Re Alas

Tom: They both trust their own ears above any historical documentation, as
far as present-day performance is concerned. Which is just as well for
them, because the historical record is extremely incomplete and
inconclusive.

Johnny: If you see no difference between us, that certainly says a lot to
me. While musicologists mistrust their ears so completely, and distrust
musicians accordingly, there is indeed room for concert work. Sorry you don't
feel that way. Recall that Ton Koopman and Christoph Wolff, 2 of the greatest
Bachologists, believe Bach was likely in Werckmeister III. That's fine
company for me.

Tom: They both think that what they choose to perform with, and sounds good
to them, now, is thereby validated or 'proved' or 'tested' as an
actual historical tuning, that what they hear now has some sort of
backwards-in-time influence on what Bach or Mozart or Haydn did 250 or
300 years ago. That's the utter insanity of it.

Johnny: Insanity is to put words in my mouth. Brad's views are public. My
views are admittedly more vague, but they are not represented by your
comments, and only a fraction has been posted. Comparing genuine tunings from
history with a modern invention demonstrates only so much prejudice. As I recall,
your suggestion of choosing just intonation intervals on flexible
instruments for Bach made no sense at all in the fabric of Bach's rapid counterpoint.

Tom: They both seem to think that it's not at all important whether you
make reasonable or unreasonable claims about what famous composers
actually did in history - as long as you are happy playing music now
in the present.

Johnny: This is just the kind of reaction I was alluding to in my original
post. I get no financial support to do what I am doing; it is out of love of
the music. If you want to continue the poison from the old German guard, the
same community that equated well-temperament with equal temperament for oh
so many years, no one can stop you.

Tom: That present personal enjoyment is some kind of
substitute for factually-supported history.

Johnny: You have no idea what facts are at more disposal. But I'll bet that
if you had never heard Persian music, or Inuit music, or Tuvan music, you
would believe their tunings either. It just wouldn't fit in your inherited
paradigm. It's like Merriam fitting the Flathead Indians into ET, or any other
ettic (foreign imposed) model.

Tom: Well, this would be fine, except that they do insist on promoting
their current preferences by representing them as some kind of unique
and objective historical record. Face it, no-one would care in the
least about Werckmeister or Kirnberger or 'Bach-Lehman', *unless* a
few people had invested hundreds or thousands of hours and pages in
argumentation trying to prove to the world systematically that Bach
used this or that tuning.

Johnny: And that is why Bach is heard universally in ET. Disgusting
situation.

Tom: Such argumentation leading to one single conclusion is necessarily
invalid, because in each case the arguer has made a *personal choice*
which tuning to promote.

Johnny: If you have heard my work, it would go a great deal further for me
to consider your positions. If you had any Bach that was successful in any
respect in a non-ET tuning, I would love to hear it. What do you have?

Tom: There were always MANY possible 'Bach
tunings' (given whatever bits and pieces of evidence one tends to take
seriously) - perhaps almost an infinite variety of them.

Johnny: Problem here is that an infinite possibilities leads to nothing.
Unacceptable. All we are getting is ET.

Tom: In order to promote one and only one out of these many possibilities,
you have to
make a personal choice of which one most tickles your fancy.

Johnny: I am only considering actual tunings that are chronologically
possible. To me it is shameful that this is dismissed so easily.

Tom: The problem is that no-one in the 21st century can make a personal
choice that exerts an influence on Bach or Mozart or Haydn. If you
were able to travel in time, and gave those gentlemen the same choice,
they almost certainly would choose something different.

Johnny: This I can agree with.

Tom: Anyone who makes such a choice among many alternatives - based partly
or wholly on his personal taste - then spends several years telling
anyone who will listen 'this was Bach's tuning' - not to mention
inventing arguments that 'prove' how this one tuning is the only one
that is historically supported - must be approaching insanity.

Johnny: Yes, insanity. I guess we are now entering your area of specialty.
I am not out to prove anything. I will give information and a narrative
that will suggest a different reality than the one that has been received. I
will be careful, as I have been, that Werckmeister III was an inherited tuning
for J.S. Bach, who was after all the only true Baroque chromaticist. It was
on his book shelf throughout his life.

Tom: Would it be too hard to acknowledge some vaguely realistic degree of
uncertainty and personal subjectivity in people's choice of
what-tuning-they-play-Bach-with?

Johnny: It is a work in progress. There are no absolutes. But the idea
that we will never know so we should just accept ET Bach is an idea who's time
has gone. Bradley has proved that people like unequal Bach; it is simply
more musical. Now, musical is a concept that does not translate well in
musicology. Again, that is the status quo. Please be glad that people devote
themselves to music for pure reasons. All I have done is "prove" that Bach's
music has more musical depth in Werckmeister III than it does in ET. This is a
horse of a different color.

**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family
favorites at AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)