Quarter-Comma Meantone (Part 1)

I’ve spent the last few weeks drawing pictures of tuning systems, since I realized this is a good way to show off their mathematical beauty. Now I’ll start deploying them!

I’ve already written about the first two hugely important tuning systems in Western music:

Pythagorean tuning.

Just intonation.

It’s time to introduce the third: ‘quarter-comma meantone’.

But first, remember the story so far!

Pythagorean tuning may go back to Mesopotamia, but it was widely discussed by Greek mathematicians—perhaps including Pythagoras, whose life is mainly the stuff of legends written down centuries later, but more certainly Eratosthenes, and definitely Ptolemy. It was widely used in western Europe in the middle ages, especially before 1300.

The principle behind Pythagorean tuning is to start with some pitch and go up and down from there by ‘just fifths’—repeatedly multiplying and dividing the frequency by 3/2—until you get two pitches that are almost 7 octaves apart. Here I’ll do it starting with C:

But there are some problems. The highest tone is a bit less than 7 octaves above the lowest tone! Their frequency ratio is called the Pythagorean comma. And we get a total of 13 tones, not 12.

To deal with these problems, we can simply omit one of these two tones and use only the other in our scale. There are two ways to do this, which are mirror images of each other:

Each breaks the symmetry of the scale. And each gives one fifth that’s noticeably smaller than the rest. It’s called a ‘wolf fifth’—because it’s so out of tune it howls like a wolf!

What can we do? One solution is simply to avoid playing this fifth. You’ve probably heard the old joke. A patient tells his doctor: “It hurts when I lift my arm like this.” The doctor replies: “So don’t lift your arm like that!”

This worked pretty well for medieval music, where the fifth and octaves were the dominant forms of harmony, and people didn’t change keys much, so they could avoid the wolf fifth. But in the late 1300s, major thirds became very important in English music, and soon they spread throughout Europe. A major third sounds perfectly in tune—or technically, ‘just’—when it has a frequency ratio of

\displaystyle{ \frac{5}{4} = 1.25 }

But the major thirds in Pythagorean tuning are bigger than this!

Let’s see why. This will eventually lead us to the solution called ‘quarter-comma meantone’ tuning.

To go up a major third in Pythagorean tuning, we take any tone and go up 4 fifths, getting a tone whose frequency is

\displaystyle{ \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^4 = \frac{81}{16} }

times as high. Then we go down 2 octaves to get a tone whose frequency is

\displaystyle{ \frac{81}{64} = 1.265625 }

times that of our original tone. This is called a Pythagorean major third. It’s close to the just major third, 5/4 = 1.25. But it’s a bit too high!

Let’s see what what these Pythagorean major thirds look like, and where they sit in the scale. To do this, let’s take our original ‘star of fifths’:

and reorder the notes so they form a ‘circle of fifths’:

Here we see two wolf fifths, each containing one of the notes separated by a Pythagorean comma (namely G♭ and F♯). As we’ve seen, if we omit either one of these notes we’re left with a single wolf fifth. But this breaks the left-right symmetry of the above picture, so let’s leave them both in for now.

Now let’s draw all the Pythagorean thirds in blue:

A pretty, symmetrical picture. But not every note has a blue arrow pointing out of it! The reason is that not every note has some other note in the scale a Pythagorean third higher than it. We could delve into this more….

But instead, let’s figure out what to do about these annoyingly large Pythagorean thirds!

Historically, the first really popular solution was to use ‘just intonation’, a system based on simple fractions built from the numbers 2, 3 (as in Pythagorean tuning) but also 5. It was discussed by Ptolemy as far back as 150 AD. But it became widely used from roughly 1300 to at least 1550—starting in England, and then spreading throughout Europe, along with the use of major thirds.

Just intonation makes a few important thirds in the scale be just, but not as many as possible. Around 1523 another solution was invented, with more just thirds: ‘quarter-comma meantone’. It became popular around 1550, and it dominated Europe until about 1690. Let’s see what this system is, and why it didn’t catch on sooner.

The idea is to tweak Pythagorean tuning so that all the Pythagorean thirds I just showed you become just thirds! To do this, we’ll simply take the Pythagorean system:

and shrink all the blue arrows so they have a frequency ratio of 5/4.

Unfortunately this will force us to shrink the black arrows, too, In other words, to make our major thirds just, we need to shrink our fifths. It turns out that we need fifths with a frequency ratio of

\displaystyle{ \sqrt[4]{5} \approx 1.49534878\dots}

This is only a tiny bit less than the ideal fifth, namely 1.5. It’s not a nasty wolf fifth: it sounds pretty good. In fact it’s quite wonderful that the fourth root of 5 is so close to 3/2. So, using some fifths like this may count as an acceptable sacrifice if we want just major thirds.

Here’s what we get:

This tuning system is called quarter-comma meantone.

You’ll note that by shrinking the blue and black arrows—that is, the thirds and fifths—we’ve now made the note F♯ lower than G♭, rather than higher, as it was in Pythagorean tuning. Their frequency ratio is now

\displaystyle{ \frac{128}{125} = 1.024}

which is yet another of those annoying little glitches: this one is called the lesser diesis.

So that’s quarter-comma meantone tuning in a nutshell. But there’s a lot more to say about it. For example, I haven’t explained all the numbers in that last picture. Where do \sqrt[4]{5} and the lesser diesis 128/125 come from??? I haven’t even explained why this system called ‘quarter-comma meantone’. These issues are related. I’ll explain them both next time, but I’ll give you a hint now. I told you that the Pythagorean major third

\displaystyle{ \frac{81}{64} = 1.265625 }

is a bit bigger than the just major third:

\displaystyle{ \frac{5}{4} = 1.25 }

But how much bigger? Their ratio is

\displaystyle{ \frac{81/64}{5/4} = \frac{81}{80} = 1.0125 }

This number, yet another of those annoying glitches in harmony theory, is called the syntonic comma. And this, not the Pythagorean comma, is the comma that gives ‘quarter-comma meantone’ its name! By taking the syntonic comma and dividing it into four equal parts—or more precisely, taking its fourth root—we are led to quarter-comma meantone. I’ll show you the details next time.

Quarter-comma meantone is dramatically different from the earlier tuning systems I’ve discussed, since it uses an irrational number: the fourth root of 5. I think this is why it took so long for quarter-comma meantone to be discovered. After all, irrational numbers were anathema in the old Pythagorean tradition relating harmony to mathematics.

It seems that quarter-comma meantone was discovered in a burst of more sophisticated mathematical music theory in Renaissance Italy—along with other meantone systems, but I’ll explain what that means later. References to tuning systems that could be meantone appeared as early as the 1496 text Practicae musica by Franchinus Gaffurius. Pietro Aron unmistakably discussed quarter-comma meantone in Toscanello in musica in 1523. However, the first mathematically precise descriptions appeared in the late 16th century treatises by the great Gioseffo Zarlino (Le istitutioni harmoniche, 1558) and Francisco de Salinas (De musica libri septem, 1577). Those two also talked about ‘third-comma’ and ‘two-sevenths-comma’ meantone systems.


For more on Pythagorean tuning, read this series:

Pythagorean tuning.

For more on just intonation, read this series:

Just intonation.

For more on quarter-comma meantone tuning, read these:

Part 1. Review of Pythagorean tuning. How to obtain quarter-comma meantone by expanding the Pythagorean major thirds to just major thirds.

Part 2. How Pythagorean tuning, quarter-comma meantone and equal temperament all fit into a single 1-parameter family of tuning systems.

Part 3. What ‘quarter-comma’ means in the phrase ‘quarter-comma meantone’: most of the fifths are lowered by a quarter of the syntonic comma.

Part 4. Omitting the diminished fifth or augmented fourth from quarter-comma meantone. The relation between the Pythagorean comma, lesser diesis and syntonic comma.

Part 5. The sizes of the two kinds of semitone in quarter-comma meantone: the chromatic semitone and diatonic semitone. The size of the tone, and what the ‘meantone’ means in the phrase ‘quarter-comma meantone’.

Part 6. What happens to quarter-comma meantone when you change it from a 13-tone scale to a more useful 12-tone scale by removing the diminished fifth.

Part 7. Why it’s better to start the quarter-comma meantone scale on D rather than C.

For more on equal temperament, read this series:

Equal temperament.

11 Responses to Quarter-Comma Meantone (Part 1)

  1. Toby Bartels says:

    Your last link is broken, and it seems like you just wanted to link back here anyway, so maybe you don’t need it until Part 2.

    • John Baez says:

      This self-referential link is not so important here until I write more posts in this thread, but I’m trying to link up all my posts on tuning systems, so more important is that none of my links to this post worked, even though the URL looked okay… perhaps because I created them before I posted this article. Redoing them all, they work now. So, thanks.

  2. Pedro says:

    I wonder if we’ve reached a sort of “end of history” where we never move from 12 tone equal temperament tuning, and thinking hard about tuning systems is a thing of the past

    • John Baez says:

      That’s a great question. Some people complain about equal temperament, like Ross Duffin in his popular book How Equal Temperament Ruined Harmony: And Why You Should Care. There are thriving communities of people who compose music in other tuning systems. But will other tuning systems ever become popular?

      I’m hoping that the rise of electronic instruments, and their complete dominance in popular music, will eventually change things: now it’s much easier to change between tuning systems than it ever was! So I want someone to try making pop music in a temperament that’s slightly different from equal temperament: not so different that it sounds weird, just different enough to sound subtly more interesting. Many such temperaments are known—we just need some brave musicians to try these, while writing songs that are easy for people to enjoy.

      • Look to India for this. There’s a lot of music to discover there. The raga stuff might sound boring for the Western ear, but combined with the Indian maths of rhythm their music can become breathtaking. It is way more complex than we can imagine, and almost makes me want to learn Dravidian languages.

        I knew about e.g. John McLaughlin and friends for decades, but seriously discovered Carnatic drumming only recently. Now I can’t get enough of it. They utterly dwarf Western drumming. Here is an example, a long Thani Arvathanam (drummers’ solo) of an even longer piece.

        Also I’m more impressed by Indians doing Western Jazz than vice versa. Here is a mindblowing example:

      • John Baez says:

        I love Indian classical music but don’t understand it deeply. I’m fascinated by their rich harmonic traditions, like these Carnatic ragas:

        But I figure I should understand Western modes and tuning systems first, because they’re simpler!

        It may indeed be Indian music that breaks us out of our equal-tempered rut, though I’m afraid that Indian pop music uses the same equal-tempered music software that Western music does. (I’m not sure!)

  3. […] Quarter-Comma Meantone (Part 1) […]

  4. \sqrt[4]{5}, cool! Another Kepler comment: he claimed that the reason one should base a tuning system on thirds and fifths but not sevenths is because of which regular polygons are constructible. Of course he didn’t know about the 17-gon!

    • John Baez says:

      I’ve seen a lot of crazy xenharhonicists but none arguing for 17-limit tuning because the 17-gon is constructible. Or 257, or 65537.

      Bring it on!

    • Toby Bartels says:

      If you allow ratios of 3 and 5, then you also have ratios of 9 and 25, but those aren’t constructible. (And Kepler must have at least suspected that in the case of 9, even though he couldn’t have proved it.)

You can use Markdown or HTML in your comments. You can also use LaTeX, like this: $latex E = m c^2 $. The word 'latex' comes right after the first dollar sign, with a space after it.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.