now here's a question [Gardner Read]

In Chapter V of his _20th Century Microtonal Notation_ work, Gardner
Read discusses the 43-tone scale of Harry Partch.

He claims that the Partch scale has a forerunner, with a scale
invented by Joseph Sauveur. Here's the quote:

"Interestingly enough, Partch's system has an early, and unique,
forerunner: the French acoustician Joseph Sauveur's 'merides' of
1701, in which the octave was split into forty-three intervals. Each
of the seven diatonic notes and their syllables, ut to si, were
divided into six parts, which he termed "merides..."

He goes on (page 136):

"...so far the 43-tone scale has not won over as many advocates as
the scales of nineteen, twenty-four, thirty-one and fifty-three tones
per octave..."

Now, the previous chapters have been discussing EQUAL temperaments.
Partch's scale is definitely *not* an ET. So how can he "lump" it in
with the ET's?

More to the point, is Sauveur's scale an ET as well?? It doesn't
seem as though it is... This is rather unclear...

Help??

Thanks!

J. Pehrson

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> In Chapter V of his _20th Century Microtonal Notation_ work,
Gardner
> Read discusses the 43-tone scale of Harry Partch.
>
> He claims that the Partch scale has a forerunner, with a scale
> invented by Joseph Sauveur.

GAR-BAZHE!

? Here's the quote:
>
> "Interestingly enough, Partch's system has an early, and unique,
> forerunner: the French acoustician Joseph Sauveur's 'merides' of
> 1701, in which the octave was split into forty-three intervals.
Each
> of the seven diatonic notes and their syllables, ut to si, were
> divided into six parts, which he termed "merides..."
>
> He goes on (page 136):
>
> "...so far the 43-tone scale has not won over as many advocates as
> the scales of nineteen, twenty-four, thirty-one and fifty-three
tones
> per octave..."
>
> Now, the previous chapters have been discussing EQUAL
temperaments.
> Partch's scale is definitely *not* an ET. So how can he "lump" it
in
> with the ET's?

he doesn't know what he's talking about. besides, if you *were* to
think of partch's scale as an ET, it would be as 41-tET with two
alternates -- not 43-tET!

> More to the point, is Sauveur's scale an ET as well??

yes, and 43-tET is a type of *meantone* tuning -- almost identical to
1/5-comma meantone.

--- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>

/tuning/topicId_39948.html#39952

wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > In Chapter V of his _20th Century Microtonal Notation_ work,
> Gardner
> > Read discusses the 43-tone scale of Harry Partch.
> >
> > He claims that the Partch scale has a forerunner, with a scale
> > invented by Joseph Sauveur.
>
> GAR-BAZHE!
>
> ? Here's the quote:
> >
> > "Interestingly enough, Partch's system has an early, and unique,
> > forerunner: the French acoustician Joseph Sauveur's 'merides' of
> > 1701, in which the octave was split into forty-three intervals.
> Each
> > of the seven diatonic notes and their syllables, ut to si, were
> > divided into six parts, which he termed "merides..."
> >
> > He goes on (page 136):
> >
> > "...so far the 43-tone scale has not won over as many advocates
as
> > the scales of nineteen, twenty-four, thirty-one and fifty-three
> tones
> > per octave..."
> >
> > Now, the previous chapters have been discussing EQUAL
> temperaments.
> > Partch's scale is definitely *not* an ET. So how can he "lump"
it
> in
> > with the ET's?
>
> he doesn't know what he's talking about. besides, if you *were* to
> think of partch's scale as an ET, it would be as 41-tET with two
> alternates -- not 43-tET!
>
> > More to the point, is Sauveur's scale an ET as well??
>
> yes, and 43-tET is a type of *meantone* tuning -- almost identical
to
> 1/5-comma meantone.

***Thanks, Paul! I thought this was a little crazy...

JP

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:

> ***Thanks, Paul! I thought this was a little crazy...

in other words, gardner looks only at the number of notes in a scale,
and has little concept that anything else could be of relevance . . .
phhht!

hi Joe,

i have a whole Dictionary page about this:
http://sonic-arts.org/dict/meride.htm

-monz
"all roads lead to n^0"

--- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@y..., "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@y...>
>
> /tuning/topicId_39948.html#39952
>
> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@y..., "Joseph Pehrson" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> > > In Chapter V of his _20th Century Microtonal Notation_ work,
> > > Gardner Read discusses the 43-tone scale of Harry Partch.
> > >
> > > He claims that the Partch scale has a forerunner, with a
> > > scale invented by Joseph Sauveur.
> >
> > GAR-BAZHE!
> >
> > ? Here's the quote:
> > >
> > > "Interestingly enough, Partch's system has an early, and
> > > unique, forerunner: the French acoustician Joseph
> > > Sauveur's 'merides' of 1701, in which the octave was split
> > > into forty-three intervals. Each of the seven diatonic
> > > notes and their syllables, ut to si, were divided into six
> > > parts, which he termed "merides..."
> > >
> > > He goes on (page 136):
> > >
> > > "...so far the 43-tone scale has not won over as many
> > > advocates as the scales of nineteen, twenty-four,
> > > thirty-one and fifty-three tones per octave..."
> > >
> > > Now, the previous chapters have been discussing EQUAL
> > > temperaments. Partch's scale is definitely *not* an ET.
> > > So how can he "lump" it in with the ET's?
> >
> > he doesn't know what he's talking about. besides, if you
> > *were* to think of partch's scale as an ET, it would be as
> > 41-tET with two alternates -- not 43-tET!
> >
> > > More to the point, is Sauveur's scale an ET as well??
> >
> > yes, and 43-tET is a type of *meantone* tuning -- almost
> > identical to 1/5-comma meantone.
>
> ***Thanks, Paul! I thought this was a little crazy...
>
> JP

--- In tuning@y..., "monz" <monz@a...> wrote:

/tuning/topicId_39948.html#39968

> hi Joe,
>
> i have a whole Dictionary page about this:
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/meride.htm
>
> -monz
> "all roads lead to n^0"
>
>

***Thanks, Monz!

JP