|
Goldbergs in F Major?!?!?!? Brilliant Bach Edition madness . . . |
|
Mike Carter wrote (September 20, 2003):
The Goldberg Variations in the Brilliant Bach Edition, performed by Pieter-Jan Belder, are transposed down a whole-step to F major! I understand that such editions are supposed to be HIP (as in Bach 2000, however I'm not sure about this particular set), which leads me to wonder if there are historical reasons behind this. Is some sort of temperament issue responsible? |
|
Guille wrote (September 21, 2003):
[To Mike Carter] what's your A?
They are probably played in a=392hz, a hole tone lower than modern/standard a=440hz |
|
Mike Carter wrote (September 21, 2003):
Guille wrote:
< what's your A? >
440hz
< They are probably played in a=392hz, a hole tone lower than modern/standard a=440hz >
Gotcha. Interestingly, my other harpsichord recordings of this piece are at a=440hz. I prefer the 440 |
|
Sybrand Bakker wrote (September 21, 2003):
Mike Carter wrote:
< Gotcha. Interestingly, my other harpsichord recordings of this piece are at a=440hz. I prefer the 440 >
Which is NOT the tuning used in Bach's time |
|
Roman Turovsky wrote (September 21, 2003):
[To Sybrand Bakker] Depending on location. Some places were even higher than 440. |
|
Guille wrote (September 21, 2003):
[To Sybrand Bakker] Was it 392 either? or 415? ... 417?... 411,8473?
That's irrelevant.
Thou quit funny it's one of the main discussion points between "moderns" musicians and "period" musicians...
Such a silly argument about something Bach himself didn't care. |
|
John Briggs wrote (September 21, 2003):
[To Guille] How do you know? |
|
Guille wrote (September 21, 2003):
[To John Briggs] How do you?
Do you really believe Bach played the organ in Dresden complaining it was 3hz high/low? He was a practical musician, too busy with actual music making: adapting, changing, retuning when necessary, etc, etc. Fighting against the circumstances. As a real artist do. Beware of being more papist than the pope. |
|
MG wrote (September 21, 2003):
[To Mike Carter] 392 is probably the pitch that they were played at, as many of the instruments of Bach's time were imported from France.
440 really has nothing to do with late baroque. |
|
Guille wrote (September 21, 2003):
[To MG] It reminds me a joke:
"are you in tune?"
"I think so... I bought the instrument tuned already" |
|
Roman Turovsky wrote (September 21, 2003):
< 392 is probably the pitch that they were played at, as many of the instruments of Bach's time were imported from France.
440 really has nothing to do with late baroque. >
Wasn't Italian pitch 440 or even higher? |
|
Jerry Kohl wrote (September 22, 2003):
Roman Turovsky wrote:
< Depending on location. Some places were even higher than 440. >
Hurrah, hurrah! I prefer it at a=830--twice as exciting at that speed, but cranking up the old CD player isn't as easy as it should be ... |
|
MG wrote (September 22, 2003):
[To Jerry Kohl] 440 x 2 = 880
I guess math isn't your strong suit.------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
Jerry Kohl wrote (September 22, 2003):
MG wrote:
< 440 x 2 = 880
I guess math isn't your strong suit. >
Perhaps not. When I multiplied 415 by 2, I got 830. Funny, that, but then I missed the "new math" in school by a couple of years. |
|
Posnerh wrote (September 22, 2003):
Roman Turovsky wrote:
<< Wasn't Italian pitch 440 or even higher? >>
Depends on where and when. In Naples in mid-17th century it was around A=392, in Mantua at the same time about 465, and there seemed a more-or-less steady upward progression from south to north.
In Bach's Leipzig, of course, there was high choir pitch and low (a tone lower) chamber pitch, which is why we sometimes find transposed cantata parts. |
| |
