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

Re: [tuning] Open letter on forthcoming Lehman article in "Clavichord International"

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.