re: Bach's tuning

>>I've read this in several places, but can't remember any convincing
>>examples.
>
>The studies to this effect assumed that a fixed set of 12 pitches applied to
>all the pieces, optimized the tuning of consonant intervals weighted by
>frequency and duration, and came out with some kind of irregular
>well-temperament that favored the "easy" keys.

Interesting. I had read only musicology-like essays on this topic.

>>2. The second book is much less forgiving than the first as far a staying
>>within the consonant areas of one 12-tone meantone key. And what was Bach
>>to do at the organ -- his organ book is the most chromatic of all his
>>output.
>
>It sounds like you're not agreeing with Hafner at all. Why are you inclined
>to accept his thesis, then?

The above quote refers more to the meantone aspect of the Hafner article
than the thesis.

Both the tuning wrench and graduated tension theories have pros and cons.
I favor the former because I don't believe the consonance of the distant
keys in irregular temperament would have been any point of attraction for
Bach or his audience, and because of what I have read of Bach's habits with
the tuning wrench...

>>Some points of interest here: 1. Was the composition then so tailored to
>>the specific key of irregular temperament?
>
>I don't believe it was tailored at all, let alone "so tailored".

So you find the studies unconvincing?

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote,

>So you find the studies [Barnes, etc.] unconvincing?

Well, I think they draw too specific a conclusion from too varied a set of
data (i.e., pieces that were originally written in different keys as well as
those that weren't). Plus they _assume_ that there was no tuning wrench
action.