The usual question... philology or not

Luca, it was veiled, but it was a hint at the tuning

. . . yes, of course. The tuning. It was understood.

Not so much the temperament. But precisely the tuning fork: the "North Star."

My remark, perhaps misplaced since it is known that the tuning fork tool is made of harmonic steel (but shouldn't the sound of a tuning fork be free of... harmonics!???), was to note that if five or seven participants (offhand) are fixated on the timbral aspect, it is probably not just forgetfulness.

Upon listening (to a musical piece, not to the vibrating tines) I cannot distinguish the pitch of the tuning fork.

Different temperaments, however, intrigue me, like different spices that, even without recognizing them, give me different taste sensations in the same soup eaten many times (metaphor aside: the same chorale prelude heard and re-heard). A piano instead of a harpsichord... who wouldn't notice?

The question of the tuning fork is a serious matter. Not idle. But, in my view, an "upstream" issue. "Downstream," however—upon listening—it loses importance.

A bit like saying that it changes something in appreciating the acrobatics of a pilot to know whether he, with his onboard instrumentation, takes into account magnetic North, geographic North, the North Star, or who knows what other reference.

That being said... perhaps it was just forgetfulness that no one brought up the tuning fork.

Regarding the discussion on philology, I think it might apply (aware that a philologically perfect performance can never exist) to other composers but not to Bach:

most of Bach's music is music composed using counterpoint (fugues, toccatas... ricercars...), the concept of counterpoint is a concept that in my opinion transcends the concept of idiomatic instrumental writing; it is as if timbre loses its meaning in favor of the concept of melodic lines, which, regardless of the instrument used, draw the music.

it is true that Bach had a great knowledge of instruments, and when he composed, for example, for solo violin or solo cello, he took into account a certain idiomaticity in the writing (open strings, typical string arpeggios...), but even here the concept of counterpoint prevails; Bach invented single-voice counterpoint (which then gave the impression of containing multiple parts).

Let's take, for example, the fact of performing Bach on the piano: what is the problem? Yes, I understand the desire to perform Bach on instruments from his era that he used, but what is wrong with the performances of Glenn Gould? Or Schiff? When I listen, I don't think about whether it is a piano or a harpsichord, but I think about the melodic lines that overlap, that dialogue, that imitate each other...

Regarding wind instruments, I think Bach used natural trumpets only because pistons did not yet exist, but today, since we can perform his music without all the problems related to the use of natural brass instruments, why deprive ourselves of this possibility?

this does not mean that performances with "period" instruments should not also exist, but rather that it is not possible to establish which performance is incorrect or which is correct philologically speaking.

Someone in this topic writes that The Well-Tempered Clavichord cannot be performed on the organ: I disagree; think of the 5-voice fugue in C# minor from the first book, for example, but also the fugue in E-flat minor... with the right stops, the counterpoint is drawn without any problem, and many other fugues are suitable for organ performance.

This does not mean that the intended instrument Bach had in mind was not the harpsichord, but rather that it is music so absolute that depriving ourselves of being able to perform it on the organ seems a bit exaggerated to me.