Re: Lehman-Bach temperament on BBC radio (was: Re: Further doubts ..)

Hi Terry,

Thanks for the excellent critique of the BBC programme! I assume your comments are meant for the whole tuning group, so here I've forwarded your email to tuning@yahoogroups.com . Thanks again,

--Mark Nowitzky
tuning-owner@yahoogroups.com

>Date: Sun Aug 28 18:42:33 CDT 2005
>To: tuning-owner@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: Lehman-Bach temperament on BBC radio (was: Re: Further doubts ..)

>I've been reading these debates with an interest that focusses
>mainly on how this temperament appeals to the ear of player amd
>listener, especially in comparison with other 'contenders'.
>
>So I listened to the BBC early music programme today (Sunday 28/8),
>including an item about the Lehman-Bach temperament, complete with
>demonstrations.
>
>I have to say that I didn't find the radio broadcast very
>illuminating. What I looked for most of all was an A-B comparison
>that would maintain all factors constant apart from the temperament.
>
>The broadcast did include a passage of Brahms (unfamiliar to me)
>played on two organs, one of them the Goshen College organ built to
>the Lehman-Bach temperament, but the organs were of different timbre,
>the harmonies in the piece rather thick and even muddy on any
>instrument, and any differences attributable to temperament were not
>apparent to me. (I should maybe confess to being a
>sometimes-cloth-eared cellist but I don't think I was especially
>cloth-eared today!) There was a playthrough of an extract of Bach's
>'Mensch bewein dein' Suende gross..' which has a modulation to a
>remote key towards the end, and this is said to test well-tempered
>tunings and to display the special qualities of the Bach-Lehman tuning
>-- and it certainly sounded well but unfortunately we were not treated
>to a comparison in any other temperament. I found the narrative was
>patronising: it assumed that listeners knew nothing of the issues,
>and made it out that a definitive truth had been found,
>albeit one attended with controversy.
>
>So I found the broadcast of limited use and for me the 'jury is still
>out'.
>
>Terry Stancliffe
>Cambridge

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Mark Nowitzky <nowitzky@a...> wrote:
>
> I found the narrative waspatronising: it assumed that listeners
> knew nothing of the issues, and made it out that a definitive truth
> had been found, albeit one attended with controversy.
>
> So I found the broadcast of limited use and for me the 'jury is
> still out'.

I might add that nothing in the program indicated that the Lehman
interpretation was chronologically the fourth to appear. Indeed most
people listening would draw the erroneous conclusion that his was the
first. Lehman notably did not take the opportunity to credit either
Sparschuh or Zapf when asked what led to his "discovery".

Compared to a dozen or so alternative approaches, the defining
characteristic of the Lehman reading is the requirement to turn the
page upside-down. Well the proof of the pudding is the eating, and
having run various side-by-side comparisons over the past six months,
my conclusion is that his temperament yields inferior results.

Regards
Charles

> > I found the narrative was patronising: it assumed that listeners
> > knew nothing of the issues, and made it out that a definitive
truth
> > had been found, albeit one attended with controversy.
> >
> > So I found the broadcast of limited use and for me the 'jury is
> > still out'.
>
> I might add that nothing in the program indicated that the Lehman
> interpretation was chronologically the fourth to appear. Indeed
most
> people listening would draw the erroneous conclusion that his was
the
> first. Lehman notably did not take the opportunity to credit either
> Sparschuh or Zapf when asked what led to his "discovery".

Let's clear this up RIGHT NOW.

This radio interview lasted for an hour and took place in July.
During it, I notably DID take the opportunity to explain the e-mail
inquiry from David Hitchin (spring 2004) and my investigation into
the Sparschuh and Zapf angles, directly in response to that question
in the interview. I explained it fully, and stated frankly in the
interview that several other interpretations of the same drawing have
preceded mine by several years (although I did not know about them
until that e-mail from Hitchin, 2004). I explained how this spurred
me to go look closely at the Bach drawing myself, and to figure out
the theory and historical context as to why the Sparschuh-Zapf
premise of constant beat rates is mistaken (in my considered
*opinion* of course, with background in research and harpsichord
tuning by-ear for 20+ years; and a _temperament ordinaire_ project
was one of the main components of my doctoral study 11 years ago).

We went into all the "controversy" section of the interview in
considerable depth and detail: I made SURE in my preparations for the
interview that I would say plenty about this bit of the controversy
that several people foist upon this whole project in internet
discussions. (But no, I did not mention BY NAME any of the several
people who have had personal vendettas to smear my name/reputation in
public on this; a national radio broadcast is not an appropriate
forum to vent other people's cynicism against me!)

I also provided more than 150 minutes of representative music samples
on organ and harpsichord, and we talked about various of those during
the interview as the presenter and producer were trying to decide
what to use. They furthermore obtained license to use a pre-release
set of excerpts from Richard Egarr's recording of the Goldberg
Variations.

They boiled this 3 1/2 hours of available material (plus the Egarr)
down to a half-hour segment for a broad general audience on public
radio. They spliced, shortened, and resequenced my responses to
every question, and they rearranged/retaped some of their own
questions after the interview session to give the whole thing a
better straight-through flow, a better and more concise setup to the
words of mine that they chose to use in the final product. And in my
opinion they did terrific work with it, providing several levels of
depth and general concepts so their listenership will have something
to spark the interest while listening. This was entirely up to them,
doing their jobs, constructing a program of appropriate length and
focus from the raw material provided; and I of course answered all
their interview questions cheerfully and honestly, along with
volunteering additional information they ended up not using.

The playlist they settled upon is here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/earlymusicshow/pip/z9s45/
and for this week only, the program is available directly as the
"Sunday" link at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/earlymusicshow/

=====

As for anyone who would like to hear more direct A/B comparisons
between various temperaments and this one, there has already been a
CD set available since May:
http://www.frogmusic.com/temperamentalcds.html
Pressler and Jones have produced this at their initiative, and I
believe it is a good resource for that type of comparative listening
(and they used exactly the same MIDI sequences in each pair of
comparisons).

At the same time, I believe it still does not take the place of hands-
on *playing* acoustic instruments that are set up in various
temperaments, i.e. experiencing the way the tensions/resolutions of
various temperaments affect the interpretation as it goes along,
suggesting timing and phrasing/articulative details to a performer.

During a delightful holiday last week I had the opportunity of two
additional practice sessions (half day each) at the organ in northern
Indiana that is tuned this way (Goshen College, Taylor & Boody Opus
41); and a contrasting session the same week playing the new
University of Notre Dame organ (built by Paul Fritts; in Kirnberger
3) for two hours. Again I was able to confirm, by playing additional
music on both instruments, that some of the temperament differences
are subtle while others slap me in the face as obvious. But
especially, this was opportunity simply to *play* music and enjoy
practicing it, at these two fine instruments. I didn't get to hear
the BBC program myself until late Sunday night, getting home from
several solid days of cross-country drive; a nice way to relax and
just listen to something.

Bradley Lehman
http://www.larips.com

>--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com,
>"bachjohann_sebastian"
><Francis@d...> wrote:
>[...snip...]
>>
>> Compared to a dozen or so alternative approaches,
>> the defining characteristic of the Lehman reading
>> is the requirement to turn the page upside-down.
>> Well the proof of the pudding is the eating, and
>> having run various side-by-side comparisons over
>> the past six months, my conclusion is that his
>> temperament yields inferior results.
>>
>> Regards
>> Charles

So you've run tests, that's interesting. Have you
written them up, and are they online anywhere?

It seems to me that another way to look at the
characteristics of the Lehman/Bach temperament is
to look at the pitches that it uses: A near
comparator appears to be 'Vallotti'. All the
'white' notes in Lehman (except B), plus E-flat,
appear to be the same as in Vallotti. B, F# and
C# are sharpened by 4 cents in Lehman relative
to Vallotti; G# is sharpened by nearly 2 cents,
and B-flat is flattened by nearly 2 cents
relative to Vallotti.

The results for major thirds appear to be, that
the sharp errors are increased in Lehman (relative
to Vallotti) for the major thirds on G,D,A,E and
B-flat, but reduced for the major thirds on B,
F#, C# and G#. The major thirds on E-flat, F and
C appear to be the same in Lehman as in Vallotti.

I only mention Vallotti as a numerical comparator
because it looks conveniently similar numerically,
maybe there are other and better comparators
acoustically.

It would be interesting to know about aural
comparisons that have been run in practice
between temperaments. As you mention having
done some, it would be very good to have a
description.

Regards
Terry Stancliffe
Cambridge

___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@u...> wrote:

> I also provided more than 150 minutes of representative music samples

Thank you for that information! (I must say, though, that in spite of
the compliments you paid the programme producers, that it looks to me
as if your material could have been better represented by the editing.)

> As for anyone who would like to hear more direct A/B comparisons
> between various temperaments and this one, there has already been a
> CD set available since May:
> http://www.frogmusic.com/temperamentalcds.html

Thanks for your link to the aural comparison CDs:

Regards
Terry Stancliffe
Cambridge

> > As for anyone who would like to hear more direct A/B comparisons
> > between various temperaments and this one, there has already been
a
> > CD set available since May:
> > http://www.frogmusic.com/temperamentalcds.html
>
> Thanks for your link to the aural comparison CDs:

I would hope that you've also picked up the 50 pages of supplemental
charts etc that go with part 1 of the article (February), at Oxford's
free area:
http://em.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/3/DC1

And the 2nd half (May) also has a supplemental file, but that is
still under the subscription area:
http://em.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/2/211/DC1
It includes closer analysis of BWV 622, 591, 802-5, and a single-page
printout of a practical bearing plan for tuning by ear.

That latter single page of practical instructions is also available
as a PDF file here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/practical.html

=====

I have a set of seven WMA samples that don't fit onto my web site,
simply by overflowing my allotted space. Each is about 700K with
approximately 45 seconds of music: the last line of BWV 622, for
direct comparisons of the melodic and harmonic flow (and the tonal
focus or sense of "gravity" or however one might put it into words).

Performances:
- Isoir (equal temp with tremulant)
- Rogg (equal temp with variable wind)
- Preston (equal temp with steady wind)
- Pressler (Kirnberger 3, MIDI)
- Pressler (my proposed Bach temp, MIDI)
- Winter (regular 1/6 comma)
- Lehman (my proposed Bach temp)

Contact me off-list if interested in having these e-mailed to you,
total of about 5 MB.

Bradley Lehman
http://www.larips.com

Thank you for the clarification, Bradley. So this is apparently the
second occasion on which you have fallen victim to editorial error,
and on an identical issue, moreover. First Early Music looses your
material crediting Sparschuh (actually describing Zapf's work, but
never mind...), and now the BBC does the same! Well, I for one
really do expect higher standards from this venerable public
service institution, even if standards on Radio 3 have slipped in
more recent years.

Complaints can be emailed at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/

The BBC notes "Your complaint is important to us" and will research
and respond within 10 days.

Regards
Charles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Lehman" <bpl@u...> wrote:
> > > I found the narrative was patronising: it assumed that
> > > listeners knew nothing of the issues, and made it out that a
> > > definitive truth had been found, albeit one attended with
> > > controversy.
> > >
> > > So I found the broadcast of limited use and for me the 'jury is
> > > still out'.
> >
> > I might add that nothing in the program indicated that the Lehman
> > interpretation was chronologically the fourth to appear. Indeed
> > most people listening would draw the erroneous conclusion that
> > his was the first. Lehman notably did not take the opportunity
> > to credit either Sparschuh or Zapf when asked what led to
> > his "discovery".
>
>
> Let's clear this up RIGHT NOW.
>
> This radio interview lasted for an hour and took place in July.
> During it, I notably DID take the opportunity to explain the e-mail
> inquiry from David Hitchin (spring 2004) and my investigation into
> the Sparschuh and Zapf angles, directly in response to that
question
> in the interview. I explained it fully, and stated frankly in the
> interview that several other interpretations of the same drawing
have
> preceded mine by several years (although I did not know about them
> until that e-mail from Hitchin, 2004). I explained how this
spurred
> me to go look closely at the Bach drawing myself, and to figure out
> the theory and historical context as to why the Sparschuh-Zapf
> premise of constant beat rates is mistaken (in my considered
> *opinion* of course, with background in research and harpsichord
> tuning by-ear for 20+ years; and a _temperament ordinaire_ project
> was one of the main components of my doctoral study 11 years
ago).
>
> We went into all the "controversy" section of the interview in
> considerable depth and detail: I made SURE in my preparations for
the
> interview that I would say plenty about this bit of the controversy
> that several people foist upon this whole project in internet
> discussions. (But no, I did not mention BY NAME any of the several
> people who have had personal vendettas to smear my name/reputation
in
> public on this; a national radio broadcast is not an appropriate
> forum to vent other people's cynicism against me!)
>
> I also provided more than 150 minutes of representative music
samples
> on organ and harpsichord, and we talked about various of those
during
> the interview as the presenter and producer were trying to decide
> what to use. They furthermore obtained license to use a pre-
release
> set of excerpts from Richard Egarr's recording of the Goldberg
> Variations.
>
> They boiled this 3 1/2 hours of available material (plus the Egarr)
> down to a half-hour segment for a broad general audience on public
> radio. They spliced, shortened, and resequenced my responses to
> every question, and they rearranged/retaped some of their own
> questions after the interview session to give the whole thing a
> better straight-through flow, a better and more concise setup to
the
> words of mine that they chose to use in the final product. And in
my
> opinion they did terrific work with it, providing several levels of
> depth and general concepts so their listenership will have
something
> to spark the interest while listening. This was entirely up to
them,
> doing their jobs, constructing a program of appropriate length and
> focus from the raw material provided; and I of course answered all
> their interview questions cheerfully and honestly, along with
> volunteering additional information they ended up not using.
>
> The playlist they settled upon is here:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/earlymusicshow/pip/z9s45/
> and for this week only, the program is available directly as the
> "Sunday" link at
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/earlymusicshow/
>
> =====
>
> As for anyone who would like to hear more direct A/B comparisons
> between various temperaments and this one, there has already been a
> CD set available since May:
> http://www.frogmusic.com/temperamentalcds.html
> Pressler and Jones have produced this at their initiative, and I
> believe it is a good resource for that type of comparative
listening
> (and they used exactly the same MIDI sequences in each pair of
> comparisons).
>
> At the same time, I believe it still does not take the place of
hands-
> on *playing* acoustic instruments that are set up in various
> temperaments, i.e. experiencing the way the tensions/resolutions of
> various temperaments affect the interpretation as it goes along,
> suggesting timing and phrasing/articulative details to a performer.
>
> During a delightful holiday last week I had the opportunity of two
> additional practice sessions (half day each) at the organ in
northern
> Indiana that is tuned this way (Goshen College, Taylor & Boody Opus
> 41); and a contrasting session the same week playing the new
> University of Notre Dame organ (built by Paul Fritts; in Kirnberger
> 3) for two hours. Again I was able to confirm, by playing
additional
> music on both instruments, that some of the temperament differences
> are subtle while others slap me in the face as obvious. But
> especially, this was opportunity simply to *play* music and enjoy
> practicing it, at these two fine instruments. I didn't get to hear
> the BBC program myself until late Sunday night, getting home from
> several solid days of cross-country drive; a nice way to relax and
> just listen to something.
>
>
> Bradley Lehman
> http://www.larips.com