Dear Claudio,

> Am 11.01.2017 um 20:36 schrieb J. Claudio Di Veroli <[log in to unmask]>:

> About evidence that is not there. Can you show me evidence that NO Bach
> organ had a Contra-B, in other words, is there concrete evidence about pedal
> range for all the organs Bach customarily played upon?

I am not making invalid claims on the basis of non-existence. 
I am arguing from the existence of evidence. The only evidence we have is that there is no such  organ ever reported in Germany in Bach’s era. 

One can create of course all kinds of Deus-ex-machina organs (which have regularly circulating temperaments or fantasy compasses) to explain a today widespread practice of repertoire playing (which is certainly dear to most of us, because most here, I assume, like to hear the pieces by Bach). That practice has been dismissed by Bach's contemporaries as unprofessional and – matching with the contemporaries – there is no evidence for such a practice. 

I find it highly anachronistic to argue for forcing the historical situation into a "procrustean bed”, f. ex. by inventing organs, that are not known to have existed,  in order to maintain the modern way to deal with this music, i.e playing it, rendering, “interpreting” it on organs as repertoire. And all that for an explanation that is not even needed to understand the historical situation, namely if one accepts the various historical author’s unanimous view.


C:
>> One cannot base any claim on the non-existence of evidence.

I:
> As a statistician I have to disagree, and strongly.  Two examples:

This is not a statistical question. 

Millions of children believe in Father Christmas. That should be quite a good statistic reason to assume his existence, no? 
Only millions of adults claiming he doesn’t exist and brings presents is of course no good evidence either (they could have an interest to destroy the belief in FC). 
Can you disprove that there is only one single case in which FC did come?  

C:
> 1 Rameau and inégales. 
...
> 2. F.Couperin temperament. 

I can't comment on these as I am not acquainted with French and research written in French about these matters. 
My knowledge of French is too scant.

I rather stick with what I (hopefully) can do and know. 

C:
> Do you wish me to quote the often discussed aspects in which Bach's music
> differs from ALL the contemporary organists?

No, I don't, because it does not bear on the arguments in this matter.
 You only would have to present a few pieces of evidence for repertoire playing in Germany before ca. 1740. That should be simple, ten, soon fifteen years after I have published this. 

The question whether an how much did differ can’t be answered.  
How would music of an individual composer not differ more or less from all the other contemporary organists (plagiarism excluded)?

I:
>> ... c#’ and d’ in the pedal when this was
>> regulary not available (Saxon and Thuringian pedal keyboards standardly did
>> not have these notes).
C:
> "Regularly" it was not.

Yes, it was regularly so!
Check the relevant literature: Dähnert and the others. 
Nobody is supposed to believe me. Just read the evidence. It is published.

Have you read any source material and scholarly publications on the organs in Saxony (authors like Dähnert, Frank-Harald Greß, Felix Friedrich, Uwe Pape to start with)? 

C:
> Isn't it simpler to use Occam's razor?

No, not simpler, because I do apply it where applicable. 
Occam’s razor, however, does not mean to promote a simple explanation that does not take in all observed facts. One has to take in all observed facts. Also it does not mean to prefer a simple explanation to a more complex one, if the latter explains better or more!

Only an explanation that fits with all the facts can be a plausible one. If there would be concurring views that also explain the matter consistently, then Occam’s razor would bite to select the most likely explanation. In historical matters, however, the simplest explanation must of course not always be the correct explanation. Occam’s razor therefore is not very helpful in this discussion.

C:
> The simplest explanation is that Bach
> meant the exceptional ranges for an exceptional organ, not extant not even
> in documents!

Well, that is not Occam’s razor applied properly.
The simplest explanation will have take in all known circumstances: And that includes the contemporary view, that “repertoire playing” was regarded unprofessional and that view matches until now precisely with a complete lack of evidence for such playing – from all places, from all times between ca. mid 15th century to ca 1740.

C:
> (Unless you can show me contrary evidence from ALL the Bach organs: how can
> you have such evidence?).

It is my principle since long time not to  answer to rhetorical questions. 
And it is neither necessary nor possible to have evidence of each single organ Bach ever might(!) have played to know about the general situation in his time. 

C:
> […] If only ONE such organ existed (and how can anybody prove the
> contrary), again I have my point.

I:
>> That is again arguing from non-existence (see above).

C:
> Indeed!

A fallacy.


> Have a happy 2017.

Thanks, same to you!

Ibo


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note:  opinions  expressed on HPSCHD-L are those of the  individual con-
tributors and not necessarily  those of the list owners  nor of the Uni-
versity of Iowa.  For a brief  summary of list  commands, send mail to
[log in to unmask]  saying  HELP .
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::