'Temperament', by Stuart Isacoff

[Chaszz]

'Temperament,' by Stuart Isacoff, is a 2001 book telling the story of the gradual and longterm attack on Pythagorean harmony by Renaissance and post-Renaissance therorists and composers advocating many different tempered tunings. Conservative musical theory was based on string tuning for harmonies of first and fifth, and first and fourth. It was thrown into crisis by two concurrent developments: the late-arriving harmony of first and third (today as natural as air and sunlight) and the enlarged keyboard of the harpsichord. Properly tuned ones, threes, fours and fives went out of tune in the higher octaves.

Isacoff, a music educator and composer, shows that physicists and astronomers including Galileo, Kepler and Newton were actively interested and involved in the controversies over theories of musical tuning which raged across Europe in the 16th thru 18th centuries. He shows the evolution of harmony a prime actor both stimulating and being stimulated by new ideas in physics, mathematics, painting and architecture, and an attack on Church and Aristotelian legitimacy almost as serious as Copernicus' claim that the sun did not orbit the earth. Interestingly, Galileo's father was a musical theorist and scientist and an important figure in this story.

The harmony diagrams, all of an ocatave on the piano, are simple, clear and easy to understand. The book is written for a person who knows nothing about music and the keys of C or A are never mentioned. Any reader's familarity with Do Re Mi Fa So La Ti Do is utilized as that is how the keys are labeled and indeed the concepts are easy to understand. Together with well-known examples like the opening notes of Beethoven's Fifth and those of Wagner's Bridal Matrch, Isacoff skillfully ensures that anyone can understand the basic principles of harmony.

Occasionally the author's interpretations are facile and forced, as when he relates the development of persepective in painting directly to the need for temperament in music by saying "the composer wanted to have perspective on his music." But usually his observations are astute, he knows much, and the story is fascinating. As an artist and versed in art history, I learned interesting facts about Giotto and Brunelleschi I hadn't known before.

I'm in the midst of the 17th century right now, and will be writing more in a day or two. I am looking forward to the rest of the book and of course as a lover of Bach to his role in the story. I know from the table of contents that it goes all the way to Schoenberg. To be continued.



[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 04-30-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
'Temperament,' by Stuart Isacoff,

Chaszz
I too am interested in Temperament but have not heard of this book so I checked Amazon. It shows two titles:

1. Temperament: How Music Became a Battleground for the Great Minds of Western Civilization

and

2. Temperament: The Idea That Solved Music's Greatest Riddle.

Which one are you reading?

I also look forward to your next posting on the subject.

Euan

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Euan Mackinnon:
Chaszz
I too am interested in Temperament but have not heard of this book so I checked Amazon. It shows two titles:

1. Temperament: How Music Became a Battleground for the Great Minds of Western Civilization

and

2. Temperament: The Idea That Solved Music's Greatest Riddle.

Which one are you reading?

I also look forward to your next posting on the subject.

Euan

Euan, they are the same book. Number 1 is a paperbook reprint of hardcover Number 2. They obviously tried to jazz up the subtitle a bit to stimulate sales.

Also on my Amazon screen, Number 2, new, is listed at $244.58, which is obviously a typo. If your screen should show the same madness, I would go with one of the other alternatives.

Ast to my further review, I have unfortunately been laid very low by hay fever and other allergies the past few days, and have not progressed in my reading. Will continue when I feel better!

Chaszz

[Euan Mackinnon]

Originally posted by Chaszz:
Euan, they are the same book. Number 1 is a paperbook reprint of hardcover Number 2. They obviously tried to jazz up the subtitle a bit to stimulate sales.

Also on my Amazon screen, Number 2, new, is listed at $244.58, which is obviously a typo. If your screen should show the same madness, I would go with one of the other alternatives.

Ast to my further review, I have unfortunately been laid very low by hay fever and other allergies the past few days, and have not progressed in my reading. Will continue when I feel better!

Chaszz

Chaszz

Thanks for the reply. Here is the 'copy' of the Amazon UK entry:


1. Temperament: How Music Became a Battleground for the Great Minds of Western Civilization
~Stuart Isacoff
Vintage Books USA
Paperback - February 2003

US List Price: $13.00
UK Equivalent: £7.12
Our Price: £6.41

2. Temperament: How Music Became a Battleground for the Great Minds of Western Civilisation
~Stuart Isacoff
Faber and Faber
Hardcover - April 22, 2002

List Price: £12.99
Our Price: £8.57

3. Temperament: The Idea That Solved Music's Greatest Riddle
~Stuart M. Isacoff
Random House USA Inc
Hardcover - November 13, 2001

Our Price: £23.00

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that all these books are, in effect, the same albeit with different titles.

I hope the hay fever soon passes and you are able to complete reading your copy. I shall await your verdict before buying a copy myself.

Euan

[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-02-2006).]

[Chaszz]

My allergy season has finally passed and I have finally finished the book and can finish the review. Although the subject matter is interesting, the book flies all over the place in telling anecdotes about the famous scientists, writers, musicians and artists of Renaissance, Baroque and Enlightenment Europe. It is difficult at times to see what all this has to do with the temperament problem, and I sometimes felt the author was trying to show off all his knowledge, and invent facile comparisons among different developments. But it does remain interesting. And it does raise our awareness of how important musical temperament issues, and music in general, were to the leading lights of Europe in all fields. The first time equal temperament - the mathematical division of the octave into twelve nearly equally spaced tones - was achieved was not in the West but in China in 1584 by a mathematical theorist named Chu Tsai Yu. (Equal tuning renders the third, fourth and fifth notes of the octave, which are naturally harmonious with the first note, slightly more discordant than the 'pure' simple arithmetic ratios recommended by Pythagoras.) It seems Chinese musicians and theorists had been interested in musical temperament problems also, for over two thousand years. It is typical of Isacoff's scattershot approach that after devoting a chapter to the Chinese developments he does not tell us whether this Chinese achievement had any influence in the West or not. Back in Europe, the discovery of harmonic overtones by the physicists swung general opinion back to pure tuning, until the later discovery of yet higher overtones which were discordant gave more ammunition to the equal-tempered crowd. Eventually, the French composer Rameau's tireless championing of the equal-tempered cause seems to have won the day, against a backdrop of fierce and very wide participation in the debate. Bach's contribution 'The Well-Tempered Clavier' is shown to be based on a keyboard composition by one Johann Caspar Ferdinand Fischer 'Ariadne Musica' of 1715, which wends its way thru twenty major and minor keys, several of whose themes Bach reused. Bach turns out to play a relatively secondary role in the adoption of even tuning, at least that is the impression the author leaves. He does not mention the wide use of 'The Well Tempered Clavier' even all during the period of Bach's relative neglect between 1750 and 1829, when it was not only a primary keyboard teaching device but also helped to disseminate the new tuning widely and 'lock it in place.' A curious oversight. Also, he fails to mention that Bach's rediscovery during the Romantic period had a wide effect on Romantic music, as the old man had ventured into many remote harmonic structures that would be impossible without equal temperament, and this influenced Lizst, Wagner, Bruckner and others in their new harmonic explorations. By the way, it is unclear according to Isacoff whether Bach favored well- or equal-tempered tuning (well-tempered is a kind of compromise between pure and equal). Knowing the composer's interest in everything having to with harmony, I would expect Bach favored each, for different purposes. But of course I may be wrong.

The book ends with a description of the development of the modern piano and with a look at some of the alternate and micro-tunings being used by some composers today. (Micro-tuning divides the octave into more than twelve notes and has been used for thousands of years in Indian classical music.) As I say, a learned, not very focused, wide-ranging foray, but a quite interesting one all the same.


[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 05-18-2006).]

[This message has been edited by Chaszz (edited 05-18-2006).]

[robert newman]

Hi Chassz,

Very interesting review. I know for sure that some recent research has suggested JS Bach was greatly influenced by the astronomical/cosmological work of Johannes Kepler. There have been a recent series of articles on 'The Art of Fugue' claiming that certain things within it are revealed only by this Kepler connection. I must dig out the details myself.

Robert


p.s. I've long been convinced that this issue of temperament is hugely important - the difference, in fact, between the Newtonian physics and that of Einstein's relativity. The difference, in fact, between music as we know it and music still to be written. The idea that music can to some extent compose itself (provided the context within which it would be expressed is first determined by a series of concordant pitches) is fascinating to me.

R


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-18-2006).]

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by robert newman:
Hi Chassz,

Very interesting review. I know for sure that some recent research has suggested JS Bach was greatly influenced by the astronomical/cosmological work of Johannes Kepler. There have been a recent series of articles on 'The Art of Fugue' claiming that certain things within it are revealed only by this Kepler connection. I must dig out the details myself.

Robert


p.s. I've long been convinced that this issue of temperament is hugely important - the difference, in fact, between the Newtonian physics and that of Einstein's relativity. The difference, in fact, between music as we know it and music still to be written. The idea that music can to some extent compose itself (provided the context within which it would be expressed is first determined by a series of concordant pitches) is fascinating to me.

R


[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-18-2006).]

In Isacoff's final chaper, dealing with new alternate tunings, he gives a similar impression of many exciting possibilites yet to be uncovered. This seems to me a much more fruitful approach than taking the old twelve note system to the point of absurdity, as Schoenberg and his followers have done.

[Euan Mackinnon]

Chaszz (and Robert)

Glad to hear that you are over the hay fever.

Many thank for your detailed review. On the basis of that, I feel Isacoff's book may not be the one I'm seeking. For example, you write:

It is typical of Isacoff's scattershot approach that after devoting a chapter to the Chinese developments he does not tell us whether this Chinese achievement had any influence in the West or not.

I'm looking for a well-structured book that deals with the major aspects of Temperament - the music, physics, 'philosophy', etc - in depth and in a sequential and logical fashion. Isacoff does not appear to do this.

There were a couple of things though that I would like you and Robert to develop.

Robert writes:

I've long been convinced that this issue of temperament is hugely important - the difference, in fact, between the Newtonian physics and that of Einstein's relativity. The difference, in fact, between music as we know it and music still to be written. The idea that music can to some extent compose itself (provided the context within which it would be expressed is first determined by a series of concordant pitches) is fascinating to me.

and you reply:

In Isacoff's final chaper, dealing with new alternate tunings, he gives a similar impression of many exciting possibilites yet to be uncovered.

Could I persuade you both to take this further?

Euan



[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-19-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

Just yesterday a friend of mine (a poet in Los Angeles) asked the same question.

The best illustration I can offer at this time is to ask that you consider the significance of the octave. An interval so simple and so universally known of course. But also (I think) truly profound in its musical potential. More so perhaps than any other.

Things which double themselves tend to do so until forces act on them to stop this process. With a tonic x' and octave '2x' then, it may be possible to argue that each and every musical note and its duration, its musical validity, is to a great extent predetermined by natural/musical rules which allow notes to double their frequencies only to the extent that what is played remains within the limits of what a single octave has predetermined. (The fact that works can be orchestrated using many octaves does not alter the basic concept).

In my view it's not so much that Beethoven created great melodies and brought them to perfection simply by the power of his musical genius after having refined them over and over in notebooks etc. It seems to me more that Beethoven instinctively sensed the existence of a melody and freed it - isolated it and revealed it from the musical environment in which he was working. That Michaelangelo did not so much sculpt his 'Moses' but freed it from the cube of stone on which he was working.

We recognise the greatness of Beethoven because he (unlike many other musicians)so surely followed a course that we, music-lovers, instinctively know is musical. The notion that music is not so much invented but discovered seems to me quite significant.

Melody is a product of harmony. Again, it seems great melodies are discovered, rather than invented.

I suggest musicians of the future will exploit frequencies in performance that at the moment are hardly ever listened for or sought by them. These may even be major features in performance and to some extent musicianship will actually be measured by this ability.

Regards



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-20-2006).]

[Chaszz]

Originally posted by Euan Mackinnon:
Chaszz (and Robert)

Glad to hear that you are over the hay fever.

Many thank for your detailed review. On the basis of that, I feel Isacoff's book may not be the one I'm seeking. For example, you write:

It is typical of Isacoff's scattershot approach that after devoting a chapter to the Chinese developments he does not tell us whether this Chinese achievement had any influence in the West or not.

I'm looking for a well-structured book that deals with the major aspects of Temperament - the music, physics, 'philosophy', etc - in depth and in a sequential and logical fashion. Isacoff does not appear to do this.

There were a couple of things though that I would like you and Robert to develop.

Robert writes:

I've long been convinced that this issue of temperament is hugely important - the difference, in fact, between the Newtonian physics and that of Einstein's relativity. The difference, in fact, between music as we know it and music still to be written. The idea that music can to some extent compose itself (provided the context within which it would be expressed is first determined by a series of concordant pitches) is fascinating to me.

and you reply:

In Isacoff's final chaper, dealing with new alternate tunings, he gives a similar impression of many exciting possibilites yet to be uncovered.

Could I persuade you both to take this further?

Euan

[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-19-2006).]

Euan, unfortunately, the best example I can give is a long description in the final chapter where Isacoff is a guest at a recital at the home of a contemporary composer who uses an exotic tuning on his piano. He dscribes being mesmerized by the strange results, and imagining all the music of the future that they suggest. Unfortunately I don't have time to copy it in, and Amazon is uncooperative by providing an excerpt from a different place in the book. So as I say, although there are drawbacks to the book, there are many definite pluses also.

Perhaps you may be interested in another book on temperament I just unearthed on Amazon,
The Seventh Dragon: The Riddle of Equal Temperament by Anita T. Sullivan.

Chaszz

[Euan Mackinnon]

Chaszz, Robert

Thank you both for your replies.

Chaszz

Thank you for the further title to consider: The Seventh Dragon: The Riddle of Equal Temperament by Anita T. Sullivan. Have you read this book and, if so, what is your opinion of it? It’s pretty cheap on Amazon (UK) at present so it might be worth my while buying even though there are no reviews of it there.


Robert

I have to confess that I’m having some difficulty getting on your wavelength. In my last posting I asked if you would be so good as to develop:

I've long been convinced that this issue of temperament is hugely important - the difference, in fact, between the Newtonian physics and that of Einstein's relativity. The difference, in fact, between music as we know it and music still to be written. The idea that music can to some extent compose itself (provided the context within which it would be expressed is first determined by a series of concordant pitches) is fascinating to me.

My difficulty is that I can’t see how your subsequent response develops what you wrote above. In fact, for me, it goes off in a number of new directions (some of which I also find interesting). I’m sure the lack (of understanding of your later response) is mine but I should like to know what you meant. As I said, I’m not on your wavelength at present.

Can I therefore break down your comments into simpler chunks and ask you to develop these?

What did you mean (in your first response) by:

I've long been convinced that this issue of temperament is hugely important - the difference, in fact, between the Newtonian physics and that of Einstein's relativity.

Let me break this into two questions: In what way hugely important and what difference … between Newtonian physics and that of Einstein's relativity.

By the way, I like the analogy between Beethoven composing and Michelangelo sculpting and would hope that we can return to that analogy later once I am clearer what you meant by the earlier parts of your two responses.


Euan

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

I can only answer you as well as I am able at this time. It isn't that I wish to be abstract for the sake of it, or that I don't want to get technical. The issue is simply this - whether the things we know (or think we know) in matters of pitch, tone, temperament, harmony, etc are really valid, true. Or whether (instead) the core assumptions on which western music is based are, in fact, still lacking in some important and fundamental respect and whether small changes could have huge and even revolutionary significance.

In speaking of Newtonian physics and that of relativity we have a case where one is the natural progression from the other. Yes ? A shift so profound that it shapes the way we think about physics today. It's certainly not that Einstein 'demolished' Newton. It's just that small things that had been seen had huge consequences that fitted almost exactly within Einstein's model. They caused a paradigm shift in our understanding of physics. And had huge consequences in many practical ways. Yes ? That bodies physically influence one another despite operating within a system that would otherwise be regarded as Newton's 'clockwork' universe and that their influence has in turn impact on what we see, and what we observe.

To me, music has not simply shadowed developments/discoveries in science. It has, all along, actually pioneered/anticipated science.

Have you heard of Hans-Eberhard Dentler's work with Bach's 'Art of Fugue' ? I think this will certainly be of help in your particular area of study - that it will convince you Bach was not so much an inventor but an exponent of what for him was an entirely sustainable music. The celestial mechanics (as they had so far been understood) was, it seems, the context within which he, Bach operated at a theoretical level, and was he happy to operate within. This is surely the signficance of him as a theorist.

How many colours must I have to be able to make all others ? Or, how many pitches must I have to be able to make all other pitches ? It's this sort of question that engages me personally. I want to use the same orchestra as we have today. Human players and humanly played instruments. But how is a music to be written, performed, appreciated which can produce frequencies and effects that would often be foreign to what we know of western classical music, while, at the same time, retaining western notation, western instruments etc. etc. Such a thing seems impossible. But it's this possibility that occupies my thinking.

In certain circumstances a given pitch played at the same time as its octave by other players can induce a third voice, a third part. This third part is not (surprisingly) a sustained note. It is the product of fundamental note and is octave. It is what we might call a 'melody'. But the characteristics of this melody are determined by the instrument who plays it. So too its duration.

I'm sorry I can't really be of much futher help with this. If you find the Dentler material interesting it would be nice to know of it.

Best regards

Robert



[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-21-2006).]

[Euan Mackinnon]

Robert

I started by quoting you (repeated here for convenience):

I've long been convinced that this issue of temperament is hugely important - the difference, in fact, between the Newtonian physics and that of Einstein's relativity.

(Note: the subject under discussion is ‘temperament’.)

I then asked two questions (again repeated for convenience):

“In what way hugely important and what difference … between Newtonian physics and that of Einstein's relativity.”

Let me try to summarise what I think you are getting at in your response to these questions.

I think that what you are saying is:

Point 1. Newton to Einstein (Relativity): a ‘paradigm shift’ of huge significance. (I agree with this.)

Then, since you write (my emphases):

The issue is simply this - whether the things we know (or think we know) in matters of pitch, tone, temperament, harmony, etc are really valid, true. Or whether (instead) the core assumptions on which western music is based are, in fact, still lacking in some important and fundamental respect and whether small changes could have huge and even revolutionary significance.

I assume you are saying that, by extension:

Point 2. There is a comparable shift ‘waiting to happen’ in music.


Now, again recalling that this thread and my question concern ‘temperament’ (and I have included as a footnote a dictionary definition so that you know what I understand the term means), I am still not clear whether your assertion – The issue is simply this … revolutionary significance – is simply an assertion about temperament, or an assertion about western music in general, or something a good deal deeper given that you compare it to Newton/Einstein.

As I mentioned last time, Robert, I am trying to get on your wavelength on this question and continue to have difficulty. I should be very grateful if you could further clarify (and simplify, for me at least) what you are suggesting by The issue is simply this … revolutionary significance and, in particular, how this relates to temperament (as defined in the footnote).

That is the first request.

The second concerns:

To me, music has not simply shadowed developments/discoveries in science. It has, all along, actually pioneered/anticipated science.

Now (to me at least) that is a huge claim. Once again, I would like you to develop the assertion further – preferably with examples this time.

I am genuinely grateful for your time Robert.

Euan

Footnote
(Musical) Temperament: The adjustment of the intervals of the scale (in the tuning of instruments of fixed intonation, as keyboard instruments), so as to adapt them to the purposes of practical harmony (taken from the Oxford English Dictionary)



[This message has been edited by Euan Mackinnon (edited 05-22-2006).]

[robert newman]

Dear Euan,

Thank you for temperance in these matters of musical temperament ! I'll do my best to address the main isue by starting with your prefered dictionary definition (of musical) temperament). This you are happy to have defined as -

'The adjustment of the intervals of the scale (in the tuning of instruments of fixed intonation, as keyboard instruments), so as to adapt them to the purposes of practical harmony'.

Well, I've no problem with such a definition Euan. Let me focus on several important words found within that same definition - 'the purposes of PRACTICAL HARMONY'.

It seems misunderstanding between us is caused by the fact that you are talking of the practical business of temperament whilst I, on the other hand, am talking of (or trying to speak of) something quite different, the THEORY of temperament. You are interested, it seems, in comprimise. And this comprimise is in practice (for you) the daily reality of how music is made as far as, say, keyboard instruments are tuned etc.

I am talking not of musical comprimise but of musical reality. Not of the politics or the practical difficulties of tuning pianos or harpsichords, but of music made (or at least conceived of) which is not tempered at all in the sense in which you define temperance. Music for keyboards is not part of what I think might be the future of revolutionary developments in music.

Let me answer a few of your points as well as I am able. You quote where I wrote -

'To me, music has not simply shadowed developments/discoveries in science. It has, all along, actually pioneered/anticipated science'.

In response to this you wrote -

'Now (to me at least) that is a huge claim. Once again, I would like you to develop the assertion further – preferably with examples this time'.

Well, in asserting that developments in music have always anticipated discoveries in science I never thought that I'd said anything controversial though it seems to have startled you. I think saying such a thing is actually as true in the history of, say, Art, as it is for Music.

Would you not allow Claude Debussy and his bold musical innovations to be as significant for music as what the Impressionists such as Guagin, Van Gough and, say Pointillists were for the history of Art ? In both cases they seem to anticipate a new age which, decades later, is to be found in the new physics of Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Einstein, etc. - a physics that transcended that of the 'mechanical' universe of Newtonian physics.

Who can doubt that JS Bach's 48 Preludes and Fugues were really revolutionary in the sense that they pioneered in the exploitation of a system of keys ? Of temperance itself ? Isn't temperance itself a musical revolution of a kind ?

It is my contention that the great composers represent the 'zeitgeist' of all ages and do, to a great extent, anticipate the world in which we live. That is their continuing relevance.

I'm sorry if this seems to have no relevance to you, although what you describe as temperance is only true for a music which was and is based really on keyboards and how they may be tuned.

To me, temperance is how instruments may be tuned so as to produce in combination with others certain harmonics commonly shared that themselves may be an integral part of musical performance.

Regards





[This message has been edited by robert newman (edited 05-22-2006).]

[Rod]

I'll just say this about temperament, I'm no expert but I have good ears, or at least one good ear. I suggest what we have for the keyboard today is wrong, it instigates a sence of monotony after only moderately prolonged listening. Trouble is the modern piano has such a thick and cumbersome tone I do not think it possible to revert to something better (from a Beethovenian perspective). On the fortepiano of course the situation is far different. For me the modern conception of the keyboard (ie the piano) is a dead instrument, fit only for Jazz and Barry Manilow.

------------------
"If I were but of noble birth..." - Rod Corkin