Zarlino 2/7-comma

On 27 Feb 2003 monz wrote:

> does anyone know *why* Zarlino had a preference
> for 2/7-comma meantone? (which was the first
> meantone to be described with mathematical
> accuracy, 1558)

Monz - I have this info in a file somewhere from when I read Zarlino, and
I'll try to dig it up if no one else comes through with it. But for now
you might be interested to know that in the second edition of Institutione
Armonicae, from 1571 I believe, he changed his preference to 1/3-comma
meantone.

best --jon wild

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, jon wild <wild@f...> wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2003 monz wrote:
>
> > does anyone know *why* Zarlino had a preference
> > for 2/7-comma meantone? (which was the first
> > meantone to be described with mathematical
> > accuracy, 1558)
>
> Monz - I have this info in a file somewhere from when I read
Zarlino, and
> I'll try to dig it up if no one else comes through with it. But for
now
> you might be interested to know that in the second edition of
Institutione
> Armonicae, from 1571 I believe, he changed his preference to 1/3-
comma
> meantone.
>
> best --jon wild

he changed his preference to *1/4-comma* meantone, at least according
to the footnotes here:

http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/singe.html

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, jon wild <wild@f...> wrote:
>
>
> On 27 Feb 2003 monz wrote:
>
> > does anyone know *why* Zarlino had a preference
> > for 2/7-comma meantone? (which was the first
> > meantone to be described with mathematical
> > accuracy, 1558)

hi monz -- it was indeed 1558, but it says 1571 here:

http://sonic-arts.org/dict/meantone.htm

(sorry about the constant corrections!)

hi paul,

> From: <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 10:45 PM
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Zarlino 2/7-comma
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, jon wild <wild@f...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 27 Feb 2003 monz wrote:
> >
> > > does anyone know *why* Zarlino had a preference
> > > for 2/7-comma meantone? (which was the first
> > > meantone to be described with mathematical
> > > accuracy, 1558)
>
> hi monz -- it was indeed 1558, but it says 1571 here:
>
> http://sonic-arts.org/dict/meantone.htm

thanks -- fixed it. actually, i just noticed
that myself the other day and should have mentioned
it, but it got lost in the shuffle.

> (sorry about the constant corrections!)

no need to apologize for *that*! indeed, one of
the things i value most highly about your input here
is your constant vigilance in correcting errors!
... especially for my Dictionary, which is intended
as a serious reference work.

-monz