Bartolomeo Ramis de Pareias Tuning System and Greek Tradition

The widespread debate on the issue of tuning during the Renaissance resulted from the clash of the underlying priorities of several competing philosophies. One of the conflicts existed between two groups named by Claude Palisca as the rationalists and the sensualists.1 At the heart of their discussions were discrepancies about the proper role of music. The rationalists, in accordance with Greek Pythagorean tradition, viewed music as intimately tied to mathematics and consequently to the very order of the universe. Spurning the fallibility of the human senses, rationalists viewed mathematics as the only reliable method of creating musical structures. The sensualists, whose ideas related in many ways to the teachings of Aristoxenus and Ptolemy, did not necessarily denounce mathematical ratios, but they believed that music was primarily an aural art. As such, the sensualists believed that human hearing should play the most important role in its construction. The other primary point of conflict relating to tuning concerned the issue of theoretical versus practical approaches to music. The Greek tradition was primarily one of an abstract nature.2 However, concerns for practicality became much more prominent in the late fifteenth century with the increasing complexity of music.3 As will be shown, the Pythagorean tradition was dominant during the time of the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance. As a result, any theorist wishing to make any departures from this established system bore a heavy burden of proof. Bartolomeo Ramis de Pareia was one such theorist. This paper will prove that the tuning

Claude V. Palisca, Music and Ideas in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries, ed. Thomas J. Mathiesen (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006), 9-10. 2 Thomas J. Mathiesen, Greek Music Theory in The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 129. 3 Luanne Eris Fose, The Musica practica of Bartolomeo Ramos de Pareia: A Critical Translation and Commentary (PhD diss., University of North Texas, 1992), 2.
1

system and ideas presented in Ramiss 1482 treatise Musica practica represent a combination of the revived Greek sensualist tradition and the growing need during the Renaissance for more practical systems for the performance of music. In order to understand the philosophical heritage of music theorists in the Renaissance, it is necessary to examine in greater detail the ideas of the Greeks. According to Thomas Mathiesen, there were three primary Greek traditions in music.4 The first and most dominant was the Pythagorean tradition. The Pythagoreans believed that numbers were truth and that they embodied a higher order in the universe.5 Music that was completely integrated with these ratios became an embodiment of some divine truth. Randy Goldberg writes of the Pythagoreans, Because consonances signified more than just musical properties, intervals were deemed dissonant not by virtue of their sound but rather by the nature of the mathematical ratios that defined them.6 Pythagoreans regarded human ears as unreliable tools for the measurement of musical space, equating their use for that purpose to the measurement of physical distances solely on the merits of eyesight.7 Based on these ideas, the Pythagorean tradition serves as the purest example of both a theoretical and rationalist approach. The second Greek tradition was that of Aristoxenus. He believed Pythagoreans were irrelevant because they ignored the perception of the human ear, which he considered an important consideration for music.8 He recognized intervals which were actually used in music. 9 This was in clear contrast to the Pythagoreans, who accepted only those intervals which were

Mathiesen, 114-130. Ibid. 6 Randall E. Goldberg, Where Nature and Art Adjoin: Investigations into the Zarlino-Galilei Dispute, Including an Annotated Translation of Vincenzo Galilei's Discorso intorno all'opere di Messer Gioseffo Zarlino (PhD diss., Indiana University, 2011), 22. 7 Ibid., 29. 8 Andrew Barker, The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2007), 30. 9 Mathiesen, 123.
5 4

able to be expressed in terms of a ratio using the numbers one through four.10 For these reasons, Aristoxenus should be understood as having a sensualist attitude. However, Mathiesen believes like the Pythagoreans, Aristoxenus cannot be accurately described as having a practical approach.11 For while his ideas showed a preference for the human senses, his underlying goal was to develop a theoretical framework for understanding individual perception of musical sound. Like the Pythagoreans, his writings were primarily philosophical in their approach; they simply focused on different elements. As Mathiesen writes, Aristoxenuss system was, based not on the abstraction of number but rather on a careful definition of the separable elements of musical sound.12 The third and final Greek tradition was developed by a group called the Harmonicists, who seemed to advocate a middle road between the other two. Though the evidence that exists of their views is limited, it is clear that they, too, viewed music as a speculative rather than as a practical study.13 Overall, it is apparent that the overall Greek concept of music was primarily theoretical in nature. Without the means to describe pitch relationships in terms of the more scientific terminology that is available to modern musicians, the ancient Greeks nevertheless devised means of describing the relationships between pitches that they heard and produced. The rationalist, Pythagorean method divided music space into a rigid collection of discrete points which occur at mathematically pure intervals. 14 The intervals of a fourth, fifth, and octave, with their simple mathematical ratios, provided a concrete underlying structure that was grounded in the laws of nature. This process did not rely on the fallibility of mortal senses, but instead used the relationships of mathematics as a means of showing truth and order. By contrast, the

10 11

Ibid. Ibid., 129. 12 Ibid. 13 Ibid. 14 Barker, 23-29.

sensualist approach involved trying to find the smallest interval discernible to the human ear, with the intent that once such an interval was found, it could be used as the basic building block of larger intervallic structures.15 This second procedure was aligned with the ideas of Aristoxenus and the sensualists in that it inherently confirms the value of human hearing. These methodologies illustrate two fundamentally different ways of approaching music. The rationalist procedure was undoubtedly more accurate and consistent in the measurement of musical space. However, the real issue in conflict here is one of priorities: does music primarily serve as another embodiment of divine truth as shown in numbers, or should music exist for the listener? If music is a representation of the harmonious ratios of the universe, then it is logical that mathematical principles should be of prime concern. Alternatively, if music exists as an aural art for the listener, then human hearing should play the most important role in deciding what is acceptable in its construction. These two philosophies continued to be the source of much debate, but it was the Pythagorean, rationalist tradition that had the most significant impact on medieval and early Renaissance musical thought16 through its adoption and transmission by figures such as Plato and Boethius.17 For Plato, as for the Pythagoreans, the same ratios that governed the movement of the celestial bodies could be seen in the consonant intervals of music.18 Platos ideas were in turn passed down through Boethius and Martianus Cappella, who were among the most widely

Ibid. Jan Herlinger, Medieval Canonics in The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 170. 17 Calvin M. Bower, The Transmission of Ancient Music Theory into the Middle Ages in The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 137147. 18 Mathiesen, 114.
16 15

read writers of the early Middle Ages.19 They summarized and developed Platonic thought in their respective works, De institutione musica and De nuptiis Philologiae et Mercurii.20 Given the importance of these two writers and the great proliferation of their works, it is unsurprising that their ideas would become the source of significant discussion from the Middle Ages into the Renaissance. The other two traditions, those of Aristoxenus and the Harmonicists, received much less attention due to the fact that Boethius covered only the Pythagorean system in significant detail.21 And so while Ramis resurrected some of the sensualist elements of these other two traditions, it was the Pythagorean tradition that he primarily addressed. Pythagorean tuning is based on the simple mathematical ratios of the fourth, fifth, and octave.22 Using this system, these intervals were always acoustically pure and yielded ratios of 3:4, 2:3, and 1:2 respectively. While the construction of a Pythagorean scale can be described in a number of different ways, perhaps the most useful for comparison is the approach using the circle of perfect fifths. Given a pitch C, a diatonic scale can be constructed around that C by moving upwards by fifth with a ratio of 2:3 to G, followed by D, and continuing in this pattern until reaching B.23 The last note of the diatonic scale, F, as well as the B flat that was included in the later versions of the system, can be obtained by moving downward by fifth twice.24 If necessary, these notes are then transposed up or down an octave in order to condense them into the range of an octave above the starting C. This method yields an eight-note, mostly diatonic scale in which the pitch content is derived from a single, sequential chain of perfect fifths stretching upward from B flat around the circle to B. The tone of the Pythagorean system, similar

Bower, 139,150. Ibid., 150. 21 J. Murray Barbour, Tuning and Temperament: A Historical Survey (East Lansing, Michigan State College Press, 1953), 3. 22 Herlinger, 176. 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid.
20 19

to the modern whole step, was derived from the distance between the intervals of a fourth and a fifth.25 There are two noteworthy issues with this method of tuning. While the fourths, fifths, and octaves of Pythagorean tuning are acoustically pure, thirds and sixths vary significantly from their true ratios.26 For example, the major third of Pythagorean tuning is constructed at a ratio of 64:81. This ratio is wider than the true ratio of 64:80 by the proportion 80:81, or around 22 cents. While this may not seem to be a significant problem, this added space, known as the syntonic comma, is clearly audible and quite dissonant. The Pythagorean minor third is narrower than its true ratio by this same distance. These relationships can be seen in Figure 1, where solid lines indicate a pure interval and dotted lines indicate an impure interval. The other primary issue with Pythagorean tuning is that it is not a closed system. Extending pure perfect fifths from C completely around the cycle eventually yields a C that is around 23 cents sharper than the note on which the process began. 27 This issue can be seen in Figure 2. This means that it is extremely problematic to use only pure fifths as a means of deriving a complete cycle of all chromatic intervals. While the combination of these issues may seem to be overwhelming, true Pythagorean tuning survived well through the eighteenth century28 and beyond due to dominant musical philosophies of the time and the nature of the music itself.

Ibid. Rudolf Rasch, Tuning and Temperament in The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, ed. Thomas Christensen (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 196-198. 27 Ibid. 28 Barbour, 3-4.
26 25

C F B b G D Bb F

C G D

Eb

E B Figure1

Ab Db B

F# Figure2

Perhaps the strongest trait in its favor was the widely embraced Pythagorean and Platonic tradition that numbers give order to the universe and that deviation from mathematical purity undermines natures fundamental laws. Pythagorean tuning also proved useful for the beginning development of polyphony. Early organum, with its emphasis on the intervals of a fourth, fifth, or octave, was particularly suited for performance using this system.29 The dissonant thirds and sixths also proved to be less of an issue, as those intervals were treated as dissonances through the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries.30 Other important reasons for Pythagorean tunings long survival include the fact that the popular violin string family is tuned by fifth, and motion by fifth is among the strongest. 31 As music continued to develop in the Renaissance, however, some of the problems with Pythagorean tuning were brought sharply into focus. The increasing prevalence of thirds and sixths, which were used as imperfect consonances from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,

29 30

Herlinger, 176-178. Ibid., 176-177. 31 Barbour, 4.

brought about many suggestions for change.32 There were many systems proposed as a means of addressing these issues, many of which can be grouped in terms of more general trends which attempted to solve the problems of Pythagorean tuning in similar ways. These categories included just, meantone, equal, and irregular temperament. Just intonation focused on creating a scale with as many acoustically pure thirds and fifths as possible. 33 Meantone temperament gained its name from the fact that its interval of a tone divided the major third in half.34 Equal temperament divided the octave into some number of intervals with equal width, and irregular systems utilized many different sizes of impure fifths.35 One of the most controversial just tuning approaches to the problems of Pythagorean tuning was offered by Bartolomeo Ramis de Pareia in his 1482 treatise Musica practica. While Ramiss tuning method was not the first or only just tuning system, it became one of the most widely known.36 Ironically, Ramis did not originally set out to create an entirely new tuning system. As Luanne Fose writes, Ramoss division of the monochord does not appear to be an attempt to effect a new system of tuning; rather, it is the result of his avid interest in providing a simpler division for the practicing musician, and possibly of an attempt to reflect the type of ratios that were actually being sung by the performers of his time.37 However, Fose goes on to say that, while Ramos may not have intended to create a new tuning, a new tuning was, in fact, advanced by Ramos in the Musica practica.38 Another important characteristic of Ramiss system is that it was designed to meet the everyday needs of singers.39 This was particularly

32 33

Herlinger, 178. Barbour, ix-x. 34 Ibid., 26. 35 Ibid., x. 36 Herlinger, 182. 37 Fose, 57. 38 Ibid. 39 Ibid., 2.

significant because many other theorists, in accordance with ancient Greek ideals, viewed practicality as a petty issue unworthy of their consideration.40 Instead, Ramis embraces a more pragmatic approach and introduces many practical innovations for musical issues such as solmization and mensuration,41 though the focus here will be solely his tuning system. In contrast to the Pythagorean system that was constructed entirely from a single sequence of pure fifths, Ramiss system instead used two separate strings of pure fifths.42 These two chains were positioned in relationship to each other according to the 4:5 ratio of the major third, shifting the starting point of the second string down by the syntonic comma. This yielded a mostly diatonic scale in which all major and minor thirds, excepting those from B to D and G to B flat, were acoustically pure. One important characteristic of this tuning is that where the two strings of pure fifths would connect, the interval that they create is different from a pure fifth interval by the syntonic comma. All of these relationships can be seen in Figure 3, where again the solid lines indicate pure intervals and dotted lines indicate impure intervals. By adjusting a single fifth from its pure placement, many thirds and sixths become pure. This system also yields tones of two different sizes; the tone between C and D is defined by the ratio of 8:9, while the tone between D and E is described by the ratio 9:10.43

40

Ibid. Ibid. 42 Herlinger, 180. 43 Ibid.

41

10 C F Bb G D

E Figure3 B

Despite the benefits of Ramiss system, it was still unpalatable to many of those who followed Pythagorean tradition. 44 The tone and the fifth, which were cornerstones of the Pythagorean system, embodied the harmony of the universe. To corrupt such intervals for the sake of just thirdsintervals which were not even recognized as consonant by disciples of the Pythagorean traditioncould be viewed by them as a grievous offense against the very laws of nature. Ramis attempted to deflect these arguments by emphasizing the divide between theory and practice. Spataro, a student of Ramis, said in defense of his teacher that Ramis did not object to the Pythagorean system as described by Boethius for its use in speculative music, but that he simply recognized that Pythagorean tuning was modified in actual practice.45 He continues, describing the common smoothing by practical musicians of the harsh Pythagorean thirds to more closely approximate the ratios of 4:5 and 5:6.46 These relatively simple ratios for major and

44 45

Ibid, 179-181. Fose, 58-59. 46 Ibid.

11

minor thirds, as opposed to the accepted Pythagorean ratios of 27:32 and 64:81, were observed by Walter Odington by 1300.47 This distinction between the theoretical and practical musical tradition is of tremendous importance. The Pythagorean tradition by definition is the abstract study of mathematical relationships in music. While Ramiss proposed system was in complete violation of the very foundations of the Pythagorean system, it was prescribed only for use in the actual practice, a realm in which Pythagorean scholars did not concern themselves. By simultaneously paying homage to the established theoretical order and then distancing himself from it, Ramis attempted to address the flaws of Pythagorean tuning in a distinct practical context. Unfortunately, despite Ramiss argument that practical and theoretical music should be considered separately, his practical work was still passionately criticized by more traditional theorists, who accused him of ignorance of the revered figure of Boethius and the Pythagorean tradition.48 Nicol Burzio, an Italian scholar of the time at the University of Bologna, wrote in 1487 in his Mucices opusculum of Ramis: This man wrote a little book on the study of music in which, when he wanted to explain what Boethius meant in his five books, he was very clearly confused and thus subverted every arrangement of value and principle. . . . The ignorance of the man, the conceit of the man! For at the beginning of his work, where he examines the division of a monochord (which is complete confusion), he says that he has read thoroughly the teachings of the ancients in many vigils and with considerable labor, since he wished in this way to avoid the errors of modern writers. Do you not see, I ask, how worthless, how arrogant, how impudent, is the criticism of this man? Where is Boethius, the monarch of musicians, who shows such a division with the most excellent ratios? Where is the very common division of Guido?49

47 48

Palisca, Music and Ideas, 33. Fose, 5-7. 49 Herlinger, 180.

12

Burzio failed to see Ramiss distinction of theoretical and practical music. His attack was based on the misconception that Ramis must have incorrectly summarized the theoretical writings of the ancients, when in fact Ramis presented an altogether new, more practical system. Other figures such as Franchinus Gaffurius understood more of what Ramis was trying to accomplish, but still objected to Ramiss ideas due to their radical departure of traditional Pythagorean thought.50 Gaffurius argued that the differences between the wide major thirds and narrow minor thirds of Pythagorean tuning and their justly tuned counterparts were imperceptible, making a more practical system unnecessary.51 Luanne Fose believes that part of this negative reaction can be attributed to the blunt and offensive nature of Ramiss writing.52 Rather than addressing the general ideas of other views, as was the common practice, he attacked specific figures by name. He pointed out flaws in the solmization system of Guido of Arezzo, a revered figure by most musicians.53 Writing of the ignorance of Marchettus de Padua, Ramis stated, I do not doubt that [Marchettus] may be saved, since Christ on the cross prayed for those who know not what they do.54 Ramis went on to say that as witless as he believed Marchettus to be, I value this Marchettus so much that I have no doubt that four marchetti could be swallowed down together by the Frenchman Roger Caperon.55 Based on the vehemence of some of his attacks, Foses stance that Ramiss arguments would have been better received had he been more tactful in his approach seems likely. However, the reception of his treatise also serves as a testament to the continuing influence of Pythagorean thought.

50 51

Fose, 59-60. Ibid., 58. 52 Ibid., 5-7. 53 Ibid., 4. 54 Ibid., 47. 55 Ibid.

13

Ramiss willingness to write against the established Pythagorean tradition showed that his priority of pleasing the sense superseded his deference to the pure mathematics of the rationalist approach. In this sense, he had much in common to the sensualist ideas of Aristoxenus, who also believed that human hearing should play an important role in musics construction. Where Ramis and Aristoxenus differed, however, and indeed where Ramis departed from the overall ancient Greek tradition, was that he placed great importance on everyday solutions for musical issues. This approach was necessitated by the growing number of problems with Pythagorean tuning as music continued to develop during the Renaissance. Ramis was certainly not the first person to address practical issues; others had done so before. Cassiodorus and Isidore, two widely read Christian intellectuals of the sixth and seventh centuries, concentrated on the practical application of mathematical, musical systems.56 However, Ramis addressed these practical issues in a much more innovative way, and his ideas provided a crucial stepping stone for later Renaissance theorists to move away from a purely rationalistic and theoretical study of music in favor of an approach in which far more attention was devoted to the pleasure of the senses and to issues of practicality.

56

Bower, 147-149.

14 Bibliography
Barbour, J. Murray. Tuning and Temperament: A Historical Survey. East Lansing, Michigan State College Press, 1953. Barker, Andrew. The Science of Harmonics in Classical Greece. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2007. Bower, Calvin M. The Transmission of Ancient Music Theory into the Middle Ages. Chapter 5 of The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, edited by Thomas Christensen, 136-164. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Ellefsen, Roy Martin. Music and Humanism in the Early Renaissance: Their Relationship and its Roots in the Rhetorical and Philosophical Traditions. PhD diss., Florida State University, 1981. Fose, Luanne Eris. The Musica practica of Bartolomeo Ramos de Pareia: A Critical Translation and Commentary. PhD diss., University of North Texas, 1992. Goldberg, Randall E. Where Nature and Art Adjoin: Investigations into the Zarlino-Galilei Dispute, Including an Annotated Translation of Vincenzo Galilei's Discorso intorno all'opere di Messer Gioseffo Zarlino. PhD diss., Indiana University, 2011. Gouk, Penelope. The Role of Harmonics in the Scientific Revolution. Chapter 8 of The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, edited by Thomas Christensen, 223-243. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Herlinger, Jan. Medieval Canonics. Chapter 6 of The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, edited by Thomas Christensen, 168-189. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Korrick, Leslie. Vincenzo Galileis Re-Vision of Renaissance Tuning: Trading on Nature and Art. In The Sounds and Sights of Performance in Early Music: Essays in Honour of Timothy J. McGee, edited by Maureen Epp and Brian E. Power, 123-149. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009. Mathiesen, Thomas J. Greek Music Theory. Chapter 4 of The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, edited by Thomas Christensen, 109-130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Nolan, Catherine. Music Theory and Mathematics. Chapter 10 of The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, edited by Thomas Christensen, 272-298. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Palisca, Claude V. Humanism in the Italian Renaissance. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985. . Music and Ideas in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Edited by Thomas J. Mathiesen. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2006. Rasch, Rudolf. Tuning and Temperament. Chapter 7 of The Cambridge History of Western Music Theory, edited by Thomas Christensen, 193-220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Tenney, James. A History of Consonance and Dissonance. New York: Excelsior Music Publishing Company, 1988.