[CAUT] Goldberg Variations

[Fred Sturm]

On Sep 18, 2009, at 3:28 PM, Paul T Williams wrote:

> Bilson likes Valotti. (or Young)  I've never tuned to Young.  How  
> different are they?
>
> Paul'

The difference between Vallotti and Young is a transposition of a  
fifth: Vallotti is 6 pure 5ths downward from F, 6 1/6 comma narrow  
5ths upward from F. For Young, the note in the middle is C (down from  
C, up from C). This is not noticeable to most people, but does favor  
the sharp keys a little over the flats. Vallotti is the preferred  
vanilla well temperament these days, and I think the axis on F is more  
in keeping with the bulk of the German temperament guys of the time.

> All, Our harpsichord professor and students will be performing the  
> Goldberg Variations on our harpsichords next month. She wants a well  
> temperament that works for the Goldbergs. I have been tuning the  
> Bach/Lehman but she does not particularly like it this work. There  
> is some time to experiment with various temperaments but I though it  
> might be helpful to query this list for some suggestions?
> Thanks!
> Don


	I'd say try Vallotti, then Werckmeister III moving to the more  
colorful side of the spectrum. Kirnberger III is possible (not that  
different from W III), but is contrary to the report (given by  
Kirnberger himself) that Bach said all M3s should be wide (K III has  
CE pure). And K III is less interesting, because it has four 1/4 comma  
5ths in a row (CGDAE), and the rest of the 5ths pure, hence more  
Pythagorean 3rds and less overall variety.
	In the other direction, there was a modern (1979) creation by John  
Barnes, published in Early Music and based on analysis of number of  
occurrences of the various M3s in the WTC. It is actually the same as  
Vallotti except that one of the 1/6 comma 5ths is moved, from EB to  
BF#. This yields one less Pyth M3, and a little more variety.
	And one shouldn't discount the ET possibility. A very eminent Dutch  
temperament scholar, with one of the most impeccable reputations for  
objectivity in the field (pretty rare), Rudolf Rasch, has opined that  
ET is as likely as any, and more likely than most, of the candidates  
people argue about as "what Bach used."
	I'm not sure there are any other really significant candidates out  
there: that is, the differences are mostly details that could easily  
be lost in human error of execution. It is always possible to approach  
ET more closely than Lehman, but I suspect the prof objects to Lehman  
as not colorful enough, rather than too colorful. Unless it is the  
fact that Lehman has the strange EG# largest M3. In which case  
Vallotti would cure that.
Regards,
Fred Sturm
University of New Mexico
fssturm at unm.edu





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://ptg.org/pipermail/caut.php/attachments/20090918/ee96d4ef/attachment-0001.htm>