Re: Lehman tuning on the BBC April 30 (web stream all week)

(Please - the idea that this tuning scheme has anything to do with Bach is a major part of Brad Lehman's claim, and is far, FAR from having been established.)

Yahya wrote:
> The proof of the pudding, etc. Egarr makes a
> good case for this tuning

The tuning is quite serviceable (even though one easily can improve upon it). That has never been questioned. Its historical relevance is another matter, however, and Egarr contributes nothing to the resolution of that question. Instead, he adds to the confusion.

Ozan wrote:
> Is it absolutely implausible that the squiggles indeed represent a
> particular tuning preferred by the composer?

It is extremely unlikely in light of everything else that was written about temperaments at the time. But that's really beside the point, which is that Brad has not provided a sufficient case to think that they do. The burden of proof is on him.

> It's definetely not a revolution, but a milestone for Brad. No matter the
> criticism, he deserves some credit for having achieved so much thus far.

There's no credit in selling snake oil, even if one really thinks it works.

Gordon

Dear Gordon,

> (Please - the idea that this tuning scheme has anything to do with Bach is
a major part of Brad Lehman's claim, and is far, FAR from having been
established.)
>

We all should consent to that. I never considered it a crucial part of my
evaluation of the music, however.

> Ozan wrote:
> > Is it absolutely implausible that the squiggles indeed represent a
> > particular tuning preferred by the composer?
>
> It is extremely unlikely in light of everything else that was written
about temperaments at the time. But that's really beside the point, which
is that Brad has not provided a sufficient case to think that they do. The
burden of proof is on him.
>
>

Be that as it may, the tuning is there, whether Bach's or not. Let us think
of it as `the 12-tone tuning by Lehman attributed to Bach`.

If someone has a problem with that, retort with Werckmeister III, or
something else you think will do the job better.

> > It's definetely not a revolution, but a milestone for Brad. No matter
the
> > criticism, he deserves some credit for having achieved so much thus far.
>
> There's no credit in selling snake oil, even if one really thinks it
works.
>

How charming. I didn't know BBC profitted from duplicity. I'm definitely
beguiled by mass media frauds then. So, who deserves the credit? Andrew
Manze perhaps?

>
> Gordon
>
>

Oz.