Feedback or Controversy on Bach/Lehman's temperament ?

[A440A at aol.com]

Philippe writes: 

>Thank you for your very interesting answer... which raises a few

questions... ;-)

 Reading your mail, I'm not sure I understand - as a matter of fact, I'm

quite sure I don't(*) - which were the three questions you mentioned, and 
which of them

are answerable or not... This could be caused by my poor english level... Or

maybe, you got carried in your own writing, forgetting how you started your 
reply ?

(It happens to me all the time ;-) )<< 

Greetings,  
       I usually get carried away much later in a posting.  
   The three questions I was referring to were in the following post: 
>>
1.  Did any of you try the Bach/Lehman temperament (http://larips.com) ?

I did try the Bach/Lehman temperament. 


>2.  Is it good, Great or just common ? 
       I don't think we can make a valid value judgement as to whether it is 
good, great, or common.  A hammer is a great tool except when you need a 
scapel.  This temperament may be optimum for just a very few pieces of music, or it 
may be really nice for a wide range.   

>3.  Do you believe it IS the original J.S.Bach's temperament ? etc...< 
 
I don't think there is enough info to be definitive inre Bach's tuning. And 
that is assuming there is such a thing.  I don't believe that temperament and 
tuning were nearly so stringently defined as we do today.  The tunings were a 
perishable, undocumented, ill understood, aspect of musical life in the 1700's. 
 Only a few individuals had the time to pursue such esoteric knowledge. ( The 
rest of humanity was off being beaten by landlords,  trying to avoid a 
plague, slaving in the fields or mills, carrying on a war, etc.) 

     As far as Bach's temperament is concerned,  organs and harpsichords 
should probably seek authenticity, however, in its display of overtones, the piano 
is a very different instrument from anything Bach had heard, so the only 
valid way I know of determining the best tuning for any partiuclar music would be 
to compare it on several tunings, on similar pianos. This is being done in 
many places, today, and is the fruition of Jorgensen's efforts decades ago.  I 
suspect there will be some exposure at the convention, two classes I know of, 
and the possiblility of several incognito tunings among the instruments 
available to the techs ears.  
      Things don't change very fast  in the tuning trade today.  From 
Braid-White to Barber to Jorgensen to all of us standing around with these little 
blue machines, there has been virtually no change in a long time.  It is finally 
starting to move around a little bit, but ET still carrys on as the blanket 
deal when we say "tuning".  
        I don't think things were less tradition-influenced in Bach's time.  
Meantone had just been seriously challenged by Werckmeister's suggestions 
(1681),  and the  tuning world was, I imagine, just coming to terms with what is a 
"good" well temperament.  Or, perhaps, "Which of these 'equal' temperaments 
was the best?" A hundred years later, Thomas Young, genius, (harkening to 
Vallotti) proposed the ideal formulation of balance, with no pretensions of 
equality, and  In the late 1800's, the best tuners were still creating a bias in 
their tunings that mimicked it, just to a much lesser degree of contrasts between 
the keys.  Makes me think that this hard-edged ET we have gotten nailed down 
is a 20th century thing... 
      The various schemes of Bach's day can be compared, today, and only 
subjective decisions can be made of the results.  Taste's being what they are, the 
"strength" of tempering that best shows Bach will probably always be a point 
of discussion, but the more important point is that there is a discussion 
taking place, at all.   

* that is what I meant by there only being one answerable question. 
Regards, 
  
Ed Foote