LISTSERV 16.0

Help for HPSCHD-L Archives


HPSCHD-L Archives

HPSCHD-L Archives


HPSCHD-L@LIST.UIOWA.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HPSCHD-L Home

HPSCHD-L Home

HPSCHD-L  March 2005

HPSCHD-L March 2005

Subject:

temperament around Froberger (and a bit Bach); Viennese keyboards with split keys and 'enharmonic' organs, Rome, Frescobaldi, Huygens

From:

Ibo Ortgies <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Harpsichords and Related Topics <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 20 Mar 2005 13:04:24 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (197 lines)

Hi,


I have not yet answered to a couple of posts answering my last
contribution. I'll try to work on that later - but it might alos grow
into an article.


In the meantime a couple of comments concerning Froberger's possible
choices of temperament:

At least  one organ in Vienna is still known to have had split keys
the Johannes-Wöckherl-organ of the Franziskanerkirche. The instrument
was built in 1642 – not long after Froberger returned from his studies
with Frescobaldi in Rome (I'm just pointing to the close dates, not
implying that Froberger had influence on the organ's tonal design!).
The splits were g#/ab, eb'/d#' and g#'/ab'. They were removed as late as
1832-1833 – Mozart,  Beethoven, Schubert might have known the organ with
its split keys.
(S. Ibo Ortgies: "Subsemitones in Organs Built between 1468 and 1721.
Introduction and Commentary with an Annotated Catalog", 56
In: GOArt Research Reports, Vol. 3, ed. Sverker Jullander, 11-74.
Göteborg: Göteborg Organ Art Center, 2003)

That we don't know more about other organ with split keys in Vienna
doesn't meant that there weren't others. Christopher Stembridge's, mine
and other's researches have lead to a constant addition of
newly-detected organs with split keys to the records. The list is now at
  more than 80 instruments (a italian recension of my quoted article
revealed further six instruments ion Italy, among others in large city
cathedrals).
Therefore it can not be excluded, or it might be considered to be
likely, that there have been more such organs in the Imperial city of
Vienna.
Froberger served at the Viennese Imperial court. Inventories of the
court show, that there were 2 "enharmonic" instruments in the second
half of the 17th century, probably older instruments.  Such instruments
were equipped with at least 19 notes per octave.  One of the instruments
was built by Francesco Nigetti (1603-1681) - who was an also organist,
who completed his studies with Frescobaldi, when the latter served at
the Medici-court.
Also at the Imperial court chapel in Innsbruck  was a similar instrument
available, transferred to Vienna in 1667. It seems to have had two
manuals, all black keys split (may be split into more than two parts?).
It was mentioned 1665 and again in 1741.
(s. Gerhard Stradner: "Saitenklaviere in österreichischen Inventaren."
In: Das Österreichische Cembalo. 600 Jahre Cembalobau in Österreich, ed.
Alfons Huber, 329–342. Tutzing: Hans Schneider, 2001.).

Stradner mentions btw, that the Viennese court had in 1706  314
instruments including 35 keyboard instruments: 13 organs (!), 3
claviorgana, 13 harpsichords, 5 spinets and 1 clavicitherium. No
clavichords were listed).
Were the 13 organs all bought after Froberger's ended his tenure at the
court?

In the beginning of the 17th century the enharmonic harpsichord, owned
by the court organist (!) Carl Luython in Prague, was described by
Praetorius.  It was however was sold in 1613 (Praetorius info on
Luython's ownership was outdated, when he published about it).
(s. the well-known "Organographia" Praetorius 1619, but also
A. Koczirz: "Zur Geschichte des Luython'schen Klavizimbels." Sammelbände
der Internationalen Musikgesellschaft, Vol. IX (1907-1908): 565-570)

According to Praetorius  owned the Archducal court chapel in Graz
(Austria) an Italian organ positiv  with 19 notes per octave:
"Vor etlich wenig jahren ist auch ein herrlich Positiff an de[n]
Ertzhertzogischen Hof naher Grätz aus Italia gebracht worden / darinnen
gleichergestalt [MP refers to the 19-note instrument described in the
same chapter] alle Semitonia doppelt und vollnkömmlich zu finden / und
ein trefflich Werck seyn sol." (Praetorius 1619, 66)


It is clear that instruments, both organs and stringed keyboard
instruments, with some split keys as well as "enharmonic", existed in
the sphere of the Habsburgian courts throughout Froberger's tenure. Even
more, it is safe to say that north of the Alps the Habsburgian court was
a center of "enharmonicity".
Froberger's studies in Rome with Frescobaldi must have made him
acquainted with at least two larger organs with split keys, there (f.
ex. the large Blasi-organ in San Giovanni in Laterano, 1598-99, split
keys for eb/d# and g#/ab from bass-G# up to g#'/ab'. Reconstructed in
1989).

The new Grove mentions:
"In the dedication of his 1624 Capricci (A.5) Frescobaldi declared
himself a pupil of Luzzaschi, who was considered one of the great
organists of his time as well as one of the few players capable of
performing on (and even composing for) Nicola Vicentino's arcicembalo.
(In 1619 Frescobaldi was described as the only keyboard player in Rome
capable of playing a similar instrument in the possession of Cardinal
Alessandro d'Este.)"
    (S. Frederick Hammond/Alexander Silbiger: 'Frescobaldi, Girolamo
Alessandro', Grove Music Online ed. L. Macy (Accessed 20 March 2004),
<http://www.grovemusic.com>).

I have pointed elsewhere to Doni's untrustworthy, unflattering ancedote
which connects Frescobaldi with Equal temperament in organ - and this
information supports Frescobaldi's connection with meantone and/or Just
Intonation.
Though there seems not to be a direct link between Frescobaldi and  the
d'Este-court in Ferrara it may be noteworthy that this court owned 2
claviorgana with an unknown number of split keys.
The above enharmonic instrument in the Court chapel of Innsbruck was
built by a Caesar de Pollastris from  Ferrara.  I couldn't find the year
dates of this builder - if he worked before 1600 then Frescobaldi might
have known his instruments from his time in Ferrara. And Praetorius
mentions a builder of enharmonic instruments named Iulius Caesar (not
the Roman emperor, if anybody suspected that). Where they an identical
person? "Iulius Caesar de Pollastris"?



It is striking to see Froberger's output within the whole frame:

- His musical studies with a master, who was so to say closesly
   connected  to some of several Italian centra of meantone and
   just intonation
- His tenure at the Habsburgian court, a center of meantone and
   just intonation, equipped with suitable instruments

We do neither know what kind of instruments he owned himself, nor which
kind of organs/keyboard instruments he had available after he wasn't
reappointed to the Viennese court organist position in 1657 (after the
death of the emperor).

It is however another striking observation, the connection to Christiaan
Huygens, the famous mathematician, physicist, astronomer and music
theorist. Huygens had a strong interest in tone systems and had since
the early 1660s ideas about the 31-note equal system (which comes
closest to a 1/5-pyth.comma-meantone temperament) – he published it only
in 1691. He met Froberger in September 1665 at the court in Mainz and
the continued to exchange letters until Froberger's death in May 1667.

In short the meantone/just intonation web around Froberger
- Luzzaschi, the famous player of the 31-/36-note instruments,
- Frescobaldi who played such an instrument in Rome 1619
- Huygens supporting 31-note-meantone-system having contact
   to Froberger.
- And then we have Michael Buliowsky de Dulycz, a pupil of Froberger,
   whose copy (Ms., Strasbourg 1675) of  Froberger pieces  was
   discovered some years ago. He a treatise on the 31-note-system in
   1680, both in German and Latin (Brevis de Emendatione Organi Musici
   Tractatio. Kurtze Vorstellung von Verbesserung des Orgelwercks.
   Straßburg: Johann Eberhard Zetzner, 1680. Facsimile edition =
   Bibliotheca Organologica. Vol. 68. Peter Williams (ed.). Buren:
   Uitgeverij Frits Knuf, 1988.)



Of course, all this evidence does not exclude, that Froberger might have
experimented with temperaments on strunged keyboard instruments which
wouldn't have offered these possibliities.
We simply don't know.


The historical evidence and the likeliness speaks for instruments tuned
in meantone, (in single cases) just intonation, and/or 19- to 31-note
instruments for Froberger's music.

Any well-tempered system has little likeliness as far as the evidence of
his lifetime is concerned. What the 18th century musician would have
chosen or experimented with as a suitable temperament for Froberger is a
different discussion.


It is of course possible and fully justifiable to experiment today, too.
By that one can come to personal conclusions about, which (kind of)
temperament is suitable for a given Froberger piece or his whole known
output.  And of course everyone can find any well-tempered or even
12-note-equal temperament convincing with Froberger.
But, however convincing someone or many think that the outcome of such
experiments is, it will still be be based only on modern personal
preferences and esthetics.  And that modern experience does not allow to
conclude backwards, what might/must have been the preferences of
Froberger's time.


The same is true for other music, too, like Bach's, for example:
Bradley Lehman has come to personal conclusions with Bach's music and
has proposed a modern interpretation which he even claims to "Bach's
temperament". He has tried it out and some other musicians, too, and
they think it is a good temperament. That's fine, and everyone can have
any opinion. But even if all present musicians would agree (which isn't
the case, of course), it would not tell us anything about what would
have been agreeable in Bach's time.

Therefore we still all have to wait for part II and have to hope that
Bradley will finally present the decisive evidence from sources around
Bach, which until now lacks completely. After all the proud but until
now unsupported claims in part I (and here on the list) it will be
exciting to see the sources, which no one yet knows about.


Best

Ibo

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996
February 1996
January 1996
December 1995
November 1995
October 1995
September 1995
August 1995
July 1995
June 1995
May 1995
April 1995
March 1995
February 1995
January 1995
December 1994
November 1994
October 1994
September 1994

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LIST.UIOWA.EDU

UI LISTSERV Documentation | Questions? Contact the ITS Help Desk - (319) 384.HELP (4357) - its-helpdesk@uiowa.edu