On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 9:38 AM, Blöchl Bernhard <
> Not in equally tempered scale. All that feelings of keys refer to the
> historic tunings. And by the way, do you know that Bachs "Wohltemperierte
> Klavier" was written just to show how awfull that sounds in the ears of
> musicians of taht time? (I heard that in my side studies to physics in the
> Music Academie and you find that theory on the net as well.)
It is entirely acceptable to be a music hobbyist who enjoys a passing
familiarity with the classical tradition and is largely uninterested in
more … esoteric discussions of theory. It is absolutely *not* all right to
be spreading historical inaccuracies of this sort. The WTC is extensively
researched and discussed in musicological and historical circles, sometimes
heatedly, but the idea that Bach wrote it to prove that Well Temperament
sounded "awful" (or the much worse assertion, that he wrote it to
demonstrate *equal* temperament, a technological and historical
impossibility in the 18th century) is patently, flatly wrong. This isn't a
question of experts vs. the lay public, it is an unambiguous misstatement
of fact that serves no end but to muddy the discussion (and even to
diminish our appreciation, even as hobbyists, of what is arguably a
historically important, and artistically "good" piece of music). More to
the point, to say that none of this matters because we use equal
temperament now is not even correct from the perspective of modern
practice. It might certainly be the case in dodecaphonic or free atonal
music that the question of note spelling is largely a practical one, but in
almost any other case musical considerations can't be avoided, and your
argument that people *shouldn't* care about these questions dismisses a
whole part of music that matters to people (myself included, and I don't
even *use* flats and sharps) a great deal. Please refrain.
Instead of blithely spreading ignorance, please exercise some humility
about the limits of your knowledge (something I, whom you would probably
regard as some kind of "expert" for no other reason than because that's my
degree, freely admit about myself [namely, that I know extremely little and
could do to know more]), and make use of any of the numerous texts that can
provide a good overview of the WTC, or music history/theory in general,
accessible and enjoyable even to the hobbyist.
To prevent myself from senseless discussions as a music hobbyist I will
> ignore future discussions of the experts. I do not think that makes sense
> on the basis of equally tempered scale that disturbes any musical feelings.
> Therefor I like string quartets!
What does this even mean? The implication is that a hobbyist's level of
understanding is not only desirable, but that being an "expert" somehow
diminishes a love of music (you might write this equally well as, "I'm not
going to waste time on pointless academic debate; I just want to enjoy
music!"), which is not only arguably wrong as a question of fact, but is
both insulting to the people who have dedicated their lives and careers to
the pursuit, and implies a contempt in general of, well, "knowing things."
Again, please refrain.
This was a discussion about a simple matter of how Lily orders accidentals
in a key signature, and from your very first reply you dismiss the
discussion as unimportant, and argue that people shouldn't bother with it,
because your hobbyist's understanding, it seems to be your view, should be
enough. In the future, please don't walk into discussions on topics which
you yourself admit aren't of interest to you and muddle them. It doesn't
help anybody, and causes a lot of unnecessary unpleasantness.
lilypond-user mailing list