Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning Bach's temperament

Hi Brad,

>Greetings,
>
>The first half of my article "Bach's Extraordinary Temperament: Our Rosetta
>Stone" is now available in the February issue of _Early Music_, and for
>download at their web site
>http://em.oupjournals.org/current.dtl
>
>The article describes JS Bach's specific keyboard tuning, its basic sound,
>and the historical background. The second half (May 2005 issue) gets more
>deeply into the musical and mathematical analysis.

"This item requires a subscription to Early Music Online"

>My new supplementary web site (address below) presents various other
>introductions to it.
>
>Enjoy!
>
>Bradley Lehman
> www.larips.com
>bpl@umich.edu
>2/11/05

Reading your short talk...

>To tune a clavichord to some other way you have to bend some parts of it
>around, hopefully only once(!) with a pliers, so it works out the next
>time its strings are tuned. And that takes care, not to break it or bend
>it too much. I have one here and did it, part of one afternoon, carefully
>taking out each black key and bending its "tangent" (a piece of metal)
>slightly sideways, to hit the new right place on the strings.

This is only true of "fretted" clavichords.

I imagine you're familiar with Kellner's "Bach" tuning?

http://ha.kellner.bei.t-online.de/

Oh, I see from your 2nd FAQ page that you are. I thought that Kellner
based his tuning on Bach's seal -- a picture not unlike the one your
tuning is based on...?

>How good are John Barnes's "Bach" temperament of 1979, and "Vallotti"
>of the 18th (17th!) century?
>These two differ from one another by only the single note B, where
>Barnes's is slightly higher! From the perspective of Bach's own
>temperament, the "Vallotti" got seven of the twelve notes correct and
>Barnes got eight. The errors (measured against Bach's) are that
>Barnes's F#, C#, and G# are too low, and his Bb is too high; and
>additionally the "Vallotti" B is too low.

Saying Barnes' temperament is less authentic than yours because it
isn't the same as yours isn't a very convincing argument.

Do you have a Scala file for your tuning?

-Carl

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Carl Lumma <ekin@l...> wrote:
> >How good are John Barnes's "Bach" temperament of 1979, and
"Vallotti"
> >of the 18th (17th!) century?
> >These two differ from one another by only the single note B, where
> >Barnes's is slightly higher! From the perspective of Bach's own
> >temperament, the "Vallotti" got seven of the twelve notes correct
and
> >Barnes got eight. The errors (measured against Bach's) are that
> >Barnes's F#, C#, and G# are too low, and his Bb is too high; and
> >additionally the "Vallotti" B is too low.
>
> Saying Barnes' temperament is less authentic than yours because it
> isn't the same as yours isn't a very convincing argument.

It's not intended as an argument at all (nor did I say anything about
Barnes's "authenticity"); I was merely pointing out the mathematical
differences here in the results, comparing where the Barnes and
Vallotti end up against the one I proposed. The proof of the whole
thing is in the published article (including 2nd half, May '05, and
the Oxford web supplements to both halves), and the web site is
merely a basic introduction to *some* of the interesting spin-off
results.

>
>
> Do you have a Scala file for your tuning?

No.

Brad Lehman

🔗bachjohann_sebastian <Francis@datacomm.ch>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗bachjohann_sebastian <Francis@datacomm.ch>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

Thanks, Paul, but I did register to Math in order to read this review. Had a
chance just now to read John Charles Francis' "The Esoteric Keyboard
Temperaments of J.S. Bach" from his website. I tried to find the issue of Early Music
to see what Bradley Lehman was proclaiming, but maybe Patelson's has it.

To summarize, there are a bunch of wiggles drawn above the Bach manuscript of
the Well-Tempered Clavier. These wiggles are of different natural sizes, but
with some contiguous ones drawn in. This is seen as representing beats per
second. The furthest white wiggle, touches the "C" of "Clavier" which is to
designate the intent.

My sense is that this is a bit precious. Even if there was an indication
drawn through several mathematical maneuvers.

My views on Bach have evolved over the years, each time it is a very exciting
time. Re-reading C.P.E. Bach, I now get the sense he is protecting something
that is a secret of his family tradition. If it was to be revealed, he would
have done it. But that tradition could be Werckmeister III chromatic as
easily as any other.

Bradley Lehman tells me there are some defiantly anti-Werckmeister III works
penned by JS Bach in some kind of deadpan humor, but I am skeptical: Because
every key works in Werckmeister III. That is in fact what is most spectacular
about it. Werckmeister III is the first published circular chromatic tuning
for keyboards, and music in general, and it was put into practice by some
prominent composers and builders before his generation of composers. Done deal.

Thing is: Bach did not go up against the tuning of his time. If it was
Werckmeister III, as I believe, then Bach's forcing a "changed" tuning...would get
some unwanted attention. The status quo does usually get special attention
(the squeeky wheel gets the grease).

Each of the Bach cities has a Werckmeister reference mark; a Werckmeister
student--and JS Bach cousin--Johann Walther brings JS to Weimar, Wender's builds
an organ in Arnstadt in his favorite tuning (that of Werckmeister
III-according to Kuhnau) and JS takes over as organist, works in Wender's home town of
Muelhausen (succeeding Ahle who was the clearest of the Werckmeister besmitten),
trudged off to hang overtime with Werckmeister's declared friend Buxtehude,
and succeeded Werckmeister-knowledgeable Kuhnau in Leipzig. This correspondence
would seem to indicate a promenence of Werckmeister's chromatic in these
specific Bach city locations. Admittedly, this is largely connected by inference.
Let me infer further that I will be curious to read Bradley's paper armed by
Charles's cautionaries (which include insufficient attribution) as soon as it
is possible.

best, Johnny Reinhard

🔗bachjohann_sebastian <Francis@datacomm.ch>

Dear Johnny Reinhard

I always enjoy your spot on the WKCR Bachfest each year and make a
point of tuning in on the Internet. I know you are an evangelist
for Werckmeister in Bach's music! For your interest, and as a thank
you for those entertaining Christmas holiday's, I've done a
mathematical analysis of Werkmeister against the cornet-ton solution
(i.e. organ pitch) identified by the `C'. Its in the tuning
files section:

/tuning/files/

Congratulations, by the way, you have understood my paper
correctly! The interesting thing is that Brad Lehman in his peer-
reviewed Early Music article published a couple of days after mine,
has turned the glyph around and like myself is focused in on the
`C' as a reference point! To my knowledge no one else has
proposed this before, so two researchers have independently reached
the same conclusion (that's the good news!). But then we part
company: I see pulsating beating fifths in those loops, a kind of
synaesthesia in my mind, while Brad sees fractions of a comma.

With regards
Charles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> Thanks, Paul, but I did register to Math in order to read this
review. Had a
> chance just now to read John Charles Francis' "The Esoteric
Keyboard
> Temperaments of J.S. Bach" from his website. I tried to find the
issue of Early Music
> to see what Bradley Lehman was proclaiming, but maybe Patelson's
has it.

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> My views on Bach have evolved over the years, each time it is a
very
exciting
> time. Re-reading C.P.E. Bach, I now get the sense he is protecting
something
> that is a secret of his family tradition. If it was to be
revealed,
he would
> have done it. But that tradition could be Werckmeister III
chromatic as
> easily as any other.

I agree that CPE was protecting a family tradition. But, CPE
asserted in his _Versuch_ that it's "most of" the fifths that are
tempered, not "four out of 12" (as it would be for Werckmeister--how
is four "most"?) and not "all" (as it would be for equal
temperament). I have a full presentation of this at my web site
http://www.larips.com
, along with many other introductions to the paper and supplemental
materials.

>
> Thing is: Bach did not go up against the tuning of his time.

Thing is: Bach did. That's a central point of my paper. There are
two halves to it, February (current) and the next issue in May, plus
an additional 50+ pages of mathematical analysis. The paper as
submitted to Oxford last June was more than twice as long as their
normal articles, and so they have divided it into two portions along
with (forthcoming) supplementary web materials on their own site.

> Let me infer further that I will be curious to read Bradley's paper
armed by
> Charles's cautionaries (which include insufficient attribution) as
soon as it
> is possible.

Thanks, Johnny. But also--keep in mind that Charles's "review" which
he has posted on at least six internet groups so far (that I know
about), about insufficient attribution and such and such and such,
has served to insert additional skepticism into your mind *before*
reading my paper. It probably also inserts such doubt into the minds
of some who will simply take his word for things *instead of* reading
my paper.

At least in part, I take it as a personal and frivolous attack
against my ability to have written this paper at all, and an attack
against the validity of Oxford's editorial process of peer review.
My paper indeed has been checked out, pre-publication, with more than
a dozen experts of the material: at both my initiative and in
Oxford's normal editorial process before accepting papers. That
testing process on my results included, _inter alia_, extensive
concert use of my proposed solution by two professional Baroque
orchestras, a Swiss radio broadcast of a solo keyboard performance by
Dr Robert Hill, and the building of my solution into a new pipe
organ. That latter project included two-month study of my complete
manuscript by a respected firm specializing in unequal temperament
pipe organs. They took my manuscript along on a study trip to
Germany, examining the work of Bach's colleague Hildebrandt, before
deciding to proceed with implementing my proposed tuning methods into
their own work.

I believe that Charles's present "review", at least in part, is an
act of personal spite by him. Last spring when he heard that I was
working on this paper, he asked probing questions about it that I
declined to answer, as to the material that is in my paper. He then
set out to derive (i.e. guess at) my results for himself, putting
together two papers of his own that did not go through any expert
peer review before what he calls "publication", rushing them both out
to appear before mine, as background to his present frivolous claims
in judgment of my work. In these two papers he guessed at 148
different temperaments, none of which happen to coincide with my
findings, basing his guesses on two different Bach sources (namely,
an esoteric reading of BWV 924 and the drawing on the WTC title page)
which he had some reason to believe might be cited in my paper. And,
his complaint is now that my results do not agree with his arbitrary
metrics!

The connection to any Sparschuh material (which was the concept that
the Bach drawing is *somehow* meaningful, but beyond that having
nothing to do with my results) was fully documented in my manuscript.
Charles's complaint amounts to his personal disappointment that my
citation of that is not in some place that he expects it to be. He's
complaining about *his expectations* that my work should look
different from the way it does, at the end of seven months of
editorial processing by the Oxford staff to decide which portions go
into the two printed halves, and which portions only into their own
web supplementary materials. I additionally documented S-Z and its
application on my own separate web site,
http://www.larips.com
, which see.

Charles evidently did not look at that web site of mine before
writing his review, although it has been available there on the web
since mid-January as an introduction to my work. This web site, too,
has been studied for several weeks by expert colleagues of mine whom
I trust (and personally requested) to give me fair and honest
constructive criticism about it, and that process has already led to
some improvements in it. My primary concern here is of course
accuracy to the material, and presentation of the work at multiple
levels so it may be understood both by academic and non-academic
readers.

My Oxford materials include the presentation and technical analysis
of more than forty different temperaments, including S-Z and other
20th century derivations, and temperaments in Bach's milieu. Indeed,
as part of the paper I have developed metrics of my own (seen
especially in part 2 in May) that demonstrate my proposed Bach
solution in its proper mathematical and historical contexts. I have
also used mathematical metrics that were published by Bach's own
colleague, Sorge, a fellow member of the Mizler society. These are
seen on page 9 of the article (part 1), and discussed both in
Oxford's web materials and more extensively on my own web site.
Obviously, part of my goal in this has been to present *valid*
mathematical concepts to clarify the musical and technical issues in
tuning.

Dr Bradley Lehman, A.Mus.D.
(Harpsichord, 1994, University of Michigan)
...with an earlier B.A. in both mathematics and music

http://www.larips.com

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

In a message dated 2/15/2005 10:17:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, bpl@umich.edu
writes:
I agree that CPE was protecting a family tradition. But, CPE
asserted in his _Versuch_ that it's "most of" the fifths that are
tempered, not "four out of 12" (as it would be for Werckmeister--how
is four "most"?) and not "all" (as it would be for equal
temperament). I have a full presentation of this at my web site
http://www.larips.com
, along with many other introductions to the paper and supplemental
materials.
Brad, I look forard to reading the articles, but I do not have them. Indeed
knowing it is in 2 parts is troubling as I would prefer to read all of the
material together. The subject is thriller enough for me not to have a "..to be
continued" paper. I will be fair, decidedly so. The importance I put behind
Bach's tuning is of utmost importance. There are enormous ramifications.

However, about CPE's terse single-paragraph "direction" on tuning a keyboard.
It stinks! Certainly he could have been more specific than he was. "Most"
indeed. CPE certainly had to match the tuning of his employer, Frederick the
Great, which was extended (sixth comma) meantone. When the keyboard was
playing soloistically, something Frederick disdained and which CPE relished, it
didn't really matter what kind of well temperament he used if every one could
match it. I'm not sure the oboes and clarinets, and bassoons were so flexible as
to match a new tuning Every Time they played a composer.

I think CPE, like Johann Philipp Kirnberger, needed a different tuning than
that of JS Bach. Music was galant, it was melody over harmony, no longer
contrapuntal, no longer for organists... Rather than separate themselves from him
in a clear way, they sought to show independence of thought in a sniffling
way. I see great fun in wheezing out different interpretations of manuscript
writing. Did JS definitely draw those wiggles, himself?

best, Johnny Reinhard

Bach's temperament - published 2005

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

🔗Carl Lumma <ekin@lumma.org>

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

🔗bachjohann_sebastian <Francis@datacomm.ch>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗bachjohann_sebastian <Francis@datacomm.ch>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗bachjohann_sebastian <Francis@datacomm.ch>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com

🔗Brad Lehman <bpl@umich.edu>

🔗Afmmjr@aol.com