7/24/2019 K Miehling B Jerold EM Tempo on the Bute Mechanical Organ

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/k-miehling-b-jerold-em-tempo-on-the-bute-mechanical-organ 1/3

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Early Music.

http://www.jstor.org

xford University Press

Tempos on the Bute Mechanical OrganAuthor(s): Klaus Miehling and Beverly JeroldSource: Early Music, Vol. 31, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 316-317Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3138093

Accessed: 10-10-2015 22:40 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of contentin a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

This content downloaded from 90.48.146.145 on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:40:48 UTC

7/24/2019 K Miehling B Jerold EM Tempo on the Bute Mechanical Organ

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/k-miehling-b-jerold-em-tempo-on-the-bute-mechanical-organ 2/3

Correspondence

Tempos on the Bute mechanical organBeverly Jerold certainly is not wrong in saying that thebarrels of the Earl of Bute machine organ leave room for

interpretations 'A re-examination of tempos assigned to

the Earl of Bute's machine organ', EM, xxx/4 (Nov 2002),

pp.584-91). But I think that, as far as historical perfor-mance practice is concerned, most of her objectionsagainst the tempos as reconstructed by William Malloch('The Earl of Bute's machine organ: a touchstone of taste',EM, xi (1983), PP.172-183) re unfounded.

She compares tempos of the Bute organ to those ofanother barrel organ, built presumably by Henry Hollandin the late 18th century, as they were reconstructed byDavid Fuller, and states that 'Fuller's figures are the more

plausible' (p.587). These 'Holland' tempos are, however,doubtful in three different

ways.First, this

organis pro-

vided with a hand crank; t is open to doubt whether 'The

range of comfortable tempos' was 'relatively narrow'(p.587, following Fuller) when the over-200-year-oldinstrument was new. Second, the builder is 'almost cer-

tainly' a Nottinghamshire travelling showman (Fuller,p.v). Beyond doubt, then, he is a more insecure guarantorfor Handel's practice than one of the two John Christo-

pher Smiths, whichever was responsible or the Bute bar-rels. Third, the Bute barrels date from the 176os, and theHolland organ dates from the 1790s Fuller; Malloch datesit c.179o-1809). And we know that Handel's music was

played ever more slowly after his death, until it reached tslowest point in the 178os.While Handel himself conducted'Messiah' on 1 May 1753 n two hours (as an anonymouscorrespondent s telling us in Jacob Adlung's Anleitung urmusikalischen Gelahrtheit f 1758,P.95), probably nclud-

ing an organ concerto, the tempos virtually halved in the1780s, as is shown by known performance durations of 4hours. In 1763,when most of the Bute organ barrels were

made, the retardation would have been already, heoreti-

cally, only two or three metronome degrees.The organ concerto op.5 no.4 serves Jerold as an exam-

ple for the comparison of Holland's and Smith's tempos.Let us take a short look at the four movements.

The beginning Larghetto s in 3/4, and its main motionis in crotchets (leaving aside the ornamentation providedby the Holland organ). J. C. Smith's J= MM 5 is near toJohann Joachim Quantz's MM 0 for his so-called 'Adagiocantabile' of this kind of measure, while Holland's pre-sumed MM c.63 is considerably slower. And Quantz, of

course, is also counting in improvised ornaments. The

Allegro n Common time, with its principal utti motion in

quavers and semiquaver passages with the soli, shows withHolland's J = c.76an extremely low tempo, while Smith's

MM 31 s not much faster han Quantz's 'gemiligtes' (thatis, 'moderate' ) Allegro of MM 20.The Alla siciliana s with

-= c.84--approximately half as fast as Quantz's MM 6o,

while Smith's MM 35 omes much closer and is still slower.

Finally, he Presto (Smith: Jig') n 12/8has with Holland's

MM .84 (J.) again about half Quantz's empo, which is MM160 for the Gigue as well as for the fast 12/8.

With this background s also Smith's Tempo for 'Arm,arm ye brave' from Judas Maccabaeus with J = MM 32 nCommon time (Allegro) not at all 'unnaturally rapid'(Jerold, p.589); t lies only two metronome degrees aboveQuantz's moderate

allegro'The very slow tempos of William Crotch from the early19th century, mentioned by Jerold to support her view,once more are just a witness for the extreme slowing downof Handel's empos after his death. If we take an overviewover Crotch's numerous tempo indications for worksfrom different epochs, it is evident that his tempos havethe tendency o be faster he younger the composer s. Thisshows Crotch's error, due to a belief of increasingprogress, that in former times people would have playedslower (a then common belief, and Jerold eems still stick-

ing to it). Crotch's empos for J. C. Bach and Haydn, for

example, are fairly normal'.Jerold hen points to two arias from Judas Maccabaeus

again: 'Oh Liberty' (C, Largo) has, following Malloch'sreconstruction of the Bute organ tempos, J) = MM 1, and"Tis liberty' (C, Andante larghetto), J = MM 97. This

apparent contradiction, however, is easily accounted for.The Largo's harmonic rhythm is mainly in quavers, andthe voice declaims syllabically. The Andante arghetto, onthe other hand, moves mainly n crotchets, and already he

syllable 'li-' has a small melisma with four semiquaversand one quaver; a motive, characteristic of the whole

piece. Quantz here would have written a barred C (called

'Allabreve' by him) and would have had J = 80 as basictempo of 'Adagio cantabile'. Andante arghetto' may wellbe somewhat faster, so that Smith's MM 97 is plausible.Handel used the barred C, with a few exceptions, only foran earlier kind of 'Allabreve' with the whole note as beat,and crotchets as the fastest essential note values.

Beverly Jerold finally announces a forthcoming text

316 EARLY MUSIC MAY 2003

This content downloaded from 90.48.146.145 on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:40:48 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

7/24/2019 K Miehling B Jerold EM Tempo on the Bute Mechanical Organ

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/k-miehling-b-jerold-em-tempo-on-the-bute-mechanical-organ 3/3

Skill level n music performance hat 'will indicate that the

remaining early sources thought recommend extremelyfast tempos have been misinterpreted' (p.591, n.19). This

probably points to the hypothesis, stated for the first time

by Erich Schwandt in 'L'Affilard on the French courtdances' (Musical quarterly, x (1974), PP-389-400), hat fast

tempo indications of the 17th and 18th centuries would

have to be halved. This hypothesis has since then been dis-cussed and disproved n numerous debates n the Nether-lands and German-speaking ountries. If Jerold wants torestore t to the Anglo-Saxon world, she will do no favoursto music and its composers, nor to musicology.

KLAUS MIEHLING

Freiburg m Breisgau

Beverly erold eplies:With respect o Dr Miehling's irst point, a peripheral mat-ter should not obscure the central ssue, which is that no

organ barrels exist to substantiate William Malloch's

tempo figures. They are purely suppositions, and henceinadmissible as fact n an academic discipline. I mentionedDavid Fuller's work with the Holland organ simply todemonstrate the difference between an existing barrel

organ and Malloch's speculations. Perhaps Dr Fullerwould like to respond to Dr Miehling's objections. Pri-

mary source material confirming the participation ofeither Smith in the Bute organ s still lacking; herefore, noclaims can be made for a connection to Handel.

Like many others, Dr Miehling believes that Johann

Joachim Quantz and his contemporaries n 1752 all hadmetronomes with which to obtain 'MM 80, MM 120', etc.

But a metronome suitable for general usage was notachieved until 1816; hen it took most of a century before twas widely accepted among musicians. The 18th centuryknew only a few primitive time-measuring devices in thehands of their inventors. Quantz specifies that he hadnever seen one of these devices. This is why he had to use

only one number-8o0-and compare it to the human

pulsebeat. According o circumstances, his pulsebeat wasto be applied to a minim, a crotchet, or a quaver; some-times two pulsebeats were necessary per quaver. (See J. J.

Quantz, On playing theflute, rans. E. R. Reilly (New York,1975),pp.285ff. (xvII/vii/51).) Because musicians tended to

play both fast and slow pieces at a middling rate of speed,Quantz needed a tool to teach them that an Adagio is notan Andante, etc. Without metronomes, his pulsebeat fig-ure of 80 could never have been implemented. The humanpulse varies according to age and the activity being pur-

sued.. In the course of a day, t can shoot up to nearly wiceits level at rest, making it totally unreliable for tempo.Quantz meant his pulsebeat in a figurative, not a literalsense. Why have those who have interpreted t literally not

promoted the exceedingly low tempos on the other end ofhis scale?

Concerning the timings of Messiah performances in

their entirety, hese are untrustworthy unless one has pre-cise knowledge about every aspect of the representation.Problems with singers and players often necessitated ast-minute cuts and changes that would never occur today.Moreover, Handel constantly revised to meet changingcircumstances. We need to know exactly which move-ments were used and in what version. Do we know how

long was spent tuning and retuning these inadequateinstruments many times? This can be an unbelievablytime-consuming process. And how long were the intervalsbetween movements and the intermissions? have neverseen an 18th-century ource providing exact timings for allthese elements in a large-scale work.

The idea that William Crotch's pendulum tempos were

'very slow' is a widespread myth today. His faster temposare often comparable o a modern mainstream empo. In

1998 Wolfgang Auhagen found some of his tempos to beslower than modern recordings, but others to be similar or

faster. (See W. Auhagen, 'William Crotch's Tempo-angaben zu Kompositionen des 18. Jahrhunderts', Tempo,Rhythmik, Metrik, Artikulation ... Michaelsteiner Kon-

ferenzberichte 3, ed. G. Fleischhauer et al. (Blankenburg,1998), PP.44-53.)

Has anyone considered the effect on tempo of theprimitive mechanisms in 18th-century nstruments? Doour players know that their 'early' nstruments have the

great advantage of a completely modern mechanism?

Despite continual efforts by early builders to improveinstruments, it was quite late in the 19th century beforemechanisms, as well as intonation, approached modernstandards. We have never had to experience the frustra-tion of playing n an ensemble where some or many of theinstruments cannot be played in tune. Faulty intonationand mechanism both impacted on precision and tempo.(These and other issues affecting empo are treated n myforthcoming Skill level in music performance ooks-oneeach for the 18th and 19th centuries.)

Lastly, I assure Dr Miehling that the material in myFrench music nterpretation ook disproving modern con-clusions for excessively fast tempos in French music isunrelated o Erich Schwandt's work, but is based on newinformation n primary ources.

EARLY MUSIC MAY 2003 317

This content downloaded from 90.48.146.145 on Sat, 10 Oct 2015 22:40:48 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions