Feedback or Controversy on Bach/Lehman's temperament ?

[A440A at aol.com]

 << Did any of you try the Bach/Lehman temperament 
>(<http://larips.com>http://larips.com) ?
 Is it good, Great or just common ? Do you believe
>it IS the original J.S.Bach's temperament ? etc... >>

Greetings, 
       First, there are three questions, and two of them unanswerable.  I 
have tried this tuning on a piano, and it had some nice qualities, however, I 
don't know that we can classify these temperaments as great, good, or common 
without having some agreed upon ideal.  An ideal from which their departure can be 
measured.   I would suggest the Young, with perfect symmetry from one beat a 
second in C to a full comma in F#, it follows Werckmeister's rules). 
            Unlike ET, well-temperaments create a tonal palette and some were 
better for particular composers than others. The Bach-Lehman is milder at 
both extremes than a number of widely published temps in that the C-E and  F-A  
thirds are tempered about 6 cents and the most expressive third is the 
E-G# at almost 20 cents.  In terms of Jorgensen's definition of harmonic 
balance, it is poorly balanced.  It might be head and shoulders above any other 
temperment for the music of a composer that used it to write the music, but in 
general terms, it is somewhat out of step with a lot of the other temperments. 
      I doubt that Bach had the same tuning under his hands all the time, so 
the idea someone finding  "his" temperament seems rather specious to me.  It 
is plausible that he was using a well temperment, since much of his stuff is 
rather greviously interrupted by wolves when played on meantone.  Which WT is a 
matter of conjecture.  I have listened to the WTC on a Kirnberger III and 
reveled in how expressive some highly tempered 17ths were.  Their speed is only 
slightly varied in the milder forms, and it would take a more educated ear than 
mine to actually hear the difference between a Kirnberger and a Werckmeister.  
 Some of the latest research into Bach's tuning involves a code of sorts that 
graces the front cover of the WTC.   It contains the reversed image of a 
series of notes, and has been "decoded" to give a tuning that is making some 
rather strenuous claims to authenticity. 
          Even though we may not be able to discern the exact differences 
between temperaments upon listening, (and we gotta admit, this is nuance level 
stuff),  there IS a difference in what the sensitive performer feels, and any 
given temperament's reception will be a product of the technician's choice and 
the performer's expectations.   I favor an ultra-conservative approach.  I keep 
the concert pianos in a Moore and Company "Victorian" era well-temperament as 
their default tuning.  I can call it a "quasi-equal" tuning around most of 
the faculty without causing alarm.  It can move into a Broadwood tuning or ET 
without anything having to move over three cents.  All our pianos are used for a 
wide variety of stuff, accompanying all sorts of instruments, and nobody has 
said a word about the lack of equality.  There are numerous pianists that 
really like the pianos, though.   
       I have moved one of them into a Coleman 11 for an all Mozart and 
Schubert program and it went over well.  Mixed programs might force a compromise so 
that the later pieces don't get "bent" by something best suited for a century 
before.  
       The Bradley Lehman tuning seemed harsh in places I didn't expect it.  
I remember E and A both  verging on uncomfortable for me. Since the piano's 
vastly different overtone spectrum may make a caricature out of a temperament 
that was nicely colorful on a harpsichord or fortepiano,  I don't know what this 
tuning would sound like on a more authentic instrument, but regardless, the 
balance is still sorta weird.  
Regards, 

Ed Foote RPT 
http://www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/index.html
www.uk-piano.org/edfoote/well_tempered_piano.html