Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup tuning 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning

Gene, 94-tET is not good enough, because Rast scale cannot be mapped to the white keys by default, the possible fifths of three different sizes are too far apart to sound harmonious in a chain, and consequently the sharps and flats are distributed wrong.

But to do justice to your suggestion, I admit that the cycle Gb/Saba (715) Dd/Şehnaz (715) Ad/Hisar (715) Ed/Segah (715) Bd/Evc fits perfectly well into this scheme.

I do believe that 141 is a much better choice, and is more deserving of the title `universal`.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 29 Eylül 2005 Perşembe 23:35
Subject: [tuning] 94-edo as a universal maqam tuning

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Dear George,
>
> >
> > C Dv Eb F G Av Bv C
> > 0 2 4 7 10 12 15 17 degrees of 17
> > 1/1 13/12 7/6 4/3 3/2 13/8 11/6 2/1
> >
> > [oz:]
> > That's nothing other than the fundamental scale for Maqam Huseini.

It's a good example of a scale which can we handled very well by
94-equal, or what is more or less the same, the Garibaldi temperament.
It would be interesting to see examples of maqam for which you think
94 would *not* be a good tuning, because in light of this whole
Arab/schismatic discussion, and because it makes sense as a tuning for
higher-limit ratios, 94 seems like an awfully reasonable universal
tuning choice to me. The main thing you might fault it for is that its
flat fifth is quite flat, but I am not aware that meantone really
needs to be supported, given that harmony is not a big issue.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Haven't I though? Rast is the harmonic major scale:

1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
C D E F G A B C

where A is a Pythagorean major sixth instead of just, and the scale itself needs to be tempered so that the chain of fifths are not broken.

Arabic tuning breaks the chain, and so does the Yekta-Arel-Ezgi system used in Turkey (nowadays used in context of 53-tET). One obviously needs a meantone system to preserve Rast as the default gamut. Hence, 141-tET Rast is an excellent choice with the values:

1/1
195.745
391.489
502.128
697.872
893.617
1089.362
2/1

Where A can be sharpened at will without destroying the chain of fifths. Remember also, that one frequently needs a 16/9 Pythagorean minor seventh in the Rast Maqam, which a meantone temperament cannot supply by itself.

Now, do you understand why I need at least two different sizes of fifths, i. e., meantone and Pythagorean?141 provides the necessary resolution that favors subtle nuances of pitch as observed in Maqam Music while preserving the consistent cyclic nature that is required of the system.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 30 Eylül 2005 Cuma 3:12
Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> Gene, 94-tET is not good enough, because Rast scale cannot be mapped
to the white keys by default, the possible fifths of three different
sizes are too far apart to sound harmonious in a chain, and
consequently the sharps and flats are distributed wrong.

The usual definition of the Arabic Rast, in 24edo, makes the circle of
fifths into 700-700-700-650-700-650-700; the 650 cent intervals are
obviously far flatter than anything 94-et would be required to use. As
usual, I find myself shooting at an invisible target since you won't
say what you think Rast ought to be.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Haven't I though? Rast is the harmonic major scale:
>
> 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
> C D E F G A B C
>
> where A is a Pythagorean major sixth instead of just, and the scale
itself needs to be tempered so that the chain of fifths are not broken.

You've got contradictory requirements here. Of course, 94 does a good
job of representing the scale you give above--certainly a much better
than 141. On the other hand, if you temper it in meantone you just get
the diatonic scale, in which the requirement that 27/16 be Pythagorean
and not just makes no sense, as there's no difference.

In 94-et, the circle of fifths for the above becomes
702-702-702-677-702-613-702. 141 is a meantone tuning, and in it Rast
becomes (using the meantone version <141 228 328|)
698-698-698-698-698-613-698. Is that really what Rast is supposed to
be? Alternatively, using <141 223 327| we'd get
698-698-698-689-698-621-698.

> Arabic tuning breaks the chain, and so does the Yekta-Arel-Ezgi
system used in Turkey (nowadays used in context of 53-tET). One
obviously needs a meantone system to preserve Rast as the default
gamut. Hence, 141-tET Rast is an excellent choice with the values:

I don't know why it is obvious; 24-et supports meantone, but that
isn't what Rast seems to be in it.

> Where A can be sharpened at will without destroying the chain of
fifths. Remember also, that one frequently needs a 16/9 Pythagorean
minor seventh in the Rast Maqam, which a meantone temperament cannot
supply by itself.

141 can't supply Pythagorean either; it can do a good 16/9 in a sense,
but it doesn't arise from two fourths.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 30 Eylül 2005 Cuma 4:25
Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Haven't I though? Rast is the harmonic major scale:
>
> 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 27/16 15/8 2/1
> C D E F G A B C
>
> where A is a Pythagorean major sixth instead of just, and the scale itself needs to be tempered so that the chain of fifths are not broken.

You've got contradictory requirements here. Of course, 94 does a good job of representing the scale you give above--certainly a much better than 141.

What? you mean exact JI ratios? I don't see how 94 is better than 141. The first has a near-just third of 383 cents, which is way too low for the chain, and the latter one of 391 cents and another of 383 cents while preserving the chain. Surely, the matter is more complicated than just maintaining nearer simple integer ratio approximations.

On the other hand, if you temper it in meantone you just get the diatonic scale, in which the requirement that 27/16 be Pythagorean and not just makes no sense, as there's no difference.

With the 698 cent, no. But if the chain switches to a super-pythagorean fifth between D and A, specifically 27/16 shall be attained instead of 5/3. This may require the E to be raised too, or else, it can be left the way it is even though the fifth will be barely tolerable.

Still, this operation would be rare for Rast in 141-tET.

In 94-et, the circle of fifths for the above becomes
702-702-702-677-702-613-702.

What? The cycle is broken, the fifths are not in a tolerable range. Can you hold E and A together please and tell me if you can tolerate to listen to it?

141 is a meantone tuning, and in it Rast
becomes (using the meantone version <141 228 328|)
698-698-698-698-698-613-698. Is that really what Rast is supposed to be?

Exactly so, but this is incomplete. This is the ascending scale of Rast.

Alternatively, using <141 223 327| we'd get
698-698-698-689-698-621-698.

Right, this is the descending scale of Rast. In fact, Rast has many other scales via which it can modulate without losing its Rast-ish rasterization.

I don't know why it is obvious; 24-et supports meantone, but that
isn't what Rast seems to be in it.

What? 24-et supports meantone? That is ridiculous. You say that because the fifth is 700 cents, or because there are quarter-tones that imitate lower sharps and higher flats?

141 can't supply Pythagorean either; it can do a good 16/9 in a sense, but it doesn't arise from two fourths.

Certainly what you say is misleading! two 706 cent fifths from C down give an excellent 16/9.

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> What? you mean exact JI ratios? I don't see how 94 is better than
141. The first has a near-just third of 383 cents, which is way too
low for the chain, and the latter one of 391 cents and another of 383
cents while preserving the chain. Surely, the matter is more
complicated than just maintaining nearer simple integer ratio
approximations.

This is the first time you've mentioned the chain of thirds. To have
these be only major and minor thirds, meantone does seem to be the
plan. However, I was not aware that maqam music required such
specificity in thirds. The 24-edo version has four neutral thirds in
its chain. Your 5-limit JI version has two Pythagorean minor thirds
(32/27) and one Pythaorean major third (81/64) in it. In 94-et, these
can be identified with 13/11 and 19/15 thirds respectively.

> In 94-et, the circle of fifths for the above becomes
> 702-702-702-677-702-613-702.
>
> What? The cycle is broken, the fifths are not in a tolerable range.

The cycle is broken in meantone also; one of the intervals is that old
musical devil, which can be taken as a 10/7. At least one of the cycle
has to be pretty flat, or the whole thing is flat, since 7-equal is flat.

> Right, this is the descending scale of Rast. In fact, Rast has many
other scales via which it can modulate without losing its Rast-ish
rasterization.

Could you give a list of JI scales which would accomplish this?

>
> > Arabic tuning breaks the chain, and so does the Yekta-Arel-Ezgi
> system used in Turkey (nowadays used in context of 53-tET). One
> obviously needs a meantone system to preserve Rast as the default
> gamut. Hence, 141-tET Rast is an excellent choice with the values:
>
> I don't know why it is obvious; 24-et supports meantone, but that
> isn't what Rast seems to be in it.
>
> What? 24-et supports meantone? That is ridiculous.

It's been the basis of Western tuning practice for the last 100 years,
so it's hardly ridiculous.

You say that because the fifth is 700 cents, or because there are
quarter-tones that imitate lower sharps and higher flats?

It's two cycles of 12edo.

> 141 can't supply Pythagorean either; it can do a good 16/9 in a
sense, but it doesn't arise from two fourths.
>
>
>
> Certainly what you say is misleading! two 706 cent fifths from C
down give an excellent 16/9.

1200-706 = 494, and 2*494 = 988. This is 8 cents flat from 16/9, and
the actual result from 141 is about 9 cents flat. I wouldn't call the
result Pythagorean.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Gene,
----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 30 Eylül 2005 Cuma 9:52
Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning

This is the first time you've mentioned the chain of thirds.

To my knowledge, this has been the crux of the issue from the beginning. Maybe I haven't been succinct enough in expressing myself.

To have these be only major and minor thirds, meantone does seem to be the plan.

I'm glad you approve at last.

However, I was not aware that maqam music required such
specificity in thirds.

141 is sufficient by a scratch.

The 24-edo version has four neutral thirds in
its chain.

Granted. We need those as well.

Your 5-limit JI version has two Pythagorean minor thirds
(32/27) and one Pythaorean major third (81/64) in it.

Exactly. Notice that 14/11 is also there.

In 94-et, these
can be identified with 13/11 and 19/15 thirds respectively.

141 does a good job of representing these as well.

>
> What? The cycle is broken, the fifths are not in a tolerable range.

The cycle is broken in meantone also;

Not in 141 meantone, it isn't. If tone drift is allowed, this is a cyclic meantone just like 19 or 31 or 43.

one of the intervals is that old musical devil, which can be taken as a 10/7.

What's wrong with it? It's a perfectly soothing interval.

At least one of the cycle has to be pretty flat, or the whole thing is flat, since 7-equal is flat.

What do you mean? Can you elaborate?

Could you give a list of JI scales which would accomplish this?

The list is very lenghty, all I can say for now is that Segah, the third natural diatonical tone, can go as low as 27/22 when Rast gradually modulates to Maqam Usshaq. In this case you need for sure a 16/9.

> What? 24-et supports meantone? That is ridiculous.

It's been the basis of Western tuning practice for the last 100 years, so it's hardly ridiculous.

You mean 12-EQ? But that is hardly considered meantone, unless you think the fifth is actually tempered by eleventh of a Pythagorean comma, in which case it is not philosophically 12-EQ at all.

You say that because the fifth is 700 cents, or because there are
quarter-tones that imitate lower sharps and higher flats?

It's two cycles of 12edo.

Where the chain is broken. If you don't mind my saying, aside from its notation (which should be employed flexibly IMO BTW), this temperament is useless for Maqam Music. Also, Western Music could do much better with your temperaments with pure thirds, or Wendell's natural synchronous tuning, or Secor's proportional beating scheme.

>
> Certainly what you say is misleading! two 706 cent fifths from C
down give an excellent 16/9.

1200-706 = 494, and 2*494 = 988. This is 8 cents flat from 16/9, and the actual result from 141 is about 9 cents flat. I wouldn't call the result Pythagorean.

I apologize, I meant to say two fifths of alternating sizes, one of 706, the other of 698. This yields 16/9 with negligable error in 141. Doesn't it satisfy you? Then 188 and 193 are two other choices to consider.

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

Hi Ozan,

>> Could you give a list of JI scales which would accomplish this?
>
>
> The list is very lenghty, all I can say for now is that Segah,
> the third natural diatonical tone, can go as low as 27/22 when
> Rast gradually modulates to Maqam Usshaq. In this case you need
> for sure a 16/9.

I wish I knew more about Maqam music, so that I could understand
its requirements and join in the search for an appropriate
equal temperament for it.

>>> What? 24-et supports meantone? That is ridiculous.
>>
>> It's been the basis of Western tuning practice for the last
>> 100 years, so it's hardly ridiculous.
>
> You mean 12-EQ? But that is hardly considered meantone,

12-ET is indeed considered a meantone in the theory
developed on these lists. This is very important.

> unless you think the fifth is actually tempered by eleventh
> of a Pythagorean comma,

That is one way of looking at it. But the most important thing
is that the identity 4F = 1T holds, where F is the best
approximation of 3:2 in the tuning and T is the best approx. of
5:4 in the tuning (modulo octaves).

> It's two cycles of 12edo.
>
> Where the chain is broken. If you don't mind my saying, aside
> from its notation (which should be employed flexibly IMO BTW),
> this temperament is useless for Maqam Music.

Is that really true? I thought it was actually used in
practice with *some* success. No?

>> 1200-706 = 494, and 2*494 = 988. This is 8 cents flat from
>> 16/9, and the actual result from 141 is about 9 cents flat. I
>> wouldn't call the result Pythagorean.
>
> I apologize, I meant to say two fifths of alternating sizes,
> one of 706, the other of 698. This yields 16/9 with negligable
> error in 141. Doesn't it satisfy you? Then 188 and 193 are two
> other choices to consider.

That won't satisfy, at least in the formal system we've been
using.

Ozan, are you familiar with Mohammed Gharib's music theory
work? It looks like his site is no longer up, but I believe
he indicated 43-tET for Maqam music (coming from an Iranian
perspective, if that matters). I hope I'm remembering
correctly. The URL was...

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/

Forgive me if we've discussed this before.

-Carl

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> Gene, 94-tET is not good enough, because Rast scale cannot be
mapped to the white keys by default, the possible fifths of three
different sizes are too far apart to sound harmonious in a chain, and
consequently the sharps and flats are distributed wrong.
>
> But to do justice to your suggestion, I admit that the cycle
Gb/Saba (715) Dd/Þehnaz (715) Ad/Hisar (715) Ed/Segah (715) Bd/Evc
fits perfectly well into this scheme.
>
> I do believe that 141 is a much better choice, and is more
deserving of the title `universal`.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan

Ozan, I suggest that you consider 301-ET, even if it's twice as many
tones as you're bargaining for. There are several things to consider:

1) 301 is a multiple of 43, so you can conveniently think of this as
a 43-tone meantone circle of (narrow) fifths (175deg301, or ~697.67
cents) with 6 additional pitches clustered around (3 above and 3
below) each tone.

2) The fifth of 176deg is within 0.3 cents of just, so a chain of
these gives you a low-error schismic temperament; the chain almost
closes after 118 places (falling short by 1deg) or 65 places
(overshooting by 2deg).

3) The (wide) fifth of 177deg is ~3.7 cents wide, slightly narrower
than the fifth of 17-ET; a chain of 17 wide fifths almost closes
after 17 places (falling short by 1deg).

4) 301 is 17-limit consistent (primes 29 and 31 also consistent),
with no 17-limit consonance having more than 2 cents error; max error
at the 7-limit is less than 0.7 cents, so this is very nearly JI.

5) A single degree of 301 already has a name: Saveur called it a
_heptameride_ (a _meride_ being 1deg43).

--George

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

George, you are not making my life any easier with your suggestion. Would there not be a viable solution that is less than 200, or preferably less than 150 tones per octave?

Or mayhap you and I are willing to work on this 301 together and eliminate at least 150 tones to make it work reasonably well?

Then again, I admit 43 pitch-clusters per octave elaborated thus seems pretty attractive.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: George D. Secor
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 30 Eylül 2005 Cuma 21:16
Subject: [tuning] 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning -- why not 301?

Ozan, I suggest that you consider 301-ET, even if it's twice as many tones as you're bargaining for. There are several things to consider:

1) 301 is a multiple of 43, so you can conveniently think of this as a 43-tone meantone circle of (narrow) fifths (175deg301, or ~697.67 cents) with 6 additional pitches clustered around (3 above and 3 below) each tone.

3) The (wide) fifth of 177deg is ~3.7 cents wide, slightly narrower
than the fifth of 17-ET; a chain of 17 wide fifths almost closes
after 17 places (falling short by 1deg).

5) A single degree of 301 already has a name: Saveur called it a
_heptameride_ (a _meride_ being 1deg43).

--George

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Thoughts evolve Gene. Besides, the issue has not yet come to how one can implement any one of those humongous systems of tuning to actual life-size instruments. If you will remember, that was my primary concern at the time. The modifications on my Qanun are complete BTW, all I need to do is go to Izmir to see the results after delivering my paper in the Istanbul Music Symposium.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Ward Smith
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 30 Eylül 2005 Cuma 23:27
Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning -- why not 301?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "George D. Secor" <gdsecor@y...> wrote:

> Ozan, I suggest that you consider 301-ET, even if it's twice as many
> tones as you're bargaining for. There are several things to consider:

For some reason Ozan thinks that would be too large, even though he is
already willing to consider large scales. I think almost my first
suggestion was that he consider using 270, and I think 301 was tossed
out in the course of that discussion.

🔗George D. Secor <gdsecor@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> George, you are not making my life any easier with your suggestion.
Would there not be a viable solution that is less than 200, or
preferably less than 150 tones per octave?
>
> Or mayhap you and I are willing to work on this 301 together and
eliminate at least 150 tones to make it work reasonably well?

Here are some ideas for you to consider:

For differing classifications (or families) of Maqamat you could
restrict yourself in each case to a subset of tones consisting of a
chain of fifths (either narrow, near-just, or wide) notated, if you
wish, notating them only with naturals, sharps, and/or flats.

For ratios of 11 and/or 13, you could introduce a second chain of
(near-just) fifths with tones halfway between the first chain (making
a chain of semi-fifths or neutral thirds), or you could use a single
chain of 17 tones (with wide fifths). Or you might want to use two
wide-5th chains of 17 tones (making a single chain of hemi-fourths,
62deg301) to introduce primes 5, 17, and 29.

Taking any of the above, allow pitch clusters of +-3 (or more)
heptamerides, as needed. To cut the number of tones in half, you
could consider the pitch clusters to be increments of 8 cents, i.e.,
+- only even numbers of heptamerides (particularly if your pitch
clusters are going to be on the order of +-20 or +-30 cents).

> Then again, I admit 43 pitch-clusters per octave elaborated thus
seems pretty attractive.

Yes, it's mostly a matter of how easily you can organize the tones in
your thinking. 301 offers several ways to do it, and you'll have to
decide which ones will work for you.

Best,

--George

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Hi Carl!
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 30 Eylül 2005 Cuma 20:32
Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning

I wish I knew more about Maqam music, so that I could understand
its requirements and join in the search for an appropriate
equal temperament for it.

Any assistance from such distinguished musicians as yourself is welcome! I wish I could be of more help, but I'm truly lacking in many ways.

12-ET is indeed considered a meantone in the theory
developed on these lists. This is very important.

Paul reminds me that meantone is nothing other than a tuning that tempers out the syntonic comma. Yet, I cannot bring myself to consider 12-EQ in the same category as Aaron, Silbermann, Werckmeister and Sorge meantones. Guess I'll have to get used to it straightaway, although it doesn't sound the least bit meantone to ME.

> unless you think the fifth is actually tempered by eleventh
> of a Pythagorean comma,

12-EQ third is one of the worst approximations to 5:4 I've ever encountered.

Is that really true? I thought it was actually used in
practice with *some* success. No?

It is used, widely in the Arabic World, with great success too, because it's easy to execute, easy to explain, easy to learn... Who cares if the pitches are all wrong? Who can possibly hear an error of 30-40 cents? Nah...

That won't satisfy, at least in the formal system we've been
using.

Inconsistent mapping? Yes I realize that. Which is why I suggest 188 and 193. George suggests 301 in a 43 framework, which seems possible to execute on the Tanbur.

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/

No, I'm not familiar with this name. Paul is right, I am not very knowledged in Persian Art Music. But I see that they have realized the necessity of employing historical meantones for Maqams/Dastgahs, which is indicative that I'm somewhat on the right track, don't you think?

Forgive me if we've discussed this before.

-Carl

That's quite alright. I enjoy your contributions.
Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> I wish I knew more about Maqam music, so that I could understand
> its requirements and join in the search for an appropriate
> equal temperament for it.
>
> Any assistance from such distinguished musicians as yourself is
> welcome! I wish I could be of more help, but I'm truly lacking in
> many ways.

Well, let's see what we can come up with together in the coming
weeks and months.

> 12-ET is indeed considered a meantone in the theory
> developed on these lists. This is very important.
>
> Paul reminds me that meantone is nothing other than a tuning
> that tempers out the syntonic comma. Yet, I cannot bring myself
> to consider 12-EQ in the same category as Aaron, Silbermann,
> Werckmeister and Sorge meantones.

Strictly speaking (in the vernacular of the tuning-math list,
anyway), things like Werckmeister are *scales*, whereas meantone
is a *temperament*, from which an infinity of scales may be
drawn.

>Guess I'll have to get used to it straightaway, although it
>doesn't sound the least bit meantone to ME.

In the harpsichord and piano-tuning realm, "meantone" is
commonly used to refer to a particular scale; a 12-tone
scale derrived from the meantone temperament as discussed
on the tuning-math list.

> > unless you think the fifth is actually tempered by eleventh
> > of a Pythagorean comma,
>
> That is one way of looking at it. But the most important thing
> is that the identity 4F = 1T holds, where F is the best
> approximation of 3:2 in the tuning and T is the best approx. of
> 5:4 in the tuning (modulo octaves).
>
> 12-EQ third is one of the worst approximations to 5:4 I've ever
> encountered.

There are worse approximations of that interval in the remote
keys of Werckmeister III. But I agree that the 5:4 approximations
of 12-ET are lacking. But for the purposes of qualifying as a
*meantone temperament*, the important thing is that they are the
*best ones available in the tuning*, and that they arise from
a chain of four of the *best fifths available in the tuning*.

> > It's two cycles of 12edo.
> >
> > Where the chain is broken. If you don't mind my saying, aside
> > from its notation (which should be employed flexibly IMO BTW),
> > this temperament is useless for Maqam Music.
>
> Is that really true? I thought it was actually used in
> practice with *some* success. No?
>
> It is used, widely in the Arabic World, with great success too,
>because it's easy to execute, easy to explain, easy to learn...
>Who cares if the pitches are all wrong? Who can possibly hear an
>error of 30-40 cents? Nah...

> > I apologize, I meant to say two fifths of alternating sizes,
> > one of 706, the other of 698. This yields 16/9 with negligable
> > error in 141. Doesn't it satisfy you? Then 188 and 193 are two
> > other choices to consider.
>
> That won't satisfy, at least in the formal system we've been
> using.
>
> Inconsistent mapping? Yes I realize that.

Yes.

> Which is why I suggest 188 and 193. George suggests 301 in a 43
> framework, which seems possible to execute on the Tanbur.

Hmm...

> Ozan, are you familiar with Mohammed Gharib's music theory
> work? It looks like his site is no longer up, but I believe
> he indicated 43-tET for Maqam music (coming from an Iranian
> perspective, if that matters). I hope I'm remembering
> correctly. The URL was...
>
> http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/
>
> No, I'm not familiar with this name. Paul is right, I am not
> very knowledged in Persian Art Music. But I see that they have
> realized the necessity of employing historical meantones for
> Maqams/Dastgahs, which is indicative that I'm somewhat on the
> right track, don't you think?

Yes, I suppose so.

-Carl

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > Ozan, are you familiar with Mohammed Gharib's music theory
> > > work? It looks like his site is no longer up, but I believe
> > > he indicated 43-tET for Maqam music (coming from an Iranian
> > > perspective, if that matters). I hope I'm remembering
> > > correctly. The URL was...
> > >
> > > http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/
> > >
> > > Forgive me if we've discussed this before.
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> > This website was about Persian music, something Ozan admitted to
> > knowing very little about.
>
> Right, I said "...Iranian ... if that matters".
>
> -Carl

I don't believe Gharib considered Iranian/Persian music to be Maqam music -- so I just
wanted to make sure it was clear what he was writing about. Kraig has spoken about the
similarities between Persian music and Indian raga, and I've heard a bit of that myself.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

During the Ottoman period encompassing the 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, our music was greatly influenced by Persians, who were also practicing Maqam Music with nearly the same instruments. Persian Music is based on `Dastgahs`, which is equivalent - to an extent - to the Arabic word `Maqam`, which in turn should stand for the Indian word `Raga`.

The geography spanning North Africa to Hindustan, sweeping half the Balkans up to Crimea and all the way to the border of China stays within the cultural boundary of the Middle East. The music of this entire region is based on Maqam Music, spearheaded as part of campaigns of Islamic Jihad for centuries, no matter what nationalist zealots say.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salı 1:55
Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning

I don't believe Gharib considered Iranian/Persian music to be Maqam music -- so I just wanted to make sure it was clear what he was writing about. Kraig has spoken about the similarities between Persian music and Indian raga, and I've heard a bit of that myself.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

I can't understand what you're saying here, particularly in the final
sentence.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
> During the Ottoman period encompassing the 15th, 16th and 17th
centuries, our music was greatly influenced by Persians, who were
also practicing Maqam Music with nearly the same instruments. Persian
Music is based on `Dastgahs`, which is equivalent - to an extent - to
the Arabic word `Maqam`, which in turn should stand for the Indian
word `Raga`.
>
> The geography spanning North Africa to Hindustan, sweeping half the
Balkans up to Crimea and all the way to the border of China stays
within the cultural boundary of the Middle East. The music of this
entire region is based on Maqam Music, spearheaded as part of
campaigns of Islamic Jihad for centuries, no matter what nationalist
zealots say.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salý 1:55
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning
>
>
>
>
> I don't believe Gharib considered Iranian/Persian music to be
Maqam music -- so I just wanted to make sure it was clear what he was
writing about. Kraig has spoken about the similarities between
Persian music and Indian raga, and I've heard a bit of that myself.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > > > Ozan, are you familiar with Mohammed Gharib's music theory
> > > > work? It looks like his site is no longer up, but I believe
> > > > he indicated 43-tET for Maqam music (coming from an Iranian
> > > > perspective, if that matters). I hope I'm remembering
> > > > correctly. The URL was...
> > > >
> > > > http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/
> > > >
> > > > Forgive me if we've discussed this before.
> > > >
> > > > -Carl
> > >
> > > This website was about Persian music, something Ozan
> > > admitted to knowing very little about.
> >
> > Right, I said "...Iranian ... if that matters".
> >
> > -Carl
>
> I don't believe Gharib considered Iranian/Persian music to be
> Maqam music

Ok.

His site is well-archived on the Internet Archive...

http://tinyurl.com/azh3u?__GharibPersianMusic1999InternetArchive

...he doesn't mention the term "maqam" that I can see, but
this page...

http://www.classicalarabicmusic.com/maqam.htm

...claims, "An unmistakable relationship exists between these
three families in which the same modal structure is known as
Makam in Turkey, Destgah in Iran, Mugam in Azerbaijan, Shash
Maqom in Central Asia and Maqam in Arabic music."

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Umm, I was just raving again, forgive me. Or the point was that Persian Music is also greatly influenced by Maqam Music, so much so that it IS a genre of Maqam Music, although the name Maqam is not used to define it.

Maqam music does not belong to a single nation such as Arabs or Turks or Persians, although each one practices a whole different variety I'll admit. They are most welcome to do so BTW. However, they should refrain from categorizing Tanburi Djemil or Hadji Arif Bey as composers of Arabic Music, or Tatyos Efendi and Tanburi Ishak as Turkish composers, when it is obvious that these people lived in Istanbul, and were Ottomans, which was hardly a nationality until the 20th century.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 0:02
Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning

I can't understand what you're saying here, particularly in the final
sentence.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Carl, that last sentence is very true in my humble opinion.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 1:29
Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning

Ok.

His site is well-archived on the Internet Archive...

http://tinyurl.com/azh3u?__GharibPersianMusic1999InternetArchive

...he doesn't mention the term "maqam" that I can see, but
this page...

http://www.classicalarabicmusic.com/maqam.htm

-Carl

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > > Ozan, are you familiar with Mohammed Gharib's music theory
> > > > > work? It looks like his site is no longer up, but I believe
> > > > > he indicated 43-tET for Maqam music (coming from an Iranian
> > > > > perspective, if that matters). I hope I'm remembering
> > > > > correctly. The URL was...
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/
> > > > >
> > > > > Forgive me if we've discussed this before.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Carl
> > > >
> > > > This website was about Persian music, something Ozan
> > > > admitted to knowing very little about.
> > >
> > > Right, I said "...Iranian ... if that matters".
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> > I don't believe Gharib considered Iranian/Persian music to be
> > Maqam music
>
> Ok.
>
> His site is well-archived on the Internet Archive...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/azh3u?__GharibPersianMusic1999InternetArchive
>
> ...he doesn't mention the term "maqam" that I can see, but
> this page...
>
> http://www.classicalarabicmusic.com/maqam.htm
>
> ...claims, "An unmistakable relationship exists between these
> three families in which the same modal structure is known as
> Makam in Turkey, Destgah in Iran, Mugam in Azerbaijan, Shash
> Maqom in Central Asia and Maqam in Arabic music."
>
> -Carl

Interesting . . . I don't see Raga or Indian music mentioned there,
while Ozan seemed to be claiming that that is also very similar to
(subsumed by?) Maqam. I suppose it's a subjective matter, but to
these ears, Indian music occupies a different world (or worlds)
entirely. Perhaps I misunderstood Ozan.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

> > ...claims, "An unmistakable relationship exists between these
> > three families in which the same modal structure is known as
> > Makam in Turkey, Destgah in Iran, Mugam in Azerbaijan, Shash
> > Maqom in Central Asia and Maqam in Arabic music."
>
> Interesting . . . I don't see Raga or Indian music mentioned there,
> while Ozan seemed to be claiming that that is also very similar to
> (subsumed by?) Maqam. I suppose it's a subjective matter, but to
> these ears, Indian music occupies a different world (or worlds)
> entirely. Perhaps I misunderstood Ozan.

Another site I visited did claim that raga were an equivalent
concept, and this is borne out by the definitions I've read of
maqam and raga.

Clearly Turkish, North Indian, South Indian, Persian, and
Iraqi music are different. But clearly they are also related.
A recent poster said they (or at least some of them) descend
from the ancient Greeks... but I would suspect that, since
the Greeks were constantly fighting the Persians, that ancient
Greek music is just one point on a tree of the area's musical
heritage.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

Precisely Carl, this Maqam Music may indeed go as far back as Hittites and Sumerians.
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 2:23
Subject: [tuning] Re: 141-edo as a universal maqam tuning

Another site I visited did claim that raga were an equivalent
concept, and this is borne out by the definitions I've read of
maqam and raga.

-Carl