Feedback or Controversy on Bach/Lehman's temperament ?

[Philippe Errembault]

Hello Ed,

Thank you for your very interesting answer... which raises a few
questions... ;-)

> First, there are three questions, and two of them unanswerable.
Reading your mail, I'm not sure I understand - as a matter of fact, I'm
quite sure I
don't(*) - which were the three questions you mentioned, and which of them
are
answerable or not... This could be caused by my poor english level... Or
maybe,
you got carried in your own writing, forgetting how you started your reply ?
(It happens to me all the time ;-) )

(*) This is a joke, see last paragraphe

> I don't know that we can classify these temperaments as great, good, or
common
> without having some agreed upon ideal.  An ideal from which their
departure can
> be measured.   I would suggest the Young, with perfect symmetry from one
beat
> a second in C to a full comma in F#, it follows Werckmeister's rules).

I suspect this is question 1...

The problem with an objective criterion like the one you suggest, is that it
has to
be confronted with the subjectivity of it's choice... Is this ideal, really
matching the
audition ? Did Werckmeister think about ALL the reason's that would make a
good temperament ? I understood from Lehman's paper, that all reasons were
not
immediately clear why some things were important in this temperament...

I was thinking about something more subjective...
Let's say for an example, that a temperament would be common, if enough
people
(having tried it) agree on saying, either : that it is quite common, or that
it reaches
it's claims and the claims are common (let's say a common claim is that it
is really
nice with a relatively large range of music pieces).

And let's say that a temperament would be Great if more people agree on
saying
that it is great, or it reaches it's claims and the claims are
extraordinary, or it largely
exceeds common claim. (e.g. Being exceptionnally nice to most people hearing
for
all Bach's music and many others including modern music, would probably make
it Great ;-) )

> I doubt that Bach had the same tuning under his hands all the time, so the
idea
> someone finding  "his" temperament seems rather specious to me.

Is this question 2 ???

At least that's what Lehman claims. Now, If Bach invented it himself, I'm
quite sure
there were later AND previous work, and so the question would be : Is this
temperament _that_ good for the previous work... Why wouldn't he even change
his mind later so that even later work would be better with some other
temperament.
At least I suppose we can assume this temperament is good for all WTC work
and
he didn't change his tuning every now and then.


>  Some of the latest research into Bach's tuning involves a code of sorts
that
> graces the front cover of the WTC.   It contains the reversed image of a
> series of notes, and has been "decoded" to give a tuning that is making
some
> rather strenuous claims to authenticity.

Well, that's precisely what Bach/Lehman claims to be (see website) !?! Do
you mean
other people found other ways to decode it ?

> Since the piano's vastly different overtone spectrum may make a caricature
out
> of a temperament that was nicely colorful on a harpsichord or fortepiano,
I don't
> know what this tuning would sound like on a more authentic instrument
(...)

This could be question 3, then... and the one that could be answered... Am I
Right ?
Could you confirm my assumptions or be more specific ?


Regards,

Philippe Errembault


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <A440A at aol.com>
To: <pianotech at ptg.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2006 5:36 AM
Subject: Re: Feedback or Controversy on Bach/Lehman's temperament ?


> << Did any of you try the Bach/Lehman temperament
> >(<http://larips.com>http://larips.com) ?
>  Is it good, Great or just common ? Do you believe
> >it IS the original J.S.Bach's temperament ? etc... >>
>
> Greetings,
>        First, there are three questions, and two of them unanswerable.  I
> have tried this tuning on a piano, and it had some nice qualities,
however, I
> don't know that we can classify these temperaments as great, good, or
common
> without having some agreed upon ideal.  An ideal from which their
departure can be
> measured.   I would suggest the Young, with perfect symmetry from one beat
a
> second in C to a full comma in F#, it follows Werckmeister's rules).
>             Unlike ET, well-temperaments create a tonal palette and some
were
> better for particular composers than others. The Bach-Lehman is milder at
> both extremes than a number of widely published temps in that the C-E and
F-A
> thirds are tempered about 6 cents and the most expressive third is the
> E-G# at almost 20 cents.  In terms of Jorgensen's definition of harmonic
> balance, it is poorly balanced.  It might be head and shoulders above any
other
> temperment for the music of a composer that used it to write the music,
but in
> general terms, it is somewhat out of step with a lot of the other
temperments.
>       I doubt that Bach had the same tuning under his hands all the time,
so
> the idea someone finding  "his" temperament seems rather specious to me.
It
> is plausible that he was using a well temperment, since much of his stuff
is
> rather greviously interrupted by wolves when played on meantone.  Which WT
is a
> matter of conjecture.  I have listened to the WTC on a Kirnberger III and
> reveled in how expressive some highly tempered 17ths were.  Their speed is
only
> slightly varied in the milder forms, and it would take a more educated ear
than
> mine to actually hear the difference between a Kirnberger and a
Werckmeister.
>  Some of the latest research into Bach's tuning involves a code of sorts
that
> graces the front cover of the WTC.   It contains the reversed image of a
> series of notes, and has been "decoded" to give a tuning that is making
some
> rather strenuous claims to authenticity.
>           Even though we may not be able to discern the exact differences
> between temperaments upon listening, (and we gotta admit, this is nuance
level
> stuff),  there IS a difference in what the sensitive performer feels, and
any
> given temperament's reception will be a product of the technician's choice
and
> the performer's expectations.   I favor an ultra-conservative approach.  I
keep
> the concert pianos in a Moore and Company "Victorian" era well-temperament
as
> their default tuning.  I can call it a "quasi-equal" tuning around most of
> the faculty without causing alarm.  It can move into a Broadwood tuning or
ET
> without anything having to move over three cents.  All our pianos are used
for a
> wide variety of stuff, accompanying all sorts of instruments, and nobody
has
> said a word about the lack of equality.  There are numerous pianists that
> really like the pianos, though.
>        I have moved one of them into a Coleman 11 for an all Mozart and
> Schubert program and it went over well.  Mixed programs might force a
compromise so
> that the later pieces don't get "bent" by something best suited for a
century
> before.
>        The Bradley Lehman tuning seemed harsh in places I didn't expect
it.
> I remember E and A both  verging on uncomfortable for me. Since the
piano's
> vastly different overtone spectrum may make a caricature out of a
temperament
> that was nicely colorful on a harpsichord or fortepiano,  I don't know
what this
> tuning would sound like on a more authentic instrument, but regardless,
the
> balance is still sorta weird.
> Regards,
>
> Ed Foote RPT
> http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
> www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html
>
>
>