Claudio wrote:
> (...) My main objection to your Bach temperament is a small, simple
> thing, but with far-reaching implications: your system makes E major
> the worst tonality, even if Bach wrote quite a few important works
for > it (as detailed in my book). Conversely, you make more consonant
other > tonalities (F# major, C#/Db major) for which Bach hardly wrote
at all.
> (...)
Thanks for the cordial and complimentary reply!
The E-G# in my system is wide-ish, yes; but as you know, Vallotti's has
THREE major 3rds larger than that, and Barnes's has two. So, anyone
favoring either Barnes or Vallotti can't really object to the mere size
of E-G#, but only to its placement. It breaks the *expectation* that
the widest should be on F#-A#, B-D#, Ab-C, or Db-F (Lindley
perpetually!). Those four are classically the wolves, coming down from
meantone. Well, as you also know, there are also some of Neidhardt's
and Sorge's published systems that do have E-G# as their widest major
3rd. If one accepts E-G# as slightly wider than all four of F#-A#,
B-D#, Ab-C, and Db-F, all the old meantone-inherited problems are wiped
out. It looked ridiculous to me, too, until I actually tried it.
One might also think of it this way: the note G#/Ab is closer to C (the
home key of tonality) by moving four 5ths flatward than by moving eight
5ths sharpward; so, why *shouldn't* E-G# be at least as wide as Ab-C?
It's not merely a matter of looking at what Bach used as tonic triads.
It's a look at where he went inside compositions. To me, playing in
Barnes, I can't stand the way it makes the music sound: whenever F minor
or C minor music modulates to the related major keys, or whenever the
hideous dominant F# major comes up within music in B minor and E minor.
For that matter, in the Bach E major harpsichord music (WTC, Invention,
Sinfonia, early Capriccio, French suite, concerto...)...why "should" we
expect things to go farther and farther out of tune whenever the music
does ordinary things with dominants, secondary dominants, or into the
relative minor (C# minor)? Why "should" there be a lousy B# and E# when
it gets near C# minor, or a hotly high A# anywhere, since these are
perfectly normal notes (for Bach) within E major?
We can't just point in isolation at a tonic triad such as E and assert
that things are "worst" there, as if that's all that matters. The
primary reason why meantone-inherited temperaments such as Barnes's
don't work -- at least for me -- is that all these extreme sharps or
flats aren't treated smoothly enough. They sound more exotic than they
necessarily would need to.
Apropos of my temperament getting a good workout and use: this week I'm
enjoying Julia Brown's new Naxos disc of WF Bach fantasias and fugues.
Those things go to some of the wildest spots, and apparently for shock
value sometimes. That's on a Kingston harpsichord. There are at least
three complete sets of WTC 1 out now (Watchorn, Egarr, Beausejour), plus
the excerpts disc by me, giving good opportunity to hear how it
interacts with players of different personal temperament in the music.
I get complaints from some people that the tuning sounds too moderate
for their tastes, and complaints that it's too spicy for others, or
peaks in the "wrong" place. There are also plenty who don't even know
it's in there, like on Beausejour's and Brown's, because the program
notes say nothing; where the reviewers simply say things like "that
instrument sounds especially good", I recognize that the temperament is
drawing no undue attention to itself, but rather highlighting the music
and the instrument's tone appropriately.
Brad Lehman
|