is, the frequency of the higher note is 1½ times the frequency of the lower note. In a narrow fifth, that ratio is smaller (perhaps 2.97:2), in a wide fifth it is larger (perhaps 3.05:2). Here’s the important point—one that students do not always realize until they have had it pointed out: making an interval wide does not necessarily mean making some note sharp, and making an interval narrow does not necessarily mean making some note flat. If you are changing the higher note in an interval, then raising that note will indeed make the interval wider and lowering it will make the interval narrower. However, if you are changing the lower note, then raising the note will make the interval narrower and lowering it will make the interval wider.
5) Tuning by fifths (or the equivalent fourths) is the theoretically complete way to conceive of a tuning or temperament system. This is because only fifths and fourths can actually generate all of the notes. That is, if you start from any note and tune around the circle of fifths in either direction, you will only return to your starting note after having passed through all of the other notes. If you start on any given note and go up or down by any other interval, you will get back to your starting note without having passed through all of the other notes.1 For example, if you start on c and tune up by major thirds you will return to c having only tuned e and g#/a♭. There is no way, starting on c and tuning by thirds, to tune the notes c#, d, d#, f, f#, g, a, b♭, or b. Tuning is sometimes done by thirds, but only as an adjunct to tuning by fifths and fourths. Any tuning system can be fully described by how it tunes all of the fifths.
6) As I mentioned last month, tuning two or more in a row of any interval spins off at least one other interval. For example, tuning two fifths in a row spins off a whole tone. (Starting at c and tuning c–g and then g–d spins off the interval c–d). Tuning four fifths in a row spins off a major third. (Starting at c and tuning c–g, g–d, d–a, a–e spins off the interval c–e). The tuning of the primary intervals—pure, wide, or narrow—utterly determines the tuning of the resulting (spun-off) interval. For example, tuning four pure perfect fifths in a row spins off a major third that is wider than the theoretically correct 5:4 ratio: very wide, as a matter of human listening experience. Tuning three pure fourths in a row (c–f, f–b♭, b♭–e♭, for example) spins off a minor third that is narrower than the theoretically correct 6:5.
So, what is temperament and why does it exist? Temperament is the making of choices about which intervals on the keyboard to tune pure and which to tune wide or narrow, and about how wide or narrow to make those latter intervals. Temperament exists, in the first instance, because of the essential problem of keyboard tuning that I mentioned last month: if you start at any given note and tune around the circle of fifths until you arrive back at the starting note, that starting note will be out of tune—sharp, as it happens—if you have tuned all of the fifths pure. The corollary of this is that in order to tune a keyboard instrument in such a way that the unisons and octave are in tune, it is absolutely necessary to tune one or more fifths narrow. This is a practical necessity, not an esthetic choice. However, decisions about how to address this necessity always involve esthetic choices.
There are practical solutions to this practical problem, and the simplest of them constitutes the most basic temperament. If you start at a note and tune eleven fifths, but do not attempt to tune the twelfth fifth (which would be the out-of-tune version of the starting note), then you have created a working keyboard tuning in which one fifth—the interval between the last note that you explicitly tuned and the starting note—is extremely out of tune. If you start with c and tune g, d, a, etc., until you have tuned f, then the interval between f and c (remember that you started with c and have not changed it) will be a very narrow fifth or very wide fourth. The problem with this very practical tuning is an esthetic, rather than a practical, problem: this fifth is so narrow that listeners will not accept it as a valid interval. Then, in turn, there is a practical solution to this esthetic problem: composers simply have to be willing to write music that avoids the use of that interval. This tuning, sometimes called Pythagorean, was certainly used in what we might call the very old days—late middle ages and early Renaissance. As an esthetic matter, it is marked by very wide thirds (called Pythagorean thirds) that are spun off by all of the pure fifths. These thirds, rather than the presence of one unusable fifth, probably are why this tuning fell out of favor early in the keyboard era.
The second-easiest way to address the central practical necessity of keyboard tuning is, probably, to divide the unavoidable out-of-tuneness of the fifths between two fifths, rather than piling it all onto one of them. For example, if in the example immediately above you tune the last interval, namely b♭–f, somewhat narrow rather than pure, then the resulting final interval of f–c will not be as narrow as it came out above. Perhaps it will be acceptable to listeners, perhaps not. Historical experience has suggested that it is right on the line.
In theory, what I just called the “unavoidable out-of-tuneness” (which is what theorists of tuning call the “Diatonic Comma” or “Pythagorean Comma”) can be divided between or among any number of fifths, from one to all twelve, with the remaining fifths being pure. The fewer fifths are made narrow—that is, “tempered”—the narrower each of them has to be; the more fifths are left pure (which is the same thing), the easier the tuning is, since tuning pure fifths is the single easiest component of the art of tuning by ear.2 The more fifths are tempered, the less far from pure each of them has to be; the fewer fifths are left pure, the more difficult the temperament is to carry out by ear.
Temperaments of this sort, that is, ones in which two or more fifths are made narrow and the remaining fifths are tuned pure, and all intervals and chords are usable, make up the category known as “well-tempered tuning.” There exist, in theory, an infinite number of different well-tempered tunings. There are 4083 different possible ways to configure the choice of which fifths to temper, but there are an infinite number of subtly different ways to distribute the amount of out-of-tuneness over any chosen fifths. From the late seventeenth century through the mid to late nineteenth century, the most common tunings were those in which somewhere between four and ten or eleven fifths were tempered, and the rest were left pure. In general, in the earlier part of those years temperaments tended to favor more pure fifths, and later they tended to favor more tempered fifths. The temperament in which all twelve fifths are tempered and the ratio to which they are all tempered is the same (2.9966:2) is known as equal temperament. It became increasingly common in the mid to late nineteenth century, and essentially universal for a while in the twentieth century. It was well known as a theoretical concept long before then, but little used, at least in part because it is extremely difficult to tune by ear.
In well-tempered tunings and in fact any tunings, the choices about which fifths to temper affect the nature of the intervals other than fifths. The most important such interval is the major third. The importance of the placement of tempered fifths has always come largely from the effect of that placement on the thirds. Historically, in the period during which well-tempered tuning was the norm, the fifths around C tended to be tempered so as to make the C–E major third close to pure, in any case almost always the purest major third within the particular tuning. This seems to reflect both a sense that pure major thirds are esthetically desirable or pleasing and a sense that the key of C should be the most pleasing key, or the most restful key, on the keyboard. In general, well-tempered tunings create a keyboard on which different intervals, chords, and harmonies belonging to the same overall class are not in fact exactly the same as one another. There might be, for example, major triads in which the third and the fifth are both pure, alongside major triads in which the fifth is pure but the third a little bit wide, or the fifth pure but the third very wide, or the fifth a little bit narrow and the third a little bit wide. It is quite likely that one of the points of well-tempered tuning was to cause any modulation or roaming from one harmonic place to another on the keyboard to effect an actual change in color—that is, in the real ratios of the harmonies—not just a change in the name of the chord or in its perceived distance from the original tonic.
In equal temperament, all intervals of a given class are in fact identical to one another, and each instance of a chord of a given type—major triad, minor triad, and so on—is identical to every other instance of that chord except for absolute pitch. Next month I will discuss ways in which the esthetic of each of these kinds of temperament fit in with other aspects of the musical culture of their times.
The other system of tuning that was prevalent for a significant part of the history of keyboard music—from at least the mid sixteenth century through the seventeenth century and, in some places well into the eighteenth—is known nowadays as meantone tuning. (This term was not used at the time, and is now applied to a large number of different tunings with similar characteristics.) In a meantone tuning, there are usually several major thirds that are unusably wide and one or more fifths that are also unusable. In fact, the presence of intervals that must be avoided by composers is greater than in Pythagorean tuning. However, this is in aid of being able to create a large number of pure or nearly pure major thirds. This was, perhaps, as a reaction to the earlier Pythagorean tuning with its extremely wide thirds, considered esthetically desirable during this period. The mathematics behind the tuning of thirds tells us that, if two adjacent thirds are both pure, say c–e and e–g#, then the remaining third that is nestled within that octave (see above), in this case a♭–c, will be so wide that no ears will accept it as a valid interval. Therefore only two out of every three major thirds can be pure—that is, eight out of the twelve—and, if they are tuned pure, the remaining major thirds will become unusable. This, of course, in turn means that composers must be willing to avoid those intervals in writing music. It is striking that composers were willing to do so with remarkable consistency for something like two hundred years.
The distribution of usable and unusable thirds in meantone is flexible. For example, while it is possible to tune c–e and e–g# both pure, as mentioned above, it is also possible to tune c–e and a♭–c pure, leaving e–g# to be unusable. In the late Renaissance and early Baroque keyboard repertoire, there are, therefore, pieces that use g# and piece that use a♭, but very few pieces that use both. There are pieces that use d# and pieces that use e♭, but very few pieces that use both. There are many pieces that use b♭ and a few that use a#, but almost none that use both. There are very few keyboard pieces from before the very late seventeenth century that do not observe these restrictions. This is powerful evidence that whatever was accomplished esthetically by observing them must have been considered very important indeed.

 

 

David Rumsey

David Rumsey⁴⁴ was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He studied with Anton Heiller and Marie-Claire Alain in Europe 1963–66, then returned to a position at the University of Adelaide. Moving back to Sydney in 1969 he established a Department of Organ and Church Music, which survives the recent Australian educational and research funding cuts. For over 25 years, until 1998, he was the regular organist with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and as such frequently presided over the Grand Organs of Sydney Opera House and Sydney Town Hall. Associations with multimedia events have included performances of the Saint-Saëns “Organ Symphony” to 100,000 people with the orchestra in the Sydney Domain, the organ via microwave link from Sydney Town Hall. In 1998, he wrote, produced, acted, and performed in a highly successful 14-hour musical and dramatic spectacle on the life of J.S. Bach, with actors in period costume from the National Institute of Dramatic Art (AUS), and musicians playing period instruments. He resigned his post in Sydney in 1998 and moved to Basel, Switzerland, where he continues working as an organist and consultant, and as a Senior Researcher at the University of Bern. Since 2007 he has been responsible for the editing and CD-production of historic organ recordings released under the OehmsClassics label using the historic Welte organ and its player-rolls at Seewen (SO-CH) and is regarded as an authority on aspects of medieval organ culture. He is organist at Herz Jesu Kirche in Laufen (BL-CH) and in-house consultant and organist to the Museum der Musikautomaten, Seewen (SO-CH).

On Friday and Saturday, June 9 and 10, 2012, a concert and workshop focusing on the medieval organ were held at the Basel (Switzerland) Peterskirche. They dealt with concepts, designs, repertoire and the medieval organ used in ensemble.¹ Another symposium and series of concerts was later organized in and around East Friesland (Rhede), commencing Monday, September 3, 2012, running until Sunday, September 9, dealing with much the same topics.² Some instruments and participants were common to both events. Elsewhere Kimberly Marshall played and held courses in Sion (Switzerland) during October 2012. Other events in Europe during the summer of 2012 dedicated to the medieval organ included one arranged by Jos van der Giessen in the Netherlands.

Kimberly Marshall’s 1989 book, Iconographical Evidence for the Late-Medieval Organ in French, Flemish and English Manuscripts,³ was of seminal influence to much of this blossoming culture. It was the most oft-quoted work at the Basel and Rhede conferences. A colloquium in 1995 at Royaumont (France), two years after an 11th-century Theophilus organ had been reconstructed there by Antoine Massoni, was a most important sequel.⁴ Marcel Pérès, responsible for the Royaumont Theophilus organ, also played in Basel during August 2011. The 2012 events were significant vantage points in an ongoing search for the Holy Grail of understanding medieval organs and performance practices. They continued to push back through the 15th, 14th, 13th centuries, even to the 3rd in Rhede.

 

The Phenomenon

The observant phenomenologist might well note something in the air: research into and performance of early music has now spread both forwards and backwards in time—from a “Bach-fulcrum” that began with Mendelssohn,
S.S. Wesley, et al. in the early 19th century. By the late 20th century it had reached fortepiano, early Steinway, the “real” Wagner orchestra, and even Stravinsky’s Le Sacre du printemps, where authenticity of instruments used was a measure of performance excellence. Concurrently, moving back to ever earlier eras, the music of Buxtehude, Frescobaldi, Couperin, Correa de Arauxo, and Sweelinck—among many others—has been vigorously regenerated through performance on historic organs, careful emulation of their temperaments, key proportions, wind quality, specifications, tonal and mechanical attributes, all of which illuminate performance practices.

Other 19th- and 20th-century contributions to this historical consciousness included the continuum of English choral music, the rediscovery of Palestrina, and parallel developments in Gregorian chant. In the educational arena it seeped into musical institutions such as Eugène Gigout’s 19th-century Organ School in Paris or the early 20th-century Schola Cantorum Basiliensis, not to forget the work of Solesmes and similar centers. High-profile specialist performers such as Gustav Leonhardt then came on the scene, increasingly promoting serious research, publications, recordings, and concerts. Discrete organ cultures began to be brought back to life by dedicated builders, researchers, performers, and luminaries. A veritable explosion of knowledge and activity erupted around the turn of the 21st century.

The phenomenon is now neither confined to the organ nor the 16th–19th centuries, but takes in viola da gamba, cornetto, medieval fiddle, lute, harpsichord, hurdy-gurdy, harp, bells, whole families of antique instruments, and virtually all music of any period. The ongoing challenge in the medieval arena for instrumentalists is that of surviving originals. Certainly extant and truly original 16th-century organs are scarce. Precious little material dating from before the 15th century is known—and then essentially only fragments. Iconography, contemporary descriptions, the few comprehensible early organbuilding tracts, and much circumstantial evidence taken from extant contemporary repertoire are about all that there is to go on. At the Rhede conference, Winold van der Putten, who was responsible for building many of the instruments present, added another significant factor: the experience of specialist organbuilders who have now regularly interpreted these old sources and learned how to put theories or confusing historic descriptions into practice. This is a cutting edge where artistic fringe-dwellers live dangerously by constantly expanding boundaries. It is a little like “walking the plank,” just that the board gets narrower as it seemingly extends back forever, engaging the enquirer in an ever more precarious balancing act. But the rewards are tangible, and in the past few years fully successful medieval constant-scaled ranks have been constructed and voiced. They were commonplace enough for much of medieval instrument-building history and essential to its performance.

Walter Chinaglia, from Como (Italy)⁵ was another of those present in both Basel and Rhede with several of his own positives and portatives built from extending what is “seen through a glass darkly” into convincing practical realities, another fruit from the experiences of these increasingly skilled specialist builders. There are others—Marcus Stahl of Dresden⁶ and Stefan Keppler of Kötz,⁷ to name but two from Germany.

 

2012—European Medieval 

Organ Summer

On Saturday afternoon, September 8, 2012, the Rhede symposium was nearing its conclusion and running rather late, since so many people had had so much to offer. The interest was exceptionally keen; most sessions had extended well beyond their scheduled times. About 15 different organs had been assembled in a kind of “grand general meeting of gothic organs.” They emulated everything from a hydraulis to 13th, 14th, and 15th-century portatives and positives. There were also some renaissance instruments, including an original 16th-century Italian organ, the most modern of the assembly, a permanent fixture in the Old Church at Rhede, nodal point of this symposium. Other venues around this East-Friesland region included Weener and Rysum. Attendees came from Germany, Netherlands, Scotland, Switzerland, Australia, Czech Republic, USA, and Scandinavia. 

At the outset Harald Vogel made the poignant observation that this unusual gathering of medieval organs was an exceptionally important event in the history of the instrument, a hitherto virtually unthinkable assembly. It was organized by the Weener Organeum, Winfried Dahlke in charge, supported by a squadron of organists, organbuilders, and others whose burning curiosity clearly motivated them strongly. 

Dr. Vogel inaugurated the “Rims” instrument, made for a German organist by Orgelmakerij van der Putten after mid-14th-century practices: constant-scaling, two 8′s in parallel (effectively 8′ II-ranks, always playing, no stop control) and a 6′ (on a separate register, slider above the windchest). The resemblance to an organ described in the 10–12th-century Sélestat Manuscript gives its 8′+8′+6′ specification full credibility.⁸

The prototypical culture that inspired the Rims instrument used lead as pipe material, constant scaling after the 11th-century Berne Anonymous MS,⁹ and keys as described by Praetorius for Halberstadt.¹⁰ Its Gamba-Quintadena-like bass tones with Principally-Flutey trebles were an experience all of their own. They came into good use during the symposium in Gregorian alternatims, borduns supporting chanters, and works such as medieval Redeuntes with long-held bass notes under more agile trebles. This instrument presented a left-hand cantus firmus of an early Felix namque¹¹ with remarkable ease and complete conviction; its scaling allowing the “slow-note cantus firmus” to stand out against right-hand elaborations as if two manuals were being used. Yet no normal two-manual organ could ever achieve the effect so convincingly. An understanding of the 13th-century Notre Dame school of Léonin and Pérotin—also tried out at the conference—was clarified through performance on this instrument. All present knew instinctively that they were in the presence of a special musical integrity and masterly instrument building.¹²

Another organ, of an altogether different, rather later style, was the largest of several provided by Walter Chinaglia. This remarkable organo di legno brought to mind a passage in Benvenuto Cellini’s autobiography: 

 

My father began teaching me to play upon the flute and sing by note; but notwithstanding I was of that tender age when little children like to take pastime in whistles and such toys, I had an inexpressible dislike for it, and played and sang only to obey him. At this time my father fashioned wonderful organs with pipes made of wood, spinets the fairest and most excellent which could then be seen, viols and lutes and harps of the most beautiful and perfect construction.¹³

What could be called Chinaglia’s Cellini Principals are exceptionally fine ranks, made from a beautiful red-yellow cypress, which even contributes scent to the total experience of this organ. They run through the entire range of its keyboard at both 8′ and 4′ pitches. The third register, an exquisite Krummhorn-Regal with a beautifully full and rich quality in spite of its pencil-thin resonators, adds a strong and spicy finish to the tonal resources.¹⁴ He also brought along several positives and portatives, one very fine positive emulating that in the van der Goes painting in Scotland.¹⁵

Of particular interest to everybody at the symposium was a new interpretation of the ancient Roman organ finds from Aquincum (Hungary). It was built by
A. Schuke Potsdam-Orgelbau GmbH (Germany) for the Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum Mainz (Germany); research, design, and concept were by Susanne Rühling M.A. and Michael Zierenberg.¹⁶ Extra time had to be allocated, taken from later sessions, allowing a second round of discussion about this amazing but potent little replica. It stood there, like a proud Roman sentinel, on its brown hexagonal pedestal, a living and working monument, mostly in copper or bronze, to the organ belonging to Aquincum’s 3rd-century fire brigade. Its prototype ironically survived a fire by falling into the cellar. Were they all out that night? Perhaps the seemingly unanswerable question—“Was it a hydraulis or a bellows organ?”—might be given a nudge towards hydraulis, since its survival could have been the result of having water poured over it as it fell? It is doubtful that burning floors falling into cellars with highly flammable organ bellows would do anything more than increase the conflagration. Such speculations aside, this instrument looked more like something from the age of steam and polished brass. Indeed, its amazing sounds were quite reminiscent of steam whistles. Justus Willberg also tours Europe with a hydraulis,¹⁷ complete with air-pumps, water cistern, pnigeus, and Greek repertoire, but following the older, Walcker-Mayer interpretation. He was in Basel not so long before the June event, another manifestation of this fascinating phenomenon. The sounds of these Roman organs seem not unrelated to the new Rims organ when first heard from a modern perspective, although they are in reality tonally, musically, and mechanically universes apart.

Another star of both events was the two-stop, one-manual and pedal positive made for the author in 2010 by van der Putten. This instrument was also partly influenced by the van der Goes painting. The organ and I had been invited to make the trip from Basel specifically to talk, play, and be played at this conference. Much of the woodwork is Lebanese cedar, again contributing scent to the total experience. It was used in every concert and demonstration and featured twice on the cover of the flyer. (Rysum was the third.) The two Rhede flyer photos were taken at the Basel event by Jos van der Giessen where the Peterskirche appropriately provided a neatly framed, truly “Gothic” background.¹⁸ The positive was moved from Laufen (Switzerland, near Basel) to Rhede (Germany), then Huizinge (Netherlands), Rysum (Germany), Rhede (Germany), Groningen (Netherlands), Finsterwolde (Netherlands), and back to Laufen (Switzerland) during this northern sojourn—about 12 days.

The rest of the Rhede Symposium consisted of demonstrations, concerts, lectures, a church service, socializing, and networking. The invitees included Harald Vogel, Winold van der Putten, Koos van de Linde, Cor Edskes (paper read in absentia), Susanne Rühling, Winfried Dahlke, Jankees Braaksma, Tomas Flegr, and myself. Themes ranged around gothic pipe-making, wind pressures, voicing, repertoire, performance practice, the problems and advantages in the anachronous use of tuning slides in modern copies of early organs, the towering figure of Arnaut de Zwolle, medieval organ design (cases, windchests, specifications, keys), the Blockwerk, surviving literature, touch sensitivity on portatives, the use of bells with medieval organs, Pythagorean tempering, and much more.

Time simply ran out. The richness of thematic material, available expertise, the many discussion by-products, and the ravenous cultural, intellectual, and musical hunger of all gathered together for this event turned out to be quite overwhelming for the organizers. Some speakers and players had to seriously curtail their offerings. Frustrating though this was, it should be no enduring problem as long as the need for more is acknowledged.

Thus it was that, on Saturday afternoon, September 8, 2012, momentarily lacking a program, I turned to Jos van der Giessen and asked, “When does this finish?” Even the fascinating unscheduled double session by Koos van de Linde (Netherlands/Germany) ranging from Arnaut de Zwolle to the much-discussed Utrecht Nicolaïkerk organ restoration¹⁹ was not fully done. Three more speakers were impossibly scheduled in the 30 minutes before the close at 4:30 pm. My question was intended to be “When does this (session) finish”—but the response fittingly, amusingly, and intentionally misinterpreted it, summing up the spirit which had been engendered by all the 2012 events: “Never, I hope!”

For the phenomenologists, at least four medieval organ events in around four months—Basel, Netherlands, Rhede, Sion—must be something of a landmark for 2012.

•

Immediately following the Rhede Symposium, on Sunday, September 9, after the closing church service in Rysum, a further concert was held in Groningen’s De Oosterpoort Concert Hall. Arrangements had been made that my instrument would remain in the Netherlands for a few days before being returned to Switzerland. Jankees Braaksma (Netherlands) and Tomas Flegr (Czech Republic) played it with the group Vox Resonans, the ensemble adding that sparkle and transformed sound that has been frequently noted with this organ: those who had attended both events were still commenting on Tobie Miller’s hurdy-gurdy playing in Basel and the amazing soundscapes created when organistrum and organum are played in ensemble. The dance group, RenaiDanse,²⁰ led by Veronique Daniels (Switzerland), and instrumentalists also featured in two of the Rhede Symposium concerts as well as this Groningen event. They all earned a double standing ovation in Groningen—one after the concert, another after the encore. The calcant (the organ’s builder), physically exhausted and suffering from a serious workshop injury incurred just before the symposium, was fittingly included with the performers in these accolades.

 

Quo vadis?

The many themes raised by these conferences can only be dealt with through an enduring continuum of instrument building, research, discussion, publication, and many more such events. This arena is a collection of musical swords that still need much more rattling in their scabbards. Basel and Rhede together were able to pose important questions, and even answer some, at least in the short term. But long-term answers are needed, since both the practice and the research is relatively recent, tends to be revelatory, and is ongoing—very much an essential part of the phenomenon.

There were questions posed about the nicknaming of the Rutland Psalter copy as a “Theophilus” organ. Of course, with hindsight we can now view this as two ends of a historical progression and clearly distinguish between them as organ types. Simple, well-intended glossing can grow into habits that become less correct as time progresses. Such expressions tend to stick, even when more recent knowledge overtakes them. Another habit of this kind began to be formed at these conferences when—rightly enough as a new venture in recreating pipe-making history—the so-called “pigeon’s egg” registers (three on the Rims organ, one on the Rumsey organ) were referred to just so: “pigeon’s egg ranks.” The term comes from the 11th-century Codex Bern (see endnote 9), where the measure of pipe diameters is explained as “the width of a pigeon’s egg.” Yet the eggs chosen were different and correctly discriminated between the eras the two instruments represented. Thus the ranks were not scaled to the same widths. The terminology really should have been “constant-scaled.” After that we might talk ancient treatises and ornithology.²¹ Likewise, in discussing the “wolf” in Pythagorean tempering, the interval really should have been referred to as “b to g♭” rather than “b to f♯”. And what were referred to as “pure thirds” are in fact just ever so slightly impure acoustically, since they are really Pythagorean diminished fourths, e.g., d–g♭, which are 384.36 cents, whereas a truly pure major third is 386.31 cents. True, normal human perception cannot distinguish between them.²² Again, strictly speaking, the hydraulis presented was closer to a bellows organ. 

These matters need little further comment here; the intention is clear in every case once the context is clarified and human nature to gloss, nickname, and abbreviate is acknowledged. Exact terminology usually sorts itself out eventually as needs arise and awareness increases—although a general tendency to slow progress is lamentable.

What needs probing now includes the following:

Medieval Tuning and Tempering: A frequent modern assumption that earlier Pythagorean temperaments mostly had the “wolf” at G♯–E♭²³ seems only rarely to be hinted at in ancient sources. It has sometimes been recommended or assumed by exponents of this culture, including Mark Lindley, although often with serious reservations or caveats.²⁴ Others, such as Adam B. Rahbee, are known to be investigating this.²⁵ Further results are eagerly awaited from him and others. However, the most likely outcome, endemic to this medieval discipline it would seem, is that there was no single standard. One particularly fascinating development of this was how, in the half-century or so before Schlick (the work of Arnaut de Zwolle, Pietro Aaron, et al), the pure thirds/diminished fourths were shifted and came into line with four of what became mean-tone temperament’s normal eight.²⁶

Fingering: The use only of 2nd, 3rd, and 4th fingers when playing medieval keyboard music was strongly promoted in the Rhede masterclasses. There was a claim that it was impossible to use thumb and 5th finger anyway, especially when playing portatives. Yet this was proven wrong by at least one participant, who repeatedly and comfortably used all fingers. When an octave span is required in, e.g., a 3-part Buxheim²⁷ piece, and it can only be played by one hand because the other is too far removed to help out, then how can the thumb not be used, especially if the keys are substantially wider than modern keys and there is no pedal? (Horror of horrors: was the rule of exclusively 2nd, 3rd, and 4th fingers partly formulated by people playing relatively narrow modern keyboards?) Aside from Tobie Miller’s hurdy-gurdy playing in Basel, the finely fingered performances by Brett Leighton—who takes Buchner’s Fundamentum organisandi of c. 1520 and his Quem terra pontus as a point of departure—also linger very well in collective memory.²⁸

Music and its structures: Much of the medieval repertoire could have been intended for constant-scaled ranks. The music of Robertsbridge²⁹ and Faenza³⁰ seem often to rely on the development of tension through tessitura variation and the relation of this to changing tonal qualities induced by scaling practices. Redeuntes, for example, sound wonderful on constant-scaled ranks as the figuration rises and falls. This music thrives on “intensity climaxes” that higher-pitched, fuller and flutier constant-scaled ranks produce. No modern scaling can possibly achieve this. The first Estampie from Robertsbridge has one “punctus” after another, each getting successively higher than the preceding, until the final one just blooms with the highest and most intensely flutey notes of all. It is not just constant-scaled ranks but also other scaling practices from this era—e.g., Arnaut’s “halving on the octave with addition constant”—that can produce this effect. Essentially all early scaling practices do to varying degrees, but the more scaling practice approaches modern schemes, such as Töpfer’s norms,³¹ the less marked this effect becomes, and the music ends up sounding relatively flat and lifeless.

Metallurgy—copper, lead, tin, and alloys—plays a most critical role. The use of wood for pipes is another question, particularly the issue of its first clearly recorded use—Italy, late 15th century?³² The Sion (Switzerland) Valeria organ has a “Copel” made from wood, now dendrochronologically dated from around early 15th century.³³ Of course, wood was introduced at some stage between the hydraulis and Arnaut de Zwolle as a material replacing the earlier copper/bronze variants used in making windchests.³⁴ Similarly, early conical metal pipe-forms and the potential confusion they cause in the iconography with wood needs investigation.³⁵ The relics at Hamar, Norway, may eventually provide a key.

The apparently sudden change from copper/bronze to lead at the turn of the 13th century is an interesting phenomenon: that lead was far more malleable than copper may have been a driving motivation clinching change. But the tonal effect was so strikingly softer and sweeter that this was expressly noted in many contemporary tracts.³⁶ It must have come as a profoundly exciting development, part of the Ars Nova/Ars Antiqua watershed. Notated organ music first consistently appeared just after the change—some of it might suit the sound of tin or copper but most of it plays remarkably well on lead pipework. Did the notion of accompanied voices rather than alternatim also receive some kind of stimulus here? And the desire to separate a single 8′ out from a Blockwerk: was this also part of the switch to lead? Later register names, such as Doof, hint at this, for the softer tones of lead must have seemed “deaf” compared either to copper pipes or the presence of upperwork of any kind. It was mainly in the centuries after this change that the typical, relatively small, medieval organ began to share the stage with some increasingly multi-ranked Blockwerks. The facility of the larger Blockwerks to be reduced to a single, sweet foundation rank must have been very alluring, whether for accompaniment or contrast.

Blockwerk registrations were sometimes recommended for pieces played by participants in Rhede—but how many organs pre-15th century had more than about one, two, or three ranks? Two of these ranks were often enough simply a doubled unison. The most spectacular Blockwerks were reported by Wulstan at Winchester in the 10th century or Praetorius at Halberstadt in the 14th or 15th century. Were some of these chroniclers, like us, more impressed with size—or hooked on hyperbole—than with making sober inventories of what was really there? Certainly, the three-rank Rims organ was closer to many Blockwerks of that era than the concept of a “Lokaz of at least 50 ranks,” to cite Schlick at the end of the era around 1511. And the Winchester organ: did this have copper pipes? Presumably. Was that—apart from its apparently anachronistically large mixture—another reason why it was reported as being so loud? Prima facie, sources and iconography prior to the 15th century indicate the existence of relatively few large Blockwerks compared to the many Positives and Portatives.

As with scaling, pitch, keyboard design, metallurgy, and everything else about medieval organs, there were no DIN specifications. Any investigative path is flawed if standards like this are sought. A variety of options needs to be tried within known tolerances, then optimums and limits found. Assessments can then follow, which might be region-, collection- or even specific work-oriented. It would be wonderful if some day money could be found to build an entire series of constant-scaled ranks from very thin to quite wide scaling, note the true ranges available, and try out repertoire on them, for instance that spanning the era between the Robertsbridge Codex and Buxheimer Orgelbuch. If further funding were available, then some copper pipes might also be tried, not for keyboard repertoire before this, since it virtually does not exist, but for ensembles (especially those commonly iconographically represented) and alternatim.

Did some or all the music in Faenza assume copper pipes, lead pipes, tin pipes, alloys? Constant or variable scaling? Pitches equivalent to A440, A466, A520 or something else? And where to place the “wolf”? A520, lead pipes, early Pythagorean tempering, and constant scaling certainly seem to work very well. But are our criteria correct? The experience of beautifully pure major thirds from Renaissance mean-tone tempering, or major thirds ranging from pure to mistuned in the circular temperings of the Baroque era, is very enticing to impressionable musicians travelling back from an accustomed equal tempering. Yet the sober reality is that pure thirds were sometimes expressly avoided, e.g., by Bach using remote keys with dissonant thirds to represent crucifixion, or even just sheer doggedness as with Thomas Roseingrave’s self-proclaimed love of F–G♯ rather than F–A♭ in his deliberate choice of a “nasty” F-minor tonality. Was the Pythagorean “wolf” sought out in like manner, or studiously avoided by these earlier musicians? Probably it was avoided if the evidence of modal transpositions is taken at face value—but even here there are questions that need working through.³⁷ In any case, there is no significant evidence in medieval music for an Affektenlehre and Figurenlehre: that was the culture of Bach, Handel, and Roseingrave.

To a degree, medieval voicing seems somewhat weather-prone: what barely works one day, might work well or not at all in the next cold snap or heat wave. And the organs of those days were only marginally protected from weather change compared to ours in air-conditioned buildings today. Thus: were their tolerances of pitch and tuning, including in ensemble, and with bells, more flexible than ours are today? Within limits, slight differences actually make these organs more interesting, as do historical voicing techniques—particularly the lack of total control with wide-open footholes. The lowest generally workable pitch from 27mm constant-scaled lead pipes is about modern (A440) tenor E♭. With 33mm it extends down to B♭, a fourth lower. Thus, pitches of organs produce differing manual compasses, or a few low pipes with ears needed to make them speak. As Winold van der Putten pointed out in Basel, “Medieval organ builders were no fools: it only takes cupping a hand around a pipe mouth to make it speak.” Iconography showing ears is, however, extremely elusive—jury out, experimentation and investigation still in. If, as seems likely, constant scaling was perpetuated well after the 11th century, whence these “pigeon’s egg” figures derive, then diameters could well have increased in time, allowing lower bass ranges and even more blooming trebles. The iconography, inter alia, suggests that this tendency could have persisted until early 15th century as diameters apparently became wider.³⁸ A targeted study of this is overdue.

If we retain all the parameters noted above, then reduce the size of the pigeon’s egg taken to 27mm, as with the Rims organ, little of Robertsbridge and Faenza at its notated pitch can be played satisfactorily unless the instrument is higher than A440. The very low notes cannot be voiced reliably using known medieval tools and techniques. Yet Léonin, Pérotin, or the Felix Namque of the Oxford MS sound totally convincing here with their more agile trebles—everything just bringing this music to a radiant vitality. The same applies for other parameters with Buxheimer, Ileborgh,³⁹ or various regional- or even specifically single-work instances.

Even so, did Léonin and Pérotin ever know lead pipes?

Research and experimentation not possible hitherto has now shown that constant scaling with pigeons’ egg dimensions around 33mm, and a pitch of at least A465 makes the first Estampie from Robertsbridge sound simply magnificent when transposed up a tone. That equates to A520—which should make some players of medieval instruments happy, since many project that pitch for some of their repertoire. All this, or an even higher pitch, brings “43” from Faenza truly to life in 33mm constant scaling. Lower that pitch and the bass notes of the Estampie are poor or missing, while the overall effect of “43” is relatively dull from trebles that simply do not bloom so well.

Of necessity, these assessments will always have a component of subjectivity in them. But not entirely: low pitches and constant scaling yield bass notes that do not repeat promptly, and others that will not speak properly, if at all—indicators that either pitch is too low, scaling too narrow, or later scaling practices could be appropriate. The physical limits of medieval organ compasses and pitch now need probing and defining. Any temptation to a general conformity of anything—pitch, scaling, metal alloy, tempering, fingering—must be addressed as a range or tolerance, given a specific set of parameters. This expressly includes repertoire and ensemble playing.

Standardization was a new concept that had to wait for Arnolt Schlick and later centuries. Interestingly, Schlick, relatively modern by comparison to the main thrust of these conferences, barely made it into the discussions.

 

A sequel? 

Thus, there was a consensus that intellectual and musical exchange should not simply vanish after this flush of medieval organ symposia during the European summer of 2012. Several events are already known to be foreshadowed. Of considerable interest will be a major symposium planned for the Amsterdam Orgelpark, June 6–8, 2013.⁴⁰ Wherever future events are held, it would be most welcome if they were not primarily talk-fests, but also included strong performance components. One small criticism of the Rhede Symposium was its predominance of talk over music. A four-way balance will always be needed with medieval organ cultures: talk, solo organ, alternatim, and in ensemble. In a way, these instruments were born to work in alternation with speech, chanting, silence, and possibly bells. It is particularly in ensemble that the iconography, literature, and extant music seems to be signposting the way ahead. Both Basel and Rhede showed that all four are needed for a completely balanced presentation of this highly fascinating culture. Basel strongly promoted alternatim and ensemble, and so did Rhede, the latter chiefly in concerts where dance was also represented. Would the miracle or mystery plays of the era be a good suggestion for some future events?

The Mainzer Hoftag of 1184 is usually reckoned as the greatest medieval festival in history. It was here that Friedrich Barbarossa knighted his sons, Heinrich VI and Friedrich V. A contemporary description of it included these lines:⁴¹

 

Dâ was spil end gesanc

End behurt ende dranc,

Pîpen ende singen

Vedelen ende springen,

Orgeln ende seitspelen,

Meneger slachten frouden vele.

 

There was playing and song,

And pushing and shoving,

Piping and singing,

Fiddles and dancing,

Organs and strings playing,

Many joyful things mingling.

 

Epilogue

The standing ovations in Groningen mentioned above had something of a cathartic feel to them, reflecting the exegesis in medieval organbuilding and musical performance that has taken place over the past several decades, especially in the events described above. Winold van der Putten’s organs were not at all alone in this, but he and his work were at the center of two of these conferences.⁴² His 1999 realization of the copy of the Rutland Psalter organ was an important trailblazer. This instrument was featured at the Rhede conference, along with some portatives for Jankees Braaksma and his group, Super Librum.⁴³ These were prototypes for most of what has followed as van der Putten and others investigated, experimented, and cracked the codes of medieval organbuilding and voicing. His recent constant-scaled ranks for myself and the Rims instrument were essayed only after much investigation and experimentation. In their own way, they alone deserved their rightful share of those standing ovations. Medieval organ scaling of this kind now seems set to be one of the next “revelations” in the performance of this music—not least in portatives where, oddly enough, it remains relatively untried.

 

David Rumsey⁴⁴ was born and educated in Sydney, Australia. He studied with Anton Heiller and Marie-Claire Alain in Europe 1963–66, then returned to a position at the University of Adelaide. Moving back to Sydney in 1969 he established a Department of Organ and Church Music, which survives the recent Australian educational and research funding cuts. For over 25 years, until 1998, he was the regular organist with the Sydney Symphony Orchestra and as such frequently presided over the Grand Organs of Sydney Opera House and Sydney Town Hall. Associations with multimedia events have included performances of the Saint-Saëns “Organ Symphony” to 100,000 people with the orchestra in the Sydney Domain, the organ via microwave link from Sydney Town Hall. In 1998, he wrote, produced, acted, and performed in a highly successful 14-hour musical and dramatic spectacle on the life of J.S. Bach, with actors in period costume from the National Institute of Dramatic Art (AUS), and musicians playing period instruments. He resigned his post in Sydney in 1998 and moved to Basel, Switzerland, where he continues working as an organist and consultant, and as a Senior Researcher at the University of Bern. Since 2007 he has been responsible for the editing and CD-production of historic organ recordings released under the OehmsClassics label using the historic Welte organ and its player-rolls at Seewen (SO-CH) and is regarded as an authority on aspects of medieval organ culture. He is organist at Herz Jesu Kirche in Laufen (BL-CH) and in-house consultant and organist to the Museum der Musikautomaten, Seewen (SO-CH).⁴⁵

 

Acknowledgements

(*) Seemingly the only images currently available, taken here from Stein Johannes Kolnes, Norsk orgelkultur—Instrument og miljø frå mellomalderen til I dag, Det Norske Samlaget, Oslo, 1987.

Thanks to John Liddy, Jos van der Giessen, Marc Lewon, and Elizabeth Rumsey for their help with this article, and to all who contributed photos and good advice. My apologies to Walter Chinaglia for not writing more about his organo di legno—space allocation just became too acute and this instrument really belongs to a slightly later epoch than the one mainly under discussion here. A fuller report on it can be seen at http://www.davidrumsey.ch/Chinaglia.htm.

 

Notes

1. Some details are available at www.david rumsey.ch/Medieval.php.

2. www.ostfriesischelandschaft.de/1097.html

3. Kimberly Marshall, Iconographical Evidence for the Late-Medieval Organ in French, Flemish, and English Manuscripts (New York: Garland Publishing, 1989), ISBN 0-8240-2047-2.

4. A description of the background to this, including mention of an earlier instrument by Yves Cabourdin, is available in Marcel Pérès, editor, Les orgues gothiques: Actes du Colloque de Royaument, 1995 (Paris, Editions Créaphis, 2000).

5. www.organa.it

6. www.marcus-stahl-orgelbauer.com

7. Wolkenstayn Orgelbau—also represented at the Basel event—www.wolkenstayn.de. He is arranging a course March 8–10, 2013, the “13. Etappe zur Frühen Musik,” dealing with Organetto/Portative playing, to be held at Burg Fuersteneck. Details on his website.

8. www.davidrumsey.ch/Bibliography.htm (see under 11th century)

9. Anonymous of Bern(e) or Codex Bern, Anonymus Bernensis etc., excerpt De fistulis organis/De organis.

10. In Michael Praetorius, Syntagma Musicum, Volume II, Wolfenbüttel 1618 (1619/20), section V, and Volume III 1619, section 7: “Das I. und II. Diskant-klavier.”

11. Oxford Douce MS 381

12. An alternatim (Veni creator spiritus) from an ad hoc Rhede performance can be heard at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgtszdCw91o&feature=youtu.be.

13. John Addington Symonds (1840–1893), trans., The Autobiography of Benvenuto Cellini, Chapter V. It is now available online as part of the “Gutenberg” project (see www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/4028).

14. Further details at: www.organa.it/page1/page14/page41/page41.html.

15. Hugo van der Goes, Ange jouant de l’orgue (Angel playing the organ), Flemish ca. 1480, Sir Edward Bonkil, Holyrood Castle, Edinburgh collection. For a sample (second from left) see https://d30dcznuokq8w8.cloudfront.net/works/r/bal/6/8/0/399086_full_102….

16. www.schuke.com/pages/de/projects#reconstructions

17. www.hydraulis.de

18. Remains of a hydraulis were excavated in Dion, Greece, in August 1992. A reconstruction has since been toured. See Peter Williams and Jean-Paul Montagnier, eds., The Organ Yearbook #33 (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 2004), p. 163; Michael Markovits, Die Orgel in Altertum (Leiden: Brill, 2003); and websites: www.culture.gr/2/23/232/epked/en/00_standard_menu/00a_ydraulis/00a.htm and www.mlahanas.de/Greece/Cities/Dion.html.

19. See Peter Williams, ed., The Organ Yearbook #41 (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 2012), pp. 7–35. Program at www.david rumsey.ch/index.pdf, images at www.david rumsey.ch/2012/album/index.html.

20. www.renaidanse.org/page/de/act.html

21. The sizes of pigeons’ eggs are discussed in a footnote to Part II, Section 1, of Christhard Mahrenholz, Die Berechnung der Orgelpfeifenmensuren vom Mittelalter bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Bärenreiter, 1968); also in English translation (Oxford: Positif Press, 1975). 

22. See also www.davidrumsey.ch/
tempering.pdf.

23. Really not a quint at all, but a diminished sixth, which has to function as a quint on the vast majority of keyboards where no split keys provide any better-tuned alternatives. This also applies to diminished fourths, which, in the Pythagorean temperings under discussion here, more accommodatingly or even fortuitously provide a near-pure major third.

24. An important essay on this subject by Mark Lindley can be found online at http://independent.academia.edu/MarkLindley/Papers/242254/Pythagorean_i…. See particularly Table 2, page 27, and the general discussion involving Odington, Spechtshart, et al. Certainly he presents much evidence for the B–G♭ wolf having more than a century’s demonstrable currency from 1413 to 1513 and correctly reminds us that the organ’s tuning cultures were often at variance with those of other instruments. The only significant assertion he makes for a G♯–E♭ wolf is for Robertsbridge (p. 33). Another essay, by Margo Schulter, can be viewed at www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/pyth4.html#1. See especially around “4.5 Pythagorean tuning modified: a transition around 1400,” where she assumes a G♯–E♭ wolf. In the final analysis, these do not argue very convincingly for a wolf at G♯–E♭ on purely statistical grounds. Of course, this only became a pressing issue when keyboards came to be divided into 12 or more discrete notes.

25. E.g., in a series of e-mail exchanges between Rahbee and the author dating June 28 to July 22, 2012. He is particularly interested in 15th- and 16th-century tempering practices and takes such relatively new material as the Cambrai MS into account (see Patrizio Barbieri, “An Unknown 15th-century French Manuscript on Organ Building and Tuning,” in Peter Williams, ed., The Organ Yearbook #20 [Laaber: Laaber-Verlag, 1989]). Rahbee is also exploring a hypothesis that meantone tempering may have come into widespread use somewhat later than is commonly believed. The apparently dual-tempered instruments of late 15th century, e.g., the Lorenzo da Pavia style of organ, may yet have much to offer on this topic. See http://www.david rumsey.ch/Iconography.pdf, pp. 7 and 8, and Marco Tiella, “The Positive Organ of Lorenzo da Pavia (1494),” in Peter Williams, ed., The Organ Yearbook #7 (Laaber: Laaber-Verlag 1976), pp. 4–15.

26. With a B–G♭ wolf giving near-pure major thirds (really diminished fourths) on A, D, E and B as opposed to the four (from a G♯–E♭ wolf tuning) quasi-pure major thirds on B, G♯, F♯, C♯ (see also endnote 22). This awakens interest in the potential adaptation of Pythagorean/B–G♭ tempering—seen as part of a transition to meantone—bearing, e.g., on the E-major/e-minor tuning dilemma in some Bruhns and early Bach organ works.

27. Das Buxheimer Orgelbuch, MS 3725, Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek, München.

28. Leighton’s point of departure is that Buch-ner was a Hofhaimer pupil, barely outlived his master, and most likely merely codified what he had been taught. The “good” fingers are 2 and 4, with scales played on lower keys executed, r.h. ascending and l.h. descending, as 2-3-2-3 (starting on strong beats), r.h. descending and l.h. ascending as 4-3-2-3-2-3, turn figures r.h. high-middle-low-middle and l.h. low-middle-high-middle as 4-3-2-3. The hand can be turned in the direction of travel when using paired fingerings (turning the hand in the direction of movement and keeping the fingers parallel to the keys were techniques used in the outgoing 16th century, their relative employment before that is a matter of speculation; Santa Maria and Diruta were in disagreement about this). Thumbs and fifth fingers are used in both hands (especially the left) when larger intervals require them. The iconography indicates use of left thumb when that hand played longer note values in three parts. Impractical passages sometimes need rule-breaking exceptions. Prohibition of using the same finger twice in succession is not endorsed in Quem terra pontus (which seems to have been fingered by a scribe rather than Buchner) and in polyphony, finger repetition is often the best musical and technical solution. (E-mail correspondence of 12.11.2012-3.12.2012).

29. Robertsbridge Codex/Robertsbridge fragment, London, British Library Add.
MS 28850. 

30. Faenza Codex, Faenza, Biblioteca Comunale, ms. 117.

31. See J.G. Töpfer, Lehrbuch der Orgelbaukunst, in 4 volumes (Weimar, 1855, and Mainz: Rheingold-Verlag, 1955–60).

32. See www.davidrumsey.ch/Technology.htm.

33. See Friedrich Jakob et al. in Die Valeria-Orgel. Ein gotisches Werk in der Burgkirche zu Sitten/Sion (Zurich, Verlag der Fachvereine, 1991), ISBN 3-7281-1666-1 and the updates in La Tribune de L’orgue, ed. Guy Bovet (Geneva), in numbers 56/3 and 61/2. A subsidiary issue here is that many of the older metal pipes at Sion appear not to have been hammered, but retain a thick, rough—even slightly porous?—post-casting appearance.

34. As noted, e.g., by Markovits in Die Orgel in Altertum. See, e.g., pp. 342, 418, and especially p. 444, where metal scarcities in the middle ages are said to have driven the change to wood, etc. (cf. pp. 198). Note also the tin- or copper/bronze-veneered wooden plates of windchests. This book is also available for viewing online at http://books.google.ca/books?id=p7amFlH7Bg0C&pg=PA401&source=gbs_toc_r&….

35. A need to be cautious here is underscored by an illusion in some representations, such as that of the Dame à la Licorne tapestry (http://www.davidrumsey.ch/Iconography.pdf, p. 5), where the pipe tops appear cylindrical, but lower down, under the bar, seem square.

36. E.g., see www.davidrumsey.ch/index.pdf—the Jerome de Moravia quote. In that connection a question (cf. Markovits endnote 33 above) that needs raising may well be: If metal was scarce, then what drove the change to lead so strongly (and e.g., not to wood)?

37. Lindley (op. cit., p .5) for example claims that most of Buxheim seems “. . . in certain cases at least, to require some form of meantone temperament for its proper effect” but gives no clear criteria. My own experience is contrary to this, having tried both, and I am mostly very comfortable with a Pythagorean/B–G♭ wolf for Buxheim. Criteria of this kind are difficult to formulate, save to note that resting points in the music, apart from open fifths and octaves, seem often enough to occur with the near-pure thirds of e.g., an A-major or D-major triad (a feature also noted by Lindley, pp. 42–43). We have to face the fact that medieval musicians themselves applied no consistent criteria here—a proposition that Lindley gives credence to with his quotation (p. 4) of the Spataro/Gaffurio and many other bitter contemporary conflicts around such issues. By virtue of its three additional pipes per octave, the medieval organ built by Winold van der Putten for me in 2010 is capable of playing in a variety of early Pythagorean temperings. With options of pipes to play either D♭ or C♯, G♭ or F♯, and A♭ or G♯, this currently allows any of the following tempering configurations:

Wolf G♯–E♭: E♭ B♭ F C G D A E B F♯ C♯ G♯

Wolf C♯–A♭: A♭ E♭ B♭ F  C G D A E B F♯ C♯

Wolf F♯–D♭: D♭ A♭ E♭ B♭ F C G D A E B F♯

Wolf B–G♭: G♭ D♭ A♭ E♭B♭ F C G D A E B

E♭/D♯ and B♭/A♯ choices (not yet built 2012) would further increase these options with:

Wolf D♯–B♭: B♭ F C G D A E B F♯ C♯ G♯ D♯

Wolf A♯–F: F C G D A E B F♯ C♯ G♯ D♯ A♯

So far a lack of available time has allowed only limited exploration of these variants.

38. www.davidrumsey.ch/Iconography.pdf

39. Incipiunt praeludia diversarium notarum secundum modernum modum subitliter et diligentor collecta cum mensuris diversis hic infra annexis by Adam Ileborgh of Stendal, 1448 (Ileborgh: Paris, private collection [‘Ileborgh Tablature’]).

40. www.orgelpark.nl/pages/home

41. Quoted in Jean Perrot, The Organ, from Its Invention in the Hellenistic Period to the End of the Thirteenth Century (London: Oxford University Press, 1971, ISBN 0 19 318418 4), trans. Norma Dean, p. 268. Perrot is sourcing this from Th. Gérold, La Musique au Moyen Age (Paris: Champion, 1932), p. 419.

42. www.orgelmakerij.nl

43. www.superlibrum.nl

44. www.davidrumsey.ch/index.php

45. www.bundesmuseen.ch/musikautomat en/index.html?lang=en

Gavin Black

Gavin Black is director of the Princeton Early Keyboard Center in Princeton, New Jersey. Gavin can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Clavichord II

Last month’s column ended with a description of the fretted clavichord, a clavichord in which for at least part of the compass some adjacent pitches are grouped onto the same strings as one another. This practice has some musical implications. The most important compositional implication of fretting on clavichords is that certain groups of notes cannot be expected to sound together. On a very early clavichord that has some notes grouped in fours, there are even minor thirds that cannot be used as harmonic intervals. Designers of instruments have always worked with an awareness of what was going on in the musical culture as a whole, and the choices about what notes to group together were made, like tuning choices, in sync with what composers and performers needed or wanted. If the four notes grouped together were B-flat, B, C, C-sharp, then the minor third that was lost would be B-flat to C-sharp (D-flat). This interval was not likely to be used anyway in the era of meantone tuning: composers had already accepted that limitation because of the various perceived advantages of that tuning. Over the years, composers began to wish to use more intervals and to use them more freely and flexibly. That led both to the development of more flexible tuning systems and to the evolution of clavichord fretting towards, at first, smaller groupings, and then no fretting at all. On a fully unfretted clavichord, common in the mid- to late-18th and early 19th centuries, you can play any or all of the notes together you may wish, as on any harpsichord, piano, or organ. 

A fretted clavichord has the following features, some of which may be considered advantages—ones that were lost, as time went on, in exchange for the flexibility of the unfretted instrument. It has fewer strings than an unfretted clavichord with the same compass, and therefore needs less work to tune it. Since the fretting—in particular, how far apart the tangents playing different notes on the same strings are placed— determines some of the details of the tuning, the amount of judgment about temperament that a tuner must make is reduced. However, the possibility of tuning the same instrument in different temperaments from one time to another is also reduced.

There is an interesting tie-in there with the organ. Any harpsichord or piano can be retuned to any temperament whatsoever quite easily as part of a normal tuning. In fact, with a harpsichord, changing temperament is not an added bit of work at all in the grand scheme of things, since you have to retune the whole instrument frequently anyway. Re-tempering an organ is, like re-tempering a fretted clavichord, a long, involved, difficult project, not often undertaken.

Because they have fewer strings, fretted clavichords are smaller and lighter than unfretted ones. This was, and still can be, an advantage wherever space was limited and an advantage for travel. Smaller instruments tend to be louder than larger ones, and also to have a more pungent, intense sound that is often perceived as having more “character.” That concept is subjective and also subject to considerable variation in individual cases. 

The existence of this kind of fretting had a particular limited but important influence on keyboard-playing technique that can be used in teaching. We have seen that on a fretted instrument some notes cannot be played together. However, it is entirely possible to play those notes in quick succession, in either direction or in any order. Practicing playing two notes that are bound together on one string both promptly one after the other and cleanly is good training for clean, accurate, precisely timed playing in general. If you have access to a fretted clavichord, find two adjacent notes that use the same strings and try a few things with those notes. First play them back and forth in succession with one finger. The effect will be generously detached. Then switch to a non-disjunct fingering, but still play them detached. Then try making them closer and closer to legato, and also faster and faster in alternation. This will converge on being a trill. You will hear clearly if you violate the autonomy of the two notes by trying to play one before you have released the other.

But in sketching out that exercise I am getting a little bit ahead of myself. That is because of one feature that distinguishes the clavichord from all other keyboard instruments. At any other sort of keyboard instrument, the act of moving a key down from its resting position will always and inevitably cause the instrument to produce its sound. On harpsichord and organ, the pressing of a key will give the full normal sonority, regardless of anything whatsoever about how that pressing is done or who is doing it. It need not even be a human: ask Scarlatti’s cat. On the piano, a deliberate effort to push the key down slowly will give very little volume, perhaps even none. But no particular skill, technique, or experience is necessary to push a key down and make a note sound. On the clavichord, it is entirely possible to press a key down and get, not a musical note, but rather a sort of funny clicking or spitting noise. As with string or wind instruments, there is a particular technical requirement that underlies the basic act of getting the instrument to produce musical sound. A description of that technique can be elusive, partly because it seems to feel and act rather differently from one clavichord to another. The gist of it is that since the key—really, the tangent—remains in contact with the string while the string is sounding, the finger pressure on the key has to start out right and remain right. If it wavers, the tangent is likely to rebound briefly from the string and then damp the sound or fail to make the sonority happen in various other ways.    

There are five clavichords on which I have done a lot of practicing over the last several years. On one of them, a modern-built instrument that deviates a fair amount from historical practice, it is fairly easy to produce real tone. Only by violating in a pretty extreme way some of the technical imperatives that I will mention below can you make the instrument not give a legitimate basic sound. On at least two of the others, including an instrument built in the eighteenth century, I have to focus very intensely and do everything right that I possibly know how to do right in order to get consistent basic sound. As I mentioned briefly in a recent column about the fifth finger, even then I have recurrent trouble making a beautiful, full sound with the fifth finger of either hand. (And I am a pretty adept keyboard player with a tremendous amount of experience with clavichord in general and with these particular instruments.)  

Most of the time, the more firmly you play, the easier it is to get legitimate tone out of a clavichord. However the sound that you get by playing hard enough to be certain of a real and sustained tone is not often the most beautiful sound that the instrument can make. Furthermore, needing to play firmly all of the time restricts the expressive use of dynamics. (It might also tend to throw the pitch of notes off.) More useful is this: the farther out on the keys you play, the more likely you are to produce real sound. Playing at the outer edge of the key also increases rather than limits control over every aspect of the sound, including dynamic nuance. Tone production is also aided by keeping the hand relaxed and by using hand positions that permit playing the keys from above, not from the side. All of these things are good and useful in organ and harpsichord playing as well. But in those contexts they only increase control over the subtleties of attack and release sounds. On the clavichord they are necessary for basic tone production. This is probably the essence of why the clavichord has always been considered a good practice and preparation instrument. It requires you to do, and therefore reinforces your awareness of doing or not doing, things that are very good but not as obvious in playing other instruments.

 

Acquiring my first clavichord

I had never actually played a clavichord, not even individual notes, before the day when I took delivery nearly 35 years ago of the first clavichord I ever owned. The instrument was a small late-Renaissance style fretted clavichord with a wonderful dry resonant sound. I still have it, and it is still a favorite of mine. Not surprisingly, as I tried to play it that day I had no idea what I was doing. And that lack of any idea manifested itself in my not being able to get a real musical sound or, on some notes, a recognizable pitch from the instrument. As best I remember, I panicked a bit about whether there was something wrong with the instrument, which I had bought used based on a description and a recommendation, not on having heard, seen, or played it. Then I also panicked about whether I was or wasn’t someone who could ever learn to control something like this. But I kept playing, and as I did so, I found myself reinventing that which we call “early fingering.” 

In an initially desperate effort to get sound out of the instrument, I started playing out near the edges of the keys. Then I realized that I had to keep my hand in a comfortable position, not twisted appreciably, especially not twisted outward, which locks the wrist. I also realized that it was difficult to get the fifth finger to make a good sound. Meanwhile, the combination of playing out on the keys and the necessary hand position made it awkward or sometimes impossible to use the thumbs. This began to add up to an unsystematic but pretty close version of the sorts of fingering that we see in 16th and 17th century manuscripts and treatises. This in turn suggested to me that perhaps those fingerings were at least as much about instrument and technique, that is, technique for creating sound, as they were about music and interpretation, though they deeply influence the latter.

This is how I came to acquire that clavichord. In the early spring of 1982 I visited Buffalo, New York, in order to attend as an auditor a series of master classes given by the pianist Mieczyslaw Horszowski. He was and still is a musical hero of mine. I believe I had traveled significantly farther than anyone else who came to the week of events, and the staff members at SUNY Buffalo were sort of impressed and pleased by that. They were friendly and welcoming to me, helping me find a room and so on. In fact, I was asked if I wanted to ride along to the motel on the first day that I was there to pick up Mr. Horszowski and his wife, Bice Costa. Of course I went along, scared, shy, and nervous. In the car I explained who I was: a student of harpsichord and organ, hoping to make a career as a player and teacher. Horszowski, almost ninety years old and one of the great late-Romantic pianists with a career beginning in the 19th century, frowned a bit and said, “there is one beautiful keyboard instrument that you do not play.” I sunk as deep as I could into my seat in the car and began to figure out how to respond to the inevitable chiding about not playing the piano. After all, that was the late 19th-century perspective. It was also pretty much the late 20th-century perspective, and I had fielded that question many times, though never from such an august source. 

He then emphatically and joyfully exclaimed the word “clavichord!” 

I mumbled something about how I was planning to learn clavichord, but hadn’t found exactly the right instrument yet, etc., trying not to feel like too much of an early music fraud. The immediate and most important lesson for me was not to make assumptions about what other people’s perspectives were. The longer lesson was that perhaps I ought to get involved with the clavichord. I believe that it was actually during that week that I started making phone calls looking for a good used clavichord that I could afford to buy. That brought me to the day I acquired my first such instrument.

 

Playing the clavichord   

In playing the clavichord, it is possible to introduce a sort of vibrato to the sound. This is unique among keyboard instruments, and it is another consequence of the tangent’s remaining in contact with the string for as long as you hold a note. If you change the pressure on the key and thus the pressure that the tangent puts on the string, you will change the amount that the string is stretched and thus change its pitch. You can change this pressure by pushing a bit farther down after you have played a note and then relaxing that extra push, doing this back and forth at the speed that you want for your vibrato, for as long as you wish your vibrato to last. You can also do it by keeping your ostensible finger pressure steady, but sliding the finger back and forth along the length of the key. This latter technique seems to be less common, certainly in practice today, perhaps historically. It usually results in a gentler vibrato. That is, it produces a gentle vibrato, whereas the up-and-down technique can produce a stronger one. There is certainly a risk of the vibrato’s being strong enough to come across as out-of-tune, and it is up to the performer to control this appropriately. The historical record leaves it unclear how widely this vibrato was applied at different times and in different places. However, it was an important and well-documented part of the expressive technique of the clavichord in the late 18th century, as the piano was gaining importance and the harpsichord and clavichord were waning. 

The photograph on the preceding page shows the keyboard of an 18th-century clavichord that I was lucky to acquire a few years ago. It is unsigned and undated. The fairly wide compass, four and a half octaves, from CC to f′′′, suggests that it is not from too early in the century. It is double-fretted, which suggests a date that is not too late. It is probably from the second quarter of the 18th century from somewhere in the German-speaking regions of Europe. This instrument was once owned by the American instrument dealer and collector Morris Steinert, who exhibited it at the Columbian Exposition in Chicago in 1893. The instrument is normally housed at the Princeton Early Keyboard Center studio.

These two columns are just a very brief introduction to the clavichord. I strongly recommend sitting at an instrument, whenever you can track one down, and just playing, bearing in mind the few technical matters that I mentioned above. Like me years ago, at first, you (and your students) may think that it is impossible. But that will melt away rather naturally with patient experience.

I direct your attention to a few further resources about the clavichord. There is a book by Bernard Brauchli called The Clavichord, which is a thorough and well  laid-out introduction to the history of the instrument, including iconography and written mentions. It is heavily illustrated and a magnificent reference. There is a publication called De Clavicordio, which is the proceedings of the International Clavichord Symposium. It has been published every two years or so since 1994 and is full of interesting material. The website of the Boston Clavichord Society (http://www.bostonclavichord.org) has information about the instrument and about activities in that region. A highlight of that website is a series of videos featuring performer and teacher Peter Sykes. One of those videos is a concise demonstration of two instruments, one fretted and one unfretted. It covers some of what I have written about here, with the advantage of allowing you to see and hear what is going on. The website also has an impressively thorough clavichord discography.

The Australian instrument maker Carey Beebe has a website that is a cornucopia of information about harpsichords, clavichords, and related matters. It is well written and organized; see www.hpschd.nu/clav.html. From there you can navigate to anything else on the site. The website of instrument builder Keith Hill has an interesting essay about clavichords: keithhillharpsichords.com/clavichords/. I was struck by a comment that I found there, and I quote it to close for this month:

 

At their very best, clavichords should have the sound of thought. If this idea is new to you, focus for a while on your own thoughts and calculate how “loud” they are. Thought sounds extremely intense when empassioned with meaning.

John Bishop

A Pokémon world

Last week, I visited a church in Brooklyn, New York, to talk with the rector, wardens, and organist about placing a vintage pipe organ in their historic building. After the meeting, I walked the eight blocks up Nostrand Avenue back to the subway. It was 97°, so I stopped at a corner bodega for a bottle of cold water. While I was paying, there was a series of great crashes just up the street, and I was among the crowd that gathered to see what had happened. A white box truck had rear-ended a car stopped at a traffic light and shoved that car into another that was parked at the curb. The truck must have been going pretty fast because there was lots of damage to all three vehicles—broken glass everywhere, hubcaps rolling away, mangled metal. Apparently, no one was hurt, but everyone present was hollering about Pokémon. 

“Innocent until proven guilty” is an important concept in our system of law enforcement, but it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that the driver of the truck was chasing a virtual-reality fuzzy something-or-other, and didn’t have his eyes on the road. When I told my son Chris about it, he asked, “So . . . , what did he catch?” 

Take away the deadly weapon of the automobile, and you’re left with at least a nuisance. Living in a big city, much of our mobile life is on foot, and we routinely cross streets with dozens of other people. It’s usual for someone to be walking toward me with ear buds pushed in far enough to meet in the middle, their nose buried in their screen. I often shout, “Heads up,” to avoid a collision. I wonder what’s the etiquette in that situation? When there’s a collision on the sidewalk and the phone falls and shatters, whose fault is it?

I know I’ve called home from a grocery store to double-check items on my list, but I’m annoyed by the person who stands in the middle of the aisle, cart askew, talking to some distant admirer. Perhaps worst is the young parent pushing a $1,000 stroller, one of those jobs with pneumatic suspension, talking on the phone and ignoring the child. No, I’m wrong. Worst is that same situation when the child has a pink kiddie-tablet of his own, and no one is paying attention to anyone. Small children are learning billions of bytes every moment—every moment is a teaching moment. It’s a shame to leave them to themselves while talking on the phone. 

The present danger is the possibility of accidents that result from inattention. The future danger is a world run by people who grew up with their noses in their screens, ignoring the world around them.

 

Starry eyes

An archeological site at Chankillo in Peru preserves the remains of a 2,300- year-old solar observatory comprising thirteen towers whose positions track the rising and setting arcs of the sun, their eternal accuracy confirmed by modern research. There are similar sites in ancient Mesopotamia. If I had paid better attention to my middle school Social Studies teacher, Miss Wood, who nattered on about the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers as if she were reading from a phone book, I’d have a better understanding of modern Iraq and the tragedy of the current destruction of ancient sites there. 

Early astronomers like Aristotle (around 350 BC) and Ptolemy (around 150 AD) gave us the understanding of the motions of celestial bodies. I imagine them sitting on hillsides or cliffs by the ocean for thousands of nights, staring at the sky and realizing that it’s not the stars, but we who are on the move. I wonder if there’s anyone alive today with such an attention span.

 

The man from Samos

In April of 2014, Wendy and I and three other couples, all (still) close friends, chartered a 60-foot sailboat for a week of traveling between Greek Dodecanese Islands in the Aegean Sea. These islands are within a few miles of Turkey, and many of us are increasingly familiar with that region as the heart of the current refugee crises. The island of Lesbos has a population of 90,000, and 450,000 refugees passed through in 2015. Lesbos was not part of our itinerary, but it’s adjacent to other islands we visited. We visited Patmos, where St. John the Divine, sequestered in a cave, received the inspiration we know as the Book of Revelation, but for me, our visit to Samos was a pilgrimage.

Pythagoras is my hero. He was a native of Samos who lived from 570 BC to 495 BC. He gave us the eponymous theory defining the hypotenuse of the right triangle, and importantly to readers of The Diapason, he defined musical tone and intervals in terms of mathematics that led directly to our modern study of musical theory. He was the direct forebear of the art of music. Approaching the island from the north, we entered the harbor of the main town (also called Samos) to be welcomed by a statue of Pythagoras. It shows the great man posed as one side of a right triangle, a right triangle in his left hand, and right forefinger pointing skyward toward a (compact fluorescent) light bulb. Okay, okay, it’s pretty tacky—even hokey, but you should see the Pythagoras snow-globe I bought there that graces the windowsill in my office.

Pythagoras deduced the overtone series by listening to blacksmiths’ hammers and anvils; he realized overtones are a succession of intervals defined by a mathematical series, and you cannot escape that his genius was the root of music. He noticed that blacksmiths’ hammering produced different pitches, and he first assumed that the size of the hammer accounted for the variety. It’s easy to duplicate his experiment. Find any object that makes a musical tone when struck—a bell, a cooking pot, a drinking glass. Hit it with a pencil, then hit it with a hammer. You’ll get the same pitch both times, unless you break the glass. So the size of the anvil determines the pitch. 

But wait, there’s more. Pythagoras noticed that each tone consisted of many. He must have had wonderful ears, and he certainly was never distracted by his smart phone ringing or pushing notifications, because he was able to start picking out the individual pitches. Creating musical tones using a string under tension (like a guitar or violin), he duplicated the separate tones by stopping the string with his finger, realizing that the first overtone (octave) was reproduced by half the full length (1:2), the second (fifth) resulted from 2:3, the third by 3:4, etc. That numerical procession is known as the Fibonacci Series, named for Leonardo Fibonacci (1175–1250) and looks like this:

1+1=2

1+2=3

2+3=5

3+5=8, etc., ad infinitum.

The Fibonacci Series defines mathematical relationships throughout nature —the kernels of a pinecone, the divisions of a nautilus shell, the arrangements of seeds in a sunflower blossom, rose petals, pineapples, wheat grains, among countless others. And here’s a good one: count out how many entrances of the subject in Bach’s fugues are on Fibonacci numbers. 

 

Blow, ye winds . . . 

If you’ve ever blown on a hollow stem of grass and produced a musical tone, you can imagine the origin of the pipe organ. After you’ve given a hoot, bite an inch off your stem and try again: you’ll get a different pitch. Take a stick of bamboo and carve a simple mouthpiece at one end. Take another of different length, and another, and another. Tie them together and you have a pan-pipe. You’re just a few steps away from the Wanamaker!

I have no idea who was the first to think of making a thin sheet of metal, forming it as a cylinder, making a mouthpiece in it, devising a machine to stabilize wind-pressure, and another machine to choose which notes were speaking, but there’s archeological evidence that people were messing around like that by 79 AD, when Mt. Vesuvius erupted, destroying the city of Pompeii, and preserving a primitive pipe organ. And 350 years earlier, in Alexandria, Egypt, the Hydraulis was created, along with visual depictions accurate enough to support the construction of a modern reproduction.

I’m sure that the artisans who built those instruments were aware of Pythagoras’s innovations, and that they could hear the overtones in the organ pipes they built, because those overtones led directly to the introduction of multiple ranks of pipes, each based on a different harmonic. Having five or six ranks of pipes playing at once produced a bold and rich tone we know as Blockwerk, but it was the next smart guy who thought of complicating the machine to allow single sets of pipes to be played separately­—stop action. They left a few of the highest pitch stops grouped together—mixtures. Then, someone took Pythagorean overtones a step further and had those grouped ranks “break back” a few times, stepping down the harmonic series, so the overtones grew lower as you played up the scale.

Here’s a good one: how about we make two organs, one above the other, and give each a separate keyboard. How about a third organ with a keyboard on the floor you can play with your feet? 

As we got better at casting, forming, and handling that metal, we could start our overtone series an octave lower with 16-foot pipes. Or 32 . . . I don’t know where the first 32-foot stop was built or who built it, but I know this: he was an energetic, ambitious fellow with an ear for grandeur. It’s ferociously difficult and wildly expensive to build 32-foot stops today, but it was a herculean task for seventeenth- or eighteenth-century workers. And those huge shiny pipes were just the start. You also had to trudge out in the forest, cut down trees, tie them to your oxen, drag them back into town, and start sawing out your rough lumber to build the case for those huge pipes.

How long do you suppose it took workers to cut one board long enough to support the tower crown over a 32-foot pipe using a two-man saw? It’s a good thing they didn’t have smart phones because between tweets, texts, e-mails, and telemarketers, they’d never have finished a single cut.

It’s usual for the construction of a monumental new organ to use up 50,000 person hours or more, even with modern shortcuts such as using dimension lumber delivered by truck, industrial power tools, and CNC routers. How many hours did the workshops of Hendrik Niehoff (1495–1561) or Arp Schnitger (1648–1719) put into their masterpieces? And let’s remember that Schnitger ran several workshops concurrently and produced more than 150 organs. Amazing. He must have been paying attention.

 

Pay attention

The pipe organ is a towering human achievement. It’s the result of thousands of years of experimentation, technological evolution, mathematical applications, and the pure emotion of musical sensibilities. Just as different languages evolved in different regions of the world, so did pipe organs achieve regional accents and languages. The experienced ear cannot mistake the differences between a French organ built in 1750 from one built in northern Germany. The musicians who played them exploited their particular characteristics, creating music that complemented the instruments of their region. 

Let’s think for a minute about that French-German comparison. Looking at musical scores, it’s easy to deduce that French organs have simple pedalboards. But let’s go a little deeper. It’s no accident that classic French organ music is built around the Cornet (flue pipes at 8′, 4′, 22⁄3′, 2′, 13⁄5′). Those pitches happen to be the fundamental tone and its first four overtones, according to Pythagoras, and they align with the rich overtones that give color and pizzazz to a reed stop. The reeds in those organs are lusty and powerful in the lower and middle octaves, but their tone thins out in the treble. Add that Cornet, and the treble blossoms. Write a dialogue between treble and bass using the Trompette in the left hand and the Cornet in the right. (Can you say Clérambault?) Add the Cornet to the Trumpet as a chorus of stops (Grand Jeu). And while you’re fooling around with the five stops of the Cornet, mix and match them a little. Try a solo on 8′-4′-22⁄3′ (Chant de Nazard). How about 8′-4′-13⁄5′ (Chant de Tierce)? It’s no accident. It’s what those organs do!

History has preserved about 175 hours of the music of J. S. Bach. We can only wonder how much was lost, and certainly a huge amount was never written down. But 175 hours is a ton of music. That’s more than a non-stop seven-day week. I guess Bach’s creativity didn’t get to rest until about 9:00 a.m. on the eighth day! We know he had a busy life, what with bureaucratic responsibilities (he was a city employee), office work, rehearsals, teaching, and all those children. When he sat down to write, he must have worked hard.

Marcel Dupré was the first to play the complete organ works of Bach from memory in a single series of recitals. We know he had a busy life as church musician, professor, mentor, composer, and prolific performer. When he sat down to practice, he must have worked hard.

In 1999, Portugese pianist Maria João Pires was scheduled to perform a Mozart concerto with the Amsterdam Concertgebouw Orchestra conducted by Riccardo Chailly. She checked the orchestra’s schedule to confirm which piece, and prepared her performance. Trouble was, the published schedule was wrong. The first performance was a noontime open rehearsal. Chailly had a towel around his neck, and the hall was full of people. He gave a downbeat and the orchestra started playing. A stricken look appeared on Pires’ face, and she put her face in her hands. She spoke with Chailly over the sound of the orchestra, saying she had prepared the wrong piece. It’s not easy to tell what he said, but I suppose it was something like, “Let’s play this one!” And she did. Perfectly. You can see the video by typing “Wrong Concerto” into the YouTube search bar. Maybe Ms. Pires wasn’t paying attention when she started preparation for that concert, but she sure was paying attention when she learned the D-minor concerto. It was at the tip of her fingers, performance ready, at a panicky moment’s notice.

Often on a Sunday morning, my Facebook page shows posts from organ benches. Giddy organists comment between churches on the content of sermons, flower arrangements, or the woman with the funny hat. Really? Do you have your smart phone turned on at the console during the service? If your phone is on while you’re playing a service, is it also on while you’re practicing? I suppose the excuse is that your metronome is an app? Oh wait, you don’t use a metronome? To paraphrase a famous moment from a 1988 vice-presidential debate, I knew Marcel Dupré. Marcel Dupré was a friend of mine. You’re no Marcel Dupré.¹

 

A time and a place

I love my smart phone. In the words of a colleague and friend, I use it like a crack pipe. I read the news. I order supplies and tools. I look up the tables for drill-bit sizes, for wire gauges, for conversions between metric and “English” measurements. I do banking, send invoices, find subway routes, get directions, buy plane tickets, reserve hotel rooms, and do crossword puzzles. I check tide charts, wind predictions, and nautical charts. I text, tweet, e-mail, telephone, and “go to Facebook.” I listen to music and audio books, check the weather, look for restaurants, pay for groceries, and buy clothes.

The people who invented and developed our smart phones must have been paying attention to their work. It’s a world of information we carry in our pockets, and there must be millions of lines of code behind each touch of the screen. I’m grateful to have such an incredible tool, but I’m worried about its effect on our lives. We know a lot about the stars and orbiting planets, but I’m sure we don’t know everything. I hope there’s some smart guy somewhere, sitting on a remote hillside with no phone, wondering about something wonderful.

I’m not pushing strollers so often anymore, but I keep my phone in my pocket when our grandchildren are visiting. I keep my phone in my pocket when I’m walking the dog because it’s fun to be with him. And I keep my phone in my pocket when I’m walking the streets of the city alone. I wouldn’t want to miss someone doing something stupid because they weren’t paying attention. Hope they don’t drop their phone. ν

 

Notes

1. Poetic license: truth is, I never met Marcel Dupré.

Herbert L. Huestis

Hearing a pipe organ tuned in a sympathetic temperament is
like discovering fine wine after a lifetime of roadhouse coffee. There is
simply no comparison between the delights of pure tuning and the frustration of
cadences that beat unmercifully, no matter what the key or modulation.

When the listener does not hear this woeful tuning,
psychologists call it habituation. In other words, the average person does not
hear the inharmonicity of equal tuning because they know nothing better, and
have come to accept the ragged chords that have echoed in their ears for so
long as normal everyday music. One may take a holiday from equal temperament by
listening to a barbershop quartet for a dose of close harmony. Or take in a
concert on an organ made by an artisan builder who regards tuning as an
integral part of the instrument, reflective of its true baroque heritage. This
journey is worth the expense of rethinking all that we have taken for granted
in years past.

Ironies abound in the world of musical bias and each new
discovery can be delicious. In the late 19th century, we find a reliable bearer
of tempered tuning in that most unassuming of instruments, the reed organ. Free
reeds can hang on to their original tuning at least as well as cone tuned
pipes--in fact, they suffer less from wear and tear. Pump them up, and they
continue to play with the same sweet harmonies that their original tuning gave
them.

There are some aspects of 19th-century tuning that are tantalizing
indeed. Victorian temperaments are nearly equal, which means that in the
tradition of well-tuning, they render harmonious chords in all keys, though not
without individual key color. They are subtle, providing tension and relaxation
behind the scenes, rather than by the blunt contrast of sheep and wolves, as in
baroque temperaments. Their intervals gently progress from calm to agitated,
depending on the complexity and remoteness of each key. Somehow, they walk a
fine line between purity and utility. It seems that their particular strength
is modulation, where the prime keys assert themselves like the sun appearing
through cloud or the calm after a storm.

Of late, Victorian models of tuning have become popular with
both piano technicians and organ builders. The late 19th century was no less
rich in its diversity of temperaments than the 17th and 18th centuries.
Although theorized very early on, equal temperament was a child of the
industrial revolution. Perhaps it was the factory production of musical
instruments that propelled it into nearly universal practice among tuners and
musicians. Studies of ethnomusicology have informed us that the practice of
equal tuning was unique to western civilization and that other cultures
simultaneously developed far more rich and complex modes of intonation.

As we reflect on the revitalization of early music and an
increased regard for performance practice, we take equal tuning less for
granted. The realization that tuning methods have varied tremendously according
to time and place has awakened our ears in such a way that we can now explore
the world of sound and imagination, unfettered by musical prejudice. Take the
challenge: play through the modulations of your favorite 19th-century composer
and see what a "less than equal" temperament does for the music!
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> 

Three practical considerations

If one is going to change an organ from equal to
well-temperament, it should be an operation that is undertaken with
considerable planning. One should consider the nature of an appropriate
temperament and what music will be the primary repertoire. It is important to
look at the objectives of a major change and to evaluate the musical results,
insofar as possible, ahead of time.

The sound of an organ goes a long way to dictate temperament.
Compatibility of organ building style and repertoire are major issues. If equal
temperament is one frustration among many, the organist must decide if a change
to well temperament is going to help change musical values for the better. It
is comforting to know that even a spinet piano can be satisfying when tuned in
a historic temperament. By the same token, there are many organs that will
benefit immensely from the natural harmonicity and increased resonance of a
carefully chosen temperament.

Once the decision is made, one should not use the
"candy store" approach to the selection of a temperament! It is a
good idea to seek out a consultant who has the sounds of various tunings in his
ears. Experience can be most helpful! There are several practical matters that
should be considered when evaluating the pros and cons of various tunings:
balance of thirds, regular or irregular intervals, and shared tuning with equal
temperament.

Balance and width of thirds (in cents)

The reason for tuning in well-temperaments is to achieve key
color. As a composer calls for various keys with a lesser or greater number of
accidentals, the key color is expected to change from pure and restful chords
to vibrating and agitated harmonies. These shifting key colors are relatively
subtle, perhaps even obscure to the layperson, though quite obvious to most
musicians. As one evaluates diverse temperaments, the issues revolve around the
amount of key color desired and the achievement of an even balance that
increases the frequency of beating thirds in accordance with a greater number
of accidentals, both in sharp and flat keys.

Circle of fifths: regular or irregular intervals

This consideration is often overlooked until one makes music
with orchestral and chamber players. Regular intervals ensure the best tuning
of obbligato instruments because the transition from various intervals within
the temperament is predictable and intuitively correct. Some well tunings have
a fine balance of key color, but present such irregular intervals that out of
tune playing by ancillary instruments is unavoidable. It is not a reflection
upon the players--actually, the more experienced and intuitive the players are,
the more likely they are to have difficulty with irregular temperaments. It is
precisely the "anticipatory" nature of "tuning on the fly"
that causes the problem.

Certainly, the best chamber players always tune with the
continuo for each open string or major interval, usually in a circle of fifths.
If that circle of fifths is predictable, things go well. If each successive
fifth is a bit wide or narrow, almost at random, how is an instrumentalist
going to remember the exact tuning? "Regular" temperaments solve this
problem by the use of predictable intervals for the circle of fifths.

Convertible or shared tunings

This is a special consideration where a well temperament
will actually share part of the circle of fifths with equal tuning, usually the
notes A-E-B-F#-C#. These five notes may be tuned exactly the same in both
temperaments! In an equal temperament, the remaining seven notes are tuned in
the same ratio as the first five. However, in a convertible or shared
temperament, the remaining seven notes are altered to the new temperament. The
benefits of a shared tuning are considerable, particularly if the instrument is
to be tuned back and forth between well and equal tuning. This is often the
case with a continuo organ which is featured in various temperaments and often
at various pitches from one concert to another.

Graphs

It is very helpful to see these relationships in a graph, as
well as text and numbers. It has become very common to express numeric
relationships among various temperaments in terms of deviation in cents from
equal temperament. This is not because equal temperament is best or right, but
because each interval is a mathematical division. Thus, a rendering of equal
temperament is not given as a "norm," but as a mathematical point of
reference.

Using an electronic tuning device vs. tuning by ear

It is ironic that tuning in equal temperament became
standard practice about the same time as electronic tuning devices became
commonplace professional tools. At this time, it may be said that most tuning
of musical instruments is done with an electronic reference. That is not to say
that "tuning by ear" is no longer practiced, but aural tuning has a
new perspective, to "test" temperament rather than set it. Before the
reader jumps to any conclusion, it should be emphasized that the "art of
tuning" is still very much intact, and fine piano and organ tuning has not
suffered at all. The very finest tuners still use their ears, and the machines
are just another tool in the box.

Paradoxically, the resurgence of well temperament coincides
with the widespread use of electronic tuning devices and computerized tuning
programs. Virtually every device available offers a synthesis of historic
temperaments that are available at the touch of a button. One might argue that
this enables those without sufficient ear training to "tune" various
instruments--it also enables quick and precise tuning by professional
technicians who have more than enough ear training to do the entire job without
an electronic tuner. It is very advantageous to move from theoretical considerations
to practical application  so easily
and effortlessly. It is a conundrum, but a happy one. Without electronic
assistance, historic tunings would be sufficiently tedious that they might well
be left undone.

Tuning by ear remains indispensable. The name of the game in
tuning is to reduce error--especially cumulative error. "Tests" are
the most important aspect of any tuning. They keep the tuner on the straight
and narrow, and prevent compound or cumulative errors that seriously degrade an
artistic tuning.

Recommended computer programs

Two fine computerized tuning programs are Robert Scott's
TuneLab program, available from Real Time Specialties, 6384 Crane Road,
Ypsilanti, MI 48197 ([email protected]) and Dean Reyburn's CyberTuner,
available from Reyburn Piano Service, 2695 Indian Lakes Road, NE, Cedar
Springs, MI 49319.

These are devices for tuning both historic and equal
temperament. Cost varies from less than $100 to about $900, depending on the
range of software desired. The best feature of these programs is that each
historic temperament file may be edited with a word processor. Other electronic
tuning devices are available, usually with pre-programmed historic
temperaments. The author suggests that they be compared on the basis of
accuracy (up to 1/10 cent) and the ease of programming various temperaments.
After that, there are issues of cost, portability and so forth.

As an aside, one may also consider style of tuning. The
author prefers the use of not one, but two electronic tuning devices--a
portable one to use inside the organ and a fixed unit at the console to monitor
tuning as the job progresses. This keeps the tuner's helper quite busy at both
organ and computer keyboards and reduces cumulative error by a considerable
amount. 

Historic tuning on the Internet

Bicknell, Stephen. A beginner's guide to temperament.

www.users.dircon.co.uk/~oneskull/3.6.04.htm

Bremmer, William. The true meaning of well-tempered tuning.

www.billbremmer.com/WellTemp.html

Foote, Edward. Six degrees of tonality; The well-tempered
piano.

www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_te mpered_piano.html

Gann, Kyle. An introduction to historical tunings.

http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/his tune.html

Greenberg, Bernard S. What does "well-tempered"
mean?

www.bachfaq.org/welltemp.html

Kellner, Herbert Anton. Instructions for tuning a
harpsichord "wohltemperirt." 

ha.kellner.bei.t-online.de/

Palmer, Frederic. Meantone tuning.

home.pacbell.net/jeanannc/mpro/art icles/MeanTone.htm

Rubenstein, Michael. Well vs. equal temperament.

www.ma.utexas.edu/users/miker/tun ing/tuning.html

Taylor, Nigel. Tuning, temperaments and bells; The
ill-tempered piano.

www.kirnberger.fsnet.co.uk/