Talk:Meantone: Difference between revisions

Bcmills (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 46: Line 46:


::: Septimal meantone isn't the only evidence that common practice music was mostly concordant (note: I distinguish consonance and concordance and hope you do too; otherwise your summary of the idea would be inaccurate). It's in the existence of meantone in the first place: to eliminate the wolf fourths and fifths. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 15:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::: Septimal meantone isn't the only evidence that common practice music was mostly concordant (note: I distinguish consonance and concordance and hope you do too; otherwise your summary of the idea would be inaccurate). It's in the existence of meantone in the first place: to eliminate the wolf fourths and fifths. [[User:FloraC|FloraC]] ([[User talk:FloraC|talk]]) 15:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
::: That is strong evidence for concordance in the 5-limit, not the 7-limit. Again, there is nothing wrong with presenting the ''theory'' of septimal concordance when it applies; it's just important to distinguish that theory from the mainstream interpretation of meantone as a (conceptual and practical) tuning oriented specifically toward ''5-limit'' concordance. Common practice included many meantone-based well-temperaments and meantones other than quarter-comma, so it is not appropriate to construe interpretations that rely on quarter-comma tuning as representing a canonical interpretation of the entirety of meantone-based harmony.
::: --[[User:Bcmills|Bcmills]] ([[User talk:Bcmills|talk]]) 15:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Return to "Meantone" page.