Historical question - Rossi

Does anyone know what Lemme Rossi said about 1/5 comma meantone in 1666?

I have a little booklet about organ temperaments which says that that
temperament was in use in Italy, and gives Rossi as a source. However
there is no direct quotation. Rossi was clearly a very clever
theorist, but one would like to know too what (if anything) he had to
say about ordinary musicians.

~~~T~~~

In his 1666 work, Rossi calculated figures for 1/4-comma meantone,
for 31-equal, for 2/9-comma meantone, for 43-equal, for 1/5-comma
meantone, and for other systems too. He said that 1/5-comma meantone
was just one of these regular types then in use (24-equal, one of the
systems he calculated figures for, was not).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone know what Lemme Rossi said about 1/5 comma meantone in
1666?
>
> I have a little booklet about organ temperaments which says that
that
> temperament was in use in Italy, and gives Rossi as a source.
However
> there is no direct quotation. Rossi was clearly a very clever
> theorist, but one would like to know too what (if anything) he had
to
> say about ordinary musicians.
>
> ~~~T~~~
>

Thanks! very helpful. Clearly 1/4 comma would have been in use, being
the easiest to tune and described in a lot of well-known books... and
the easiest to detect by ear. But I wonder if Rossi (or anyone!)
could tell the difference by ear between 43-equal and 1/5 comma - or
even between 43-equal and 2/9 comma. For my money, given the
technology of the time, they would all be in the same barely
distinguishable class of 'tunings with the major thirds a little bit
sharp'.

~~~T~~~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> In his 1666 work, Rossi calculated figures for 1/4-comma meantone,
> for 31-equal, for 2/9-comma meantone, for 43-equal, for 1/5-comma
> meantone, and for other systems too. He said that 1/5-comma
meantone
> was just one of these regular types then in use (24-equal, one of
the
> systems he calculated figures for, was not).
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Does anyone know what Lemme Rossi said about 1/5 comma meantone
in
> 1666?
> >
> > I have a little booklet about organ temperaments which says that
> that
> > temperament was in use in Italy, and gives Rossi as a source.
> However
> > there is no direct quotation. Rossi was clearly a very clever
> > theorist, but one would like to know too what (if anything) he
had
> to
> > say about ordinary musicians.
> >
> > ~~~T~~~
> >
>

The theorists at the time were heavily involved in exploiting and
deriving geometric constructions for dividing the monochord according
to the various theoretical tunings. So it might indeed have been
practical to tune each of these tunings with enough accuracy so that
they could meaningfully be said to be different. Whether the
difference, or inaccuracies in the procedure due to string bending,
etc., could be *heard* is another story.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks! very helpful. Clearly 1/4 comma would have been in use,
being
> the easiest to tune and described in a lot of well-known books...
and
> the easiest to detect by ear. But I wonder if Rossi (or anyone!)
> could tell the difference by ear between 43-equal and 1/5 comma -
or
> even between 43-equal and 2/9 comma. For my money, given the
> technology of the time, they would all be in the same barely
> distinguishable class of 'tunings with the major thirds a little
bit
> sharp'.
>
> ~~~T~~~
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> >
> > In his 1666 work, Rossi calculated figures for 1/4-comma
meantone,
> > for 31-equal, for 2/9-comma meantone, for 43-equal, for 1/5-comma
> > meantone, and for other systems too. He said that 1/5-comma
> meantone
> > was just one of these regular types then in use (24-equal, one of
> the
> > systems he calculated figures for, was not).
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Does anyone know what Lemme Rossi said about 1/5 comma meantone
> in
> > 1666?
> > >
> > > I have a little booklet about organ temperaments which says
that
> > that
> > > temperament was in use in Italy, and gives Rossi as a source.
> > However
> > > there is no direct quotation. Rossi was clearly a very clever
> > > theorist, but one would like to know too what (if anything) he
> had
> > to
> > > say about ordinary musicians.
> > >
> > > ~~~T~~~
> > >
> >
>

My worry is not so much what Rossi could do with his own harpsichord,
as what he said about other people's. How accurate could he be when he
said that this or that tuning was 'in use'? - when the majority of
'users' did not have monochords at all. Anyway, I suppose this sort of
question will never get an exact answer...

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> The theorists at the time were heavily involved in exploiting and
> deriving geometric constructions for dividing the monochord according
> to the various theoretical tunings. So it might indeed have been
> practical to tune each of these tunings with enough accuracy so that
> they could meaningfully be said to be different. Whether the
> difference, or inaccuracies in the procedure due to string bending,
> etc., could be *heard* is another story.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Thanks! very helpful. Clearly 1/4 comma would have been in use,
> being
> > the easiest to tune and described in a lot of well-known books...
> and
> > the easiest to detect by ear. But I wonder if Rossi (or anyone!)
> > could tell the difference by ear between 43-equal and 1/5 comma -
> or
> > even between 43-equal and 2/9 comma. For my money, given the
> > technology of the time, they would all be in the same barely
> > distinguishable class of 'tunings with the major thirds a little
> bit
> > sharp'.
> >
> > ~~~T~~~
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > >
> > > In his 1666 work, Rossi calculated figures for 1/4-comma
> meantone,
> > > for 31-equal, for 2/9-comma meantone, for 43-equal, for 1/5-comma
> > > meantone, and for other systems too. He said that 1/5-comma
> > meantone
> > > was just one of these regular types then in use (24-equal, one of
> > the
> > > systems he calculated figures for, was not).
> > >

If you haven't checked out the big red Jorgenson book _Tuning_, it
may help you understand how tuners might have acheived variants of
several regular meantone tunings using their ears . . . there's a few
pages on each keyboard tuning, presented in its historical context
and with aural tuning instructions given, for over 100 tunings . . .
unfortunately he limits himself to english-language sources but the
book is so huge already!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:
>
>
> My worry is not so much what Rossi could do with his own
harpsichord,
> as what he said about other people's. How accurate could he be when
he
> said that this or that tuning was 'in use'? - when the majority of
> 'users' did not have monochords at all. Anyway, I suppose this sort
of
> question will never get an exact answer...
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> >
> > The theorists at the time were heavily involved in exploiting and
> > deriving geometric constructions for dividing the monochord
according
> > to the various theoretical tunings. So it might indeed have been
> > practical to tune each of these tunings with enough accuracy so
that
> > they could meaningfully be said to be different. Whether the
> > difference, or inaccuracies in the procedure due to string
bending,
> > etc., could be *heard* is another story.
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Dent" <stringph@g...> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks! very helpful. Clearly 1/4 comma would have been in use,
> > being
> > > the easiest to tune and described in a lot of well-known
books...
> > and
> > > the easiest to detect by ear. But I wonder if Rossi (or
anyone!)
> > > could tell the difference by ear between 43-equal and 1/5
comma -
> > or
> > > even between 43-equal and 2/9 comma. For my money, given the
> > > technology of the time, they would all be in the same barely
> > > distinguishable class of 'tunings with the major thirds a
little
> > bit
> > > sharp'.
> > >
> > > ~~~T~~~
> > >
> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> > > <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In his 1666 work, Rossi calculated figures for 1/4-comma
> > meantone,
> > > > for 31-equal, for 2/9-comma meantone, for 43-equal, for 1/5-
comma
> > > > meantone, and for other systems too. He said that 1/5-comma
> > > meantone
> > > > was just one of these regular types then in use (24-equal,
one of
> > > the
> > > > systems he calculated figures for, was not).
> > > >
>