Publication and a Remark: Early Music XXXIV, no. 4, 2006 Lindley/Ortgies: 'Bach-

To whom it may concern!

Mark Lindley's and mine joint article in Early Music has appeared -
see the links below.

In this article we discuss some of the historically, systematically,
and methodically wrong temperament speculations published by Bradley
Lehman as his alleged "Bach's" temperament
This Lehamn-temperament is a modern designed temperament, and like the
the often used temperament by the late Herbert Anton Kellner
("Kellner-Bach") Lehman's modern design is based on merely speculative
interpretation of icons: for Kellner it was Bach's seal, for Lehman
the ornamenmt above WTC part 1722 (Lehman following previous musings,
especially by Andreas Sparschuh, who invented that idea as a kind of a
practical joke).

There have been a number of problems in the editorial process in
publishing our response, which lead to, that a small couple of
corrections/minor changes to our text did not find their way into the
finally published version.
The editor in chief, Dr. Tess knighton, has offered us authors kindly
some space in the next issue (2007, no. 1, thus).

We had observed these corrections/minor changes in the proof reading
process and when a pre-published version appeared on Oxford University
Press's webpage in mid-october 2006 also single observant readers
(noticed these errors and informed us the authors and/or Dr. Knighton.

The editor of EM tried to have the revised versions of those two
sentences put into the printed version of our article, but was unable
to have it done because the article would then have exceeded slightly
the space alotted to it.

I would like to mention the handful of small changes.

- - - - -

page 616
last sentence on that page should read:

>> (b) Neither Sorge nor Neidhardt countenanced tempering E-G#
>> (for any reason whatever) in actual musical practice by as
>> much as Dr Lehman says Bach always tempered it."

Accordingly, the immediately following sentence on
page 617
should read

>> (c) Nor indeed did Neidhardt ever countenance tempering E-G#
>> more than Ab-C in any tuning that he recommended for use
>> in any kind of social context whatever (i.e. at a court,
>> in a large city, in a small town, or in a village).[endnote]
>> 10

This is important because Neidhardt designed several temperaments,
which he did NOT estimate all as apt for actual musical practice, but
selected a handful as relevant for certain social contexts: village,
small town, large town and court (with a slight shift from the 1724
publication to 1732). None of these (considered relevant by Neidhardt)
has for example the third E-G# wider than Ab-C.

The editor of EM tried to have the revised versions of those two
sentences put into the printed version of our article, but was unable
to have it done because the article would then have exceeded slightly
the space alotted to it.

- - - - - -

By way of misprint a few numbers in the figures came out wrong:

FIGURE 2 (Equal temperament)

must of course have the same ciphers for the same class of intervals
(that temperament is supposed to be ''equal' anyway):

The -1 between Bb and F is wrong;

CORRECT is 1 (i.e. + 1 like all other fifths of equal temperament)

FIGURE 5 (An alternative interpretation of the scroll)

– there MUST BE a 0 between F and B

The reason that there is a pure fifth on Bb-F in figure 5 in this
alternative reading of the squiggles is the same reason, why Bradley
Lehman has a larger-than-pure-fifth on the same spot of the
scrolls/squiggles.

It should be always kept in mind, however, that Mark Lindley and I (as
well as the larger part of the scholarly community dealing with
historical research on temperament and tuning theory and practice)
regard the interpretation of the squiggles as carrying a hidden
temperament design as mere speculation! Evidence for Lehman's and
other's claim has not been presented.
Even more some of the "evidence" presented is simply wrong, especially
there is a significant shortage in paleographic knowledge on the side
of squiggle interpreteres: Most notably and again recently is the
mistake to read an "E" is read into a letter which is a "C" (and on
that mistake interpretations are based ...)

FIGURE 6 (Another alternative)

– The cipher between A and E MUST BE 2

– and between F and C it MUST BE -1

- - - - - -

Some minor corrigenda:

page 619, left column, line 8
read "Köthen" (instead of "Cöthen")

Endnotes 8, 11, 29, 30
The title of Ulrich Dähnert's book reads
"Der Orgel- und Instrumentenbauer Zacharias Hildebrandt" (Leipzig, 1962)

Endnote 8
read "Rechnen" (i.e. capital letter R)

Endnote 18
the link of HPSCHD-list is
www.albany.edu/hpschd-l/.

Endnote 22
read "Orgel-Probe" (instead of "Orgelprobe")

Endnote 27
read "Prätorischen" (instead of "Praetorischen")
read "Neidhardtischen" (instead of "Neidhardischen")

Endnote 34
read "Vielfalt" (instead of "Vielfach")

--------------

The articles can be found at

Bach-style keyboard tuning
Mark Lindley and Ibo Ortgies
Early Music 2006 34:613-624.
http://em.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/613?etoc

Bach's temperament, Occam's razor, and the Neidhardt factor
John O'Donnell
Early Music 2006 34:625-634.
http://em.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/4/625?etoc

Kind regards

Ibo Ortgies

* * * * * * *
Ibo Ortgies, PhD

NEW HOMEPAGE
http://www.freewebs.com/ibo_ortgies/index.htm

E-mail adress <ibo dot ortgies Å hsm gu se>

Office:
TEL +46–31–773 5208
– from January 4, 2007, new phone number +46-31-786 5208

FAX +46–31–773 5200
– from January 4, 2007, new fax number +46-31-786 5200

> To whom it may concern!

Thanks for the note. I'm glad to see (another?) criticism
of Lehman published.

-Carl

I think there was just a little article for it in Piano Technicians
Journal.

(Maybe this is instructions too, but does it divide the octave or else
the major semitone into equal parts...see Richard Moody, "James
Broadwood and ET, 1811." 2006(?)
http://www.hammerfluegel.net/viewer.php?albid=547&stage=3&imgid=2543 )

Clark