: Re: Meantone Maquams

Why not express the scale in JI then. What is gained by placing it as a subset of a large ET.
Such way of thinking seems to me impossible to provide the aural cue to your performers to play the scale that you want.
As such, no one can and does tune any ET by ear. much less such a convoluted one. There is nothing in Can Akkoc's measurements that implied any type of equal divisions.

a question though- Maquam is not limited to Turkey but is used in many of the neighboring countries.
It seem these tuning practices would be as much a part of it?

Message: 15 Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:58:12 +0300
From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@superonline.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Meantone Maquams

Indeed they are! But this was according to 79 MOS.
----- Original Message ----- From: George D. Secor To: tuning@yahoogroups.com Sent: 14 Haziran 2005 Sal� 21:22 Subject: [tuning] Re: Meantone Maquams

> Ok, enough hints for now!

What is this? I was expecting to see ratios! Are not maqams JI?

--George

[This message contained attachments]

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Hi Kraig,

Well, yes.

I might add that a subset of ET on the tunbur under the aural
conditions you mentioned would require making the frets immoveable.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
> Why not express the scale in JI then. What is gained by placing it
as a subset of a large ET.
> Such way of thinking seems to me impossible to provide the aural
cue to your performers to play the scale that you want.
>
> As such, no one can and does tune any ET by ear. much less such a
convoluted one.
> There is nothing in Can Akkoc's measurements that implied any type
of equal divisions.
>
> a question though- Maquam is not limited to Turkey but is used in
many of the neighboring countries.
> It seem these tuning practices would be as much a part of it?
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 03:58:12 +0300
> From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
> Subject: Re: Re: Meantone Maquams
>
> Indeed they are! But this was according to 79 MOS.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: George D. Secor
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 14 Haziran 2005 Salý 21:22
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Meantone Maquams
>
> > Ok, enough hints for now!
>
> What is this? I was expecting to see ratios! Are not maqams JI?
>
> --George
>
>
>
>
> [This message contained attachments]
>
>
>
>
_____________________________________________________________________
___
>
_____________________________________________________________________
___
>
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Kraig Grady
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> The Wandering Medicine Show
> KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

I do not think you are following me from the beginning Kraig. This temperament (79 MOS) is reserved for Qanuns ONLY (and theory on paper if I can achieve it). Maqam scales will undoubtedly be expressed as JI intervals independent of a pitch standard for the tonic. But when it comes to mapping these JI intervals (probably hundreds in number given all transpositions), you clearly need a temperament to embrace them in as convenient and elegant a way as possible.

What is gained by doing so??? You may ask yourself then what is gained by affixing the mandals of a Qanun at 53tET, or worse 60tET? Is there such a possibility as a JI Qanun for Maqam Music? I will tell you, that you cannot evade wolves once you begin transposing your scale to other degrees of the gamut and the results will the catastrophic. Is it not obvious that you need a temperament for fixed-tuning instruments? Is there a piano tuned to JI that can sound a Chopin Etude without making the listeners wince?

I am not at all restricting Maqam Music tuning to 79 MOS... How can you assume I intend to do so? This is only one of the roughest approximations to Maqam intervals that I can come up with. Of course Ouds, Tanburs, Kemenchas and so on will re-calibrate their frets the way they see fit. Still, you will likely observe that the deviations will not be more than 5-6 cents from 79MOS.

Maybe I am too bold, but I think 79MOS fits Persian and Arabic tunings equally well, and thus, is of a universal character in this geography. Of course, masters will tell if I am right or not.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Kraig Grady
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 15 Haziran 2005 Çarşamba 20:37
Subject: [tuning] : Re: Meantone Maquams

Why not express the scale in JI then. What is gained by placing it as a subset of a large ET.
Such way of thinking seems to me impossible to provide the aural cue to your performers to play the scale that you want.

As such, no one can and does tune any ET by ear. much less such a convoluted one.
There is nothing in Can Akkoc's measurements that implied any type of equal divisions.

a question though- Maquam is not limited to Turkey but is used in many of the neighboring countries.
It seem these tuning practices would be as much a part of it?

Kraig Grady wrote:

> As such, no one can and does tune any ET by ear. much less such a
> convoluted one....

Kraig, just checking...I think you mean that non-fixed pitched instruments
like voice and violin, etc. tend to not sing in strict ET, right? You
certainly don't mean to say that a piano tuner can't tune ET on a piano, I
think...

OT, we need to talk soon on the phone. A business proposition...;)

Best,
Aaron.

Piano tuners can tune 12 ET only by a series of tricks with beats and
clocks which is not quite the same as tuning by ear. Even then it is
not easy,
Imagine tuning a 79 MOS from 151 or there abouts.
on a short decay string instrument.
send number again as it is probably easier for me to reach you than
likewise.

-- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@a...> wrote:
> Kraig Grady wrote:
>
> > As such, no one can and does tune any ET by ear. much less such a
> > convoluted one....
>
> Kraig, just checking...I think you mean that non-fixed pitched
instruments
> like voice and violin, etc. tend to not sing in strict ET, right? You
> certainly don't mean to say that a piano tuner can't tune ET on a
piano, I
> think...
>
> OT, we need to talk soon on the phone. A business proposition...;)
>
> Best,
> Aaron.

And we both recognize that this is the absolute last thing that should
be done!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "c_ml_forster" <76153.763@c...> wrote:
> Hi Kraig,
>
> Well, yes.
>
> I might add that a subset of ET on the tunbur under the aural
> conditions you mentioned would require making the frets immoveable.
>
> Cris
>
> > Kraig Grady
> > North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
> > The Wandering Medicine Show
> > KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> I do not think you are following me from the beginning Kraig. This
temperament (79 MOS) is reserved for Qanuns ONLY (and theory on paper
if I can achieve it). Maqam scales will undoubtedly be expressed as JI
intervals independent of a pitch standard for the tonic. But when it
comes to mapping these JI intervals (probably hundreds in number given
all transpositions), you clearly need a temperament to embrace them in
as convenient and elegant a way as possible.

What are the transpositions you need to notate? Are these from one
maqam to another with the same tonic, the same maqam with different
tonics, or both? Obviously 159et, or any other edo, gives far greater
flexibility with transpositions to different tonics than a scale
selected from it, so the question is what transpositions we are
talking about is key to the issue of whether they can be accomodated
with fewer notes