Timeline for Confusion about Zarlino and his assertions about the diatessaron (perfect fourth)
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26, 2021 at 23:05 | comment | added | Michael Curtis | @Aaron, thanks for those additions. "Senario", that's very helpful. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 22:58 | comment | added | Massimo Asteriti | Thanks so much for the clarification! I understand now. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 21:29 | comment | added | Aaron | @MassimoAsteriti Please see the current update, which includes, at Richard's suggestion, discussion of the "Senario", which explains why Zarlino didn't include 9:8. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 21:28 | comment | added | Aaron | @MichaelCurtis Updated the post. In particular, see the footnote, which links to a paper with some discussion of the controversy. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 21:26 | history | edited | Aaron | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added info on the "senario"
|
| Jan 26, 2021 at 20:40 | comment | added | Richard | It may be helpful to include the concept of senario here. | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 17:10 | comment | added | Massimo Asteriti | I understand that Zarlino is talking about the proportions of small integers; I'm still confused about his definition of "rational proportion". What makes 2:1, 3:2, and 4:2 rational proportions, but not 9:8, for instance? | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 16:54 | comment | added | Michael Curtis | It's not part of the OP, but why did Zarlino's contemporaries disagree with him? | |
| Jan 26, 2021 at 16:30 | history | answered | Aaron | CC BY-SA 4.0 |