Re: [tuning] Re: Re : The C-Fb-G major triad: Pythag-Just tuning.3

In a message dated 12/3/01 5:50:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
paul@stretch-music.com writes:

> > It has little to do
> > with Arabic music other than the obvious instrument
> > relationships/distinctions.
>
> The theory is closely tied together. Look at the names of the maqamat!
>

This is meaningless. Nomenclature is borrowed cross-culturally, but that is
all that is borrowed. And that is why Rast appears in different tunings in
different cultures. Language is often misleading regarding origin.

> > There is no trace of spiraling of fifths to ancient Greek practice
> that I am
> > aware of. What are you claiming?
>
> Pythagorean tuning is clearly based on a chain of fifths. The Arabic
> theorists simply lengthened this chain, perhaps to justify scales
> already in use that didn't fit the Greek mold.

What I am saying is it is not ancient Greek at all. What I am suggesting to
you is that Arab theorists perhaps lengthened a chain of fifths that did not
fit into the practice they experienced much later. However, since there was
so much use of spiraling fifths by ancient Babylonia, et al., it is much more
likely that the term "Greek" was applied as erroneously as the name
Pythagorus, itself.

> circumstantial evidence that they stumbled upon the schisma (much
> as
> the West did later, around 1420), since they used it to construct,
> essentially, 5-limit just scales.
>

Why wouldn't the Middle/Near easterners have stumbled upon Didymus and his
explanation of the comma? Why if they had all the ancient Greek books, or at
least the books or fragments we have today, would they need to reinvent the
wheel on the comma?

Best, Johnny Reinhard

--- In tuning@y..., Afmmjr@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 12/3/01 5:50:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> paul@s... writes:
>
>
> > > It has little to do
> > > with Arabic music other than the obvious instrument
> > > relationships/distinctions.
> >
> > The theory is closely tied together. Look at the names of the
maqamat!
> >
>
> This is meaningless. Nomenclature is borrowed cross-culturally,
but that is
> all that is borrowed. And that is why Rast appears in different
tunings in
> different cultures. Language is often misleading regarding origin.

The medieval Arabic Rast is nearly identical to the modern Turkish
Rast. And so on.

> What I am suggesting to
> you is that Arab theorists perhaps lengthened a chain of fifths
that did not
> fit into the practice they experienced much later.

Can you phrase that sentence more clearly? I'll probably agree, I
just want to know what you're saying.

> However, since there was
> so much use of spiraling fifths by ancient Babylonia, et al., it is
much more
> likely that the term "Greek" was applied as erroneously as the name
> Pythagorus, itself.

Perhaps.

> > circumstantial evidence that they stumbled upon the schisma (much
> > as
> > the West did later, around 1420), since they used it to
construct,
> > essentially, 5-limit just scales.
> >
>
> Why wouldn't the Middle/Near easterners have stumbled upon Didymus
and his
> explanation of the comma?

If they did, they didn't go in that direction -- medieval Arabic
ratios are steadfastly 3-limit.

> Why if they had all the ancient Greek books, or at
> least the books or fragments we have today, would they need to
reinvent the
> wheel on the comma?

I don't know what you mean "reinvent the wheel on the comma". What do
you mean by that?