amezcua wrote: ↑
Tue May 23, 2017 5:02 pm
So how can Goodall say that ET was the product of Bach "Breaking the Code "?
OK, I watched it. He does not actually say that. He is only refers to Bach's invention as 'well temperament', and even says that Bach's student Kirnberger "perfected and published it" - or some such - and, as you know, the three Kirnberger temperaments are NOT equal temperament but irregular temperaments. So Goodall left enough "crumbs" to demonstrate he was not equating Bach's well temperament with the equal temperament.
However, later on there is a key very misleading sentence, and the following visual, where Goodall makes a switch - right at about 40:00 in the video. He says "The tuning system of Bach's time which had been devised through trial and error could at last be implemented using mathematics." Then he shows the equal temperament twelfth root of 2 math formula and goes on from there to describe equal temperament. Did he say that the math formula was of Bach's temperament? - no, but he leaves the viewer to infer that. Did he clarify that he is now showing mathematically one out of many possible all-key temperaments, but not necessarily the Bach one? - no; he left the viewer to infer there is only one all-keys temperament and ET is that. So he did not out and out say it, but it was strongly implied; it is like an advertiser's trick (not saying this was done on purpose in Goodall's case, especially given the 'crumbs' left earlier on).
This is either really bad writing, or some editor/producer's late intervention cutting out the concept of more than one workable temperament in which compositions in all keys can be played satisfactorily (presumably to shorten/simplify things for the public). The result is indeed misleading and I wouldn't blame the general public from concluding that Goodall claimed Bach came up with ET.
Here's the video for reference:
Also Kirnberger's temperaments