Bach/Lehman

> > He also thinks the squiggles on the WTC
> > title page are a code for a particular tuning system. :)
>
> Is it absolutely implausible that the squiggles indeed represent
> a particular tuning preferred by the composer?

The layman approach is non-thinking. Early music musicians want a non-thinking super-tuning for mixed programs. If not Valotti, then Brad Lehman. Sorry, Brad, but the squiggles are bull. Rather than work with the real tunings of the time, matching up tunings with particular composers (if not pieces), we are in an anti-historical guessing dustbin. Snake oil is an apt description.

Unfortunately, I think the Lehman approach sets back Bach scholarship, as well as early music in the tuning that gives that extra zing to a composer. Some composers really lose out when played in equal (Buxtehude, Telemann) while others can be played in almost anything (like Bach -- although he sounds awful in just).

Not incidentally, the AFMM is present Joshua Pierce in the Duetto #2 by Bach in Werckmeister III since Brad declared it the killer piece to determine Bach was not in WIII. Sounds great to us!

Johnny

Sounds like you all need an adjudicator. Let us call it to a vote in as wide a musical circle as possible:

Q. What is the most likely tuning for J.S. Bach's Duetto nr. 2?

A.1. Werckmeister III as preferred by Johnny Reinhardt et al.
A.2. Neidhardt (I forget which one) as endorsed by AKJ et al.
A.3. Squiggle tuning ascribed to Bach by Brad Lehman et al.
A.4. Secor's proportional beating extraordinaire (George, pick one!)
A.5. 12 out of 79 MOS you know the rest.

I guess some recordings and an online poll is in order.

Oz.
----- Original Message -----
From: Afmmjr@aol.com
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Mayıs 2006 Çarşamba 15:59
Subject: [tuning] Bach/Lehman

> > He also thinks the squiggles on the WTC
> > title page are a code for a particular tuning system. :)
>
> Is it absolutely implausible that the squiggles indeed represent
> a particular tuning preferred by the composer?

The layman approach is non-thinking. Early music musicians want a non-thinking super-tuning for mixed programs. If not Valotti, then Brad Lehman. Sorry, Brad, but the squiggles are bull. Rather than work with the real tunings of the time, matching up tunings with particular composers (if not pieces), we are in an anti-historical guessing dustbin. Snake oil is an apt description.

Unfortunately, I think the Lehman approach sets back Bach scholarship, as well as early music in the tuning that gives that extra zing to a composer. Some composers really lose out when played in equal (Buxtehude, Telemann) while others can be played in almost anything (like Bach -- although he sounds awful in just).

Not incidentally, the AFMM is present Joshua Pierce in the Duetto #2 by Bach in Werckmeister III since Brad declared it the killer piece to determine Bach was not in WIII. Sounds great to us!

Johnny

On 5/3/06, Afmmjr@aol.com <Afmmjr@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
> Some composers really lose out when played in equal (Buxtehude, Telemann)
> while others can be played in almost anything (like Bach -- although he
> sounds awful in just).
[...]

Of course Bach sounds awful in just intonation. He implicitely assumes
that 81/80 is tempered out all over the place.

Keenan

ROFWL

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@... wrote:
> >
> > The layman approach is non-thinking.
> >
> > Johnny
>
>
> Hmmmm. I had to non-think about that one for a while, Johnny. I
> suppose that this statement was intended to be a jibe or insult
> (Lehman = layman = non-thinker) directed by one academe toward
> another. Why would this be insulting?
>
> Webster's dictionary--
>
> "layman: one of the people (the unwashed and ignorant) as distiguished
> from the clergy (academic high priests); not of a stated profession
> (no Ph.D)."
>
> Ah, I see now. I'm a non-thinking, anti-intellectual bumpkin. Well,
> it's not insulting....it's funny. It's funny that I, and other laymen,
> work long and hard to provide tax revenues; which revenues (by
> circuitous routes) fund various grants and university salaries.... for
> shrill academic elitists.
>
> Hey-- it's what I'm here for, Johnny.
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Sounds like you all need an adjudicator. Let us call it to a vote in
as wide a musical circle as possible:
>
> Q. What is the most likely tuning for J.S. Bach's Duetto nr. 2?
>
> A.1. Werckmeister III as preferred by Johnny Reinhardt et al.
> A.2. Neidhardt (I forget which one) as endorsed by AKJ et al.
> A.3. Squiggle tuning ascribed to Bach by Brad Lehman et al.
> A.4. Secor's proportional beating extraordinaire (George, pick one!)
> A.5. 12 out of 79 MOS you know the rest.

My gut feeling is that the choices become more unlikely the further you
go down the list. ;-)

--George

Ah, you noticed my sarcasm. ;)

----- Original Message -----
From: "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 03 May�s 2006 �ar�amba 22:26
Subject: [tuning] Re: Bach/Lehman

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like you all need an adjudicator. Let us call it to a vote in
> as wide a musical circle as possible:
> >
> > Q. What is the most likely tuning for J.S. Bach's Duetto nr. 2?
> >
> > A.1. Werckmeister III as preferred by Johnny Reinhardt et al.
> > A.2. Neidhardt (I forget which one) as endorsed by AKJ et al.
> > A.3. Squiggle tuning ascribed to Bach by Brad Lehman et al.
> > A.4. Secor's proportional beating extraordinaire (George, pick one!)
> > A.5. 12 out of 79 MOS you know the rest.
>
> My gut feeling is that the choices become more unlikely the further you
> go down the list. ;-)
>
> --George
>

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> Sounds like you all need an adjudicator. Let us call it to a vote in
> as wide a musical circle as possible:
>
> Q. What is the most likely tuning for J.S. Bach's Duetto nr. 2?
>
I.m.o's ranking taste i do prefer, what's still yet in my ears:
A.0. Mark Lindley's: A Quest for Bach's Ideal Style of Organ
Temperament" Michaelstein conference 1994, report printed in 1997,
as anew live presented in his Heidelberg lecture on last thursday:
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0605&L=hpschd-l&T=0&P=4200
but consider also some others too among the chronological list in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-Tempered_Clavier
See there:"What tuning did Bach intend?"

> A.1. Werckmeister III as preferred by Johnny Reinhardt et al.
> A.2. Neidhardt (I forget which one) as endorsed by AKJ et al.
> A.4. Secor's proportional beating extraordinaire (George, pick one!)
> A.5. 12 out of 79 MOS you know the rest.
>
> My gut feeling is that the choices become more unlikely the further
> you go down the list. ;-)
> >
A.S.