Question for Ozan

Yo Ozan...thanks for the post, pardon this inquiry, might of missed this definition earlier: the Arel-Ezgi tuning is 53/octave? You said it's the most dominant, want to be sure, best...HHH

Neil, no, the Yekta-Arel-Ezgi tuning is based on 11 fifths up, 12 fifths down from the fundamental tone. Yet the results are almost the same as 53-tET's degrees:

0,4,5,8,9,13,14,17,18,22,23,26,27,30,31,35,36,39,40,44,45,48,49,52,53

With not so much a difference as a single cent. Thus, the comma-system is thought in terms of 53-tET.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil Haverstick
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 18:36
Subject: [tuning] Question for Ozan

Yo Ozan...thanks for the post, pardon this inquiry, might of missed this
definition earlier: the Arel-Ezgi tuning is 53/octave? You said it's the
most dominant, want to be sure, best...HHH

Ozan,
may I join the queue of curious questioners?

Is the Yekta-cum-derivatives system an effort to
mirror a musical practice, or is it an invention which
has subsequently altered musical practice?
Example: In your paper, and in several of your posts
here, you have described perde rast as
1, 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, 27/16, 15/8, 2; and you ask for
a G major notation for Mansur without the antenna flat
ahead of the b.
What I don't understand (yet, my reading is still in
progress, hence this post), is where the 5/4 third and
the 15/8 seventh come from, as none of the major
theorists from al-Mausili to Ibn Sina has it. When
were those ratios introduced? By Yekta?
Thanks for your patience,
Michael

___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com

Dear Michael,
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Zapf
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Ekim 2005 Salı 18:52
Subject: [tuning] Re: Question for Ozan

Ozan,
may I join the queue of curious questioners?

Of course!

Is the Yekta-cum-derivatives system an effort to
mirror a musical practice, or is it an invention which
has subsequently altered musical practice?
Example: In your paper, and in several of your posts
here, you have described perde rast as
1, 9/8, 5/4, 4/3, 3/2, 27/16, 15/8, 2;

That's not perde Rast, that is the fundamental scale of the Rast Maqam, which is the basic set of natural pitches in the `Key of Rast` according to my understanding.

and you ask for a G major notation for Mansur without the antenna flat ahead of the b.

Antenna flat? No, the G major just shows the pitches heard in the standard diapason. All Neys must read Rast as a C Major scale tuned to 5-limit default ratios.

Remember! Maqam Music perdes are relative frequencies and Rast is always the first degree (unless a semitone takes its place), which must be written and read as a G cleffed DO below the staff line by the Neys and similar Key Transposable instruments like the Clarinet, Trumpet, French Horn, etc...

It is pretty obvious that perde Rast is the first diatonical degree free from the diapason, and there is only one way to notate all the natural tones of the Ney as natural noteheads.

You play yourself the Ney, observe that the second harmonic is the lowest default for all Neys, and Rast is the first pitch thus produced with all the holes except ends closed. Below Rast (and Gevasht which is a semitone blown perpendicularly like Rast) the rest of the pitches behave like pedal tones all the way to Kaba Rast. That is why these are called "Dem-Perdeler", or "Breathy-Tones".

What I don't understand (yet, my reading is still in
progress, hence this post), is where the 5/4 third and
the 15/8 seventh come from, as none of the major
theorists from al-Mausili to Ibn Sina has it.

No, but Safiyuddin had provided the Pythagorean equivalents for them seven centuries years ago.

When were those ratios introduced? By Yekta?

Yes, except that I consider perde Huseyni to be 27/16 in Maqam Rast, and 5/3 in Maqam Segah. These ratios were re-introduced later by Ekrem Karadeniz, and probably by his elder colleague Abdulkadir Tore.

Thanks for your patience,
Michael

My pleasure.

Cordially,
Ozan

Ozan,

I found a post a while back of yours that said you played some
alternate tunings on a Yamaha P-200. I own that digital piano myself,
but from what I understand, it can not be microtuned...did you use it
instead to trigger another modules or something?

Best,
Aaron.

Remind me which post was that??

No one can micro-tune P-200, unless you are willing to take a screwdriver
and dismantle the little bugger. I saw its innards BTW, I can tell you it
was not a pretty sight!

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@akjmusic.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 05 Temmuz 2006 �ar�amba 19:07
Subject: [tuning] Question for Ozan

>
> Ozan,
>
> I found a post a while back of yours that said you played some
> alternate tunings on a Yamaha P-200. I own that digital piano myself,
> but from what I understand, it can not be microtuned...did you use it
> instead to trigger another modules or something?
>
> Best,
> Aaron.
>
>
>
>

On Wednesday 05 July 2006 9:07 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> Remind me which post was that??
>
> No one can micro-tune P-200, unless you are willing to take a screwdriver
> and dismantle the little bugger. I saw its innards BTW, I can tell you it
> was not a pretty sight!
>
> Oz.

Hi, Ozan,

It was the following post:
/tuning/topicId_56452.html#56458

Best,
Aaron.

Ah, I used FTS to retune it.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Aaron Krister Johnson" <aaron@akjmusic.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 06 Temmuz 2006 Per�embe 8:54
Subject: Re: [tuning] Question for Ozan

> On Wednesday 05 July 2006 9:07 pm, Ozan Yarman wrote:
> > Remind me which post was that??
> >
> > No one can micro-tune P-200, unless you are willing to take a
screwdriver
> > and dismantle the little bugger. I saw its innards BTW, I can tell you
it
> > was not a pretty sight!
> >
> > Oz.
>
> Hi, Ozan,
>
> It was the following post:
> /tuning/topicId_56452.html#56458
>
> Best,
> Aaron.
>