Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning [tuning] enharmonic difference and maqam Bayati tuning demo

Hmm, there are not really neutral intervals in the second example, are there?
Not in the melody, at least. In the first example, the 17edo version appears to
be the most correct one to me. The wide fifths version works a little bit, too,
but in all the others the corresponding interval is clearly minor and thus not
really Bayati.

And again, I do not understand your harmonization choices. On the first note of
Rast you put a minor, and on the first note of Bayati you put a major triad -
the opposite of what I would expect.

BTW, how about making it sound more "human"? This terribly mechanical
performance virtually hurts in my ears...

As before I will try to create a harmonization of my own.

Hans Straub

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <marcel@...> wrote:

And here a more clear demonstration of a simple but successfully harmonized
maqam Bayati:

Youtube: http://youtu.be/JmPlrT4K86c [http://youtu.be/JmPlrT4K86c]
Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/maqam-makam-bayati-harmonized
[https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/maqam-makam-bayati-harmonized]

The Bayati melodic expression is clearly preserved, making a fusion between
western triadic polyphony and eastern maqam music with "neutral intervals" for
the first time.

Kind regards,
Marcel de Velde

> Hi List,

I made 2 demonstrations comparing Pythagorean just intonation vs
temperaments.

Enharmonic difference: http://youtu.be/pr7PTxGnI1I [http://youtu.be/pr7PTxGnI1I]

Maqam Bayati tuning and harmonization: http://youtu.be/INjtv4grxzc
[http://youtu.be/INjtv4grxzc]

To me only the Pythagorean versions sound uncolored and "in tune", but
your mileage may vary ;-)
Perhaps worth mentioning is that for the enharmonic difference demo,
5-limit rational intonation would give about the same result as the
quarter comma meantone version (not quite acceptable to my ears).

For Margo, in case you cannot view the youtube videos, the audio is on
soundcloud as well:
https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/enharmonic-difference-tuning
[https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/enharmonic-difference-tuning]
https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/maqam-makam-bayati-tuning
[https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/maqam-makam-bayati-tuning]

Kind regards,
Marcel de Velde

🔗Marcel de Velde <marcel@...>

Hello Hans,

Thanks for your comments!

> Hmm, there are not really neutral intervals in the second example, are > there? Not in the melody, at least. In the first example, the 17edo > version appears to be the most correct one to me. The wide fifths > version works a little bit, too, but in all the others the > corresponding interval is clearly minor and thus not really Bayati.
>

I regularly listen to Turkish and Arabic maqam music. Have amassed quite a collection over the past few years.
And I can tell you by ear that the 17tet version is not much corresponding to how Bayati is usually tuned.
17tet is exaggerating too much and to me it becomes out of tune in a not very pleasant way. The neutral thirds (between 2nd and 4th step and 7th and 9th step in Bayati, both are played in this melody) in 17tet is ~350 cents. This does not correspond to practice.
Perhaps you have become used to it by playing in 17tet a lot?

The 703.91 cents fifths version is close to actual practice and sounds about the same.

In my opinion the Pythagorean version expresses the same thing, but with the monophonic melody it is easy to interpret it as a minor second as well, as you say you hear it (and this is quite possible, especially after hearing an exaggerated augmented prime first).

In the fully harmonized versions there is not much room in hearing it as a minor second though and I'm quite sure you must be hearing it as an augmented prime as well in Pythagorean.
To harmonize it as a minor second would make the melody express a very different thing.
You can try this for yourself. Play the melody in 12tet with the chords Bbmin, Cmin, Dbmaj, Ebmaj, Fmin for the minor second version vs Bbmaj, Cmaj, C#min, Ebmaj, Fmaj for the augmented second version.
You will notice that even in 12tet where the tuning is exactly the same, that the melody expresses something truly different with the augmented prime version (in other words, it's not just put in a different perspective due to the different chords, it's truly a different note the C# vs the Db. My other demo on enharmonic difference also demonstrates this, and this is also a normal concept in classical music theory and exploited by countless famous composers including Bach, Mozart and Beethoven etc.)

Now if you listen to the fully harmonized versions, you will notice that both the 703.91 fifths version and Pythagorean express the same thing. The only difference is that with 703.91 fifths the tuning is a bit different and the chords are out of tune a bit.
17tet does pretty badly as the chords are now pretty badly out of tune but it still expresses the same thing.
And 1/4 comma meantone does so poorly that I don't know what to make of it, the chords indicate an augmented prime but the tuning is clearly a minor second of Db instead of C# (and a low one at that). I even get the same feeling as a comma shift at times from it.

Btw, here is the song I took the melody from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Srkkc0iGU
And here it is again as made popular by the Chemical Brothers: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu3FTEmN-eg
I hope you can hear that my version does not ruin its expression. It is still the same melody. The original is tuned roughly the same as the 703.91 version it seems to me.

> And again, I do not understand your harmonization choices. On the > first note of Rast you put a minor, and on the first note of Bayati > you put a major triad - the opposite of what I would expect.
>

Rast does not have a major third above the first degree but a diminished fourth instead. The minor third is therefore the most closely related third for the first degree in the circle of fifths.

While Bayati does have a minor third above its first degree i chose to use the major third for harmonizing the first degree as it is then a common tone for harmonizing the second degree which is an augmented second above the first degree so the second degree makes a minor third with that same note. It helps make the augmented second clear and prevents it from having a minor second as an alternative interpretation.

Furthermore I kept the harmonization very simple and clear, parallel fifths with triads following the melody.
Of course the possibilities are near endless with my technique and one can apply western counterpoint rules, different voicings, sixths sevenths ninths chords, etc.

> BTW, how about making it sound more "human"? This terribly mechanical > performance virtually hurts in my ears...
>

It is only a simple demo, didn't try to make it sound pretty :)
I was planning on making many demos but I think I'm going to focus now on producing quality music based on harmonized maqams which is general public friendly.
I have finished my theory enough that I can work without errors.

> As before I will try to create a harmonization of my own.
>
> -- >
> Hans Straub
>
>

Oh please do!
It would be interesting if you could use the same melody so an easy comparison can be made.

Kind regards,
Marcel de Velde

>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <marcel@...> wrote:
>
> And here a more clear demonstration of a simple but successfully > harmonized maqam Bayati:
>
> Youtube: http://youtu.be/JmPlrT4K86c
> Soundcloud: > https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/maqam-makam-bayati-harmonized
>
> The Bayati melodic expression is clearly preserved, making a fusion > between western triadic polyphony and eastern maqam music with > "neutral intervals" for the first time.
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcel de Velde
>
>
> Hi List,
>
> I made 2 demonstrations comparing Pythagorean just intonation vs
> temperaments.
>
> Enharmonic difference: http://youtu.be/pr7PTxGnI1I
>
> Maqam Bayati tuning and harmonization: http://youtu.be/INjtv4grxzc
>
> To me only the Pythagorean versions sound uncolored and "in tune",
> but
> your mileage may vary ;-)
> Perhaps worth mentioning is that for the enharmonic difference demo,
> 5-limit rational intonation would give about the same result as the
> quarter comma meantone version (not quite acceptable to my ears).
>
> For Margo, in case you cannot view the youtube videos, the audio
> is on
> soundcloud as well:
> https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/enharmonic-difference-tuning
> https://soundcloud.com/justintonation/maqam-makam-bayati-tuning
>
> Kind regards,
> Marcel de Velde
>

🔗straub@...

Hi Marcel,

> I regularly listen to Turkish and Arabic maqam music. Have amassed quite a
collection over the past few

>years. And I can tell you by ear that the 17tet version is not much
corresponding to how Bayati is usually

> tuned. 17tet is exaggerating too much and to me it becomes out of tune in a
not very pleasant way. The

> neutral thirds (between 2nd and 4th step and 7th and 9th step in Bayati, both
are played in this melody) in

> 17tet is ~350 cents. This does not correspond to practice. Perhaps you have
become used to it by playing

> in 17tet a lot?
>

> The 703.91 cents fifths version is close to actual practice and sounds about
the same.

Compared to actual practice in real arabic and turkish music, 17tet is indeed
only a rough approximation, this is true. I am aware of that. I have listened to
your examples and the original again and possibly agree that second note of your
wide fifth version is better. About the other examples, I keep stating that the
econd note is too low.

> In the fully harmonized versions there is not much room in hearing it as a
minor second though and I'm

> quite sure you must be hearing it as an augmented prime as well in
Pythagorean. To harmonize it as a

> minor second would make the melody express a very different thing. You can try
this for yourself. Play the

> melody in 12tet with the chords Bbmin, Cmin, Dbmaj, Ebmaj, Fmin for the minor
second version vs Bbmaj,

> Cmaj, C#min, Ebmaj, Fmaj for the augmented second version. You will notice
that even in 12tet where the

> tuning is exactly the same, that the melody expresses something truly
different with the augmented prime

> version (in other words, it's not just put in a different perspective due to
the different chords, it's truly a

> different note the C# vs the Db. My other demo on enharmonic difference also
demonstrates this, and this

> is also a normal concept in classical music theory and exploited by countless
famous composers including

> Bach, Mozart and Beethoven etc.)

I think I am starting to see what your concept is. Sure, a minor second and an
augmented prime are conceptionally quite different things. So you see the second
note of Bayati as an augmented prime and harmonize accordingly, right?

Point is, however, my knowledge is that these characteristical neutral seconds
of maqam music, of arabic maqam music in any case, do not really suit into a
strictly pythagorean framework - the note in question, I would say, is neither a
minor second nor an augmented prime. (Margo or Ozan, can one of you or someone
else confirm or disprove?) That may be what distirbed me around your
harmonizations since they all appear to be based on pythagorean thinking. I
would say that an approach based on the mohajira (instead of meantone) or the
maqamic temperament might work better.

> It is only a simple demo, didn't try to make it sound pretty :)
> I was planning on making many demos but I think I'm going to focus now on
producing quality music based

> on harmonized maqams which is general public friendly. I have finished my
theory enough that I can work

> without errors.

Looking forward to it!

I am still working on my tentative harmonization - is a little hard, that one!

Hans Straub

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <marcel@...> wrote:

Hello Hans,

Thanks for your comments!

> Â Hmm, there are not really neutral intervals in the second example, are there?
Not in the melody, at least. In the first example, the 17edo version appears to
be the most correct one to me. The wide fifths version works a little bit, too,
but in all the others the corresponding interval is clearly minor and thus not
really Bayati.

I regularly listen to Turkish and Arabic maqam music. Have amassed quite a
collection over the past few years.
And I can tell you by ear that the 17tet version is not much corresponding to
how Bayati is usually tuned.
17tet is exaggerating too much and to me it becomes out of tune in a not very
pleasant way. The neutral thirds (between 2nd and 4th step and 7th and 9th step
in Bayati, both are played in this melody) in 17tet is ~350 cents. This does not
correspond to practice.
Perhaps you have become used to it by playing in 17tet a lot?

The 703.91 cents fifths version is close to actual practice and sounds about the
same.

In my opinion the Pythagorean version expresses the same thing, but with the
monophonic melody it is easy to interpret it as a minor second as well, as you
say you hear it (and this is quite possible, especially after hearing an
exaggerated augmented prime first).

In the fully harmonized versions there is not much room in hearing it as a minor
second though and I'm quite sure you must be hearing it as an augmented prime as
well in Pythagorean.
To harmonize it as a minor second would make the melody express a very different
thing.
You can try this for yourself. Play the melody in 12tet with the chords Bbmin,
Cmin, Dbmaj, Ebmaj, Fmin for the minor second version vs Bbmaj, Cmaj, C#min,
Ebmaj, Fmaj for the augmented second version.
You will notice that even in 12tet where the tuning is exactly the same, that
the melody expresses something truly different with the augmented prime version
(in other words, it's not just put in a different perspective due to the
different chords, it's truly a different note the C# vs the Db. My other demo on
enharmonic difference also demonstrates this, and this is also a normal concept
in classical music theory and exploited by countless famous composers including
Bach, Mozart and Beethoven etc.)

Now if you listen to the fully harmonized versions, you will notice that both
the 703.91 fifths version and Pythagorean express the same thing. The only
difference is that with 703.91 fifths the tuning is a bit different and the
chords are out of tune a bit.
17tet does pretty badly as the chords are now pretty badly out of tune but it
still expresses the same thing.
And 1/4 comma meantone does so poorly that I don't know what to make of it, the
chords indicate an augmented prime but the tuning is clearly a minor second of
Db instead of C# (and a low one at that). I even get the same feeling as a comma
shift at times from it.

Btw, here is the song I took the melody from:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Srkkc0iGU
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7Srkkc0iGU]
And here it is again as made popular by the Chemical Brothers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu3FTEmN-eg
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xu3FTEmN-eg]
I hope you can hear that my version does not ruin its expression. It is still
the same melody. The original is tuned roughly the same as the 703.91 version it
seems to me.

> And again, I do not understand your harmonization choices. On the first note of
Rast you put a minor, and on the first note of Bayati you put a major triad -
the opposite of what I would expect.

Rast does not have a major third above the first degree but a diminished fourth
instead. The minor third is therefore the most closely related third for the
first degree in the circle of fifths.

While Bayati does have a minor third above its first degree i chose to use the
major third for harmonizing the first degree as it is then a common tone for
harmonizing the second degree which is an augmented second above the first
degree so the second degree makes a minor third with that same note. It helps
make the augmented second clear and prevents it from having a minor second as an
alternative interpretation.

Furthermore I kept the harmonization very simple and clear, parallel fifths with
triads following the melody.
Of course the possibilities are near endless with my technique and one can apply
western counterpoint rules, different voicings, sixths sevenths ninths chords,
etc.

> BTW, how about making it sound more "human"? This terribly mechanical
performance virtually hurts in my ears...

It is only a simple demo, didn't try to make it sound pretty :)
I was planning on making many demos but I think I'm going to focus now on
producing quality music based on harmonized maqams which is general public
friendly.
I have finished my theory enough that I can work without errors.

> As before I will try to create a harmonization of my own.

> --

Hans Straub

Oh please do!
It would be interesting if you could use the same melody so an easy comparison
can be made.

Kind regards,
Marcel de Velde

>
--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <marcel@...> wrote:

And here a more clear demonstration of a simple but successfully harmonized
maqam Bayati:

The Bayati melodic expression is clearly preserved, making a fusion between
western triadic polyphony and eastern maqam music with "neutral intervals" for
the first time.

Kind regards,
Marcel de Velde

> Â Hi List,

I made 2 demonstrations comparing Pythagorean just intonation vs
temperaments.

Enharmonic difference: http://youtu.be/pr7PTxGnI1I [http://youtu.be/pr7PTxGnI1I]

Maqam Bayati tuning and harmonization: http://youtu.be/INjtv4grxzc
[http://youtu.be/INjtv4grxzc]

Kind regards,
Marcel de Velde

🔗straub@...

> Point is, however, my knowledge is that these characteristical neutral seconds
of maqam music, of arabic

> maqam music in any case, do not really suit into a strictly pythagorean
framework - the note in question, I

> would say, is neither a minor second nor an augmented prime. (Margo or Ozan,
can one of you or someone

> else confirm or disprove?) That may be what distirbed me around your
harmonizations since they all appear to

> be based on pythagorean thinking. I would say that an approach based on the
mohajira (instead of meantone)

> or the maqamic temperament might work better

Replying myself - just saw that neutral seconds of Mohajira are even larger than
those of 17edo, and in superpyth maqamic you would need a fifth larger than the
on of 17edo to get a smaller neutral second. So those two won^t work, either...
And I am sarting to think that Mohajira and maqamic temperament may be suited
for Rats but less for Bayati...

Hans Straub

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, <straub@...> wrote: