Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Open letter on forthcoming Lehman article in "Clavichord International"

Expand Messages
  • Michael Zapf
    Dear Francis, in the latest ‚Clavichord International’, you as the editor of the publication announce that for the November issue “Dr. Bradley Lehman is
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 25, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Francis,

      in the latest ‚Clavichord International’, you as the
      editor of the publication announce that for the
      November issue “Dr. Bradley Lehman is also writing an
      article for us on his exciting and controversial
      discovery of ‘the’ Bach temperament (discussed in two
      articles in Early Music this year)”. In the Clavichord
      Yahoogroup whose owner-moderator I am, and whose
      member Brad Lehman has been since 1998, I had on
      January 24, 2001 outlined that Andreas Sparschuh of
      Germany had made this discovery back in 1998. Andreas
      had written a long article with extensive mathematical
      and theoretical work which appeared in the German
      Mathematicians’ Association 1999 yearbook, and he had
      earned the Golden Tuning Fork Award of the German
      Tuners’ Association for it. So anything Bradley could
      have “discovered” was an alternate solution to the
      Sparschuh hypothesis. That he dismisses Andreas as
      somebody who only has a “vague idea” on his private
      homepage in my opinion is a disrespectful way of
      presenting his own work as the first scientific effort
      on this theme. This, and his complete omission of
      Andreas Sparschuh’s name and discovery in the Early
      Music article makes him a plagiarizer, nothing less. I
      have long been silent on this issue, because my own
      role, apart from presenting a dissenting opinion on
      the Sparschuh Tuning, was the one of the distributor
      of Andreas’ discovery to a music world that does not
      read mathematical yearbooks in Hun language, and my
      position as the moderator of the Clavichord Group
      forbade a strong intervention on my own behalf. But I
      must urge you as the publisher of Clavichord
      International to employ the necessary due diligence of
      at least presenting the facts, and not repeat
      Bradley’s and Early Music’s mistake of omitting
      Andreas’ work and opinion.
      I am sending this as an open letter to both the Tuning
      and the Clavichord Yahoogroups, as an effort to pay
      justice to a kind German mathematician who isn’t a
      member of either of them.
      Michael
      N.B. In case you want to get in contact with Andreas,
      his e-mail address is in the CC section of this mail.








      ___________________________________________________________
      Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
    • Aaron Krister Johnson
      Dear Mr. Zapf, It seems a bit hasty to jump to the conclusion the Brad Lehman is a plagiarist. In some countries, without sufficient evidence, this amounts to
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 25, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mr. Zapf,

        It seems a bit hasty to jump to the conclusion the Brad Lehman is a
        plagiarist. In some countries, without sufficient evidence, this amounts to
        libel. History has shown that co-discovery is a very real phenomenon; the
        case of Newton and Leibniz co-discovering the calculus being perhaps the most
        famous. Certainly both Mr. Sparschuh and Mr. Lehman can coexist and both have
        insights into the question of Bach's tuning, many of which might share the
        same general flavor, or same general conclusions.

        Although it might be lamentable that Mr. Lehman chose not to mention Mr.
        Sparschuh's work, there are several reasons that one might explain this
        before one feels it necessary to slander Mr. Lehman. For starters, it might
        be just plain paranoia about precedence, jealousy, or genuine disagreement or
        lack of regard for his work. All of this can happen quite naturally without a
        shred of willful plagiary. And one doesn't have to particularly *like* Mr.
        Lehman to see that we are talking about general people princples here.

        You haven't definitively proven anything below against Mr. Lehman; what you
        say amounts to circumstantial and loose arguments that seem very emotionally
        based, as if you bear a personal grudge against Mr. Lehman. Rather, at least
        in this scenario, you revealed yourself to be in poor taste to not handle
        this matter in private. Not only is this potentially libelous, but it is
        basically pretty poor behavior to try to publicly embarrass or humiliate a
        colleague, no matter what your personal grudge(s) against them might be.
        Ironically,you also realize that you publically open yourself and your
        motives up for scrutiny as well.

        A grave injustice has been done against Bradley and his character; you appear
        to have acted here as judge, jury, and executioner, and, well, without
        evidence of any kind except that you find Mr. Lehman strikes you as being a
        bit sneaky, it is rather alarming.

        Regards,
        Aaron.

        On Saturday 25 June 2005 9:13 am, Michael Zapf wrote:
        > Dear Francis,
        >
        > in the latest ‚Clavichord International’, you as the
        > editor of the publication announce that for the
        > November issue “Dr. Bradley Lehman is also writing an
        > article for us on his exciting and controversial
        > discovery of ‘the’ Bach temperament (discussed in two
        > articles in Early Music this year)”. In the Clavichord
        > Yahoogroup whose owner-moderator I am, and whose
        > member Brad Lehman has been since 1998, I had on
        > January 24, 2001 outlined that Andreas Sparschuh of
        > Germany had made this discovery back in 1998. Andreas
        > had written a long article with extensive mathematical
        > and theoretical work which appeared in the German
        > Mathematicians’ Association 1999 yearbook, and he had
        > earned the Golden Tuning Fork Award of the German
        > Tuners’ Association for it. So anything Bradley could
        > have “discovered” was an alternate solution to the
        > Sparschuh hypothesis. That he dismisses Andreas as
        > somebody who only has a “vague idea” on his private
        > homepage in my opinion is a disrespectful way of
        > presenting his own work as the first scientific effort
        > on this theme. This, and his complete omission of
        > Andreas Sparschuh’s name and discovery in the Early
        > Music article makes him a plagiarizer, nothing less. I
        > have long been silent on this issue, because my own
        > role, apart from presenting a dissenting opinion on
        > the Sparschuh Tuning, was the one of the distributor
        > of Andreas’ discovery to a music world that does not
        > read mathematical yearbooks in Hun language, and my
        > position as the moderator of the Clavichord Group
        > forbade a strong intervention on my own behalf. But I
        > must urge you as the publisher of Clavichord
        > International to employ the necessary due diligence of
        > at least presenting the facts, and not repeat
        > Bradley’s and Early Music’s mistake of omitting
        > Andreas’ work and opinion.
        > I am sending this as an open letter to both the Tuning
        > and the Clavichord Yahoogroups, as an effort to pay
        > justice to a kind German mathematician who isn’t a
        > member of either of them.
        > Michael
        > N.B. In case you want to get in contact with Andreas,
        > his e-mail address is in the CC section of this mail.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ___________________________________________________________
        > Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
        > voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
        >
        >
        > You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
        > of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
        > tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
        > tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
        > tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
        > tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
        > tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
        > tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • Afmmjr@aol.com
        After having read the first of two articles on a new interpretation of Bach s tuning, I see little to be concerned about regarding primacy. In order to
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 27, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          After having read the first of two articles on a "new" interpretation of Bach's tuning, I see little to be concerned about regarding primacy.  In order to interpret the wiggles the way B. Lehman wants us to seem them, one must turn the title page upside down and then assume a number of far fetched things.  There seems to be too many stretches for the imagination for this to be a definitive tuning.
           
          First off, there is no justification for how flat the different tempered fifths are to be treated.  Secondly, the upside down look is just silly.  Thirdly, for this to be a recommendation by Bach for his Leipzig future bosses makes no sense.  They did not change organ tuning for Bach, for if they had, there would be a record.  And who is to declare that Leipzig didn't use well temperament, as B. Lehman did.
           
          I believe that Bach walked into tunings that were well tempered and that he avoided opportunites to perform on organs without it.  I am looking forward to the second article as it is such fun to reinterpret, almost in a science fiction manner, what secret codes may signify.  But it seems a great joke nonetheless.
           
          Johnny Reinhard
          Director
          American Festival of Microtonal Music 
           
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>
          To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
          Cc: asparschuh@...; clavichord <clavichord@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:44 -0500
          Subject: Re: [tuning] Open letter on forthcoming Lehman article in "Clavichord International"

          Dear Mr. Zapf,
          
          It seems a bit hasty to jump to the conclusion the Brad Lehman is a 
          plagiarist. In some countries, without sufficient evidence, this amounts to 
          libel. History has shown that co-discovery is a very real phenomenon; the 
          case of Newton and Leibniz co-discovering the calculus being perhaps the most 
          famous. Certainly both Mr. Sparschuh and Mr. Lehman can coexist and both have 
          insights into the question of Bach's tuning, many of which might share the 
          same general flavor, or same general conclusions. 
          
          Although it might be lamentable that Mr. Lehman chose not to mention Mr. 
          Sparschuh's work, there are several reasons that one might explain this 
          before one feels it necessary to slander Mr. Lehman. For starters, it might 
          be just plain paranoia about precedence, jealousy, or genuine disagreement or 
          lack of regard for his work. All of this can happen quite naturally without a 
          shred of willful plagiary. And one doesn't have to particularly *like* Mr. 
          Lehman to see that we are talking about general people princples here.
          
          You haven't definitively proven anything below against Mr. Lehman; what you 
          say amounts to circumstantial and loose arguments that seem very emotionally 
          based, as if you bear a personal grudge against Mr. Lehman. Rather, at least 
          in this scenario, you revealed yourself to be in poor taste to not handle 
          this matter in private. Not only is this potentially libelous, but it is 
          basically pretty poor behavior to try to publicly embarrass or humiliate a 
          colleague, no matter what your personal grudge(s) against them might be. 
          Ironically,you also realize that you publically open yourself and your 
          motives up for scrutiny as well.
          
          A grave injustice has been done against Bradley and his character; you appear 
          to have acted here as judge, jury, and executioner, and, well, without 
          evidence of any kind except that you find Mr. Lehman strikes you as being a 
          bit sneaky, it is rather alarming.
          
          Regards,
          Aaron.
          
          
          On Saturday 25 June 2005 9:13 am, Michael Zapf wrote: > Dear Francis, > > in the latest ?Clavichord International?, you as the > editor of the publication announce that for the > November issue ?Dr. Bradley Lehman is also writing an > article for us on his exciting and controversial > discovery of ?the? Bach temperament (discussed in two > articles in Early Music this year)?. In the Clavichord > Yahoogroup whose owner-moderator I am, and whose > member Brad Lehman has been since 1998, I had on > January 24, 2001 outlined that Andreas Sparschuh of > Germany had made this discovery back in 1998. Andreas > had written a long article with extensive mathematical > and theoretical work which appeared in the German > Mathematicians? Association 1999 yearbook, and he had > earned the Golden Tuning Fork Award of the German > Tuners? Association for it. So anything Bradley could > have ?discovered? was an alternate solution to the > Sparschuh hypothesis. That he dismisses Andreas as > somebody who only has a ?vague idea? on his private > homepage in my opinion is a disrespectful way of > presenting his own work as the first scientific effort > on this theme. This, and his complete omission of > Andreas Sparschuh?s name and discovery in the Early > Music article makes him a plagiarizer, nothing less. I > have long been silent on this issue, because my own > role, apart from presenting a dissenting opinion on > the Sparschuh Tuning, was the one of the distributor > of Andreas? discovery to a music world that does not > read mathematical yearbooks in Hun language, and my > position as the moderator of the Clavichord Group > forbade a strong intervention on my own behalf. But I > must urge you as the publisher of Clavichord > International to employ the necessary due diligence of > at least presenting the facts, and not repeat > Bradley?s and Early Music?s mistake of omitting > Andreas? work and opinion. > I am sending this as an open letter to both the Tuning > and the Clavichord Yahoogroups, as an effort to pay > justice to a kind German mathematician who isn?t a > member of either of them. > Michael > N.B. In case you want to get in contact with Andreas, > his e-mail address is in the CC section of this mail. > > > > > > > > > ___________________________________________________________ > Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with > voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com > > > You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one > of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list): > tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group. > tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group. > tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group. > tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests. > tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails. > tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information. > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list): tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group. tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group. tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group. tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests. tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails. tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        • Jon Szanto
          Johnny, ... reinterpret, almost in a science fiction manner, what secret codes may signify. So, what do you think - can this become a tuning version of the Da
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 27, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            Johnny,

            --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
            > I am looking forward to the second article as it is such fun to
            reinterpret, almost in a science fiction manner, what secret codes may
            signify.

            So, what do you think - can this become a tuning version of the "Da
            Vinci Code"? :)

            Cheers,
            Jon
          • Carl Lumma
            Well said, Johnny. -Carl
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 27, 2005
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Well said, Johnny.

              -Carl

              --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Afmmjr@a... wrote:
              > After having read the first of two articles on a "new"
              > interpretation of Bach's tuning, I see little to be concerned
              > about regarding primacy. In order to interpret the wiggles
              > the way B. Lehman wants us to seem them, one must turn the
              > title page upside down and then assume a number of far fetched
              > things. There seems to be too many stretches for the
              > imagination for this to be a definitive tuning.
              >
              > First off, there is no justification for how flat the different
              > tempered fifths are to be treated. Secondly, the upside down
              > look is just silly. //
              >
              > I believe that Bach walked into tunings that were well tempered
              > and that he avoided opportunites to perform on organs without it.
              > I am looking forward to the second article as it is such fun to
              > reinterpret, almost in a science fiction manner, what secret codes
              > may signify. But it seems a great joke nonetheless.
              >
              > Johnny Reinhard
              > Director
              > American Festival of Microtonal Music
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...>
              > To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
              > Cc: asparschuh@w...; clavichord <clavichord@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 00:03:44 -0500
              > Subject: Re: [tuning] Open letter on forthcoming Lehman article
              > in "Clavichord International"
              >
              > Dear Mr. Zapf,
              >
              > It seems a bit hasty to jump to the conclusion the Brad Lehman is
              > a plagiarist. In some countries, without sufficient evidence, this
              > amounts to libel. History has shown that co-discovery is a very
              > real phenomenon; the case of Newton and Leibniz co-discovering the
              > calculus being perhaps the most famous. Certainly both
              > Mr. Sparschuh and Mr. Lehman can coexist and both have insights
              > into the question of Bach's tuning, many of which might share the
              > same general flavor, or same general conclusions.//
            • Michael Zapf
              It probably wasn t too good an idea of mine to post he open letter here also, because I had just entered this group several days before because of my interest
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 27, 2005
              View Source
              • 0 Attachment
                It probably wasn't too good an idea of mine to post he
                open letter here also, because I had just entered this
                group several days before because of my interest in
                Turkish tone systems. I had checked the messages
                section for the WTC question out of curiosity,
                stumbled into the long discussion some 2000 posts
                back, and therefore decided to circulate my open
                letter. The purpose wasn't to create an open dispute
                here, and so far I have answered to responses directed
                at me off-list. Bradley has in the meantime posted a
                long explanation and apology in the harpsichord list
                which explains a lot. For those interested, I am
                adding my response to this post, hoping it isn't
                considered spam. Now, where was that ney of mine?
                Michael

                Having read Bradley’s explanation and apology in the
                HPSCHD-L list, I get the impression that he is also a
                victim, a victim of a questionable editorial process.
                He states that the reference to the original
                discoverer of the squiggle hypothesis originally was
                in the body text of his paper, but was buried in the
                appendix by the editors. As a result, the reader was
                forced to get the impression that the discovery was
                Bradley’s. One must suspect, that the editors of Early
                Music wanted to create this very impression, thus
                upgrading the article to a “first”, which would rub
                off on the magazine as such. This has nothing to do
                with content but with procedure. It shows once more,
                that journalistic principles of quoting and crediting,
                the principles of conduct of scientific argument, are
                a guideline which avoids what happened in the
                aftermath of this article – that its content gets worn
                down by procedural arguments.

                I am not a tuning expert and never claimed to be one,
                and I never published anything on the Sparschuh
                hypothesis because I felt that the quick and dirty
                solution which I had presented with the announcement
                of Andreas’ discovery back in 2001 to the clavichord
                newsgroup was far too conjectural to survive a decent
                editorial screening. It matched with some of the
                anecdotal evidence on Bach’s harpsichord tuning, i.e.
                that he needed little time for tuning and that his
                thirds were a bit sharp, but there were other
                solutions possible for that. The important thing to me
                was to present the original Sparschuh idea, which by
                itself was also only hypothetical, but had a strong
                intuitive appeal, and therefore it deserved to be
                thrown into the arena of professional discourse. That
                the draft opinion of mine ever made it into the
                appendix of Early Music is embarrassing for me, I
                never had claimed it to be a defensible theory, and I
                never put any additional work into it. Worse, this
                little sketch of mine is now presented in the EM
                article as the theory of Andreas Sparschuh, who has
                nothing to do with it. I outlined my opposing variant
                because I felt that Andreas’ tuning, which he
                presented in 2001 to a class of music students in
                Frankfurt and which he backed by a table from the
                mathematical yearbook, was highly questionable by
                itself.

                The procedural mistakes which overshadow the content
                of Bradley’s paper thus were:
                1. The credit to the original inventor of the squiggle
                was deleted from the body text and pushed into the
                annex.
                2. The discussion of the Sparschuh thesis in this very
                annex never concerned the Sparschuh thesis at all, but
                my own sketchy post which never claimed to be a
                scientific solution, and it was an opinion opposing
                not quoting Sparschuh. Somebody, be it Bradley or the
                editors, should have had a look at the source which
                was my petty little post, and the discrepancy would
                have become evident immediately.

                Professional argument must decide on the merit of
                Bradley’s and others’ solutions, but unfortunately a
                discussion which should have concentrated on content
                has been warped by procedural mistakes which should
                never have happened in a serious article in a serious
                scientific journal.

                Michael






                ___________________________________________________________
                How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
                snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.