Bach CD's

Oh yeah...also wanna mention that keyboard maestro Richard Egarr has recorded Bach's Well Tempered Clavier Bks 1&2, as well as the Goldberg Variations, in the much debated Lehman well temperament in the last couple of years. I thing they are beautiful interpretations indeed, and perhaps will get more folks in the classical community thinking about other ways to approach not just Bach, but others as well. I saw Lehman last year give a chat about the temperament at CU in Boulder. And, interestingly enough, there was another guy there who has the theory that Chopin, too, was using a tuning that was not 12 tone eq...he was very convincing...Hstick

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Great info. I've got the Goldberg CD on the way and can't wait to give it a listen.

Seems like this is a vast untapped area (great existing works in different tunings). Or maybe there are sites/CDs/books on this subject people can recommend?

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Neil Haverstick <microstick@...> wrote:
>
>
> Oh yeah...also wanna mention that keyboard maestro Richard Egarr has recorded Bach's Well Tempered Clavier Bks 1&2, as well as the Goldberg Variations, in the much debated Lehman well temperament in the last couple of years. I thing they are beautiful interpretations indeed, and perhaps will get more folks in the classical community thinking about other ways to approach not just Bach, but others as well. I saw Lehman last year give a chat about the temperament at CU in Boulder. And, interestingly enough, there was another guy there who has the theory that Chopin, too, was using a tuning that was not 12 tone eq...he was very convincing...Hstick
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Not to bring up an old debate, but I'm going to bring up an old debate.

I like Brad Lehman, and I think he's a fine musician, keyboardist and thinker. But at the end of the day, nobody around here can really tell one well-temperament from another, and I proved it years ago in a listening test involving all the people making the boldest claims. Brad Lehman liked Werckmeister best, and I think IIRC Johnny Reinhardt liked Lehman's squiggle temperament the best...which is what each proposed the other was so foolish to believe was correct for Bach.

'God' works in mysterious ways.

For me, there is nothing so dull and boring in tuning theory than discussing what temperament works best for Bach....no offense to anyone who is thrilled by it, but man, does it make me yawn! Perhaps because it was such a rancorous and old topic by the time I took an extended leave of absence from these parts...but what the hell, I love a good experiment and proving a point again, so we could do another test. This time, I don't wanna prepare the audio files though.

I'll put money on it that no-one will recognize their pet well-temperament better than 50-50 chance, any day of the week.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "plopper6" <billwestfall@...> wrote:
>
> Great info. I've got the Goldberg CD on the way and can't wait to give it a listen.
>
> Seems like this is a vast untapped area (great existing works in different tunings). Or maybe there are sites/CDs/books on this subject people can recommend?
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Neil Haverstick <microstick@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Oh yeah...also wanna mention that keyboard maestro Richard Egarr has recorded Bach's Well Tempered Clavier Bks 1&2, as well as the Goldberg Variations, in the much debated Lehman well temperament in the last couple of years. I thing they are beautiful interpretations indeed, and perhaps will get more folks in the classical community thinking about other ways to approach not just Bach, but others as well. I saw Lehman last year give a chat about the temperament at CU in Boulder. And, interestingly enough, there was another guy there who has the theory that Chopin, too, was using a tuning that was not 12 tone eq...he was very convincing...Hstick
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>

Aaron wrote:

>I like Brad Lehman, and I think he's a fine musician, keyboardist and
>thinker. But at the end of the day, nobody around here can really tell
>one well-temperament from another, and I proved it years ago in a
>listening test involving all the people making the boldest claims.
>Brad Lehman liked Werckmeister best, and I think IIRC Johnny Reinhardt
>liked Lehman's squiggle temperament the best...which is what each
>proposed the other was so foolish to believe was correct for Bach.

When it comes to Baroque-style 1/5- and 1/6-comma temperaments, there
are basically two types of patterns of 5ths -- ones that make some
Pythagorean thirds, and ones that make a largest third of ~404 cents.
The difference is audible. But to my knowledge, all proposed 'Bach'
and historical well temperaments are of the former kind -- they all
have the pure fifths more or less at one end of the chain, and this
produces Pythagorean thirds. I highly doubt anyone can tell the
difference among them in a musical setting. At least, not without
extensive practice in the same listening conditions as the test,
knowing in advance which temperaments will be on the test.

It is possible to tell the difference between WTs and 12-ET or
meantone, if you've got good ears. Manuel proved that in a listening
test I did (he was the only one who did much better than chance).

99% of harpsichord recordings of the Goldbergs made after 1970 are
going to be in a well temperament essentially indistinguishable
from Lehman's.

-Carl

I would say there's a lot of records of historical music, especially Baroque, in various appropriate tunings, by musicians performing "authentically".

IMVHO it hasn't too much sense to try inappropriate tunings on existing historical music. String quartets and a capella choirs, not to mention orchestra, have sometimes enough work to solve problems even with enharmonic music written in 12ET.

Daniel Forro

On 26 Jan 2011, at 2:09 PM, plopper6 wrote:

> Great info. I've got the Goldberg CD on the way and can't wait to > give it a listen.
>
> Seems like this is a vast untapped area (great existing works in > different tunings). Or maybe there are sites/CDs/books on this > subject people can recommend?
>

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> It is possible to tell the difference between WTs and 12-ET or
> meantone, if you've got good ears. Manuel proved that in a listening
> test I did (he was the only one who did much better than chance).

Was this ever in doubt? I guess I can understand the skepticism about
distinguishing between WTs and 12-ET, although I think that people
could probably still do it. But meantone vs 12-ET?

-Mike

My original thread was not about distinguishing between meantone and 12, which is not in doubt; I was talking about various WT's against each other, in actual music-making. It's a *lot* more subtle than people think. Sure, if you sit and listen to various triads in different keys, letting them ring, you can hear differences, sometimes rather noticable ones. But the claim that a certain ratio, because it is present in a certain WT and not in another, will send a shiver up the village baker's spine when he listens to Bach's Goldbergs where it won't happen in another WT---I find all such talk highly suspect.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
> >
> > It is possible to tell the difference between WTs and 12-ET or
> > meantone, if you've got good ears. Manuel proved that in a listening
> > test I did (he was the only one who did much better than chance).
>
> Was this ever in doubt? I guess I can understand the skepticism about
> distinguishing between WTs and 12-ET, although I think that people
> could probably still do it. But meantone vs 12-ET?
>
> -Mike
>

I concur. Though, I have my personal experience where certain Well-Temps sound rather weird to awful in my case for a certain piano repertory.

There is also the very neglected reality of acoustic vs digital soundscapes. Add to this the fact that sampled sounds are often deviating from their presumed equal semitone factory positions by significative amounts. I am not even talking about the unavoidable effects of inharmonicity and false beats.

We are sloppy in assuming too much in these things regarding tuning - to the point of missing the forest for the trees.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jan 26, 2011, at 4:23 PM, akjmicro wrote:

> My original thread was not about distinguishing between meantone and 12, which is not in doubt; I was talking about various WT's against each other, in actual music-making. It's a *lot* more subtle than people think. Sure, if you sit and listen to various triads in different keys, letting them ring, you can hear differences, sometimes rather noticable ones. But the claim that a certain ratio, because it is present in a certain WT and not in another, will send a shiver up the village baker's spine when he listens to Bach's Goldbergs where it won't happen in another WT---I find all such talk highly suspect.
>
> AKJ
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 1:47 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> It is possible to tell the difference between WTs and 12-ET or
>>> meantone, if you've got good ears. Manuel proved that in a listening
>>> test I did (he was the only one who did much better than chance).
>>
>> Was this ever in doubt? I guess I can understand the skepticism about
>> distinguishing between WTs and 12-ET, although I think that people
>> could probably still do it. But meantone vs 12-ET?
>>
>> -Mike
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

It is certainly a good thing that I did not compose this post when I first
saw it at 7AM this morning, before heading out to teach. If I had let
this go, it might give the impression that I agreed with it, which I don't.
After reading the unfortunate, inadvertent attack on Bill Wesley, only to
see people on this list now happy to conflate Bill with Brian McLaren, I
think it is important not to let AKJ's falsehoods pass.

Posted by: "akjmicro" _aaron@... _
(mailto:aaron@...?Subject= Re:%20Bach%20CD's) _akjmicro _ (http://profiles.yahoo.com/akjmicro)
Jan 25, 2011 10:07 pm (PST)
Not to bring up an old debate, but I'm going to bring up an old debate.
I like Brad Lehman, and I think he's a fine musician, keyboardist and
thinker. But at the end of the day, nobody around here can really tell one
well-temperament from another, and I proved it years ago in a listening test
involving all the people making the boldest claims. Brad Lehman liked
Werckmeister best, and I think IIRC Johnny Reinhardt liked Lehman's squiggle
temperament the best...which is what each proposed the other was so foolish to
believe was correct for Bach.
'God' works in mysterious ways.

Yes, Brad is a nice person. However, whatever claims made for Bach's
tuning are based on scholarly work. It has now been a single year since I
wrote a book on the subject (Bach and Tuning). The List was great for years in
helping me flesh out the subject, as well as a chance to try my hand at
explaining new perspectives. Alas, posting proved near impossible as the
medium does not get the full picture out....and as a result, really no picture
at all. AKJ, the posts stopped in large part because I sent copies of my
book out internationally to many at no cost.

Re the listening to compare different well temperaments makes no sense.
If every key is different, and keys are not identified, and the person does
not have perfect pitch, it is near impossible to tell different well
temperaments apart. This appears to be a difficult concept to grasp.

This correct choice for a composer re a preferred tuning system makes a
genuine gain in the appreciation of any composer's music. For the umpteenth
time, as boring as it might seem to some, it is irrelevant, totally
irrelevant, what any 21st century individual likes or doesn't like when attempting
to understand and project the ancient world in sound.

You misrepresent me and Brad in listening test that on the face of it,
can't work. Your memory is not my memory.

Johnny Reinhard

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:

> After reading the unfortunate, inadvertent attack on Bill Wesley...

Sorry about that. I don't know Bill Wesley either online or in person, and wouldn't want to conflate him with anyone.

Hi Johnny,

I never attacked Bill Wesley. You must be referring to someone else. I have nothing but awe and respect for Bill. Kindly retract your statement that I stated a falsehood.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@...m, Afmmjr@... wrote:
>
>
> It is certainly a good thing that I did not compose this post when I first
> saw it at 7AM this morning, before heading out to teach. If I had let
> this go, it might give the impression that I agreed with it, which I don't.
> After reading the unfortunate, inadvertent attack on Bill Wesley, only to
> see people on this list now happy to conflate Bill with Brian McLaren, I
> think it is important not to let AKJ's falsehoods pass.
>
> Posted by: "akjmicro" _aaron@... _
> (mailto:aaron@...?Subject= Re:%20Bach%20CD's) _akjmicro _ (http://profiles.yahoo.com/akjmicro)
> Jan 25, 2011 10:07 pm (PST)
> Not to bring up an old debate, but I'm going to bring up an old debate.
> I like Brad Lehman, and I think he's a fine musician, keyboardist and
> thinker. But at the end of the day, nobody around here can really tell one
> well-temperament from another, and I proved it years ago in a listening test
> involving all the people making the boldest claims. Brad Lehman liked
> Werckmeister best, and I think IIRC Johnny Reinhardt liked Lehman's squiggle
> temperament the best...which is what each proposed the other was so foolish to
> believe was correct for Bach.
> 'God' works in mysterious ways.
>
>
> Yes, Brad is a nice person. However, whatever claims made for Bach's
> tuning are based on scholarly work. It has now been a single year since I
> wrote a book on the subject (Bach and Tuning). The List was great for years in
> helping me flesh out the subject, as well as a chance to try my hand at
> explaining new perspectives. Alas, posting proved near impossible as the
> medium does not get the full picture out....and as a result, really no picture
> at all. AKJ, the posts stopped in large part because I sent copies of my
> book out internationally to many at no cost.
>
> Re the listening to compare different well temperaments makes no sense.
> If every key is different, and keys are not identified, and the person does
> not have perfect pitch, it is near impossible to tell different well
> temperaments apart. This appears to be a difficult concept to grasp.
>
> This correct choice for a composer re a preferred tuning system makes a
> genuine gain in the appreciation of any composer's music. For the umpteenth
> time, as boring as it might seem to some, it is irrelevant, totally
> irrelevant, what any 21st century individual likes or doesn't like when attempting
> to understand and project the ancient world in sound.
>
> You misrepresent me and Brad in listening test that on the face of it,
> can't work. Your memory is not my memory.
>
> Johnny Reinhard
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>