re: The popcorn and Starbucks analogy

Aaron wrote:
> Fair enough, but Brad--all else being equal, are you saying you
> couldn't recognize your tuning among others if they were on
> synthesizer (or sampler or physically modelled instrument)?

Not saying that. I do know that it sounds *different* (less clearly profiled) when heard on synthesizer, and I've heard quite a few samples of that in various timbres.

Most recently, I've listened to all the MIDI-piano samples at Ross Duffin's new demo page:
http://music.cwru.edu/duffin/Norton/Letter.html
To me, there, it sounds easily confusable with equal temperament: but with the proviso that it has added depth to the expression (or steroids, or MSG, or what-have-you analogy)...more *presence*. The Gershwin and Brahms there certainly sound right and natural to me! :)

It also sounds that way to me on Ronald Brautigam's recording of Beethoven sonatas using it, and on Robert Hill's forthcoming disc of WF Bach, both on fortepiano: like "I-can't-believe-it's-not-equal" but with the crucial added depth to it. And on somebody's concert recording they sent me, playing Schumann's chamber music with it on a Bosendorfer...hard to pick out that it's not equal, other than the "presence", the stronger harmonic focus.

In my own recording of Brahms chorale preludes, on organ, it's much more obvious than it is on fortepiano. No chance there of confusing it with equal...or with any of the temps that I called "workmaster shape" in my paper.

When I first heard the recording of two- and three-harpsichord concertos, by Bach, in the new Brilliant Classics set: I recognized right away that they had used my temp, even though it says so nowhere, and even though I had no notice from any of the players. I picked it straight up from the sound. So, I contacted one of those players to confirm, and he said yes: they'd used it...and he didn't know that the recording was already released, at that point! :) Details of the recording here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/recordings.html

A couple of weeks ago I put on somebody's 1987 recording of various Bach harpsichord works. I recognized right away that they had used Werckmeister III (recognizing this mostly from my visceral response that the music is made so ugly...!), even though the booklet merely says "a historical temperament". I took lessons for five years, regularly, in a teacher's studio where the harpsichord was almost always in Werckmeister III for all purposes...I got to know its quirks very well, although I never warmed to it. And I always insisted on using not-WIII for my own various solo recitals there at that school.

> > I'm get suspect of all the large claims people make about various WTs
> when the first thing that happens when I propose an actual _hardcore_
> listening test is that people start back-pedalling and making excuses
> as to why they wouldn't be able to hear such-and-such an effect. It's
> like you can *feel* people getting nervous about making a mistake
> publicly!

Well, that's certainly understandable.

> As for upper partials, like I said, we don't have to go realistic--a
> sawtooth timbre on a synth is great for upper partials, and they're
> perfectly harmonic like on a harpsichord. I dont see why you wouldn't
> take the challenge---one certainly hears the differences between
> temperaments, all else being equal. The question is, could we identify
> our favorite from among them, randomly? I too prefer acoustic music,
> but c'mon, let's not hide our bold claims behind hot air about
> synthesized tones.
> > I'm willing to bet the farm that anyone who took the time to actually
> tune a harpsichord or organ to Brad's satisfaction (or Johnny's or
> whoever's) in the comparison set I proposed would still experience the
> same general result---if they are confused by synthesized tones, they
> will be also confused by acoustic ones.
> > Also, the reverse I think would be true--if it's easy to recognize
> synthetically, it would be easy acoustically (assuming of course that
> amazingly accurate acoustic tuning was done).

I agree with that: that the synthesizer (in some timbres anyway) masks things that are obvious on harpsichord and organ. So do pianos and fortepianos. I've had our church's piano (Yamaha) in my temp since summer 2005, and I play all sorts of stuff on it. It always sounds smoother than the results I get at home on three harpsichords, even though the temp is the same. The timbre makes that much difference.

Is it possible that I'd personally slip up in a synthesizer listening test? Yes, of course. But, as I mentioned yesterday, I believe the process of testing temperaments should be not merely a listening session, but also crucially *playing in* them on appropriate acoustic instruments, to experience what the intonation does to one's intuitive responses as a player. And, setting them up entirely by ear to see how they play out in that experiential process, since Bach would have had to do so similarly: no electronic shortcuts. That's why I sit here
patiently setting up *all* of the Neidhardts etc, by ear, to experience what they do in the music, and what they do as to giving a reasonably logical tuning *process* hands-on. I believe there's no substitute for doing these things, but again, maybe I'm a curmudgeon.

My by-ear instructions for some of the Neidhardts, et al, are here:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bpl/larips/practical.html
Once their strategy is figured out, they're nowhere near as hard as they might look on paper. Just lay down the basic 1/6 comma naturals, and then start adjusting things here and there.

Brad Lehman
http://www.larips.com