2. A≠440 Hz

WEBVTT
00:00:05.660 --> 00:00:18.460
Good evening. And now, Beyond the Notation.
00:00:18.620 --> 00:00:21.420
Hello, hello, hello and welcome to Beyond the Notation,
00:00:21.640 --> 00:00:24.500
a podcast on the ongoing reading of the personal
00:00:24.500 --> 00:00:26.760
manifesto and doctoral thesis on early music.
00:00:27.140 --> 00:00:29.539
The notation is not the music, reflections on
00:00:29.539 --> 00:00:32.219
early music practice and performance by Barthold
00:00:32.219 --> 00:00:34.979
Keike. I'm Kenneth Chang, and I'm with Marilyn
00:00:34.979 --> 00:00:38.460
Gans. We are both young aspiring musicians seeking
00:00:38.460 --> 00:00:40.859
insight into the fascinating and intricate world
00:00:40.859 --> 00:00:43.000
of historically informed performance and early
00:00:43.000 --> 00:00:45.259
music. How are you doing, Marilyn? I'm good,
00:00:45.259 --> 00:00:48.420
how are you? Back on another fine, sunny day.
00:00:49.060 --> 00:00:51.979
Hopefully it's not. I don't like any rainy days.
00:00:52.719 --> 00:00:55.179
If there ever is a rainy day, we're just gonna
00:00:55.179 --> 00:00:57.659
have to like, you know, embrace it. Exactly,
00:00:57.780 --> 00:01:01.380
exactly. And you get the ASMR all in one. Like,
00:01:01.420 --> 00:01:03.719
you know, two in one, a recording of us. Right
00:01:03.719 --> 00:01:05.180
in the background, too. It kind of is like a
00:01:05.180 --> 00:01:06.819
nice background effect. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I think
00:01:06.819 --> 00:01:08.200
you'll like it. I think the mics are gonna pick
00:01:08.200 --> 00:01:11.219
it up, too. Right, so I'm required to say this
00:01:11.219 --> 00:01:14.560
every time. We're always thankful to Indiana
00:01:14.560 --> 00:01:17.180
University Press for letting us do this podcast
00:01:17.180 --> 00:01:20.640
and, you know, explore Kaika's perspective on
00:01:20.640 --> 00:01:24.689
early music and all the sort. with, like, in
00:01:24.689 --> 00:01:27.530
comparison and contrast to modern audiences and
00:01:27.530 --> 00:01:30.790
music performers of today. So, this episode includes
00:01:30.790 --> 00:01:32.890
content from The Notation is Not the Music by
00:01:32.890 --> 00:01:35.370
Bartol Kaika, used with the permission of Indiana
00:01:35.370 --> 00:01:38.250
University Press. All right, let's begin where
00:01:38.250 --> 00:01:41.930
we kind of like left off. Sure. So, we were talking,
00:01:42.109 --> 00:01:44.609
what were we looking at so far? We were talking
00:01:44.609 --> 00:01:47.450
about, because we only reached the preface, and
00:01:47.450 --> 00:01:51.560
there was a little bit of, like, guess what's
00:01:51.560 --> 00:01:54.260
called a research like method or procedure he
00:01:54.260 --> 00:01:57.120
kind of like follows through um and he gave us
00:01:57.120 --> 00:02:00.400
like I guess a sample glimpse of what to like
00:02:00.400 --> 00:02:03.260
expect with the main chapter I believe chapter
00:02:03.260 --> 00:02:05.579
four which is going to cover literally every
00:02:05.579 --> 00:02:08.960
single element of Every element he's researched
00:02:08.960 --> 00:02:10.939
and I think the previous chapters he really was
00:02:10.939 --> 00:02:12.780
kind of delving into his personal philosophy
00:02:12.780 --> 00:02:16.099
as to Why he he studies the way he does how he
00:02:16.099 --> 00:02:18.379
tries to impact his his students and his peers
00:02:18.379 --> 00:02:22.349
also he goes over things about how, you know,
00:02:22.689 --> 00:02:24.909
in his initial research, why early music did
00:02:24.909 --> 00:02:27.909
kind of impact him as a young musician. He goes
00:02:27.909 --> 00:02:29.710
over sort of an outline of different things,
00:02:29.750 --> 00:02:33.009
like how musicians were expected to have elements
00:02:33.009 --> 00:02:35.430
like perfect pitch back in the day, different
00:02:35.430 --> 00:02:37.189
chromatic elements. Which I found surprising.
00:02:37.590 --> 00:02:40.889
I did too. I almost thought that was a new idea
00:02:40.889 --> 00:02:43.129
where perfect pitch is kind of held to this very
00:02:43.129 --> 00:02:45.169
high esteem. But again, I always thought maybe
00:02:45.169 --> 00:02:46.830
that was a 21st century thing. That sounds like
00:02:46.830 --> 00:02:49.750
a natural selection thing. If you don't have
00:02:49.750 --> 00:02:51.409
it, it's like, oh, you're going to have to become
00:02:51.409 --> 00:02:52.389
a merchant. You're going to have to become a
00:02:52.389 --> 00:02:54.370
merchant. I would be a merchant, I guess. I don't
00:02:54.370 --> 00:02:57.810
want to be a merchant. Well, I suppose there
00:02:57.810 --> 00:03:00.800
is a way to learn or train. yourself for a perfect
00:03:00.800 --> 00:03:03.099
pitch, but you're right though, some people just
00:03:03.099 --> 00:03:05.479
naturally seem to have it and others have to
00:03:05.479 --> 00:03:07.900
work at that. Yeah, work from the ground up.
00:03:09.699 --> 00:03:13.360
And it was also talking about how he, you know,
00:03:13.439 --> 00:03:17.419
there's this also famous standard text by Johann
00:03:17.419 --> 00:03:20.419
Joachim Quantz, the Versuch einer Anweisung,
00:03:21.020 --> 00:03:23.800
basically like a, it's like a flute, what is
00:03:23.800 --> 00:03:28.750
it, treatise on Basically all the classical conventions
00:03:28.750 --> 00:03:33.770
used of that day and I think also About his experiences
00:03:33.770 --> 00:03:36.629
like many a little glimpse of his humble origin
00:03:36.629 --> 00:03:39.409
of how he kind of like got into all this So,
00:03:39.430 --> 00:03:42.789
um, yeah, I want to see what comes next and you
00:03:42.789 --> 00:03:45.949
can go to chapter 3 the limits of notation limits
00:03:45.949 --> 00:03:50.810
of notation. Yes noting Notating everything with
00:03:50.810 --> 00:03:53.110
utmost precision, if possible at all, would ask
00:03:53.110 --> 00:03:55.330
for a very great effort and look very complicated.
00:03:55.770 --> 00:03:57.870
It would also limit the performer's freedom more
00:03:57.870 --> 00:03:59.849
than most performers or even composers would
00:03:59.849 --> 00:04:04.270
have wanted. In Der Kritische Musikiss, May 15,
00:04:04.889 --> 00:04:08.469
1737, Johann Adolf Scheibe criticizes J .S. Bach's
00:04:08.469 --> 00:04:11.050
habit of writing out the whole method of playing,
00:04:11.629 --> 00:04:14.069
with much elaborate ornamentation as being confusing
00:04:14.069 --> 00:04:16.459
to the reader. That is quite understandable,
00:04:16.540 --> 00:04:18.540
though from our point of view, we might have
00:04:18.540 --> 00:04:21.259
wished that Bach had even been more precise.
00:04:21.680 --> 00:04:23.300
Neither Scheibe nor Bach could have imagined
00:04:23.300 --> 00:04:25.540
that the generally scanty notation of earlier
00:04:25.540 --> 00:04:28.180
centuries would cause us so many problems and
00:04:28.180 --> 00:04:31.079
endless discussions today. The one comment I
00:04:31.079 --> 00:04:33.639
have, because I'm studying composition and I
00:04:33.639 --> 00:04:36.319
kind of see the teacher's thoughts on this, I
00:04:36.319 --> 00:04:39.040
have definitely been taught where, or the idea
00:04:39.040 --> 00:04:42.399
that sometimes a more... writing in more notes
00:04:42.399 --> 00:04:45.420
into your composition is good because there's
00:04:45.420 --> 00:04:48.319
I feel like there's been this um recent idea
00:04:48.319 --> 00:04:49.579
where it's like you shouldn't have any notes
00:04:49.579 --> 00:04:52.060
in your music or if you do it should be the very
00:04:52.060 --> 00:04:54.560
standardized uh tempo markings or dynamic markers
00:04:54.560 --> 00:04:57.300
um but I've had teachers tell me where if you
00:04:57.300 --> 00:04:59.279
want it to be played a certain way even just
00:04:59.279 --> 00:05:01.220
writing in a little clause at the bottom that
00:05:01.220 --> 00:05:04.779
says uh play I don't know, play in a heavy manner.
00:05:05.300 --> 00:05:08.500
Yeah, exactly. That's kind of a newer idea that's
00:05:08.500 --> 00:05:10.720
pushed, so I can definitely see how performers
00:05:10.720 --> 00:05:13.639
have struggled with that, where those early,
00:05:13.639 --> 00:05:15.879
like, broke composers such as Bach... Like the
00:05:15.879 --> 00:05:18.199
manuscripts and scores. Yeah, it's sort of limited
00:05:18.199 --> 00:05:19.899
in what they actually put in their scores, so
00:05:19.899 --> 00:05:21.319
it's kind of, it leaves room for the interpretation.
00:05:21.319 --> 00:05:23.220
Yeah, exactly. Like the Bach Hell Suites, I mean,
00:05:23.319 --> 00:05:26.269
there is no working manuscript. Unfortunately,
00:05:26.490 --> 00:05:28.910
there is only the Anna Magdalena Bach and then
00:05:28.910 --> 00:05:31.310
there's a I think Johann Peter Kellner which
00:05:31.310 --> 00:05:34.050
was a scholar and kind of like a colleague of
00:05:34.050 --> 00:05:37.110
Bach. But they're like if you even look at those
00:05:37.110 --> 00:05:39.850
scores or like the Brandenburg scores or or violin
00:05:39.850 --> 00:05:43.730
partitas sonatas like it's I mean it's it's notated
00:05:43.730 --> 00:05:46.670
well but there's yeah there's obviously limitations
00:05:46.670 --> 00:05:51.329
of what the what's actually going on in the music
00:05:51.329 --> 00:05:54.480
so that's interesting. I think you see that in
00:05:54.480 --> 00:05:56.959
later scores like the Romantic era. A lot of
00:05:56.959 --> 00:06:00.100
the famous Romantic composers had peers and friends
00:06:00.100 --> 00:06:01.879
who would write in their journals how pieces
00:06:01.879 --> 00:06:03.300
would be played, or even their students would
00:06:03.300 --> 00:06:05.279
write down that it should be played a certain
00:06:05.279 --> 00:06:07.500
way with this rubato or this tempo. And it kind
00:06:07.500 --> 00:06:10.439
of opens up the door to what people were actually
00:06:10.439 --> 00:06:12.319
hearing versus what was written in the score,
00:06:12.480 --> 00:06:14.699
especially when played by the composers. And
00:06:14.699 --> 00:06:18.889
once the recording gets released... That's when
00:06:18.889 --> 00:06:21.649
it changes. It changes like the whole landscape
00:06:21.649 --> 00:06:27.769
of Bach specific piece or whatever you're listening
00:06:27.769 --> 00:06:31.459
to. Modern phenomenon. Let's see, the desire
00:06:31.459 --> 00:06:33.879
to write down music as precisely as possible
00:06:33.879 --> 00:06:36.019
seems to be a typical concern of our western
00:06:36.019 --> 00:06:38.740
classical music, culminating in the 20th century.
00:06:39.339 --> 00:06:42.139
Schoenberg is quite radical in the preface to
00:06:42.139 --> 00:06:44.519
Piero Lanere, I'm going to butcher that again,
00:06:44.639 --> 00:06:48.480
Opus 21, which was written in 1912 and published
00:06:48.480 --> 00:06:51.660
in 1914. The performer should not add anything
00:06:51.660 --> 00:06:55.060
that is not written down. That's a pretty staunch
00:06:55.060 --> 00:06:58.319
thesis right there. He should give no interpretation
00:06:58.319 --> 00:07:01.879
of the music. And he says auf Deutsch, er würde
00:07:01.879 --> 00:07:05.660
hier nicht geben, sondern nehmen. He would not
00:07:05.660 --> 00:07:09.939
give but take away. Stravinsky, now he's giving
00:07:09.939 --> 00:07:13.319
out a modern kind of like taste here, is not
00:07:13.319 --> 00:07:17.779
less compelling when he states... Okay, as reported
00:07:17.779 --> 00:07:20.240
by Robert Kraft in conversations with Igor Stravinsky,
00:07:20.500 --> 00:07:22.000
I think we should read that book also. Yeah,
00:07:22.040 --> 00:07:24.480
I love to read that actually. He's giving us
00:07:24.480 --> 00:07:27.139
so many good sources here, too. That his music
00:07:27.139 --> 00:07:30.139
must be read and executed and not interpreted.
00:07:30.879 --> 00:07:34.420
Interesting. So similarly in 1924, he wrote of
00:07:34.420 --> 00:07:37.199
this octet that to interpret a piece is to realize
00:07:37.199 --> 00:07:39.540
its portrait. And what I demand is the realization
00:07:39.540 --> 00:07:41.920
of the piece itself and not of its portrait.
00:07:42.639 --> 00:07:45.579
Okay. Do you have any thought there? I think
00:07:45.579 --> 00:07:50.079
that's so many words in one thing. I think that's
00:07:50.079 --> 00:07:52.600
very interesting. I think composers, I'm not
00:07:52.600 --> 00:07:54.660
as familiar with Schoenberg's works, but I know
00:07:54.660 --> 00:07:57.279
Stravinsky, even though he's a modern composer
00:07:57.279 --> 00:08:00.879
in the modern era, there's sort of this wider
00:08:00.879 --> 00:08:03.680
palette of expression, but Stravinsky is also
00:08:03.680 --> 00:08:06.819
somewhat, not in a bad way, but his music is
00:08:06.819 --> 00:08:13.360
almost mechanical. If you listen to... Firebird,
00:08:13.600 --> 00:08:16.759
that's a big one. It's very very straightforward
00:08:16.759 --> 00:08:19.899
in what's written inside the actual score so
00:08:19.899 --> 00:08:22.199
I mean I just my orchestra just played the firebird
00:08:22.199 --> 00:08:25.199
so I'm kind of familiar with the very specific
00:08:25.199 --> 00:08:27.000
elements that are written so like in the violin
00:08:27.000 --> 00:08:29.699
part it'll say things like you play rhythmically
00:08:29.699 --> 00:08:31.839
or the difference between a short note versus
00:08:31.839 --> 00:08:34.639
a legato note can be extreme in the whole the
00:08:34.639 --> 00:08:38.450
whole palette of the the orchestra and what they're
00:08:38.450 --> 00:08:40.710
trying to, I guess, portray in the movement.
00:08:40.970 --> 00:08:43.129
To interpret a piece is to realize its portrait,
00:08:43.169 --> 00:08:45.149
and what I demand is the realization of the piece
00:08:45.149 --> 00:08:48.350
itself and not of its portrait. So this debate
00:08:48.350 --> 00:08:52.220
has been going on for quite a long time. like
00:08:52.220 --> 00:08:55.399
you can clearly see. The extremely complex notation
00:08:55.399 --> 00:08:57.580
of many Boulez compositions can be considered
00:08:57.580 --> 00:08:59.700
as the logical consequence of this attitude.
00:09:00.259 --> 00:09:02.980
In the last third of the 20th century, many composers
00:09:02.980 --> 00:09:05.919
reacted against this by developing aleatoric
00:09:05.919 --> 00:09:08.720
notation, graphic notation, and so forth. Sometimes
00:09:08.720 --> 00:09:10.879
the performers are requested to improvise instead
00:09:10.879 --> 00:09:16.399
of being given a fully written out part. Music
00:09:16.399 --> 00:09:20.340
can easily exist without notation, as we can
00:09:20.340 --> 00:09:23.019
see in other traditions such as jazz, folk music,
00:09:23.159 --> 00:09:25.860
Gregorian chant, and eastern music, where notation,
00:09:26.019 --> 00:09:29.639
if extant, is very incomplete and sketchy. Fundamentally,
00:09:29.659 --> 00:09:31.980
notation directs itself toward the wrong physical
00:09:31.980 --> 00:09:35.059
sense, toward the eye instead of the ear. We
00:09:35.059 --> 00:09:51.370
could paraphrase the German proverb, We will
00:09:51.370 --> 00:09:55.350
stay hungry indeed, but where there is no extent
00:09:55.350 --> 00:09:57.590
living oral tradition as in early music, the
00:09:57.590 --> 00:10:00.990
visual tradition has to suffice. However, this
00:10:00.990 --> 00:10:03.909
I notation must be decoded, and all too easily
00:10:03.909 --> 00:10:06.389
supposing that this decoding has been done in
00:10:06.389 --> 00:10:08.950
an identical way in all times and places leads
00:10:08.950 --> 00:10:12.519
to us wrong interpretations. Luckily, historical
00:10:12.519 --> 00:10:14.720
treatises do give us important decoding tools.
00:10:14.899 --> 00:10:17.840
As one would expect, the information is not unanimous,
00:10:18.139 --> 00:10:21.860
but it can put us on the right track. Conversely,
00:10:22.080 --> 00:10:24.720
we might learn how the notation should not be
00:10:24.720 --> 00:10:28.710
read. I think that's interesting, too, how basically
00:10:28.710 --> 00:10:31.009
starting in the Romantic period, or one of the
00:10:31.009 --> 00:10:33.330
most notable aspects of the Romantic period is
00:10:33.330 --> 00:10:35.529
how each country started to develop their own
00:10:35.529 --> 00:10:37.730
sound. So when you hear Tchaikovsky, you automatically
00:10:37.730 --> 00:10:40.669
think, oh, it's a Russian composer, or Beethoven
00:10:40.669 --> 00:10:43.889
is very much a German composer. And that era
00:10:43.889 --> 00:10:46.269
is kind of... notable because you started to
00:10:46.269 --> 00:10:48.509
have composers incorporating their traditional
00:10:48.509 --> 00:10:51.610
folk music into their music list as famous for
00:10:51.610 --> 00:10:54.389
the Hungarian rhapsodies that he wrote. Bartok,
00:10:54.929 --> 00:10:58.470
Chopin, the Polish Mazurkas, elements like that,
00:10:58.590 --> 00:11:01.830
which is different than the 1700s where if you
00:11:01.830 --> 00:11:04.470
listen to the Slavic music and the German music,
00:11:04.809 --> 00:11:06.529
they actually sound quite similar to each other
00:11:06.529 --> 00:11:08.830
in terms of the instruments being used, the style,
00:11:08.970 --> 00:11:12.279
the rhythm. And so I think starting in the Romantic
00:11:12.279 --> 00:11:15.019
period leading up to things like jazz in the
00:11:15.019 --> 00:11:17.799
20th century, we do sort of have this, I guess,
00:11:18.100 --> 00:11:20.919
larger emphasis on being able to kind of have
00:11:20.919 --> 00:11:23.159
your own interpretation of the score. And that's
00:11:23.159 --> 00:11:24.659
sort of the big debate about these different
00:11:24.659 --> 00:11:26.700
competitions is how does the soloist interpret
00:11:26.700 --> 00:11:28.700
the music. And it can be very different from
00:11:28.700 --> 00:11:30.340
each other. And that's sort of the appeal to
00:11:30.340 --> 00:11:33.279
that style of music. Unless you're Stravinsky
00:11:33.279 --> 00:11:35.340
and you want it played a very certain way. Stravinsky.
00:11:35.659 --> 00:11:38.240
Well, yeah, at that point. And then you got Vianowski
00:11:38.240 --> 00:11:42.039
and all those people. Exactly. Anyway, the I
00:11:42.039 --> 00:11:44.559
notation must be completed by the oral experience.
00:11:44.879 --> 00:11:47.139
In performance, I continuously have to deal with
00:11:47.139 --> 00:11:49.659
fundamental questions such as, how does the hall
00:11:49.659 --> 00:11:52.360
sound? How will I integrate what comes into what
00:11:52.360 --> 00:11:54.899
I just played? What are my colleagues playing
00:11:54.899 --> 00:11:57.259
together with me? One practical consideration
00:11:57.259 --> 00:12:00.259
is... that is easily overlooked in today's theory
00:12:00.259 --> 00:12:02.480
and practice is the presence or absence of a
00:12:02.480 --> 00:12:05.620
complete score. Orchestral musicians always played
00:12:05.620 --> 00:12:07.720
from their separate parts, but after all, They
00:12:07.720 --> 00:12:10.440
are guided by a conductor or a leader. However,
00:12:10.620 --> 00:12:13.519
if the leader is a concertmeister or the soloist
00:12:13.519 --> 00:12:15.620
of a concerto, he might have never possessed
00:12:15.620 --> 00:12:17.860
or seen a full score of the composition he's
00:12:17.860 --> 00:12:19.879
performing. The same applies to chamber music,
00:12:20.240 --> 00:12:22.940
where many pieces circulated only in handwritten,
00:12:23.000 --> 00:12:25.139
separate parts. If printed, string quartets,
00:12:25.159 --> 00:12:27.320
for instance, were only sold in separate parts
00:12:27.320 --> 00:12:30.590
until well into the 19th century. One had to
00:12:30.590 --> 00:12:32.529
wait for the complete edition of the works of
00:12:32.529 --> 00:12:35.090
the great classical or romantic composers before
00:12:35.090 --> 00:12:38.110
seeing their quartets in score. Mozart's ten
00:12:38.110 --> 00:12:40.669
famous quartets appeared in score in 1828, shortly
00:12:40.669 --> 00:12:43.169
after Beethoven decided to have his last six
00:12:43.169 --> 00:12:45.610
quartets published in score as well as in parts,
00:12:46.210 --> 00:12:49.909
which were issued in 1826 -27. He must have been
00:12:49.909 --> 00:12:52.309
one of the first to do so. Similarly, he seems
00:12:52.309 --> 00:12:54.690
to have been one of the first to include letters
00:12:54.690 --> 00:12:57.110
in the score and parts in order to facilitate
00:12:57.110 --> 00:13:00.000
rehearsing. Among the quartets, they only appear
00:13:00.000 --> 00:13:03.919
in the Grosse Fugue in Op. 133, published in
00:13:03.919 --> 00:13:08.320
1827. Did he consider these late works so complicated
00:13:08.320 --> 00:13:11.019
that the performer would need a score, and in
00:13:11.019 --> 00:13:14.460
the case of the Grosse Fugue, even letters? Bar
00:13:14.460 --> 00:13:16.860
numbers were generally included only in the second
00:13:16.860 --> 00:13:20.019
half of the 20th century. Obviously, rehearsing
00:13:20.019 --> 00:13:22.879
must have been very difficult without the help
00:13:22.879 --> 00:13:26.409
of bar numbers, letters, and even a score. That's
00:13:26.409 --> 00:13:30.769
fascinating. I did not know that. As a chamber,
00:13:30.929 --> 00:13:32.789
when you're in a string quartet, for example,
00:13:33.549 --> 00:13:36.049
in my experience, there's sort of this emphasis
00:13:36.049 --> 00:13:37.870
where when you start learning a piece, you have
00:13:37.870 --> 00:13:39.309
your own individual part, but you're kind of
00:13:39.309 --> 00:13:41.730
expected to also have a copy of the full score
00:13:41.730 --> 00:13:43.889
so you can see how your part interacts with the
00:13:43.889 --> 00:13:46.529
other musicians. And it creates a very big difference
00:13:46.529 --> 00:13:49.600
because for me... Sometimes what happens is you
00:13:49.600 --> 00:13:52.080
get an idea as to what your part should sound
00:13:52.080 --> 00:13:54.000
like in relation to the other musicians But then
00:13:54.000 --> 00:13:56.039
you get the score and you look at oh What is
00:13:56.039 --> 00:13:57.600
the viola actually doing or the second violin
00:13:57.600 --> 00:14:00.240
actually doing and you realize there's so much
00:14:00.240 --> 00:14:02.779
happening? Beneath the scenes and really really
00:14:02.779 --> 00:14:04.779
sort of impact the the flow of the music that
00:14:04.779 --> 00:14:06.840
you'd never know without the score Yeah, and
00:14:06.840 --> 00:14:12.539
that's a crazy fact to I don't know like I guess
00:14:12.539 --> 00:14:15.019
when you go on I until I am SLP you look at the
00:14:15.019 --> 00:14:18.669
scores for Romantic basically anything leading
00:14:18.669 --> 00:14:20.490
up to that period. It's like I guess yeah, there
00:14:20.490 --> 00:14:22.950
was no basically nothing on there My question
00:14:22.950 --> 00:14:25.490
with that is um when they say bar numbers were
00:14:25.490 --> 00:14:27.250
only included in the second half of the twelfth
00:14:27.250 --> 00:14:29.289
century Does that mean that they were only published
00:14:29.289 --> 00:14:32.389
with bar numbers or does that? Mean that musicians
00:14:32.389 --> 00:14:34.090
didn't start adding them independently because
00:14:34.090 --> 00:14:35.990
you know what we were in rehearsal oftentimes
00:14:35.990 --> 00:14:37.710
Yeah, like guys let's add some measure numbers
00:14:37.710 --> 00:14:40.110
in here, and we just put them in there by ourselves
00:14:40.110 --> 00:14:42.769
But I'm wondering I'll have to check that's a
00:14:42.769 --> 00:14:45.779
question to definitely that's a question to put
00:14:45.779 --> 00:14:50.740
down. Interesting. Yeah, obviously thought provoking.
00:14:51.659 --> 00:14:53.980
When most larger scale compositions could not
00:14:53.980 --> 00:14:56.279
be studied through the eyes, only well -educated
00:14:56.279 --> 00:14:58.240
and experienced ears could tell how to react
00:14:58.240 --> 00:15:00.440
to what colleagues were playing. The performer
00:15:00.440 --> 00:15:03.299
had to trust his ears and to feel ahead. How
00:15:03.299 --> 00:15:06.730
did this playing need to be? Shaped by the other
00:15:06.730 --> 00:15:09.330
parts as consonances or dissonances, parallel
00:15:09.330 --> 00:15:12.570
motion or counterpoint, rhythmic shape, ornaments,
00:15:12.909 --> 00:15:16.110
dynamics, phrasing, and articulation, the performer
00:15:16.110 --> 00:15:19.500
had to trust his colleagues' similar intuition,
00:15:19.960 --> 00:15:22.720
initiative, invention, and experience. This practice
00:15:22.720 --> 00:15:24.720
teaches the performers to listen to each other
00:15:24.720 --> 00:15:27.740
very intently. It might have also resulted in
00:15:27.740 --> 00:15:30.679
greater spontaneity and less ultimate togetherness,
00:15:31.200 --> 00:15:34.639
as can be witnessed in recordings from the first
00:15:34.639 --> 00:15:37.710
half of the 20th century. In the same vein, Most
00:15:37.710 --> 00:15:40.429
early orchestral and chamber music parts conspicuously
00:15:40.429 --> 00:15:43.370
lack handwritten indications of bowing's fingerings
00:15:43.370 --> 00:15:46.009
dynamics and ornaments something I think we've
00:15:46.009 --> 00:15:50.129
totally we've seen across Bach and Mozart and
00:15:50.129 --> 00:15:53.070
I know I keep going back there, but that's something
00:15:53.070 --> 00:15:54.889
kind of like the pattern I'm seeing here were
00:15:54.889 --> 00:15:57.210
these details remembered through rehearsals or
00:15:57.210 --> 00:16:00.269
did they matter less and that's another I guess
00:16:00.269 --> 00:16:03.309
like a world question that not even like, you
00:16:03.309 --> 00:16:06.240
know the greatest musicians here like today know.
00:16:06.379 --> 00:16:08.279
I don't think we can even answer that because
00:16:08.279 --> 00:16:10.860
um I mean if there was more of an emphasis on
00:16:10.860 --> 00:16:14.919
um being sort of on stage and having that more
00:16:14.919 --> 00:16:17.440
um I guess impromptu performance then it's gonna
00:16:17.440 --> 00:16:19.379
sound very different than when you're in a string
00:16:19.379 --> 00:16:21.299
quartet and you spend eight hours practicing
00:16:21.299 --> 00:16:23.659
a piece you know a week and you know tailoring
00:16:23.659 --> 00:16:26.320
each note to be the same vibrato speed same bowing
00:16:26.320 --> 00:16:29.820
things like that. So like maybe like say hypothetically
00:16:29.820 --> 00:16:31.840
maybe they didn't even have that kind of like
00:16:31.840 --> 00:16:35.519
those you know Like standards put into convention
00:16:35.519 --> 00:16:37.980
like exactly like fingers dynamics and maybe
00:16:37.980 --> 00:16:42.240
they just like Because I know there's a cellist
00:16:42.240 --> 00:16:44.460
called Yano Starker and he always said like the
00:16:44.460 --> 00:16:46.580
state of music is always gonna like improve You're
00:16:46.580 --> 00:16:48.940
gonna like get better cellists better violin
00:16:48.940 --> 00:16:51.399
literally every musician their technique is gonna
00:16:51.399 --> 00:16:54.100
get like totally but like it's going to go like
00:16:54.100 --> 00:16:56.700
crazy from like list and it's going to go to
00:16:56.700 --> 00:17:00.279
list V99 version 99 like I'm going all over the
00:17:00.279 --> 00:17:02.100
place and that's interesting because obviously
00:17:02.100 --> 00:17:04.980
that's clearly improved from like Baroque cello
00:17:04.980 --> 00:17:07.079
what a Baroque cello could do versus what a modern
00:17:07.079 --> 00:17:11.039
cello could do so I'm interested yeah so the
00:17:11.039 --> 00:17:15.019
limitations definitely expand over time even
00:17:15.019 --> 00:17:18.299
if a composition is notated with the utmost care
00:17:18.299 --> 00:17:20.809
and position It is not going to be performed
00:17:20.809 --> 00:17:23.529
or heard the same way twice, either voluntarily
00:17:23.529 --> 00:17:26.309
or involuntarily. Both the playing and the listening
00:17:26.309 --> 00:17:28.990
environment keep changing. By its very nature,
00:17:29.029 --> 00:17:32.390
art is not repeatable. Even where the material
00:17:32.390 --> 00:17:34.990
form can be repeated film, CD, multiple viewings
00:17:34.990 --> 00:17:37.289
of the same painting, repeated reading of the
00:17:37.289 --> 00:17:39.930
same book, the moment of the artistic experience
00:17:39.930 --> 00:17:42.730
for both the creator and his public is unique
00:17:42.730 --> 00:17:45.250
and cannot be fixed in its multiple layers of
00:17:45.250 --> 00:17:47.960
meaning. This essence, the emotional impact,
00:17:48.079 --> 00:17:50.539
can be only experienced in the here and now,
00:17:50.839 --> 00:17:53.460
and cannot be fully replicated for perpetuity
00:17:53.460 --> 00:17:59.269
in notated form. That's a big brain, good, valid
00:17:59.269 --> 00:18:01.670
answer to say, but like imagine like you say
00:18:01.670 --> 00:18:04.009
this to the random, like a random person on the
00:18:04.009 --> 00:18:08.789
street, indulge me. Indulge me. You're gonna
00:18:08.789 --> 00:18:11.009
quote this essence, the emotional impact. This
00:18:11.009 --> 00:18:14.829
whole quote. That seems pretty valid, let's see.
00:18:15.130 --> 00:18:17.589
In music, historical treatises seem to be well
00:18:17.589 --> 00:18:20.309
aware of this mutability and accept it. They
00:18:20.309 --> 00:18:23.009
stress that we must faithfully respect the intentions
00:18:23.009 --> 00:18:26.130
of the composer and at the same time they emphasize
00:18:26.130 --> 00:18:52.390
what we were expecting. Yeah, that's kind of
00:18:52.390 --> 00:18:56.460
like, you hear some like, Recordings of like
00:18:56.460 --> 00:18:59.700
what is it my period instrument like Bach or
00:18:59.700 --> 00:19:01.460
whatever right? I'm not gonna name out anything
00:19:01.460 --> 00:19:05.039
right now because but you sometimes you you hear
00:19:05.039 --> 00:19:07.259
something you look at the score maybe you come
00:19:07.259 --> 00:19:11.420
like self validated yourself to on an imaginary
00:19:11.420 --> 00:19:13.700
checklist of what you would actually think this
00:19:13.700 --> 00:19:16.039
would be close to Bach, right? But then you hear
00:19:16.039 --> 00:19:18.539
something that is like from a really respected
00:19:18.539 --> 00:19:21.279
Baroque orchestra and you just, it doesn't seem
00:19:21.279 --> 00:19:23.640
right. It doesn't seem right. I think that the,
00:19:23.779 --> 00:19:26.180
you see oftentimes with musicians trying to stand
00:19:26.180 --> 00:19:27.900
out and kind of making it for themselves is they'll
00:19:27.900 --> 00:19:30.859
take a very standardized piece or pieces that
00:19:30.859 --> 00:19:33.660
have maybe very specific tempo markings in them
00:19:33.660 --> 00:19:36.059
and they'll kind of either push the tempo or
00:19:36.059 --> 00:19:37.980
they'll make it really fat and they'll do things
00:19:37.980 --> 00:19:41.740
to make it stand out, but the choices don't always
00:19:41.740 --> 00:19:43.500
make the most sense. It actually brings the quality
00:19:43.500 --> 00:19:45.400
up. Exactly. I think this is basically what it's
00:19:45.400 --> 00:19:47.819
trying to say. Exactly. Criticism such as those
00:19:47.819 --> 00:19:51.440
found in Boulogne de mermaids de la corruption
00:19:51.440 --> 00:19:55.319
du ghost dans la musique françois. That's also
00:19:55.319 --> 00:19:59.839
very much French. 1446. Wow. That was what? That's
00:19:59.839 --> 00:20:03.039
30 years before the founding of the U .S. That's
00:20:03.039 --> 00:20:05.970
pretty crazy. Okay. before the Declaration of
00:20:05.970 --> 00:20:07.529
Independence. I know someone who has a violin
00:20:07.529 --> 00:20:10.029
from like 1740 just casually. Oh my god. I'm
00:20:10.029 --> 00:20:12.269
like, what the heck do you want? That is flex.
00:20:12.470 --> 00:20:15.190
Massive flex. Might tell us as much about their
00:20:15.190 --> 00:20:17.549
author as about the performers he describes.
00:20:17.650 --> 00:20:19.589
Even so, they give us some detailed, outright
00:20:19.589 --> 00:20:22.410
subjective information. Yeah, I don't know this
00:20:22.410 --> 00:20:25.049
book, unless you know what it is, which I don't
00:20:25.049 --> 00:20:27.650
know, like I'm interested in how many... like
00:20:27.650 --> 00:20:30.109
readers who read this like actually are familiar
00:20:30.109 --> 00:20:32.230
with some of these stuff but this is this seems
00:20:32.230 --> 00:20:35.309
to be like really like european like literature
00:20:35.309 --> 00:20:38.309
right here i don't know like in relation to what
00:20:38.309 --> 00:20:42.309
he's trying to That's part of a challenge in
00:20:42.309 --> 00:20:44.690
being a musicologist I've heard is that you have
00:20:44.690 --> 00:20:47.529
to have a pretty good understanding of Italian,
00:20:47.650 --> 00:20:49.609
German, French to be able to go... Across all
00:20:49.609 --> 00:20:53.490
three languages. Yeah, to go and actually look
00:20:53.490 --> 00:20:55.910
at the primary sources themselves and these historical
00:20:55.910 --> 00:20:58.490
documents and translate them. Yeah, it's a thing.
00:20:58.769 --> 00:21:01.589
That's crazy. Yeah, there's not too many people
00:21:01.589 --> 00:21:06.069
out there who can go across, read all of that.
00:21:06.599 --> 00:21:09.599
Good taste is a key concept in many 18th century
00:21:09.599 --> 00:21:12.539
treatises, being the sine qua non of artistry.
00:21:12.980 --> 00:21:14.900
That's another term I want to kind of like learn.
00:21:15.059 --> 00:21:18.339
Sine qua non. Sine qua non. Do you know what
00:21:18.339 --> 00:21:21.759
it is? I do not. Sine qua non. Sine means without.
00:21:22.859 --> 00:21:28.240
I think sine without. Without. I'm going to search
00:21:28.240 --> 00:21:36.079
that up later. I need help here. Taste greatly
00:21:36.079 --> 00:21:39.500
influenced the way a composition was read. Good
00:21:39.500 --> 00:21:41.720
taste in Versailles was not necessarily the same
00:21:41.720 --> 00:21:47.259
in Naples, London, or Berlin. Not even in contemporaneous
00:21:47.259 --> 00:21:49.700
times. What was applauded in one place could
00:21:49.700 --> 00:21:52.390
be despised in another. The specific meaning
00:21:52.390 --> 00:21:54.009
of good taste must have been clear enough for
00:21:54.009 --> 00:21:56.910
the author himself or for his immediate surroundings,
00:21:57.069 --> 00:21:59.450
but the definition obviously vary greatly in
00:21:59.450 --> 00:22:01.789
time and place. To a certain extent, historical
00:22:01.789 --> 00:22:04.670
treatises can show us these changes of taste,
00:22:04.730 --> 00:22:07.869
but we have to be aware of the distance and time
00:22:07.869 --> 00:22:09.650
that might cause a difference in our appreciation
00:22:09.650 --> 00:22:12.289
of a given idea. This can easily be experienced
00:22:12.289 --> 00:22:13.970
by listening to recordings from the beginning
00:22:13.970 --> 00:22:16.730
of the 20th century. I propose to approach them
00:22:16.730 --> 00:22:19.420
with a very open mind. Not with a retro attitude.
00:22:19.599 --> 00:22:21.259
In grandmother's time, everything was better.
00:22:22.960 --> 00:22:25.720
But not with a condescending attitude, either.
00:22:25.980 --> 00:22:28.400
Thank you. We don't want to ever be condescending,
00:22:28.440 --> 00:22:30.960
especially when you're writing something like
00:22:30.960 --> 00:22:35.519
this. These recordings by universally acclaimed
00:22:35.519 --> 00:22:38.140
performers who presumably possess good taste
00:22:38.140 --> 00:22:41.220
often sound foreign to us. Though they obviously
00:22:41.220 --> 00:22:43.660
read the same notation as we do, it is not easy
00:22:43.660 --> 00:22:46.019
to understand the musical choices and identify,
00:22:46.059 --> 00:22:49.400
for example, with Adelina Patti's rubato in Glissandi
00:22:49.400 --> 00:22:52.980
and Mozart's voice sapete, I don't even know
00:22:52.980 --> 00:22:54.880
what to say, with MacMahoninoff's beautifully
00:22:54.880 --> 00:22:57.839
free tempo in a Bach's serabande, or Mingelberg's
00:22:57.839 --> 00:23:01.359
dramatic Matthias Passione. I can hardly imagine
00:23:01.359 --> 00:23:03.599
that still earlier performing styles would sound
00:23:03.599 --> 00:23:06.799
more familiar to us. I have to say I came across
00:23:06.799 --> 00:23:10.740
fairly recently a set of recordings written by
00:23:10.740 --> 00:23:13.740
sort of the lineage of Liszt and Chopin pupils
00:23:13.740 --> 00:23:15.880
playing the piano pieces. And at first I was
00:23:15.880 --> 00:23:18.440
kind of worried that it would sound not quite
00:23:18.440 --> 00:23:20.140
right, especially because there's so many piano
00:23:20.140 --> 00:23:22.099
recordings. But when I listened to it, I actually
00:23:22.099 --> 00:23:26.319
found that in many ways the tempo made a lot
00:23:26.319 --> 00:23:32.200
more sense. Sort of unpretentiously. just flow
00:23:32.200 --> 00:23:34.200
really really well and these are recordings from
00:23:34.200 --> 00:23:36.980
like the 1920s or even earlier, as soon as sound
00:23:36.980 --> 00:23:38.039
came out people were recording. And think about
00:23:38.039 --> 00:23:40.900
like the connection, like because the gap between
00:23:40.900 --> 00:23:43.539
it was also composed, I just feel like there's
00:23:43.539 --> 00:23:46.839
like sort of like... Like a relationship between
00:23:46.839 --> 00:23:49.319
absolutely because when you like the further
00:23:49.319 --> 00:23:51.859
you stretch from history I think the more mainstream
00:23:51.859 --> 00:23:54.039
I guess I don't know I guess I don't know what
00:23:54.039 --> 00:23:57.180
about the the rate of like mainstream media The
00:23:57.180 --> 00:23:59.519
people act to the people who actually know all
00:23:59.519 --> 00:24:01.559
this stuff, but I don't know if it kind of like
00:24:01.559 --> 00:24:04.740
widened in time No, exactly and if their interpretation
00:24:04.740 --> 00:24:07.559
Which I'm sure it did I'm not saying they were
00:24:07.559 --> 00:24:09.960
like copying how their teachers would play but
00:24:09.960 --> 00:24:13.059
it is interesting to kind of see how you know
00:24:13.059 --> 00:24:15.819
the teachers have a major impact on people's
00:24:15.819 --> 00:24:18.599
interpretations of pieces so how that kind of
00:24:18.599 --> 00:24:20.160
transferred into sound recordings and how we
00:24:20.160 --> 00:24:22.960
can compare it to today and how many modern pianists
00:24:22.960 --> 00:24:24.599
play it and i think it's very interesting i was
00:24:24.599 --> 00:24:26.859
actually very pleasantly surprised as to how
00:24:26.859 --> 00:24:28.599
good it was i really love the recording that's
00:24:28.599 --> 00:24:31.859
also great too you get to you get to Uh, what
00:24:31.859 --> 00:24:33.759
is it? Stumble upon a piece of treasure every
00:24:33.759 --> 00:24:35.319
now and then. Yeah, right. Historical treasure.
00:24:35.339 --> 00:24:37.059
Alright, so now we're getting to the fun part.
00:24:37.160 --> 00:24:41.180
This is like, this is the meat of like the hamburger.
00:24:41.359 --> 00:24:43.440
Like this is like the best part. This is literally
00:24:43.440 --> 00:24:45.279
like... We'll start with the lettuce. This is
00:24:45.279 --> 00:24:48.819
the book. This is the book that defines the book.
00:24:49.359 --> 00:24:52.480
But um, I don't know. I think you should give
00:24:52.480 --> 00:24:55.000
this a go. So this is starting chapter four and
00:24:55.000 --> 00:24:57.519
the title is called The Notation, Its Perception,
00:24:57.759 --> 00:25:00.470
and Rendering. Yes. So he writes... In sections
00:25:00.470 --> 00:25:03.289
1 through 13, the most important notation parameters
00:25:03.289 --> 00:25:05.710
of early music will be treated separately. Short
00:25:05.710 --> 00:25:08.210
text in italics will point to frequent overlapping
00:25:08.210 --> 00:25:11.250
and continual cross -influence between them or
00:25:11.250 --> 00:25:13.190
will lead from one section to the next in an
00:25:13.190 --> 00:25:15.509
attempt to see all these parameters not as isolated
00:25:15.509 --> 00:25:18.670
elements, but rather as interwoven parts of one
00:25:18.670 --> 00:25:21.509
integral artistic product. In sections 14 through
00:25:21.509 --> 00:25:24.029
18, some aspects will be treated that have a
00:25:24.029 --> 00:25:26.009
profound impact on the way the notation is read,
00:25:26.230 --> 00:25:30.230
received, and rendered to the audience. And then
00:25:30.230 --> 00:25:32.410
we're going to be going pitch, but you want to
00:25:32.410 --> 00:25:33.730
read that little thing? Yeah, I just want one
00:25:33.730 --> 00:25:35.789
little preface. He says, tuning and temperament
00:25:35.789 --> 00:25:37.789
have an immediate impact on the listener's ears.
00:25:38.309 --> 00:25:40.029
Research has shown that traditions and standards,
00:25:40.250 --> 00:25:42.289
and thus also their appreciation, have changed
00:25:42.289 --> 00:25:44.309
very much over the years. They kept changing
00:25:44.309 --> 00:25:46.829
until today, though through an introduction of
00:25:46.829 --> 00:25:49.690
electronic tuning devices, uniformity and repeatability
00:25:49.690 --> 00:25:52.130
are favored. I'm not sure that this must be considered
00:25:52.130 --> 00:25:55.750
a game. All right, and then we begin. Starting
00:25:55.750 --> 00:25:59.210
with pitch. I think this is when we're gonna
00:25:59.210 --> 00:26:03.069
be like the chefs in like Hell's Kitchen and
00:26:03.069 --> 00:26:05.609
we're gonna be just like - Let it cook! Yeah,
00:26:05.750 --> 00:26:07.410
we're gonna - this - each chapter is literally
00:26:07.410 --> 00:26:09.230
like a chef making something and we're gonna
00:26:09.230 --> 00:26:11.369
have to like - we're gonna, I think, stop a lot
00:26:11.369 --> 00:26:13.230
and see - Yeah, we'll have to - No, and like
00:26:13.230 --> 00:26:15.569
make all those, yeah, like crazy connections
00:26:15.569 --> 00:26:18.460
and see if there's anything that - we find like
00:26:18.460 --> 00:26:21.519
astounding or whatever. Yeah, lots of interesting
00:26:21.519 --> 00:26:23.180
stuff. He writes at the top, he says, all Hertz
00:26:23.180 --> 00:26:26.519
figures should be understood as, quote, CA, unquote,
00:26:26.660 --> 00:26:28.660
especially for the organ. The influence of the
00:26:28.660 --> 00:26:31.160
temperature should not be neglected. Much of
00:26:31.160 --> 00:26:33.119
the factual information upon which this section
00:26:33.119 --> 00:26:35.480
is based can be found in Bruce Haynes, A History
00:26:35.480 --> 00:26:38.099
of Performing Pitch, published in 2002, to which
00:26:38.099 --> 00:26:40.559
I contributed many pitch data of historical flutes
00:26:40.559 --> 00:26:43.539
and recorders. I think it's Haynes. Yeah, Haynes
00:26:43.539 --> 00:26:46.599
conclusions coincided with my own research and
00:26:46.599 --> 00:26:50.079
experience. Okay, he writes, for most listeners,
00:26:50.660 --> 00:26:52.400
other than those with perfect pitch, centered
00:26:52.400 --> 00:26:55.119
at today's official A equals 440 Hertz, hearing
00:26:55.119 --> 00:26:57.420
a piece lower or higher might not make very much
00:26:57.420 --> 00:26:59.700
difference, although the general mood and sound
00:26:59.700 --> 00:27:02.500
color will undoubtedly be changed. In earlier
00:27:02.500 --> 00:27:05.160
times, there was no standard pitch. Around 1700
00:27:05.160 --> 00:27:10.059
to 1750, Paris and Rome were reputed to play
00:27:10.059 --> 00:27:13.960
at a very low pitch, A equals 392 Hertz. Venice
00:27:13.960 --> 00:27:16.950
and Lombardi were very high pitched. A equals
00:27:16.950 --> 00:27:20.930
466 hertz. With many German cities, between A
00:27:20.930 --> 00:27:23.890
equals 415 hertz. Even within the same city,
00:27:24.109 --> 00:27:26.269
the pitch can vary from one institution to another.
00:27:26.829 --> 00:27:29.930
In Berlin, circa 1750, the opera and church pitch
00:27:29.930 --> 00:27:33.109
was A equals 415 hertz, was half a tone sharper
00:27:33.109 --> 00:27:35.390
than the pitch used by Frederick the Great, A
00:27:35.390 --> 00:27:38.670
equals 392 hertz. One can easily imagine the
00:27:38.670 --> 00:27:41.789
practical problems for performers playing for
00:27:41.789 --> 00:27:44.519
both opera and church at the court. For traveling
00:27:44.519 --> 00:27:47.460
musicians, this was of constant concern. Similarly,
00:27:47.720 --> 00:27:49.480
makers had a difficult time supplying performers
00:27:49.480 --> 00:27:52.039
with adequate instruments for those challenging
00:27:52.039 --> 00:27:54.299
conditions. But it could have been even more
00:27:54.299 --> 00:27:58.319
complicated. In Weimar and Leapsig, JS Bach used
00:27:58.319 --> 00:28:00.319
two different pitch standards simultaneously.
00:28:00.960 --> 00:28:03.640
In Weimar, The organ, singers, and string instruments
00:28:03.640 --> 00:28:06.779
used the high organ pitch, A equals 466 Hz, as
00:28:06.779 --> 00:28:09.700
semitone above 440 Hz. But the woodwinds used
00:28:09.700 --> 00:28:13.440
the French opera pitch, A equals 392 Hz, a minor
00:28:13.440 --> 00:28:16.180
third below the organ, and were thus notated
00:28:16.180 --> 00:28:19.700
transposed into another key. In Leapsig, the
00:28:19.700 --> 00:28:21.500
organ was tuned at the same high pitch, but the
00:28:21.500 --> 00:28:23.640
other instruments and the voices used a pitch
00:28:23.640 --> 00:28:27.140
of A equals 415 Hz, one tone lower. Here, the
00:28:27.140 --> 00:28:29.480
organ had to transpose one tone down, which could
00:28:29.480 --> 00:28:31.980
cause severe intonation problems. For example,
00:28:32.279 --> 00:28:34.160
E flat major, which sounds quite well in the
00:28:34.160 --> 00:28:36.640
usual unequal, unequal temperament, now becomes
00:28:36.640 --> 00:28:39.680
a rather disastrous D flat major. See also this
00:28:39.680 --> 00:28:41.839
section about temperament below. Some organs
00:28:41.839 --> 00:28:44.940
had to stop tune at A equals 415 Hertz in order
00:28:44.940 --> 00:28:47.849
to avoid these trans... transpositions. That
00:28:47.849 --> 00:28:50.829
is crazy. Imagine you show up to orchestra and
00:28:50.829 --> 00:28:53.289
the woodwinds are at 415 and the cellos are at
00:28:53.289 --> 00:28:57.849
420 and the... No, no, no. Here's also that that
00:28:57.849 --> 00:29:00.250
basically proves why you needed to have the perfect
00:29:00.250 --> 00:29:04.109
pitch scale because now when you're like in any
00:29:04.109 --> 00:29:08.660
key D or A or D flat, E flat... When you when
00:29:08.660 --> 00:29:11.799
you're shifting around to like 392 466, they're
00:29:11.799 --> 00:29:14.099
they're noticeably you can notice these like
00:29:14.099 --> 00:29:18.140
these numbers 415 392 466 They're all just like
00:29:18.140 --> 00:29:21.480
semi tones up or down and 392 is a whole turn
00:29:21.480 --> 00:29:25.420
down from 440 So that I can see why you kind
00:29:25.420 --> 00:29:27.500
of like have to know some of that I mean like
00:29:27.500 --> 00:29:29.220
think about a playing on your instrument right
00:29:29.220 --> 00:29:32.140
violin cello viola you you kind of like know
00:29:32.140 --> 00:29:34.759
where everything like fits, you know what you're
00:29:34.759 --> 00:29:38.140
pressing down but it's like it's giving you this
00:29:38.140 --> 00:29:43.019
completely different note like a G and 415 is
00:29:43.019 --> 00:29:45.759
gonna sound like a G flat like right exactly
00:29:45.759 --> 00:29:48.779
like that so now you're thinking oh I'm playing
00:29:48.779 --> 00:29:51.339
in G flat and so that's like that's one of the
00:29:51.339 --> 00:29:53.160
things you have to kind of like and if you're
00:29:53.160 --> 00:29:55.519
playing with um like a harpsichord that's tuned
00:29:55.519 --> 00:29:58.500
um a tone higher but it's still supposed to be
00:29:58.500 --> 00:30:00.900
the same note it's like whoa you have G flat
00:30:00.900 --> 00:30:03.460
played against G sharp and it's just the best
00:30:03.460 --> 00:30:06.940
yeah see exactly that's crazy um So going on
00:30:06.940 --> 00:30:08.980
it says, it is striking that the above -mentioned
00:30:08.980 --> 00:30:11.759
pitches all lie a semitone apart, from A equals
00:30:11.759 --> 00:30:16.599
392, to A equals 415, to A equals 440, to A equals
00:30:16.599 --> 00:30:20.420
466 Hertz. This, however, is an oversimplification
00:30:20.420 --> 00:30:22.380
and generalization of the state of affairs in
00:30:22.380 --> 00:30:25.099
the 17th and 18th centuries. In the 20th century,
00:30:25.460 --> 00:30:27.839
semitone transposition was developed in order
00:30:27.839 --> 00:30:30.099
to accommodate today's harpsichords and organs,
00:30:30.480 --> 00:30:32.079
where the keyboard could be moved one or two
00:30:32.079 --> 00:30:34.720
half -tones up or down. This movable keyboard
00:30:34.720 --> 00:30:38.019
gradually came into use from around 1960. In
00:30:38.019 --> 00:30:40.259
the 17th and 18th centuries, few instruments
00:30:40.259 --> 00:30:42.460
possessed this device, although that the keyboard
00:30:42.460 --> 00:30:44.660
of at least one of the Silberman forte pianos
00:30:44.660 --> 00:30:46.480
at Frederick the Great's court could be moved
00:30:46.480 --> 00:30:49.579
by a semitone. This indicates that the pot, is
00:30:49.579 --> 00:30:51.960
that what's the? Pot stem. Pot stem. Court, the
00:30:51.960 --> 00:30:54.460
pitch could vary too. So I guess we're basically
00:30:54.460 --> 00:30:57.390
saying that, um. Even it's not even just country
00:30:57.390 --> 00:30:59.650
to country. It could just be within the same
00:30:59.650 --> 00:31:04.369
house essentially The the transposition devices,
00:31:04.369 --> 00:31:05.750
I think that's what they were talking about,
00:31:06.170 --> 00:31:08.650
right? Um, they yeah, so they were basically
00:31:08.650 --> 00:31:10.930
I don't know and also it's saying it's claiming
00:31:10.930 --> 00:31:13.450
Mr. Kaika is claiming it's kind of like rare
00:31:13.450 --> 00:31:15.710
at this time, too But the way it would work,
00:31:15.710 --> 00:31:19.849
I believe that I've seen from the recent harpsichords
00:31:19.849 --> 00:31:22.690
by like William Down and other people great pioneers
00:31:22.690 --> 00:31:25.750
like in 50s 1950s is you would kind of like shift
00:31:25.750 --> 00:31:27.769
the move the keyboard up kind of like you're
00:31:27.769 --> 00:31:29.210
moving the shifting the whole keyboard up and
00:31:29.210 --> 00:31:31.430
you're moving it like to the right by like the
00:31:31.430 --> 00:31:34.170
the semitone to maintain that kind of like you're
00:31:34.170 --> 00:31:36.430
not you're not basically tuning anything any
00:31:36.430 --> 00:31:38.809
strings you're just shifting it up so that way
00:31:38.809 --> 00:31:41.690
it's just easier to like not mess with like tuning
00:31:41.690 --> 00:31:45.170
loosening any strings and so that's basically
00:31:45.170 --> 00:32:16.380
what this is talking about right now. The resulting
00:32:16.380 --> 00:32:18.740
pitches usually lie about one or two commas apart
00:32:18.740 --> 00:32:23.079
from each other. My own GA Rottenberg Flute has
00:32:23.079 --> 00:32:26.859
several middle joints in steps of 8mm, playing
00:32:26.859 --> 00:32:33.500
at A equals 392, 398, 404, 410, 416, 423, and
00:32:33.500 --> 00:32:36.359
430 Hz. That is crazy! This instrument was stained
00:32:36.359 --> 00:32:38.480
dark, but the stain wears off where touched by
00:32:38.480 --> 00:32:41.140
the lip or hand. Thus I could conclude that middle
00:32:41.140 --> 00:32:44.170
joint Let's see, nr .5. I think that's number
00:32:44.170 --> 00:32:49.569
5. Now he's just like abbreviating everything.
00:32:51.490 --> 00:32:54.650
416 Hz. 416 Hz and to the lesser extent, number
00:32:54.650 --> 00:32:58.130
4 and 8 equals 410 Hz had been used most often.
00:32:58.390 --> 00:33:00.970
Number 5 had the same stained color as the head
00:33:00.970 --> 00:33:03.910
joint and right hand joint. Number 4 was somewhat
00:33:03.910 --> 00:33:06.109
darker still. The other middle joints obviously
00:33:06.109 --> 00:33:08.809
had been played very seldom. I made similar observations
00:33:08.809 --> 00:33:10.970
in the flutes that Kwantz made for Frederick
00:33:10.970 --> 00:33:13.559
the Great. Here, the color did not change. They
00:33:13.559 --> 00:33:15.819
are made in black wood. But on five of the six
00:33:15.819 --> 00:33:17.339
middle joints, the edges of the finger holes
00:33:17.339 --> 00:33:19.480
are still neat and sharp, whereas on the longest
00:33:19.480 --> 00:33:22.519
middle joint, at A equals 392 hertz, they are
00:33:22.519 --> 00:33:25.519
rounded off, showing the same wear as on the
00:33:25.519 --> 00:33:28.470
right -hand joint. This indicates that Frederick
00:33:28.470 --> 00:33:30.890
played most often at this very low pitch, a fact
00:33:30.890 --> 00:33:36.069
that is confirmed by Inquan's Versuche. Using
00:33:36.069 --> 00:33:38.269
a longer middle joint is often a better solution
00:33:38.269 --> 00:33:40.809
than lengthening the instrument by pulling out
00:33:40.809 --> 00:33:44.650
between head and middle joint. Sorry, but both
00:33:44.650 --> 00:33:46.329
pulling out and choosing a longer or shorter
00:33:46.329 --> 00:33:48.349
middle joint for playing at lower or higher pitches
00:33:48.349 --> 00:33:50.329
changes the proportions of the flute's inner
00:33:50.329 --> 00:33:52.950
bore and thus causing tuning problems. The best
00:33:52.950 --> 00:33:55.430
solution is a completely new instrument, adequately
00:33:55.430 --> 00:33:57.930
designed for the desired pitch. Recorders do
00:33:57.930 --> 00:34:00.130
not use multiple middle joints, probably because
00:34:00.130 --> 00:34:03.730
their playing properties did not allow the same
00:34:03.730 --> 00:34:05.809
degree of pitch correlation as the flute. All
00:34:05.809 --> 00:34:07.650
those were made with up to three upper joints
00:34:07.650 --> 00:34:09.690
because their playing techniques allows for easier
00:34:09.690 --> 00:34:12.130
pitch adjustments. That's actually interesting.
00:34:12.269 --> 00:34:15.489
I guess you would have to have multiple instruments
00:34:15.489 --> 00:34:19.090
to sort of accommodate for the very wide array
00:34:19.090 --> 00:34:21.170
of different like hurts that you're expected
00:34:21.170 --> 00:34:24.070
to know of different ensembles you would be with,
00:34:24.269 --> 00:34:26.880
different chords you'd play for. And I guess
00:34:26.880 --> 00:34:28.760
I kind of took it very seriously, where if you
00:34:28.760 --> 00:34:31.300
were in one ensemble, it's like you're very expected.
00:34:31.340 --> 00:34:33.960
You have to play in 395 Hertz, and then the other
00:34:33.960 --> 00:34:36.400
one's like, no, 440 Hertz, and kind of believe
00:34:36.400 --> 00:34:38.320
me. Yeah, think about all the time you have to
00:34:38.320 --> 00:34:41.500
take in to adjust. To adjust your instrument,
00:34:41.559 --> 00:34:44.940
yeah. That's got to take some time. I guess you'd
00:34:44.940 --> 00:34:47.519
play one movement of something, and then it's
00:34:47.519 --> 00:34:49.199
like, OK, I'll be right back, and then 50 minutes
00:34:49.199 --> 00:34:52.300
will go by. And then do it all over again. Go
00:34:52.300 --> 00:34:54.679
do it all over again. He says today's listeners
00:34:54.679 --> 00:34:57.239
have become accustomed to hearing JS box cantatas
00:34:57.239 --> 00:35:01.360
at A equals 415 rather than at 440 Hertz, but
00:35:01.360 --> 00:35:03.239
they might still be astonished to hear the Weimar
00:35:03.239 --> 00:35:06.320
cantatas in their original setup. Simultaneously,
00:35:06.519 --> 00:35:08.539
the string instruments are rather shrill and
00:35:08.539 --> 00:35:11.960
penetrating at A equals 466 Hertz with the same
00:35:11.960 --> 00:35:14.699
string thickness as for the lower pitches. The
00:35:14.699 --> 00:35:18.679
woodwinds quite dark at A equals 392 Hertz and
00:35:18.679 --> 00:35:20.539
the voices singing at a higher part for their
00:35:20.539 --> 00:35:22.920
register. During the last third of the previous
00:35:22.920 --> 00:35:25.780
century, the acceptance of the A equals 415 Hz
00:35:25.780 --> 00:35:29.579
pitch for Bach's Cantatas took some time, and
00:35:29.579 --> 00:35:32.039
there was vehement opposition from many sides.
00:35:32.619 --> 00:35:34.260
You see, this opposition is a part of a zealous
00:35:34.260 --> 00:35:36.579
kind of self -defense put up by the quote, traditional
00:35:36.579 --> 00:35:39.760
camp. Unfortunately, the word camp was justified
00:35:39.760 --> 00:35:42.340
in those days. There was a deep separation and
00:35:42.340 --> 00:35:44.360
strong opposition between the traditional attitude
00:35:44.360 --> 00:35:46.699
and the historically informed attitude toward
00:35:46.699 --> 00:35:50.239
performance practices. Lower pitch was an easily
00:35:50.239 --> 00:35:53.139
identifiable feature of the totally different
00:35:53.139 --> 00:35:55.480
approach to early music in general, and J .S.
00:35:55.559 --> 00:35:59.739
Bach in particular. As a pars pro toto, it was
00:35:59.739 --> 00:36:05.559
attacked in defense of the quote, holy Bach,
00:36:05.719 --> 00:36:08.519
and the traditional performing style. I'm very
00:36:08.519 --> 00:36:10.619
glad for this fanaticism, which existed on both
00:36:10.619 --> 00:36:13.199
sides. Generally has made room for a more understanding
00:36:13.199 --> 00:36:15.760
and respect. But some of these attitudes survive
00:36:15.760 --> 00:36:19.420
and even in a quite extreme form. Since the 1970s,
00:36:20.139 --> 00:36:25.000
Gerard Zwang... Oh god. What? Gerard Z... What?
00:36:25.099 --> 00:36:26.900
This sounds like... This looks like an Asian
00:36:26.900 --> 00:36:31.039
name too. Since the 1970s, Gerard Zwang... This
00:36:31.039 --> 00:36:34.320
is like... This is like... This is... What is
00:36:34.320 --> 00:36:37.199
it? Oh my god. This is like... Oh no. Maybe it's
00:36:37.199 --> 00:36:39.579
like... Hitting two... Hitting two birds with
00:36:39.579 --> 00:36:43.320
a stone. Gerard Zwang has fulminated against
00:36:43.320 --> 00:36:46.320
differentiated lower higher pitches and authentic
00:36:46.320 --> 00:36:49.699
instruments. interesting i guess so he continues
00:36:49.699 --> 00:36:53.440
to do so in writing such as this is a french
00:36:53.440 --> 00:37:01.679
this is a french guy what this is french what
00:37:01.679 --> 00:37:04.980
is going on more recently the day of song this
00:37:04.980 --> 00:37:07.780
guy is this guy's modern this guy's like this
00:37:07.780 --> 00:37:11.239
guy's from our time what he's writing in french
00:37:11.239 --> 00:37:15.170
he has like German name in like an Asian last
00:37:15.170 --> 00:37:24.329
name. This is the ultimate source. For him the
00:37:24.329 --> 00:37:28.469
A equals 440 Hertz standard is as immutable as
00:37:28.469 --> 00:37:30.949
the meter and the hour in spite of all historical
00:37:30.949 --> 00:37:33.809
evidence. That is interesting. I guess some people
00:37:33.809 --> 00:37:36.750
do kind of stick to Just one train of thought.
00:37:36.929 --> 00:37:38.429
I have seen it on the other side, too, where
00:37:38.429 --> 00:37:40.050
people are like, oh, it should only be played
00:37:40.050 --> 00:37:43.489
415 hertz. Well, yeah, then that's clearly what
00:37:43.489 --> 00:37:46.590
all the period groups do. Right. It's interesting
00:37:46.590 --> 00:37:48.469
because then some of the other recordings, I
00:37:48.469 --> 00:37:51.150
don't, I have not stumbled upon any like other
00:37:51.150 --> 00:37:54.369
Bach cantata recordings that actually go to 466.
00:37:55.710 --> 00:37:58.690
Because that's what, that's a claim. And then
00:37:58.690 --> 00:38:01.389
he was mentioning how woodwinds were at like
00:38:01.389 --> 00:38:05.849
392. Yeah, wow, oh my gosh. because no no here's
00:38:05.849 --> 00:38:09.070
the thing because i've seen in some uh performances
00:38:09.070 --> 00:38:11.369
even recordings like if you've seen netherlands
00:38:11.369 --> 00:38:14.329
bach society i've seen um they give they give
00:38:14.329 --> 00:38:17.289
a lot of guest artists the choice to set their
00:38:17.289 --> 00:38:20.170
uh temperament or pitch or whatever they want
00:38:20.170 --> 00:38:22.610
to do i've noticed like for all the brandenburg
00:38:22.610 --> 00:38:25.750
concertos they've recorded it's all 415 but then
00:38:25.750 --> 00:38:29.889
the fifth one was at 392 so i'm not so sure maybe
00:38:29.889 --> 00:38:34.690
they had a I'm debating it's either a personal
00:38:34.690 --> 00:38:37.710
choice that they decided to do in relation to
00:38:37.710 --> 00:38:40.530
like all the historical evidence or it was like
00:38:40.530 --> 00:38:42.670
legit like historical evidence that they actually
00:38:42.670 --> 00:38:46.510
like found. Well we did the Brandenburg concerto
00:38:46.510 --> 00:38:48.250
at your house, did you? I remember you said something
00:38:48.250 --> 00:38:51.150
about the tuning quality for the string instruments.
00:38:51.309 --> 00:38:54.469
What was that tuning? Do you remember? I heard
00:38:54.469 --> 00:38:56.389
word for the harpsichord or for the string because
00:38:56.389 --> 00:38:58.409
I think it's strings It was all just equal temper.
00:38:58.510 --> 00:39:00.550
It was just equal temper because here's the thing
00:39:00.550 --> 00:39:03.269
because you can't really like change temperament
00:39:03.269 --> 00:39:06.710
on a string instrument because a keyboard instrument
00:39:06.710 --> 00:39:10.289
literally has like Octaves and octaves it spans
00:39:10.289 --> 00:39:12.190
octaves and octaves that I don't think there's
00:39:12.190 --> 00:39:14.590
like too much you can do with a temperament But
00:39:14.590 --> 00:39:16.530
with pitch you can obviously do that and you
00:39:16.530 --> 00:39:18.809
can adjust to the keyboard I think that's what
00:39:18.809 --> 00:39:21.750
we did is for reference to our audience we had
00:39:21.750 --> 00:39:25.250
a Kenny had a self -wrote writing for concerto
00:39:25.250 --> 00:39:26.789
at his house and we brought in the harpsichord
00:39:26.789 --> 00:39:29.409
that I played and I think we had all these string
00:39:29.409 --> 00:39:32.110
players and the point was all the string players
00:39:32.110 --> 00:39:33.769
have this modern sound to their instruments.
00:39:34.159 --> 00:39:37.199
But to try and I guess match it to what the harpsichord
00:39:37.199 --> 00:39:39.900
was. Yeah, I thought that would be kind of a
00:39:39.900 --> 00:39:42.159
little bit too problematic. Yeah, there was a
00:39:42.159 --> 00:39:46.480
lot of people. It was crazy. Especially student
00:39:46.480 --> 00:39:51.239
musicians, I think that's a little bit... You
00:39:51.239 --> 00:39:54.059
would have to learn a lot of stuff in the span
00:39:54.059 --> 00:39:59.320
of several weeks or even a month to fully adjust
00:39:59.320 --> 00:40:01.340
because there could be issues with perfect pitch
00:40:01.340 --> 00:40:06.570
like how Bartold... Kaika mentions or in a sense
00:40:06.570 --> 00:40:09.010
like there would be a lot of problems like obstacles
00:40:09.010 --> 00:40:11.429
getting in the way to Completing like achieving
00:40:11.429 --> 00:40:14.110
like full performance. It was interesting also
00:40:14.110 --> 00:40:17.969
because the harpsichord was not tuned I don't
00:40:17.969 --> 00:40:19.889
I can't remember because clearly harpsichords
00:40:19.889 --> 00:40:21.949
aren't tuned never tuned in equal temperament
00:40:21.949 --> 00:40:25.730
for performances It was it was not like Verkmeister.
00:40:25.730 --> 00:40:28.369
There's all sorts of you know musicologists or
00:40:28.369 --> 00:40:31.210
like musicians who created their own temperaments,
00:40:31.250 --> 00:40:35.340
but it was a It was definitely, it was like a
00:40:35.340 --> 00:40:37.940
British temperament that the harpsichord owner
00:40:37.940 --> 00:40:40.280
gave me. He said, do you want the British temperament?
00:40:40.599 --> 00:40:41.980
He said, it's pretty bright. Oh, he gave you
00:40:41.980 --> 00:40:43.440
the option of it? He was like, which one do you
00:40:43.440 --> 00:40:46.280
want? It's like, you want the authentic fruit
00:40:46.280 --> 00:40:48.059
or something. You want the authentic orange,
00:40:48.159 --> 00:40:52.139
but he gave you instead like a mandarin orange
00:40:52.139 --> 00:40:54.579
instead. It's pretty bright. It's great for Bach.
00:40:54.599 --> 00:40:58.159
I thought it was good actually. The sound. And
00:40:58.159 --> 00:41:00.179
the fact that it was left there for true days,
00:41:00.440 --> 00:41:04.400
because it came true days before, it held up
00:41:04.400 --> 00:41:09.019
pretty decently. It was a shenanigan. Anyway,
00:41:10.059 --> 00:41:12.780
so he says, for many years, and not only for
00:41:12.780 --> 00:41:16.019
Bach, A equals 415 Hz has been adopted as an
00:41:16.019 --> 00:41:18.019
all -purpose high -baroque pitch, although quite
00:41:18.019 --> 00:41:20.219
different standards can be documented for Lully,
00:41:20.239 --> 00:41:24.420
or is it Kuperon? Lully, Couperin, Rameau, Purcell,
00:41:24.619 --> 00:41:27.900
Handel, Corelli, Gavalli, and so forth. Fortunately,
00:41:28.280 --> 00:41:30.159
instruments at other pitches are being made and
00:41:30.159 --> 00:41:32.480
used with increasing frequency, allowing performers
00:41:32.480 --> 00:41:34.079
to exploit their different sound properties.
00:41:34.539 --> 00:41:36.260
This is certainly interesting, but at the same
00:41:36.260 --> 00:41:38.539
time difficult, inconvenient, and expensive.
00:41:39.079 --> 00:41:41.460
Indeed, as a flautist, I need to have at my disposal,
00:41:41.639 --> 00:41:43.679
and feel intimately familiar with, about ten
00:41:43.679 --> 00:41:46.239
different pre -bomb flute types in order to cover
00:41:46.239 --> 00:41:48.719
the repertoire from Lully to Schubert. In practical
00:41:48.719 --> 00:41:50.880
concert life, I need to make many compromises.
00:41:51.179 --> 00:41:53.280
When playing a recital, I cannot have four or
00:41:53.280 --> 00:41:54.860
five differently pitched keyboard instruments
00:41:54.860 --> 00:41:57.880
on stage. On the other hand, for recordings and
00:41:57.880 --> 00:42:00.440
unaccompanied recitals, I gladly use this opportunity
00:42:00.440 --> 00:42:03.400
to play at different pitches. During the 18th
00:42:03.400 --> 00:42:05.679
and early 19th centuries, the pitch rose steadily,
00:42:06.139 --> 00:42:08.280
at some places faster than others. At the same
00:42:08.280 --> 00:42:10.320
time, and even within the same pitch standard,
00:42:10.639 --> 00:42:12.539
the quote, center for gravity of the woodwind
00:42:12.539 --> 00:42:15.300
instrument, tessitura was gradually shifted upward,
00:42:15.539 --> 00:42:17.519
and the composers used the instrument accordingly.
00:42:18.480 --> 00:42:20.440
I devised an easy method to find the center of
00:42:20.440 --> 00:42:22.800
gravity of a given piece of part. Number one,
00:42:23.039 --> 00:42:24.559
each note of the instrument's chromatic scale
00:42:24.559 --> 00:42:27.119
receives a number, starting with one on the lowest
00:42:27.119 --> 00:42:30.019
note. Number two, for each note, this figure
00:42:30.019 --> 00:42:32.000
is multiplied by the number of times it occurs
00:42:32.000 --> 00:42:34.820
in the piece. Number three, the sum of all these
00:42:34.820 --> 00:42:37.019
results is divided by the total amount of notes.
00:42:37.679 --> 00:42:42.690
Total amount of notes. Number four. The pitch
00:42:42.690 --> 00:42:44.869
corresponding to this average value can be identified
00:42:44.869 --> 00:42:46.610
by the numbers given to the chromatic scale.
00:42:46.829 --> 00:42:50.809
Dude, what is this math equation? It's like a
00:42:50.809 --> 00:42:52.949
scientific experience. This actually seems, no,
00:42:53.070 --> 00:42:55.309
no, this actually kind of seems pretty interesting,
00:42:55.369 --> 00:42:57.929
cool, and legit. Like, actually, like, okay,
00:42:58.090 --> 00:43:01.570
like, okay, you, you grab the... You grab the
00:43:01.570 --> 00:43:03.969
lowest note, right, and then you multiply it
00:43:03.969 --> 00:43:06.590
by the number of times the first. The sum of
00:43:06.590 --> 00:43:08.510
all the results is divided by the total amount
00:43:08.510 --> 00:43:10.309
of notes, and the pitch corresponding to this
00:43:10.309 --> 00:43:12.150
average value can be identified by the numbers
00:43:12.150 --> 00:43:15.269
given. That is actually some pretty cool math.
00:43:15.929 --> 00:43:18.269
What else does he have to say after that? Well,
00:43:18.409 --> 00:43:20.929
he says that, so he says, thus the center of
00:43:20.929 --> 00:43:23.889
gravity for J .S. Bach's solo for flute trance.
00:43:24.710 --> 00:43:28.429
Trenciere? Transversier? Actually here, let me
00:43:28.429 --> 00:43:30.909
break it to you. Flute? Flute? I don't know.
00:43:30.989 --> 00:43:33.989
Flute traversier. So it actually means a transverse
00:43:33.989 --> 00:43:36.750
flute. It's basically just like the flute used
00:43:36.750 --> 00:43:42.030
in like Baroque era. But I don't know what transverse
00:43:42.030 --> 00:43:44.630
exactly means, but a transverse flute basically
00:43:44.630 --> 00:43:47.789
is just basically what the flute, the legit type
00:43:47.789 --> 00:43:50.789
of instrument used, which was not, it was not
00:43:50.789 --> 00:43:53.130
the, what is it, the metal one that they use.
00:43:53.369 --> 00:43:55.929
nowadays, but it's just basically the wooden
00:43:55.929 --> 00:43:59.110
one. So that's basically, that's why it's notated
00:43:59.110 --> 00:44:05.389
as Flute Traversier. It has some of these quotations,
00:44:06.349 --> 00:44:08.250
possibly circa around 1720, this would have been
00:44:08.250 --> 00:44:12.329
published. He says this lies between D2 and D
00:44:12.329 --> 00:44:16.369
sharp 2, that's on the keyboard number, and the
00:44:16.369 --> 00:44:19.050
flute part of Mozart's D major flute quartet,
00:44:19.269 --> 00:44:21.940
key, K, V, is that? That's not crucial, is it?
00:44:22.300 --> 00:44:25.960
That's not crucial, is it? Anyway, this is just
00:44:25.960 --> 00:44:28.199
how they document the piece. Oh, yeah, exactly.
00:44:28.400 --> 00:44:34.219
No, no, KV is Mozart. Yeah, KV is Mozart. 285,
00:44:34.260 --> 00:44:37.360
this would have been published in 1777. At G2,
00:44:37.699 --> 00:44:40.039
almost a semitone higher per decade. That's crazy.
00:44:40.619 --> 00:44:42.699
He says, today, much of the classical repertoire
00:44:42.699 --> 00:44:45.519
is played at A equals 430 Hertz. I must confess
00:44:45.519 --> 00:44:48.699
that I am responsible for this. Oh Good good
00:44:48.699 --> 00:44:50.860
for you because now we literally I think every
00:44:50.860 --> 00:44:53.079
single recording that we hear now from like the
00:44:53.079 --> 00:44:54.860
orchestra of the age of enlightenment like in
00:44:54.860 --> 00:44:58.280
the UK This is pretty impressive stuff, go you.
00:44:58.659 --> 00:45:02.980
He says in 1981 La Petite Bond led by my brother,
00:45:03.119 --> 00:45:05.920
how do you say it? Sigismund recorded a series
00:45:05.920 --> 00:45:08.579
of Haydn symphonies as a first Encouragement
00:45:08.579 --> 00:45:10.840
into the classical style these recordings were
00:45:10.840 --> 00:45:13.059
never released because the result was not satisfactory
00:45:13.059 --> 00:45:16.050
the pieces difficult for all of us. Sigismund
00:45:16.050 --> 00:45:18.610
uncompromisingly required chin -off playing for
00:45:18.610 --> 00:45:21.690
the violin and violas, and among the woodwinds
00:45:21.690 --> 00:45:23.730
most of us had inappropriate instruments belonging
00:45:23.730 --> 00:45:27.090
to an earlier period. The pitch of A equals 415
00:45:27.090 --> 00:45:29.489
Hz, and even more so the center of gravity of
00:45:29.489 --> 00:45:31.789
these instruments, was too low. It felt like
00:45:31.789 --> 00:45:33.929
a mezzo soprano trying to sing a soprano part.
00:45:34.360 --> 00:45:37.119
Le Petit Bon's next classical -era project in
00:45:37.119 --> 00:45:42.960
1982 was Haydn's Die Schopfwand. Is this the
00:45:42.960 --> 00:45:48.460
creation? I don't know. Oh, it's late 1700s.
00:45:49.099 --> 00:45:53.900
When did Haydn publish that? It could be. I think
00:45:53.900 --> 00:45:59.380
it's the creation. I don't know. I'm not going
00:45:59.380 --> 00:46:01.909
to have to assert myself in that. So he says
00:46:01.909 --> 00:46:03.789
which was even more difficult and absolutely
00:46:03.789 --> 00:46:06.130
out of reach for our earlier Baroque era woodwinds
00:46:06.130 --> 00:46:08.210
I was given the task of finding out what needed
00:46:08.210 --> 00:46:10.590
to be done about this in the German early music
00:46:10.590 --> 00:46:14.849
orchestra Collegium Collegium Collegium are are
00:46:14.849 --> 00:46:19.289
created by the record label that's a harmonia
00:46:19.289 --> 00:46:24.739
windy in Oh, yeah, by the way, by the way, they
00:46:24.739 --> 00:46:27.260
got acquired by Sony because Sony and people
00:46:27.260 --> 00:46:29.679
like Sony and all the big labels they just love
00:46:29.679 --> 00:46:32.519
acquiring everyone but this was one of the labels
00:46:32.519 --> 00:46:37.320
that actually made a lot of very great period
00:46:37.320 --> 00:46:38.980
instrument recordings and it looks like their
00:46:38.980 --> 00:46:43.670
history spans even like like early 60s, I'm surprised
00:46:43.670 --> 00:46:47.489
because I've only heard stuff from like 80s to
00:46:47.489 --> 00:46:49.650
like present, like that they made and then until
00:46:49.650 --> 00:46:51.530
- Like an early pioneer and historical - Right,
00:46:51.869 --> 00:46:54.650
so which yeah, like it was quite a brave move
00:46:54.650 --> 00:46:56.469
to take because like other people like Georgia
00:46:56.469 --> 00:46:58.570
Gramophone did not release that. They had their
00:46:58.570 --> 00:47:01.929
own line of early music, but the quality of like
00:47:01.929 --> 00:47:04.329
- You know the like the the musicians and the
00:47:04.329 --> 00:47:06.769
philosophy that they stood for I think like Harmonia
00:47:06.769 --> 00:47:10.210
Mundi was Yeah, you know what? I think this 1960s
00:47:10.210 --> 00:47:12.690
was a very experimental time in music and so
00:47:12.690 --> 00:47:15.010
it really extended into the classical scene,
00:47:15.369 --> 00:47:18.590
too He says, uh, let me see here in which I played
00:47:18.590 --> 00:47:22.130
from 1970 to 1978 I had some experiences of later
00:47:22.130 --> 00:47:24.469
types of oboes and flutes which were then for
00:47:24.469 --> 00:47:26.829
convenience's sake Constructed it or rather pushed
00:47:26.829 --> 00:47:29.809
up to A equals 440 Hertz. They're makers that
00:47:29.809 --> 00:47:31.710
attempted to find compromises between modern
00:47:31.710 --> 00:47:33.610
and old instruments, but the results were not
00:47:33.610 --> 00:47:36.369
very convincing. Anyway, according to the information
00:47:36.369 --> 00:47:38.769
that I found, their pitch was rather high. I
00:47:38.769 --> 00:47:40.510
thus decided that we had to stay away from these
00:47:40.510 --> 00:47:42.849
instruments. I did not want to take these mediocre
00:47:42.849 --> 00:47:45.369
hybrids as a model by only lengthening them a
00:47:45.369 --> 00:47:47.769
bit to play at a lower pitch. On the other hand,
00:47:47.909 --> 00:47:51.309
I had experienced the pitch in Vienna's Consentus
00:47:51.309 --> 00:47:55.659
Musicus, an example. Around Nikolaus the ensemble
00:47:55.659 --> 00:47:58.219
around Nikolaus Harnoncourt. Okay, this was so
00:47:58.219 --> 00:48:00.940
there were two giants there's Harnoncourt and
00:48:00.940 --> 00:48:04.820
then there was the Leonhardt guy the Gustav Leonhardt
00:48:04.820 --> 00:48:07.420
the Dutch harpsichordist. Okay, so he led basically
00:48:07.420 --> 00:48:10.400
the Barthold Kuijken brother Sigiswald, Wieland
00:48:10.400 --> 00:48:13.420
Barthold and they work kind of like this one force
00:48:13.420 --> 00:48:16.300
and you got honor Bilsma you got What is it Frans
00:48:16.300 --> 00:48:18.920
Brüggen like the woodwind guy too? Okay, and so
00:48:18.920 --> 00:48:21.099
you got that force and then you got Concentus
00:48:21.099 --> 00:48:24.690
Musicus from Vienna the Nikolaus And he was more,
00:48:24.829 --> 00:48:28.050
I don't want to be too, like, bass, but he was
00:48:28.050 --> 00:48:30.690
more, like, attributed with, like, romantic,
00:48:30.869 --> 00:48:34.030
lush, like, qualities instead of, you know, those
00:48:34.030 --> 00:48:37.929
personalities with performing, like, the early
00:48:37.929 --> 00:48:41.619
music. Yeah, okay. Okay, he always says, their
00:48:41.619 --> 00:48:43.840
oboist used an original instrument at A equals
00:48:43.840 --> 00:48:46.679
422 Hertz. In order to match this pitch, some
00:48:46.679 --> 00:48:48.800
of the other woodwinds copied more or less faithfully
00:48:48.800 --> 00:48:51.360
after original models at a lower pitch were shortened
00:48:51.360 --> 00:48:53.719
by almost a centimeter, throwing off the balance
00:48:53.719 --> 00:48:56.000
in their tuning and in their sound quality. Clearly,
00:48:56.059 --> 00:48:57.900
we had to stay far enough above the A equals
00:48:57.900 --> 00:49:00.300
422 pitch if we wanted to avoid cutting down
00:49:00.300 --> 00:49:03.099
flutes and oboes even further. So I chose, quite
00:49:03.099 --> 00:49:06.780
arbitrarily, A equals 430 Hz in between 422 and
00:49:06.780 --> 00:49:09.719
440. At that time, I had a beautiful organ flute
00:49:09.719 --> 00:49:12.960
on loan, made in the 1780s in Dresden by one
00:49:12.960 --> 00:49:15.500
of the greatest German flute makers, August Grenzer.
00:49:16.119 --> 00:49:19.780
It had four middle joints, A equals 427, 433,
00:49:20.360 --> 00:49:24.000
437, and 442 Hz. A fifth middle joint of 430
00:49:24.000 --> 00:49:26.639
Hz had to be made, and original oboes, clarinets,
00:49:26.679 --> 00:49:29.500
and bassoons had to be found and copied. Fortunately,
00:49:29.989 --> 00:49:33.329
with the brass instruments, the hitches, created
00:49:33.329 --> 00:49:35.090
by lengthening as a shortening, the tube were
00:49:35.090 --> 00:49:37.630
less problematic. We all had to learn to play
00:49:37.630 --> 00:49:39.190
these new instruments in a very short amount
00:49:39.190 --> 00:49:41.829
of time. I loved the first wind rehearsal. It
00:49:41.829 --> 00:49:44.449
started as a disaster, as we might easily have
00:49:44.449 --> 00:49:46.289
been discouraged. But since the projects was
00:49:46.289 --> 00:49:48.449
on its way, we soldiered on in the live recording
00:49:48.449 --> 00:49:51.070
of the performance, Accent Live in 1982. That's
00:49:51.070 --> 00:49:55.349
the record label for the caicas. La Petite Bon
00:49:55.349 --> 00:50:00.289
recorded with accent. Which they've been doing
00:50:00.289 --> 00:50:02.710
for a long time. Are they still around you anymore?
00:50:03.349 --> 00:50:05.289
Yes, they're all alive, actually, surprisingly.
00:50:05.550 --> 00:50:07.570
They're like the only pioneers that are still
00:50:07.570 --> 00:50:09.449
alive because Leonhard, Bilzma, Bruggen, they
00:50:09.449 --> 00:50:12.449
all died and unfortunately passed away in the
00:50:12.449 --> 00:50:16.449
most recent decade and two decades ago. But it's
00:50:16.449 --> 00:50:19.110
insane that some of these people are still alive
00:50:19.110 --> 00:50:22.050
and they're still active and they're still doing
00:50:22.050 --> 00:50:24.739
stuff. Well, he says that, um, the performance
00:50:24.739 --> 00:50:27.239
went astonishingly good. Later studies show me
00:50:27.239 --> 00:50:30.000
that at the time of Haydn's scho - scho - scho
00:50:40.699 --> 00:50:43.340
A430Hz is no more than an average and has not
00:50:43.340 --> 00:50:45.800
been so frequently documented. After our recording
00:50:45.800 --> 00:50:47.860
project, these newly constructed and mastered
00:50:47.860 --> 00:50:49.920
instruments continued to be played in like in
00:50:49.920 --> 00:50:52.260
several other period instrument orchestras. So
00:50:52.260 --> 00:50:54.739
A equals 430Hz became a practical compromise
00:50:54.739 --> 00:50:57.500
for traveling musicians worldwide. However, this
00:50:57.500 --> 00:50:59.300
solution should by no means be confused with
00:50:59.300 --> 00:51:01.659
historical truth or be considered as the historical
00:51:01.659 --> 00:51:03.559
pitch for classical music I love how he keeps
00:51:03.559 --> 00:51:06.159
asserting that like you have to look to the past
00:51:06.159 --> 00:51:09.219
But this is what we have to do now because this
00:51:09.219 --> 00:51:12.099
is like the only go -to way to create something
00:51:12.099 --> 00:51:16.239
like this If you want to get anywhere, right?
00:51:17.659 --> 00:51:20.960
So yeah, I like the 430 compromise and it sounds
00:51:20.960 --> 00:51:23.420
actually Because unfortunately, I cannot play
00:51:23.420 --> 00:51:25.780
it, but I do recommend you to listen to it. There's
00:51:25.780 --> 00:51:27.760
some very great recordings by La Petite Band.
00:51:27.820 --> 00:51:30.219
They have Haydn, they have all the symphonies.
00:51:30.400 --> 00:51:32.360
If you want to listen to some of that, there's
00:51:32.360 --> 00:51:34.679
Haydn cello concertos. You got, I don't know,
00:51:34.719 --> 00:51:36.599
I think they have violin sonatas and everything.
00:51:36.940 --> 00:51:40.699
But some of that 432 Hz quality, some people
00:51:40.699 --> 00:51:42.780
also like attributing to it. Like I'm not going
00:51:42.780 --> 00:51:45.980
to quote per person from Reddit, but the people
00:51:45.980 --> 00:51:48.340
have generally thought it's more like closer
00:51:48.340 --> 00:51:51.260
to the voice and 440 is a little bit. more above
00:51:51.260 --> 00:51:53.340
that it's a little higher pitch i've even heard
00:51:53.340 --> 00:51:56.760
that um the 430 is is closer to like a healing
00:51:56.760 --> 00:51:59.760
frequency which is like a thing versus i mean
00:51:59.760 --> 00:52:01.760
i'm not sure I'm not sure how true that is if
00:52:01.760 --> 00:52:03.099
you have to be in the room with the instrument
00:52:03.099 --> 00:52:05.380
or with that, but yeah, a lot of people prefer
00:52:05.380 --> 00:52:06.500
it just because it has more of a calm quality.
00:52:06.519 --> 00:52:09.099
It's more, and some people also say it's like,
00:52:09.280 --> 00:52:11.900
it has this more like sunset, like bright, like
00:52:11.900 --> 00:52:15.019
this bright, not as extremely bright, but kind
00:52:15.019 --> 00:52:17.579
of like the sunset vibe, like quality, which
00:52:17.579 --> 00:52:20.980
I've kind of, it has this warm tone and all that
00:52:20.980 --> 00:52:22.619
stuff, which I kind of like. Or I can hear that.
00:52:22.900 --> 00:52:27.159
I can hear that. Like this is an A, and then
00:52:27.159 --> 00:52:30.420
I don't know if I can do a 430, A. Yeah, it's
00:52:30.420 --> 00:52:34.940
a little bright. That's what all the sopranos
00:52:34.940 --> 00:52:38.559
and mezzo -sopranos and the tenors and the bass
00:52:38.559 --> 00:52:43.719
singers would do. Exactly. Alright, maybe we
00:52:43.719 --> 00:52:46.139
should perhaps explore temperament a little bit,
00:52:46.380 --> 00:52:49.860
just a bit here. Temperament is a very personal
00:52:49.860 --> 00:52:52.179
and subjective matter as always, especially with
00:52:52.179 --> 00:52:54.000
the keyboard instruments, even though it has
00:52:54.000 --> 00:52:56.539
been dealt with in great detail by acoustiticians
00:52:56.539 --> 00:52:59.460
and mathematicians like Pythagoras. I remember
00:52:59.460 --> 00:53:02.380
Pythagorean, he made that crazy tuning system,
00:53:02.380 --> 00:53:05.260
I don't know, one day in the Greek, in the Greek
00:53:05.260 --> 00:53:07.860
era, that's the big brains here, with many inaudible
00:53:07.860 --> 00:53:10.820
decimal digits. Tuning by ear hardly anybody
00:53:10.820 --> 00:53:13.800
will exactly duplicate the same temperament even
00:53:13.800 --> 00:53:16.619
if wanting to do so the difference between Okay,
00:53:16.619 --> 00:53:25.280
okay, I don't know Tuning my ear hardly anybody
00:53:25.280 --> 00:53:27.460
will exactly duplicate the same temperament even
00:53:27.460 --> 00:53:31.880
of wanting to do so I'm sorry. Okay, there's
00:53:31.880 --> 00:53:33.820
there's something going something's going on
00:53:33.820 --> 00:53:36.219
But the difference between one tuner and another
00:53:36.219 --> 00:53:38.119
might be bigger still and the sound properties
00:53:38.119 --> 00:53:40.199
of individual instruments can also have their
00:53:40.199 --> 00:53:44.760
influence upon the final result Yeah, so basically
00:53:44.760 --> 00:53:48.360
temperament is like It's like it's oh, it's like
00:53:48.360 --> 00:53:50.280
think of it like math as a subject. You've got
00:53:50.280 --> 00:53:54.139
calculus. You got algebra precalculus Temperament's
00:53:54.139 --> 00:53:57.719
in there. Temperament goes down like very deep
00:53:57.719 --> 00:53:59.380
down in temperament. So let's see what he has
00:53:59.380 --> 00:54:01.699
to say. Mark Lindley gives a good overview of
00:54:01.699 --> 00:54:03.860
the different historical system, historical tuning
00:54:03.860 --> 00:54:06.579
systems and Howard Mayer Brown and Stanley Sade.
00:54:07.099 --> 00:54:09.239
the Norton Grove Handbooks of Music Performance
00:54:09.239 --> 00:54:12.639
Practice Music After 1600, published in 1989.
00:54:13.280 --> 00:54:15.639
Unfortunately, in any given composition, one
00:54:15.639 --> 00:54:18.119
cannot simultaneously have all octaves, fifths,
00:54:18.139 --> 00:54:19.920
fourths, and thirds, the first encountered intervals
00:54:19.920 --> 00:54:22.619
in the series of overtones, acoustically pure.
00:54:22.760 --> 00:54:24.800
For example, non -beating against each other.
00:54:25.210 --> 00:54:27.210
Temperaments are a practical solution to this
00:54:27.210 --> 00:54:29.989
problem necessitated by the fixed notes of the
00:54:29.989 --> 00:54:32.730
keyboard or the fixed position on the frets on
00:54:32.730 --> 00:54:35.510
lute or viola da gamba. Each tuning system has
00:54:35.510 --> 00:54:37.769
its own characteristics and thus its own expressive
00:54:37.769 --> 00:54:41.230
qualities, depending on the number and kind of
00:54:41.230 --> 00:54:44.269
peer or impure intervals. Quarter comma mean
00:54:44.269 --> 00:54:47.960
tone, often used in 17th century opts for pure
00:54:47.960 --> 00:54:51.380
major thirds and that results in 11 very flat
00:54:51.380 --> 00:54:54.880
and one much too wide fifth. It is a rather diminished
00:54:54.880 --> 00:54:58.139
six, G sharp to E flat. This temperament works
00:54:58.139 --> 00:55:00.619
quite well for pieces with no more than three
00:55:00.619 --> 00:55:04.139
or four sharps of flats and as was then customary.
00:55:04.679 --> 00:55:07.400
In the later 17th and 18th century, many systems
00:55:07.400 --> 00:55:11.030
were vol tempered, well tempered. No, I guess
00:55:11.030 --> 00:55:15.769
you've probably heard that too. That also is
00:55:15.769 --> 00:55:19.849
a whole entire debate. That goes down a giant
00:55:19.849 --> 00:55:23.289
rabbit hole with Bach coined there too. The term,
00:55:23.409 --> 00:55:27.300
enabling. one to play in all keys. However, this
00:55:27.300 --> 00:55:29.440
does not mean all the keys would sound identical.
00:55:29.539 --> 00:55:32.119
There could be a gradual favoring of pure fifths
00:55:32.119 --> 00:55:34.599
over pure thirds as one gets farther from C major.
00:55:35.019 --> 00:55:36.800
Transposing a piece then is not just playing
00:55:36.800 --> 00:55:39.219
it lower or higher. The placement of notes within
00:55:39.219 --> 00:55:41.719
the octave and thus the overall result is different
00:55:41.719 --> 00:55:46.219
from one tonality to another. Within a piece,
00:55:46.440 --> 00:55:48.380
repeating a theme in another key can also make
00:55:48.380 --> 00:55:50.639
a noticeable difference. These differences are
00:55:50.639 --> 00:55:53.690
lost in equal temperament. That's interesting
00:55:53.690 --> 00:56:00.409
major Let's see Because yeah, the the overall
00:56:00.409 --> 00:56:02.150
summary of this section right here is just saying
00:56:02.150 --> 00:56:04.409
equal temperament was not even the thing back
00:56:04.409 --> 00:56:06.210
then it was just all over the place you have
00:56:06.210 --> 00:56:09.610
all the reasons you have all sorts of stuff there's
00:56:09.610 --> 00:56:14.050
and then there's this concept in the 17th, 18th
00:56:14.050 --> 00:56:16.429
century called the wall tempered and I guess
00:56:16.429 --> 00:56:20.170
there was a trend going on there as the times
00:56:20.170 --> 00:56:22.909
passed on. By the 16th century, some keyboard
00:56:22.909 --> 00:56:25.130
and loop players must have been frustrated when
00:56:25.130 --> 00:56:27.630
wanting to play with more than the customary
00:56:27.630 --> 00:56:30.530
three or four sharps of flats. It is no wonder
00:56:30.530 --> 00:56:32.289
that they were the first to occasionally refer
00:56:32.289 --> 00:56:34.789
to equal temperament as a solution. Shortly before
00:56:34.789 --> 00:56:38.550
1600, Simon Stephen succeeded in presenting its
00:56:38.550 --> 00:56:40.829
mathematical structure. In equal temperament,
00:56:40.989 --> 00:56:42.900
all fifths are slightly smaller and all major
00:56:42.900 --> 00:56:45.380
thirds are quite a lot more wider than pure.
00:56:45.900 --> 00:56:49.480
As a result, all tonalities are identical. Though
00:56:49.480 --> 00:56:52.460
unequal tuning systems are still mentioned throughout
00:56:52.460 --> 00:56:54.760
the 19th century, equal temperament obviously
00:56:54.760 --> 00:56:57.099
became the first best choice for the expanding
00:56:57.099 --> 00:56:59.780
harmonic language. It has stayed and used through
00:56:59.780 --> 00:57:02.380
today as a very practical compromise even with
00:57:02.380 --> 00:57:05.489
the limitation that Equal temperament contains
00:57:05.489 --> 00:57:08.329
no pure intervals. It is not, however, practical
00:57:08.329 --> 00:57:10.989
or particularly useful for early music. That
00:57:10.989 --> 00:57:13.610
is crazy. You know, I have to wonder, with all
00:57:13.610 --> 00:57:15.429
of these debates going on, these discussions
00:57:15.429 --> 00:57:17.949
going on, how did composers approach that when
00:57:17.949 --> 00:57:19.710
they were writing their pieces? I'm trying to
00:57:19.710 --> 00:57:21.750
think, because when you're writing a piece today,
00:57:22.130 --> 00:57:24.150
and you maybe have something in your head, you
00:57:24.150 --> 00:57:26.269
hear it in your head as an equal temperament
00:57:26.269 --> 00:57:27.869
as something that we're just become accustomed
00:57:27.869 --> 00:57:30.489
to in our century. But if you're living in the
00:57:30.489 --> 00:57:32.570
16th century and different instruments are kind
00:57:32.570 --> 00:57:35.519
of... There's this debate like, oh, what hurts
00:57:35.519 --> 00:57:37.340
are we going to have the violin in versus a harpsichord
00:57:37.340 --> 00:57:39.300
or something? How do you hear the piece in your
00:57:39.300 --> 00:57:43.000
head? And then you write it down. What is really
00:57:43.000 --> 00:57:45.739
going on with establishing what your piece sounds
00:57:45.739 --> 00:57:48.300
like? Yeah. I guess it's kind of up in the air
00:57:48.300 --> 00:57:51.579
there. This is extremely philosophical right
00:57:51.579 --> 00:57:55.949
here. that keyboard instruments need one temperament
00:57:55.949 --> 00:57:59.309
or another does not necessarily mean that all
00:57:59.309 --> 00:58:01.289
other instruments and voices should be enslaved
00:58:01.289 --> 00:58:03.889
by the same rigors, certainly not in early music.
00:58:04.269 --> 00:58:06.710
With its relatively simple harmonies and strongly
00:58:06.710 --> 00:58:09.449
modal or tonal structure, string instruments
00:58:09.449 --> 00:58:11.650
are somewhat limited by their open strings when
00:58:11.650 --> 00:58:13.909
both a cello and a violin tune in all their fifths
00:58:13.909 --> 00:58:15.949
pure, the interval between the cello's lowest
00:58:15.949 --> 00:58:19.050
string, C, and the violin's highest string, E2,
00:58:19.590 --> 00:58:21.690
three octaves plus a major third is much too
00:58:21.690 --> 00:58:24.889
wide. If they tune this interval pure, their
00:58:24.889 --> 00:58:27.349
fifths become very small. The rich overtones
00:58:27.349 --> 00:58:29.690
of a good string instrument include, of course,
00:58:29.849 --> 00:58:31.789
both the pure fifth and the pure major third,
00:58:32.210 --> 00:58:34.449
but we cannot have the best of both worlds, so
00:58:34.449 --> 00:58:35.949
usually string players will choose something
00:58:35.949 --> 00:58:39.070
in between these two extreme solutions. Freted
00:58:39.070 --> 00:58:41.210
string instruments will naturally prefer equal
00:58:41.210 --> 00:58:44.469
or not to unequal temperament, since on the bass
00:58:44.469 --> 00:58:47.369
viol, for example C sharp low and quarter comma
00:58:47.369 --> 00:58:49.489
mean tone tuning, must be taken on the same fret
00:58:49.489 --> 00:58:52.840
as B flat. high -end quarter comma mean tone
00:58:52.840 --> 00:58:55.699
tuning. Brass instruments lacking holes or valves
00:58:55.699 --> 00:58:59.300
obviously use the pure harmonic overtones. Any
00:58:59.300 --> 00:59:03.099
deviation from these or notes not falling into
00:59:03.099 --> 00:59:05.039
the overtone series when playable at all must
00:59:05.039 --> 00:59:08.980
be achieved by lip and breath corrections. Woodwinds
00:59:08.980 --> 00:59:11.900
were not tuned in a specific system, but through
00:59:11.900 --> 00:59:14.739
fingering and embrosure and good ears, they mostly
00:59:14.739 --> 00:59:17.059
could adapt well to different situations. The
00:59:17.059 --> 00:59:19.719
voice is the most adaptable and free. Singing
00:59:19.719 --> 00:59:21.840
pure intervals gives a very resonant quality
00:59:21.840 --> 00:59:24.320
to an ensemble choir, but might entail a subtle
00:59:24.320 --> 00:59:29.519
change of overall pitch during a piece. Wow Okay,
00:59:29.519 --> 00:59:32.659
so he gives a quick rundown string instruments.
00:59:32.659 --> 00:59:35.059
You don't you can't do that much I mean and then
00:59:35.059 --> 00:59:38.559
also he gives us extra cool on fact about the
00:59:38.559 --> 00:59:40.619
fretted string instrument so like you got the
00:59:40.619 --> 00:59:45.619
viol for example, yeah, and It's interesting
00:59:45.619 --> 00:59:49.670
that that you have to That they naturally prefer
00:59:49.670 --> 00:59:52.409
equal temperament equal or not too unequal as
00:59:52.409 --> 00:59:54.969
he says temperament and then brass instruments
00:59:54.969 --> 00:59:58.250
They have to do pure harmonic overtones. Yeah,
00:59:58.309 --> 01:00:01.730
which I can kind of see like natural horn. Yeah,
01:00:01.730 --> 01:00:05.789
for example What else woodwinds woodwinds have
01:00:05.789 --> 01:00:08.130
to just adjust so that you just have this crazy
01:00:08.130 --> 01:00:11.989
concoction of all this like orientation the woodwinds
01:00:11.989 --> 01:00:14.710
seem probably the most difficult, especially
01:00:14.710 --> 01:00:16.510
when you're dealing with elongating or shortening
01:00:16.510 --> 01:00:18.449
the actual instrument itself, that's gotta be
01:00:18.449 --> 01:00:20.710
very difficult. I mean, you see that all the
01:00:20.710 --> 01:00:23.590
time where an oboe player is always adjusting
01:00:23.590 --> 01:00:25.789
their reed and they're doing these things to
01:00:25.789 --> 01:00:27.829
kind of, I guess, make the instrument malleable
01:00:27.829 --> 01:00:30.929
into their own. So I guess it's sort of a traditional
01:00:30.929 --> 01:00:32.690
thing for the woodwind instruments in general,
01:00:33.110 --> 01:00:35.329
but even more so at this time, it must have been
01:00:35.329 --> 01:00:37.590
especially challenging getting a certain sound
01:00:37.590 --> 01:00:40.900
to match. the temperament of the strings or the
01:00:40.900 --> 01:00:44.360
harpsichord. The strings are interesting because
01:00:44.360 --> 01:00:46.860
the open strings do add this whole other variable
01:00:46.860 --> 01:00:49.340
to the tuning because, so I guess equal temperament,
01:00:49.400 --> 01:00:52.119
if you're a violinist and you're playing in 413
01:00:52.119 --> 01:00:54.500
hertz or something like that, you must, you have
01:00:54.500 --> 01:00:56.780
to make sure that it matches between your open
01:00:56.780 --> 01:00:59.960
strings. I'm assuming unless each open string
01:00:59.960 --> 01:01:02.500
is gonna be slightly different in terms of, because
01:01:02.500 --> 01:01:05.280
they're a fifth apart from each other, so didn't
01:01:05.280 --> 01:01:09.340
he say the fifths are pure? That's oh, yeah,
01:01:09.380 --> 01:01:12.380
like a but when I like if you have a cello and
01:01:12.380 --> 01:01:14.639
violin tuned together then their fifths pure
01:01:14.639 --> 01:01:18.139
and then yeah Yeah, for example. Or the thirds
01:01:18.139 --> 01:01:19.900
were wide or something like that. Yeah, that's
01:01:19.900 --> 01:01:21.760
gotta be... probably was very challenging at
01:01:21.760 --> 01:01:24.400
the time. Yeah, this gets a little bit more technical
01:01:24.400 --> 01:01:27.980
than what a regular, like, youth orchestra musician
01:01:27.980 --> 01:01:31.159
would do. Because, I mean, that's how they're
01:01:31.159 --> 01:01:33.139
taught, right? That's like, you just tune at
01:01:33.139 --> 01:01:36.820
440, you tune at VA that you grew up with all
01:01:36.820 --> 01:01:40.420
your life. And then imagine you just get subjected
01:01:40.420 --> 01:01:42.599
to this. This is because, like, if you actually
01:01:42.599 --> 01:01:44.300
want to try doing all this stuff, then you're
01:01:44.300 --> 01:01:46.920
gonna have to... you figure... you like discover
01:01:46.920 --> 01:01:50.079
this whole entire world of oh yeah you're that
01:01:50.079 --> 01:01:55.019
that's got to be very bright because it's gonna
01:01:55.019 --> 01:01:59.159
sound pretty sweet there yeah yeah I don't know
01:01:59.159 --> 01:02:02.159
that's that's kind of a lost art in a way I don't
01:02:02.159 --> 01:02:05.099
know how how lost did you did you feel like after
01:02:05.099 --> 01:02:10.699
just strings then brass then woodwinds and then
01:02:10.699 --> 01:02:14.039
all of us all of us there What's kind of odd
01:02:14.039 --> 01:02:17.260
is that I know it's like 17th century, but that's
01:02:17.260 --> 01:02:20.659
in historical terms, it's very recent. So our
01:02:20.659 --> 01:02:24.559
established tuning system is such a new product
01:02:24.559 --> 01:02:26.480
of the arts that we just kind of take for granted
01:02:26.480 --> 01:02:30.699
now as musicians. So kind of like we said in
01:02:30.699 --> 01:02:32.400
the last episode, there is benefit of looking
01:02:32.400 --> 01:02:35.159
back and seeing what our ancestors were working
01:02:35.159 --> 01:02:37.519
on, how they would have heard the music too.
01:02:38.420 --> 01:02:41.059
Yeah, I just feel like, yeah, that's like...
01:02:40.719 --> 01:02:42.860
Yeah, there's just so much that's been, like,
01:02:43.000 --> 01:02:44.980
missing. I know I keep saying it, but there's
01:02:44.980 --> 01:02:47.719
just so much that's, like, not even beyond music,
01:02:48.079 --> 01:02:50.260
like, I don't know, just, like, even, like, literature.
01:02:50.539 --> 01:02:53.219
That's why people study Shakespeare or, like,
01:02:54.679 --> 01:02:57.280
Hemingway, just all those people from, like,
01:02:57.340 --> 01:02:59.480
the past, and that's just, like, I don't know,
01:02:59.659 --> 01:03:02.159
I just feel like there's more to it, obviously,
01:03:02.380 --> 01:03:05.570
with... like literature, what else could you
01:03:05.570 --> 01:03:08.309
say, like art, too, in a sense? Well, the sciences
01:03:08.309 --> 01:03:11.090
are kind of a little side to it, but science,
01:03:11.329 --> 01:03:13.670
when you look at the historical early scientists,
01:03:13.769 --> 01:03:17.510
like the 1700s, many of them also were very well
01:03:17.510 --> 01:03:19.969
-versed in things like philosophy and writing
01:03:19.969 --> 01:03:22.889
and history. They kind of went along with their
01:03:22.889 --> 01:03:26.429
science, and they also weren't necessarily just
01:03:26.429 --> 01:03:28.889
chemists or biologists, at the time, like alchemists
01:03:28.889 --> 01:03:31.969
or biologists. They kind of knew... how all of
01:03:31.969 --> 01:03:34.230
the sciences work together to some extent and
01:03:34.230 --> 01:03:37.070
I mean we live in a very scientific time today
01:03:37.070 --> 01:03:40.690
but at the same time it's almost segregated so
01:03:40.690 --> 01:03:42.789
you have people that are like purely biologists
01:03:42.789 --> 01:03:45.150
and people who are just psychologists and sometimes
01:03:45.150 --> 01:03:48.369
there's a little bit of a I think like a blind
01:03:48.369 --> 01:03:50.829
spot where you might be really good in one field
01:03:50.829 --> 01:03:52.869
but then you don't have much of a strong understanding.
01:03:52.969 --> 01:03:56.550
Like you know like people like Aristotle or Pythagorean
01:03:56.550 --> 01:03:59.210
I mean I mean like okay like they did steal some
01:03:59.210 --> 01:04:02.329
of their Like the what is it the Pythagorean
01:04:02.329 --> 01:04:05.409
theorem like that was not actually his entire
01:04:05.409 --> 01:04:11.369
like He kind of took that from I think One of
01:04:11.369 --> 01:04:15.050
his students or there was like some other Like
01:04:15.050 --> 01:04:17.389
mathematicians there. Okay. They were like Oh
01:04:17.389 --> 01:04:19.690
whoever's known the sad part of that is like
01:04:19.690 --> 01:04:21.849
whoever's the first to like grab that is that's
01:04:21.849 --> 01:04:25.920
theirs after that Yeah, so yeah, that's Yeah,
01:04:26.260 --> 01:04:27.519
that's a big rest in peace.