back to list

Keys and modes

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/4/2005 6:37:06 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "klaus schmirler" <KSchmir@online.de>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 ï¿½arï¿½amba 2:24
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A 17-note scale in an alternative Western History

[ks]
No, I didn't talk about scales at all. I do find "mode" useful as a
general term to talk about specific modal traditions like Gregorian
chant, ragas, of maqams. When you happen to walk by a New Grove, try
looking at the mode article there. You'll be surprised how many
traditions, possibilities of rules, ... and pages there are.

[oz]
I have given the definition from the Harvard's some months ago, did I not?
The definition for the mode extends well beyond the conventional usage these
days, because you and others want to infer things from it that is not
necessarily contained within it. Specifically, you assume mode can be
converted to any "tonality".

Mode is only the
> changing of the tonic in a given economical scale,

[ks]
No, it's not. The popular terms for the rotations of the white note
scale are derived from Henricus Glarean's Dodekachordon, which treated
12 modes, two each on C, D, E, F, G, and A. The two kinds were
authentic and plagal, with their finals at the bottom of the compass
or in the middle. The modes on C and A were Glarean's invention,
acknowledging what would become the Major and Minor modes of Western
music (he included the B modes for completeness' sake, but called them
unusable for their lacking fifth/fourth). The modes on D, E, F, and G
had their own traditional melodic turns, finals and recitation tones
(sometimes called "dominants").

[oz]
And just because the tonic was given a singular variance with plagal modes
invented a thousand years after Greeks, you expect me to agree that the
Maqamat are the same as the modes which do not even alterate?

[ks]
The current popular use of Glarean's mode names is probably due to
Joseph Schillinger, who suggested "transposition by modes" to
introduce variation or to arrive at new ideas.

[oz]
So you said previously some months ago.

[ks]
Note that he would use the interval structure of one mode with melodies that
owed their existence to the melodic rules of a different one. Schillinger's
teachings are the grounds on which the BerkLee College was built, and
from there it obviously spread throughout the world.

[oz]
Excuse me, maybe I'm out of this world, but I do not agree with Mr.
Schillinger's expanded conceptions on mode. Maqams are not modes, period. It
is an ugly prejudice, an amateurish misconception to assume that the term
mode can be stretched so far as to embrace the highly complicated tonal
structure of Maqams, which can modulate, transpose, alterate, pitch-bend at
whim.

[ks]
The popular notion of Dorian, Myxolydian, Ionian derives from playing around
with, perverting, if you want, modes on a superficial level, but modes are a
far richer concept.

[oz]
So you want to make us believe. Fortunately, I am very sceptical concerning
your claims. Are there any solid examples that demonstrate Maqam-like
behaviour in modal compositions?

>
> Key, on the other hand, is not bound up exclusively in Western
> practive as you assume, because there is an inherent harmony as
> implied by the usage of a particular Maqam. This clandestine
> harmony exists in the Ney, Kemencha, Tanbur, Oud, and even the
> Qudum (bowl sized timpani made from animal skin). For sure, tonics
> and dominants exist in the Maqamat. It's just that they are not
> always a pure fifth apart!

[ks]
Then they are modal recitation tones, not the dominants of functional
harmony.

[oz]
There are indeed dominants of functional harmony, but not the functional
harmony you imply which seems to be monopolized by the West!

> You assume that a key with many accidentals should modulate to keys
> with more accidentals in Classical sonatas?

[ks]
I said the opposite, that a piece in a key with many sharps may have a
tendency to modulate into keys with less sharps rather than advancing
towards the double sharps. This was my attempt to make a key determine
the fate of the music; it has nothing to do with what I think.

[oz]
Exactly. the key determines the fate, or the SEYIR of the music. The mode
does not. It is simply the changing of the tonic, or the final note with the
Plagals. This by itself is not enough to define the Maqamat.

>
> It is equally easy to modulate in both directions, and I see this
> done in many pieces from the Classical and Baroque eras. So, a key
> does not specify an exact direction, it merely includes the element
> of direction, modulation, transposition, alteration, etc... Also,
> you neglect the role of tonics an octave apart since your ear is
> conditioned by `octave equivalance`. In the world of Maqamat, the
> pitches of the fundamental gamut are classified all the way up
> three octaves from Kaba Rast to Tiz Gerdaniye, and these are all
> relative frequencies with Rast at 1/1 and they are all produced
> from the Ney! It does matter at which relative frequency one comes
> to rest in Maqam Music, even when (tempered) octaves of a piano
> register the same to Western ears. You overlook the fact that a
> Maqam cannot be called a scale or mode for that very reason.

[ks]
No, it can't be called a key, because the key of C ends on a C - any
C. Call it a mode, and the necessary question about what defines this
mode will have to follow.

[oz]
Exactly. the Key of Segah must end on perde Segah, not elsewhere. It is not
a mode, especially a Plagal one!

Notice
> the concept `Key of C Major`. Likewise take note of the concept
> `Key of Huzzam`.

[ks]
But with a grain of salt: the Major mode and the Huzzam mode.

[oz]
Then, pray tell me how this Huzzam mode of yours will progress in a piece.
Better yet, why don't you try to compose a piece in your Huzzam mode and let
me judge if it sounds like Maqam Music?

Their tonal resources are entirely different and
> there is no implication of octave equivalance with Huzzam, while
> there indeed IS with C Major.

[ks]
Because their modal systems are concerned with different things.

[oz]
George Secor at least shows the decency to admit that his experiments with a
17-note temperament, although evidently containing pitches from Maqam
Huseini, do not necessarily imply Maqam Music at all. And you claim that you
can compose a Huzzam peshrev with the limited information contained in a
measly mode? Go ahead then, let us see what you can produce.

C Major must end with C no matter
> where it may be, a composition in Huzzam must end with perde Segah
> (hence, 3rd place/diatonical degree in Persian), and it is only to
> be found at 27/22 to 5/4 from Rast, whose absolute frequency
> changes with the Ahenk (diapason).

[ks]
But the rules for the Major mode are the same from the key of Dbb to
B#, just as you can adjust the pitch of a makam to the range of the
singer and the music.

[oz]
Exactly. Rast is a Rast even when sung in Sipurde, Mustahsen, Kiz, Mansur or
Shah. The rules of key (hence, tonality) do not change, because only the
diapason changes.

As for mode, a scale starting on
> the 8th degree is not different from a scale starting on the 1st
> degree of a diatonical scale, hence the term `mode` makes no
> distinction between these.
>

[ks]
I noticed that my dictionary gives "makam" as the only translation of
Tonart (key), whereas Tongeschlecht (the major-minor distinction)
doesn't even appear.

[oz]
For once, a German source speaks the truth. And that without any references
to Western tonality!

[ks]
My immediate reaction is to blame the translation
on someone like Hindemith or rather Donizetti who appropriated the
next available Turkish term to teach them Turks some real music - it
certainly doesn't fit the matter.

[oz]
I almost detect the supremasist racism of Nazi Germany by some
Aryan-minded protagonist. I sneer mockingly at the turpitude.

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

10/5/2005 11:51:11 AM

Ozan Yarman wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "klaus schmirler" <KSchmir@online.de>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 05 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 2:24
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: A 17-note scale in an alternative Western History
>
>
> [ks]
> No, I didn't talk about scales at all. I do find "mode" useful as a
> general term to talk about specific modal traditions like Gregorian
> chant, ragas, of maqams. When you happen to walk by a New Grove, try
> looking at the mode article there. You'll be surprised how many
> traditions, possibilities of rules, ... and pages there are.
>
> [oz]
> I have given the definition from the Harvard's some months ago, did I not?

Yes, and I have tried to explain how that very narrow conception of
its meaning came about, also months ago. I repeat, have a look at the
definitions in the New Groove, New Oxford Companion or a similar
encyclopedia.

>
> [ks]
> Note that he would use the interval structure of one mode with melodies that
> owed their existence to the melodic rules of a different one. Schillinger's
> teachings are the grounds on which the BerkLee College was built, and
> from there it obviously spread throughout the world.
>
> [oz]
> Excuse me, maybe I'm out of this world, but I do not agree with Mr.
> Schillinger's expanded conceptions on mode.

If you read more carefully, you would notice that I cited Schillinger
because his practice does reduce "mode" to the relative tonic within a
scale and does not expand, but disregard all the other aspects that
make up the identity of a mode.

> [ks]
> The popular notion of Dorian, Myxolydian, Ionian derives from playing around
> with, perverting, if you want, modes on a superficial level, but modes are a
> far richer concept.
>
> [oz]
> So you want to make us believe. Fortunately, I am very sceptical concerning
> your claims. Are there any solid examples that demonstrate Maqam-like
> behaviour in modal compositions?

**************

>
>
>>Key, on the other hand, is not bound up exclusively in Western
>>practive as you assume, because there is an inherent harmony as
>>implied by the usage of a particular Maqam. This clandestine
>>harmony exists in the Ney, Kemencha, Tanbur, Oud, and even the
>>Qudum (bowl sized timpani made from animal skin). For sure, tonics
>>and dominants exist in the Maqamat. It's just that they are not
>>always a pure fifth apart!
>
>
> [ks]
> Then they are modal recitation tones, not the dominants of functional
> harmony.
>
> [oz]
> There are indeed dominants of functional harmony, but not the functional
> harmony you imply which seems to be monopolized by the West!

"Functional harmony" is usually understood as an exclusively Western
concept, which is concerned with harmonies of stacked up thirds and
the relations of their roots, and where roots in a fifth relationship
play a special role in defining closure and tonality.

How can you answer "exactly" here if you eventually arrive at

> the Key of Segah must end on perde Segah, not elsewhere.

this? (This is happening all the time!)

> It is not
> a mode, especially a Plagal one!
>
>
> Notice
>
>>the concept `Key of C Major`. Likewise take note of the concept
>>`Key of Huzzam`.
>
>
> [ks]
> But with a grain of salt: the Major mode and the Huzzam mode.
>
> [oz]
> Then, pray tell me how this Huzzam mode of yours will progress in a piece.
> Better yet, why don't you try to compose a piece in your Huzzam mode and let
> me judge if it sounds like Maqam Music?
>
> Their tonal resources are entirely different and
>
>>there is no implication of octave equivalance with Huzzam, while
>>there indeed IS with C Major.
>
>
> [ks]
> Because their modal systems are concerned with different things.
>
> [oz]
> George Secor at least shows the decency to admit that his experiments with a
> 17-note temperament, although evidently containing pitches from Maqam
> Huseini, do not necessarily imply Maqam Music at all. And you claim

Please read what I wrote and tell me where I claimed I could compose
anything with limited information.

that you
> can compose a Huzzam peshrev with the limited information contained in a
> measly mode? Go ahead then, let us see what you can produce.
>

If you are content with a defective dictionary where an encyclopedia
would tell you something else ... The missing term would do very well
as a German term for "mode". My guess is it could have been "makam" if
the Ottomans had invited a Western composer to study Turkish music or
if the Austrians hadn't just found percussion instruments among the
spoils of war, but learned from Turkish musicians.

>
> [ks]
> My immediate reaction is to blame the translation
> on someone like Hindemith or rather Donizetti who appropriated the
> next available Turkish term to teach them Turks some real music - it
> certainly doesn't fit the matter.

[Mercifully snipped to leave Turkey a chance to be admitted into the
European Union]

klaus

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/7/2005 5:47:43 AM

> I have given the definition from the Harvard's some months ago, did I not?

[ks]
Yes, and I have tried to explain how that very narrow conception of
its meaning came about, also months ago. I repeat, have a look at the
definitions in the New Groove, New Oxford Companion or a similar
encyclopedia.

[oz]
And how would that be any better than Harvard's in your opinion Klaus?

[ks]
If you read more carefully, you would notice that I cited Schillinger
because his practice does reduce "mode" to the relative tonic within a
scale and does not expand, but disregard all the other aspects that
make up the identity of a mode.

[oz]
So, I understand that you focus on not the Greek modes, but the
Ecclesiastical modes and Glarean's additions to these, which are:

http://www.recorderhomepage.net/galilei.html#Modes

Tonic Finalis Mode
D D Dorian
A D Hypodorian
E E Phrygian
B E Hypophrygian
F F Lydian
C F Hypolydian
G G Mixolydian
D G Hypomixolydian

(Glarean's additions)

A A Aeolian
E A Hypoaeolian
C C Ionian
G C Hypoionian

According to "The History of Western Music, 6th edition by Grout & Palisca",
p. 52 onward, Medieval Church modes are all based on the same one common
diatonical major scale, with tonic, tenor and finalis as identifying
characteristics in addition to a regularly flattened B here and there to
avoid the tritone (which nullifies those containing it in theory). This
seems to be the only alteration worth mentioning. Yet, all these are hardly
sufficient to determine the compass of a maqam.

[ks]
"Functional harmony" is usually understood as an exclusively Western
concept, which is concerned with harmonies of stacked up thirds and
the relations of their roots, and where roots in a fifth relationship
play a special role in defining closure and tonality.

[oz]
So, you admit that the West is not ashamed of usurping the concept when we
have thousands of Maqam Music compositions that stack up thirds and exhibit
tonal characteristics in relation to the root positions of chords even in
monophony? Talk about cultural monopoly of concepts. Is it perhaps the
Western musical memory is much too short to discern such a thing?

Here, listen to some pieces for the sake of your edification, especially by
Tanburi Cemil, Ercumend Batanay and Othman Nuri Ozpekel at this address:

http://www.zeryab.com/Updates.htm

>
>
> [ks]
> No, it can't be called a key, because the key of C ends on a C - any
> C. Call it a mode, and the necessary question about what defines this
> mode will have to follow.
>
> [oz]
> Exactly.
[ks]
How can you answer "exactly" here if you eventually arrive at
[oz]
> the Key of Segah must end on perde Segah, not elsewhere.
[ks]
this? (This is happening all the time!)

[oz]
You apparently have no idea that the segah of a Tanbur tuned to Bass
Bolahenk, the segah of an oud tuned to Bolahenk and the segah of a Kemencha
tuned to Bolahenk Nisfiye are octaves apart. In performance, segah ends at
different octave levels each.

>
> [oz]
> George Secor at least shows the decency to admit that his experiments with
a
> 17-note temperament, although evidently containing pitches from Maqam
> Huseini, do not necessarily imply Maqam Music at all. And you claim
[ks]
Please read what I wrote and tell me where I claimed I could compose
anything with limited information.

[oz]
You uttered the phrase "modal systems". You assume to be able to define a
Maqam when you don't know how to use it? The Maqamat are not limited in
their information content at all. That's what I've been trying to
tell you since the beginning. On the other hand, an ecclesiastical mode is
limited to the extent that you cannot compose anything with it even if you
become aware
of its ambitus, tonic and finalis. You need plainchant, organum,
contrapuntus, canon, so forth besides in order to use it properly.

That is why the concept of tonality evolved from modality, providing
additional guidelines for making harmonious music. It is pretty obvious that
Ionian does not funtion as the Key of C Major, nor does Aeolian function as
the Key of A Minor.

Whereas a mode is a skeletal framework upon which tonality evolved, a Maqam,
since at least five-to-six centuries, cannot be conceived seperately from
its respective Seyir, by which highly tonal melodies are constructed.
Thusly, a Maqam is synonymous with Key, or Tonality.

> [ks]
> I noticed that my dictionary gives "makam" as the only translation of
> Tonart (key), whereas Tongeschlecht (the major-minor distinction)
> doesn't even appear.
>
> [oz]
> For once, a German source speaks the truth. And that without any
references
> to Western tonality!
[ks]
If you are content with a defective dictionary where an encyclopedia
would tell you something else ... The missing term would do very well
as a German term for "mode". My guess is it could have been "makam" if
the Ottomans had invited a Western composer to study Turkish music or
if the Austrians hadn't just found percussion instruments among the
spoils of war, but learned from Turkish musicians.

[oz]
There indeed have been certain Europeans who visited hereabouts in the past.
Charles Fonton came to Istanbul in 1746, stayed until 1753, and wrote the
following on Maqam Music in his Essay Sur La Musique Orientale:

"In Oriental Music, there are, just like we have, 7 main pitches and these
are given Persian names:

Yegah, Ashiran, Araq, Rast, Dugah, Segah, Chargah.

These are the Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Si of the French and the
A,B,C,D,E,F,G of the Germans. However, the Easterners possess only the Ut of
this octave and their instruments do not contain any lower pitch other than
Re. The only exception to this is the violin. In this instrument, which is
the same as ours, the Ut of the lowest string is named Chargah just like the
one an octave above it. All the other perde names change according to the
octave. Hence, the first Re (Yegah) is named Neva in the second octave, and
Ashiran, Huseyni. Thus the pitches are these:

Yegah, Re-D
Ashiran, Mi-E
Araq, Fa-F (should have been F#)
Rast, Sol-G
Dugah, La-A
Segah, Si-B
Chargah, Ut-C
Neva, Re-D
Huseyni, Mi-E
Evdj, Fa-F (should have been F#)
Gerdaniye, Sol-G
Muhayyer, La-A
Tiz Segah, Si-B
Tiz Chargah, Ut-C
Tiz Neva, Re-D
Tiz Huseyni, Mi-E
Tiz Evdj, Fa-F (should have been F#)

Besides these whole (natural) tones, there are semitones which Easterners
call "nim". Nim means half in Persian. This word is used in a general way
for both the sharps and flats. However, these too acquire special names
depending on which register they may be found. Their convention is like the
convention of pitches which acquire new names according to their octave
level. It is highly strange that Eastern Music has more pitches than ours.
In order to ascertain the reality of this incredible situation, it is
sufficient to analyze the instrument which they call the Tanbur....

There are 2 nim perdes between Ashiran and Araq, and again 2 between Araq
and Rast. This goes on like this up to Huseyni. Above Huseyni, there are
only a single nim between...

Yet those more refined in Oriental Music will say that there is an equal
amount of nim tones in each octave, but that some of these are not used in
any of the aires and thus are not placed on the tanbur.

Aside from these irregularities, the Easterners, as we said previously,
possess more half-tones than us. In our octave there are 5 half-tones. There
is not more than one semitone between two whole-tones. Nevertheless, it is a
reality that by dividing the whole tone into two equal parts, we acquire
only one semitone. Yet, if we divide it into several parts, the pitches are
not anymore semitones, but one third, or quarter tones. These sounds are
meaningless to us. We neither recognize, nor utilize them. But these are the
tones that give Oriental Music its special character. Just like the passage
from one pitch to another, from one tone color to another, the emphasis on
nuances done unexpectdedly prevents the proper notation of Oriental Aires.
These transitions, these small tones, the naturally produced pitches during
recitation, are not to be found in our music. Unless new signs or another
staff notation is developed, we are prevented from transcribing them...

Even if in reality it would be possible to notate a piece, it will not be
possible for an Easterner to recognize this piece once it is played by a
European, because it is necessary to include with each note, each tone, the
special flavour of the Orient, and only the masters who are acquainted with
that music can do it appreciably.

[ks]
[Mercifully snipped to leave Turkey a chance to be admitted into the
European Union]

[oz]
[Compassionately censored in order that Europe might save face and be
forgiven for its pretentious arrogance]

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

10/7/2005 9:55:51 AM

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>>I have given the definition from the Harvard's some months ago, did I not?
>
>
> [ks]
> Yes, and I have tried to explain how that very narrow conception of
> its meaning came about, also months ago. I repeat, have a look at the
> definitions in the New Groove, New Oxford Companion or a similar
> encyclopedia.
>
> [oz]
> And how would that be any better than Harvard's in your opinion Klaus?

It is wider. "Mode" refers to the organisation of notes from a melodic
point of view, and there are different modal principles more or less
important in different parts of the world.

>
> *
>
> [ks]
> If you read more carefully, you would notice that I cited Schillinger
> because his practice does reduce "mode" to the relative tonic within a
> scale and does not expand, but disregard all the other aspects that
> make up the identity of a mode.
>
> [oz]
> So, I understand that you focus on not the Greek modes, but the
> Ecclesiastical modes and Glarean's additions to these, which are:
>
> http://www.recorderhomepage.net/galilei.html#Modes

This site is a terrible mixture of modern, renaissance, and mediaval
terms and meanings. For instance, a "dominant" in functional harmony
is a fifth, necessarily because of that V-I dominant-tonic movement
that defines it; in plainsong, it is one of the terms for the
recitation tone/tenor, which may be a fifth, a fourth (in the E mode)
or a third (generally in the plagal modes).

When you take a look at Gregorian chants and their theory, you will
find that only few of the songs fit the theory. This is due to the
fact that anything like scientific thinking was unknown, you learned
what was known to the elders. So the theory really is a the ancient
Greek system as taught by Boethius. Greek or ecclesiastical doesn't
matter because my point is simply that "mode" means much more than
shifting a final around.

>
> Tonic Finalis Mode
> D D Dorian
> A D Hypodorian
> E E Phrygian
> B E Hypophrygian
> F F Lydian
> C F Hypolydian
> G G Mixolydian
> D G Hypomixolydian

"Tonic" may mean the final or a differing starting note. Its use here
doesn't make sense.

>
>
> (Glarean's additions)
>
> A A Aeolian
> E A Hypoaeolian
> C C Ionian
> G C Hypoionian
>
> According to "The History of Western Music, 6th edition by Grout & Palisca",
> p. 52 onward, Medieval Church modes are all based on the same one common
> diatonical major scale, with tonic, tenor and finalis as identifying
> characteristics in addition to a regularly flattened B here and there to
> avoid the tritone (which nullifies those containing it in theory). This
> seems to be the only alteration worth mentioning. Yet, all these are hardly
> sufficient to determine the compass of a maqam.

I never said that makamlar are plainsong. I said they are a system of
modes, not of keys.

>
>
> *
>
> [ks]
> "Functional harmony" is usually understood as an exclusively Western
> concept, which is concerned with harmonies of stacked up thirds and
> the relations of their roots, and where roots in a fifth relationship
> play a special role in defining closure and tonality.
>
> [oz]
> So, you admit that the West is not ashamed of usurping the concept when we
> have thousands of Maqam Music compositions that stack up thirds and exhibit
> tonal characteristics in relation to the root positions of chords even in
> monophony? Talk about cultural monopoly of concepts. Is it perhaps the
> Western musical memory is much too short to discern such a thing?

I only know that functional harmony developed in the West, and it
developed out of polyphonic music. Many melodies can take a
harmonization built on cadences later, but this is not the way they
were composed.

>
> Here, listen to some pieces for the sake of your edification, especially by
> Tanburi Cemil, Ercumend Batanay and Othman Nuri Ozpekel at this address:
>
> http://www.zeryab.com/Updates.htm
>
> *
>
>
>>
>>[ks]
>>No, it can't be called a key, because the key of C ends on a C - any
>>C. Call it a mode, and the necessary question about what defines this
>>mode will have to follow.
>>
>>[oz]
>>Exactly.
>
> [ks]
> How can you answer "exactly" here if you eventually arrive at
> [oz]
>
>>the Key of Segah must end on perde Segah, not elsewhere.
>
> [ks]
> this? (This is happening all the time!)
>
>
> [oz]
> You apparently have no idea that the segah of a Tanbur tuned to Bass
> Bolahenk, the segah of an oud tuned to Bolahenk and the segah of a Kemencha
> tuned to Bolahenk Nisfiye are octaves apart. In performance, segah ends at
> different octave levels each.
> >
>>[oz]
>>George Secor at least shows the decency to admit that his experiments with
>
> a
>
>>17-note temperament, although evidently containing pitches from Maqam
>>Huseini, do not necessarily imply Maqam Music at all. And you claim
>
> [ks]
> Please read what I wrote and tell me where I claimed I could compose
> anything with limited information.
>
>
> [oz]
> You uttered the phrase "modal systems".

So did Carl Lumma, and you agreed wholeheartedly about the last
sentence from his pos that sai that maqams and rags belong to one
modal system.

You assume to be able to define a
> Maqam when you don't know how to use it?

I'm not defining a makam. I'm trying to explain what "mode" means.

The Maqamat are not limited in
> their information content at all. That's what I've been trying to
> tell you since the beginning. On the other hand, an ecclesiastical mode is
> limited to the extent that you cannot compose anything with it even if you
> become aware
> of its ambitus, tonic and finalis.

No. But it helps when you know the repertory that is already there.
How to introduce a tenor, where jumps are allowed etc. are rarely
given in the scale representations you see.

You need plainchant, organum,
> contrapuntus, canon, so forth besides in order to use it properly.

A chant is a modal composition. The others are polyphonic devices and
tell you nothing about the construction of a melody.

>
> That is why the concept of tonality evolved from modality, providing
> additional guidelines for making harmonious music. It is pretty obvious that
> Ionian does not funtion as the Key of C Major, nor does Aeolian function as
> the Key of A Minor.
>
> Whereas a mode is a skeletal framework upon which tonality evolved, a Maqam,
> since at least five-to-six centuries, cannot be conceived seperately from
> its respective Seyir, by which highly tonal melodies are constructed.
> Thusly, a Maqam is synonymous with Key, or Tonality.
>
>
>
>>[ks]
>>I noticed that my dictionary gives "makam" as the only translation of
>>Tonart (key), whereas Tongeschlecht (the major-minor distinction)
>>doesn't even appear.

More about the dictionary issue: Since English tends to mix up Tonart
and Tongeschlecht, I had a look at French. Tonart, the tonic of a
major or minor mode, is ton or tonalité. Tongeschlecht is ... mode.
Words and concepts are not the same things.

> > [oz]
> There indeed have been certain Europeans who visited hereabouts in the past.
> Charles Fonton came to Istanbul in 1746, stayed until 1753, and wrote the
> following on Maqam Music in his Essay Sur La Musique Orientale:

This is interesting. Fonton is bypassed in all my books here.

klaus

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

10/9/2005 10:47:06 AM

Hi klaus and Ozan,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:

> >> [ks]
> >> I noticed that my dictionary gives "makam" as the only
> >> translation of Tonart (key), whereas Tongeschlecht (the
> >> major-minor distinction) doesn't even appear.
>
> More about the dictionary issue: Since English tends to
> mix up Tonart and Tongeschlecht, I had a look at French.
> Tonart, the tonic of a major or minor mode, is ton or
> tonalité. Tongeschlecht is ... mode. Words and concepts
> are not the same things.

I've mostly only skimmed this this discussion, but this
caught my attention because i just only minutes ago read
something very similar to it, in connection with Schoenberg.

Bryan R. Simms 2000, _The Atonal Music of Arnold Schoenberg_,
p. 9:

>> "He [Schoenberg, in his theoretical writings] distinguished,
>> to begin with, between tonality (_Tonalitaet_ ["ae" is "a"
>> with an umlaut]) and key (_Tonart_). Tonality was the broader
>> concept of which key was a specific example. ... Since all
>> tones have some degree of interrelationship, he wrote,
>> all music must have a tonality, including the ostensibly
>> 'atonal'.
>> Key, however, was a specific system of scalar and chordal
>> allegiances to a tonic note. ..."

The confusion over the meaning of "mode" goes back quite far.
In Boethius's treatise, c.505, he uses the word "tone" (Latin
_tonus_) to mean a particular scale, but as he describes a
whole system of "tones", it's not entirely clear whether he
was referring to the same set of pitches with a rotating
"tonic" emphasis on each pitch in turn, or to a set of scales
where the "tonic" remained on the same pitch and all the
others changed.

Later authors used the word "mode" to mean the same thing
as Boethius's "tone", but it still doesn't clarify which
conception of differing scales was meant.

PS -- as always, i was horrified to see the "Nazi" reference
pop up here ... but i chuckled over the way the two of you
handled it and diffused the strong feelings. Good job.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/11/2005 6:48:47 PM

Hi all,

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Ozan Yarman wrote:
... [snipt]
> [oz]
> There indeed have been certain Europeans who visited hereabouts in the
past.
> Charles Fonton came to Istanbul in 1746, stayed until 1753, and wrote the
> following on Maqam Music in his Essay Sur La Musique Orientale:
>
> "In Oriental Music, there are, just like we have, 7 main pitches and these
> are given Persian names:
>
> Yegah, Ashiran, Araq, Rast, Dugah, Segah, Chargah.
>
> These are the Ut, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Si of the French and the
> A,B,C,D,E,F,G of the Germans. However, the Easterners possess only the Ut
of
> this octave and their instruments do not contain any lower pitch other
than
> Re. The only exception to this is the violin. In this instrument, which is
> the same as ours, the Ut of the lowest string is named Chargah just like
the
> one an octave above it. All the other perde names change according to the
> octave. Hence, the first Re (Yegah) is named Neva in the second octave,
and
> Ashiran, Huseyni. Thus the pitches are these:
>
> Yegah, Re-D
> Ashiran, Mi-E
> Araq, Fa-F (should have been F#)
> Rast, Sol-G
> Dugah, La-A
> Segah, Si-B
> Chargah, Ut-C
> Neva, Re-D
> Huseyni, Mi-E
> Evdj, Fa-F (should have been F#)
> Gerdaniye, Sol-G
> Muhayyer, La-A
> Tiz Segah, Si-B
> Tiz Chargah, Ut-C
> Tiz Neva, Re-D
> Tiz Huseyni, Mi-E
> Tiz Evdj, Fa-F (should have been F#)
>
> Besides these whole (natural) tones, there are semitones which Easterners
> call "nim". Nim means half in Persian. This word is used in a general way
> for both the sharps and flats. However, these too acquire special names
> depending on which register they may be found. Their convention is like
the
> convention of pitches which acquire new names according to their octave
> level. It is highly strange that Eastern Music has more pitches than ours.
> In order to ascertain the reality of this incredible situation, it is
> sufficient to analyze the instrument which they call the Tanbur....
>
> There are 2 nim perdes between Ashiran and Araq, and again 2 between Araq
> and Rast. This goes on like this up to Huseyni. Above Huseyni, there are
> only a single nim between...
>
> Yet those more refined in Oriental Music will say that there is an equal
> amount of nim tones in each octave, but that some of these are not used in
> any of the aires and thus are not placed on the tanbur.
>
> Aside from these irregularities, the Easterners, as we said previously,
> possess more half-tones than us. In our octave there are 5 half-tones.
There
> is not more than one semitone between two whole-tones. Nevertheless, it is
a
> reality that by dividing the whole tone into two equal parts, we acquire
> only one semitone. Yet, if we divide it into several parts, the pitches
are
> not anymore semitones, but one third, or quarter tones. These sounds are
> meaningless to us. We neither recognize, nor utilize them. But these are
the
> tones that give Oriental Music its special character. Just like the
passage
> from one pitch to another, from one tone color to another, the emphasis on
> nuances done unexpectdedly prevents the proper notation of Oriental Aires.
> These transitions, these small tones, the naturally produced pitches
during
> recitation, are not to be found in our music. Unless new signs or another
> staff notation is developed, we are prevented from transcribing them...
>
> Even if in reality it would be possible to notate a piece, it will not be
> possible for an Easterner to recognize this piece once it is played by a
> European, because it is necessary to include with each note, each tone,
the
> special flavour of the Orient, and only the masters who are acquainted
with
> that music can do it appreciably.

Well, I'm impressed! Obviously a product of the Enlightenment, that man;
took the trouble to listen and record facts accurately, and aware of the
limitations of his own culture. Such a courteous visitor and true scholar
must have been well received wherever he went.

Ozan, do you have a link where I may find the original Essaie?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 9/10/05

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/11/2005 6:48:56 PM

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005, klaus schmirler wrote:
> Ozan Yarman wrote:
> >>I have given the definition from the Harvard's some months ago, did I
not?
> >
> > [ks]
> > Yes, and I have tried to explain how that very narrow conception of
> > its meaning came about, also months ago. I repeat, have a look at the
> > definitions in the New Groove, New Oxford Companion or a similar
> > encyclopedia.
> >
> > [oz]
> > And how would that be any better than Harvard's in your opinion Klaus?
>
> It is wider. "Mode" refers to the organisation of notes from a melodic
> point of view, and there are different modal principles more or less
> important in different parts of the world.

... [snipt]

> > That is why the concept of tonality evolved from ...

one kind of

> > ... modality, providing
> > additional guidelines for making harmonious music. It is pretty obvious
that
> > Ionian does not funtion as the Key of C Major, nor does Aeolian function
as
> > the Key of A Minor.
> >
> > Whereas a mode is a skeletal framework upon which tonality evolved, ...

Not so. A mode has never been a skeletal framework (except perhaps
for theorists). To any musician, a mode would have a scale and certain
prominent notes as its skeleton, but would also encompass much more -
particular feelings and moods, specific rhythmic and melodic patterns,
ornaments, occasions for use and so on. I doubt that "mode" was ever
a truly analytic concept, even in Europe, until after the decline of
Romanticism ...

> > ... a Maqam,
> > since at least five-to-six centuries, cannot be conceived seperately
from
> > its respective Seyir, by which highly tonal melodies are constructed.

Ozan, could you please enlighten us a little on Seyir, perhaps by use
of an example?

> > Thusly, a Maqam is synonymous with Key, or Tonality.

I would hope that a Turkish maqam was more than this. Otherwise, it
would just be a European key - with funnny tunings. And of course, an
Arabic maqam is not at all synonymous with either Key or Tonality; it
still retains much more of its ancient modal spirit. (Even when it is
accompanied by the most dreadfully syrupy western string ensemble
to make music for soap-operas in Cairo.)

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.13/126 - Release Date: 9/10/05

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/14/2005 5:41:52 AM

Hi Monz!
----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 09 Ekim 2005 Pazar 20:47
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

Hi klaus and Ozan,

I've mostly only skimmed this this discussion, but this
caught my attention because i just only minutes ago read
something very similar to it, in connection with Schoenberg.

Bryan R. Simms 2000, _The Atonal Music of Arnold Schoenberg_,
p. 9:

This is precisely what I have been trying to explain from the beginning. All Maqams have scalar and even clandestine chordal allegiances to a tonic note (or additionally finalis).

Later authors used the word "mode" to mean the same thing
as Boethius's "tone", but it still doesn't clarify which
conception of differing scales was meant.

Nevertheless, all modes are all derived from the same diatonical major scale, and I shall not incline to call the Maqamat modes.

PS -- as always, i was horrified to see the "Nazi" reference
pop up here ... but i chuckled over the way the two of you
handled it and diffused the strong feelings. Good job.

I was likewise horrified to see the phrase: `To teach them Turks some real music...` Fortunately, I am used to dealing with chauvanist supremacism.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/14/2005 5:35:35 AM

Klaus,

----- Original Message -----
From: "klaus schmirler" <KSchmir@online.de>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 07 Ekim 2005 Cuma 19:55
Subject: Re: [tuning] Keys and modes

>
> [oz]
> And how would that be any better than Harvard's in your opinion Klaus?

It is wider. "Mode" refers to the organisation of notes from a melodic
point of view, and there are different modal principles more or less
important in different parts of the world.

-----------

I beg to differ.

> [oz]
> So, I understand that you focus on not the Greek modes, but the
> Ecclesiastical modes and Glarean's additions to these, which are:
>
> http://www.recorderhomepage.net/galilei.html#Modes

------------------------

To think that theory only matters on paper makes me wonder what these
`modes` really are.

>
> Tonic Finalis Mode
> D D Dorian
> A D Hypodorian
> E E Phrygian
> B E Hypophrygian
> F F Lydian
> C F Hypolydian
> G G Mixolydian
> D G Hypomixolydian

"Tonic" may mean the final or a differing starting note. Its use here
doesn't make sense.

------------------

How about tonal center, or tone-of-origin then?

>
I never said that makamlar are plainsong. I said they are a system of
modes, not of keys.

--------------------

And I said they are akin to keys more than they can be defined as modes,
simply because all the modes utilize just one diatonical scale, while the
Maqamat utilize many scales.

>
I only know that functional harmony developed in the West, and it
developed out of polyphonic music. Many melodies can take a
harmonization built on cadences later, but this is not the way they
were composed.

-------------------------

Perhaps Margo Schulter's `focality` deserves more mention.

>
> [oz]
> You uttered the phrase "modal systems".

So did Carl Lumma, and you agreed wholeheartedly about the last
sentence from his pos that sai that maqams and rags belong to one
modal system.

------------------------

Where? I do not recall having done so. Even if I did, I must have misread,
mis-interpreted or dismissed that remark.

No. But it helps when you know the repertory that is already there.
How to introduce a tenor, where jumps are allowed etc. are rarely
given in the scale representations you see.

--------------------

The concept of key does this pretty well.

You need plainchant, organum,
> contrapuntus, canon, so forth besides in order to use it properly.

A chant is a modal composition. The others are polyphonic devices and
tell you nothing about the construction of a melody.

----------------

Don't they though?

>
>>[ks]
>>I noticed that my dictionary gives "makam" as the only translation of
>>Tonart (key), whereas Tongeschlecht (the major-minor distinction)
>>doesn't even appear.

More about the dictionary issue: Since English tends to mix up Tonart
and Tongeschlecht, I had a look at French. Tonart, the tonic of a
major or minor mode, is ton or tonalitï¿½. Tongeschlecht is ... mode.
Words and concepts are not the same things.

-----------------------

So you say.

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/14/2005 6:35:06 AM

Dear brother Yahya,
----- Original Message -----
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 12 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 4:48
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

Well, I'm impressed! Obviously a product of the Enlightenment, that man; took the trouble to listen and record facts accurately, and aware of the limitations of his own culture. Such a courteous visitor and true scholar must have been well received wherever he went.

He was diligent enough to observe that Maqam Music was at best an esoteric art-form in the eyes of a European.

Ozan, do you have a link where I may find the original Essaie?

Would that I could give you a link! You must do some library-research I'm afraid.

Regards,
Yahya

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/14/2005 7:52:10 AM

Yahya,

> > Whereas a mode is a skeletal framework upon which tonality evolved, ...

Not so. A mode has never been a skeletal framework (except perhaps
for theorists). To any musician, a mode would have a scale and certain prominent notes as its skeleton, but would also encompass much more - particular feelings and moods, specific rhythmic and melodic patterns, ornaments, occasions for use and so on. I doubt that "mode" was ever a truly analytic concept, even in Europe, until after the decline of Romanticism ...

-------------

Obviously, we think different things on mode.

> > ... a Maqam,
> > since at least five-to-six centuries, cannot be conceived seperately
from
> > its respective Seyir, by which highly tonal melodies are constructed.

Ozan, could you please enlighten us a little on Seyir, perhaps by use of an example?

----------------

The Seyir, or the flow of the melody is dependant on the scale(s) a Maqam uses. For example, the Rast Maqam whose scale proper is Harmonic Major can sometimes travel to Usshaq, Huseini, Segah and even more remote keys such as Saba, Nihawend, Kurdi, etc... This phenomenon is not researched very well I'm afraid. You should listen to the examples here:

http://www.zeryab.com/Updates.htm

> > Thusly, a Maqam is synonymous with Key, or Tonality.

I would hope that a Turkish maqam was more than this. Otherwise, it
would just be a European key - with funnny tunings.

-----------------

I don't know what more you want it to be. Indeed, in such condescending terms, a Turkish Maqam is "just a European key with a funny tuning".

----------------

And of course, an Arabic maqam is not at all synonymous with either Key or Tonality; it still retains much more of its ancient modal spirit. (Even when it is accompanied by the most dreadfully syrupy western string ensemble to make music for soap-operas in Cairo.)

--------------

Talk about musical supremacism! Maqam Music everywhere is tonal, because the pitch relationships in Maqam scales retain their tonal characteristics that set them apart from modes.

Regards,
Yahya

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/14/2005 1:51:58 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Klaus,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "klaus schmirler" <KSchmir@o...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 07 Ekim 2005 Cuma 19:55
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Keys and modes
>
> >
> > [oz]
> > And how would that be any better than Harvard's in your opinion
Klaus?
>
> It is wider. "Mode" refers to the organisation of notes from a
melodic
> point of view, and there are different modal principles more or less
> important in different parts of the world.
>
> -----------
>
> I beg to differ.

On what basis? The Harvard book is truly a joke when lined up next to
the other references Klaus mentioned in this thread, particularly
when it comes to the concepts discussed around here.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/14/2005 2:53:04 PM

Sheer weight of pages does not add up to a better understanding of concepts. But obviously, you are a firm believer in quantity as compared to conciseness of definition.
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 14 Ekim 2005 Cuma 23:51
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

>
> I beg to differ.

On what basis? The Harvard book is truly a joke when lined up next to
the other references Klaus mentioned in this thread, particularly
when it comes to the concepts discussed around here.

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

10/14/2005 3:54:52 PM

Ozan Yarman wrote:

> Klaus,
> > ----- Original Message -----
> From: "klaus schmirler" <KSchmir@online.de>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 07 Ekim 2005 Cuma 19:55
> Subject: Re: [tuning] Keys and modes
> > >>[oz]
>>And how would that be any better than Harvard's in your opinion Klaus?
> > > It is wider. "Mode" refers to the organisation of notes from a melodic
> point of view, and there are different modal principles more or less
> important in different parts of the world.
> > -----------
> > I beg to differ.

Differ from me or from the encyclopedia?

> When you take a look at Gregorian chants and their theory, you will
> find that only few of the songs fit the theory. This is due to the
> fact that anything like scientific thinking was unknown, you learned
> what was known to the elders. So the theory really is a the ancient
> Greek system as taught by Boethius. Greek or ecclesiastical doesn't
> matter because my point is simply that "mode" means much more than
> shifting a final around.
> > ------------------------
> > To think that theory only matters on paper makes me wonder what these
> `modes` really are.

They were subclassified into having less or more tones than in theory or into sticking with one mode or "pereginating". The repertory was there before they applied Greek theory to it.

> > > >>Tonic Finalis Mode
>>D D Dorian
>>A D Hypodorian
>>E E Phrygian
>>B E Hypophrygian
>>F F Lydian
>>C F Hypolydian
>>G G Mixolydian
>>D G Hypomixolydian
> > > "Tonic" may mean the final or a differing starting note. Its use here
> doesn't make sense.
> > ------------------
> > How about tonal center, or tone-of-origin then?

"Lower end of the range" seems to be what they mean.

> > > > I never said that makamlar are plainsong. I said they are a system of
> modes, not of keys.
> > --------------------
> > And I said they are akin to keys more than they can be defined as modes,
> simply because all the modes utilize just one diatonical scale, while the
> Maqamat utilize many scales.

This is the very reason why I would call them modes. There is nothing inherently bad, by the way, about transposing modes as far as voice and instruments allow. Naming a key, however, consists of a pitch designation in addition to the mode name.

> > > I only know that functional harmony developed in the West, and it
> developed out of polyphonic music. Many melodies can take a
> harmonization built on cadences later, but this is not the way they
> were composed.
> > -------------------------
> > Perhaps Margo Schulter's `focality` deserves more mention.

I found one usenet post where she uses that term, and there she describes the usual cadences in 3-part music. The octaves or unisons derive from the stepwise approach to "structure notes" in a given melody. They come from the mode.

OK, now I see it. Above, I used "cadence" in the functional harmonic sense, as in V-I. This is about melodic cadences that early polyphony took over from the modes. You approach a (e.g. Dorian) finalis by steps; if the tenor goes E-D, the cantus goes C(#)-D. A third part has to end in A. Counterpoint allows A or G as the note before (depending on context, since A is dissonace when E is in the bass and has to be introduced properly). But with A, the third part would also not partake in the cadence, so it's G. And if the C is sharp, so is the G. In melodic terms, this is a double approach to D. In harmonic terms, it would be C# minor-D without a third, but implied minor. So in modern, functional terms, this is no cadence at all. Functional harmony would have opted for the A and solved the dissonant fourth problem by putting the A in the bass. This solution was only possible when a fourth, bass, part was introduced in the 15th century.

> > So did Carl Lumma, and you agreed wholeheartedly about the last
> sentence from his pos that sai that maqams and rags belong to one
> modal system.
> > ------------------------
> > Where? I do not recall having done so. Even if I did, I must have misread,
> mis-interpreted or dismissed that remark.

Yes, I was inexact. Carl was quoting from a web site, and thre was no mention of rags:

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."

> > > The Maqamat are not limited in
> >>their information content at all. That's what I've been trying to
>>tell you since the beginning. On the other hand, an ecclesiastical mode is
>>limited to the extent that you cannot compose anything with it even if you
>>become aware
>>of its ambitus, tonic and finalis.
> > > No. But it helps when you know the repertory that is already there.
> How to introduce a tenor, where jumps are allowed etc. are rarely
> given in the scale representations you see.
> > --------------------
> > The concept of key does this pretty well.

But a piece in D doesn't use jumps and scalewise progressions differently from a piece in F, as long as they are in the same mode?

> > > > You need plainchant, organum,
> >>contrapuntus, canon, so forth besides in order to use it properly.
> > > A chant is a modal composition. The others are polyphonic devices and
> tell you nothing about the construction of a melody.
> > ----------------
> > Don't they though?

One of my professors was of the minority opinion that the full modal system (the octoechos) was still in use during the high renaissance whereas even contemporary sources were speaking of modi commixti (fusions of the authentic and plagal modes) in polyphony. If tenor and cantus were authentic, said he, altus and bassus were plagal and vice versa. The finales could not be relied on, of course, since this music uses triads. Any other deviations from the modes as they should be were ascribed to modulations; there was usually some reason in the text to adapt the ethos and thus the mode of the music, and the so-called mixture of modes was really an intentional expressive device. I find this intriguing, but I don't know the music well enough to have my own opinion about its truth. Anyway, he stood more or less alone against the scientific community claiming that melodies built from modal principles could and have been used in polyphonic music.

You can write a canon and only think about harmony. But the result will most likely be arpeggiatied triads that outline a cadence and not a melody with its own strong sense of direction.

klaus

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

10/14/2005 4:52:44 PM

Ozan Yarman wrote:

> > I was likewise horrified to see the phrase: `To teach them Turks > some real music...` Fortunately, I am used to dealing with > chauvanist supremacism.
> Ozan, I'm sorry you took it like hat. In context, I meant that phrase
to portray the supposed sentiment of someone who's been "imported"
from the West to assemble and train a military band - and it probably really is the sentiment of the one who brought him in. I myself don't use "them" as a deictic if I can help it. I am also aware where the percussion instruments in Western military music really come from.

klaus

> My immediate reaction is to blame the translation on someone like > Hindemith or rather Donizetti who appropriated the next available > Turkish term to teach them Turks some real music - it certainly > doesn't fit the matter.

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

10/15/2005 12:15:17 AM

I read someones master thesis at UCLA which showed the Bach use of Acidentals was consistent to how they were and not used in modal writing.
This would add credence to the minority opinion

You can write a canon and only think about harmony. But the result will most likely be arpeggiatied triads that outline a cadence and not a melody with its own strong sense of direction.

klaus

> >

--
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

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

10/15/2005 1:32:42 AM

Kraig Grady wrote:
> I read someones master thesis at UCLA which showed the Bach use of Acidentals was consistent to how they were and not used in modal writing.
> This would add credence to the minority opinion

Sorry wrong era. Bach knew about major and minor (and I think he set his keys according to one of these). When he treated older material, however, he stuck to the original modes (and introduced accidentals).

The expressive modes vs modus commixtus question is about earlier music like Lasso, Byrd or Palestrina.

Intriguing as it is, it raises the "modern" "Elitism!" and "Can you even hear that?" questions. Actually, this makes it something of a challenge and even more intriguing to me.

Firstly it is not sure whether an ordinary listener was able to experience the ethos of a plainsong - people possible took their mood cues mostly from the rhythm (as they probably do today) - the notational system was ready for it. (Caveat: lugubrious, "dark" music was music that used many "black" notes, so was lively according to our understanding).

Granted this, it may not be possible to tell when some voices in a four part texture leave their ordinary compass and switch from plagal to authentic for half a phrase. Other things like a cadence on an unusual tone are easier to hear.

It also implies that diatonic music could be highly expressive (the opposite of what is generally said about Palestrina). So why did monody appear in the opera from 1600 on? And where do we put Gesualdo and others, who used chromaticism (microtonality! back on topic!) for expressive purposes?

klaus

> > > > One of my professors was of the minority opinion that the full modal > system (the octoechos) was still in use during the high renaissance > whereas even contemporary sources were speaking of modi commixti > (fusions of the authentic and plagal modes) in polyphony. If tenor and > cantus were authentic, said he, altus and bassus were plagal and vice > versa. The finales could not be relied on, of course, since this music > uses triads. Any other deviations from the modes as they should be > were ascribed to modulations; there was usually some reason in the > text to adapt the ethos and thus the mode of the music, and the > so-called mixture of modes was really an intentional expressive > device. I find this intriguing, but I don't know the music well enough > to have my own opinion about its truth. Anyway, he stood more or less > alone against the scientific community claiming that melodies built > from modal principles could and have been used in polyphonic music.
> > You can write a canon and only think about harmony. But the result > will most likely be arpeggiatied triads that outline a cadence and not > a melody with its own strong sense of direction.
> > > klaus
> > > > > > > >> >>
> >

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/15/2005 8:24:00 AM

Hi Ozan,

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, you wrote:
> Dear brother Yahya,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 12 Ekim 2005 ï¿½arï¿½amba 4:48
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes
>
> > Well, I'm impressed! Obviously a product of the Enlightenment, that
man; took the trouble to listen and record facts accurately, and aware of
the limitations of his own culture. Such a courteous visitor and true
scholar must have been well received wherever he went.
>
> He was diligent enough to observe that Maqam Music was at best an esoteric
art-form in the eyes of a European.
>
> > Ozan, do you have a link where I may find the original Essaie?
>
> Would that I could give you a link! You must do some library-research I'm
afraid.
>
This is always possible :-). May I ask where you found your copy
(or translation) of the Essaie?

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.0/132 - Release Date: 13/10/05

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/15/2005 8:24:35 AM

Hi Ozan,

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, you wrote:
> Yahya,
> > > Whereas a mode is a skeletal framework upon which tonality evolved,
...
>
> > Not so. A mode has never been a skeletal framework (except perhaps
> > for theorists). To any musician, a mode would have a scale and certain
> > prominent notes as its skeleton, but would also encompass much more -
> > particular feelings and moods, specific rhythmic and melodic patterns,
> > ornaments, occasions for use and so on. I doubt that "mode" was ever
> > a truly analytic concept, even in Europe, until after the decline of
> > Romanticism ...
> -------------
>
> Obviously, we think different things on mode.

Obviously, you disagree with me! But what you think on mode, I don't
know. Perhaps you could clarify?

> > > ... a Maqam,
> > > since at least five-to-six centuries, cannot be conceived seperately
> > > from
> > > its respective Seyir, by which highly tonal melodies are constructed.
>
> > Ozan, could you please enlighten us a little on Seyir, perhaps by use of
an example?
> ----------------
>
> The Seyir, or the flow of the melody is dependant on the scale(s)
> a Maqam uses. For example, the Rast Maqam whose scale proper is
> Harmonic Major can sometimes travel to Usshaq, Huseini, Segah
> and even more remote keys such as Saba, Nihawend, Kurdi, etc...
> This phenomenon is not researched very well I'm afraid. You
> should listen to the examples here:
>
> http://www.zeryab.com/Updates.htm

Thanks. I'll listen some more. I don't know enough about the
Turkish maqamat to identify the keys, altho from what you've
written elsewhere, perhaps all that is necessary is to hear the
transition from one key (tonal centre) to another? And do you
identify the Seyir solely by the keys it uses, or also by melodic
contour?

> > > Thusly, a Maqam is synonymous with Key, or Tonality.
>
> > I would hope that a Turkish maqam was more than this.
> > Otherwise, it
> > would just be a European key - with funnny tunings.
>
> -----------------
>
> I don't know what more you want it to be. Indeed, in such
> condescending terms, a Turkish Maqam is "just a European
> key with a funny tuning".

Must be my turn to be misunderstood! :-(

I only want it to be what it is. I still don't know what that is.

> > And of course, an Arabic maqam is not at all synonymous
> > with either Key or Tonality; it still retains much more of
> > its ancient modal spirit. (Even when it is accompanied by
> > the most dreadfully syrupy western string ensemble to
> > make music for soap-operas in Cairo.)
>
> --------------
>
> Talk about musical supremacism! ...

Yours, mine or the soap-operas? :-)

> ... Maqam Music everywhere
> is tonal, because the pitch relationships in Maqam scales
> retain their tonal characteristics that set them apart from
> modes.

Now, see, that's just what I don't get. Are the pitch
relationships in maqam scales anything more than the
intervals between the pitches? Are there defined melodic
relationships between pitches? What are these tonal
characteristics of which you speak? And how do these
set them apart from modes?

When listening to those samples of Ercumend Batanay
earlier, I heard the same kind of thing that I hear when
listening to classical Indian raga music, or traditional
Malay music. Sure, the intervals were different, and so
too the rhythms, in characteristic ways. I certainly never
heard a systematic use of harmonies built in thirds. If
anyone had asked me - without knowing your views - I
would have classified that music as modal, as opposed to
homophonic or harmonic. So far, none of your
explanations have shown me why that is the wrong general
category for that music.

I _would_ like to understand where the difference lies.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.0/132 - Release Date: 13/10/05

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

10/15/2005 9:51:35 AM

I am quite aware it is a latter era. the point being if he was still using accidentals in this way, those before him were also.
for example not using a raised tonic to go to the 2nd tone in Dorian, but would use the lowered second degree to go to the tonic From: klaus schmirler >I read someones master thesis at UCLA which showed the Bach use of Acidentals was consistent to how they were and not used in modal writing.
>> This would add credence to the minority opinion
> >
Sorry wrong era.

>
>> One
>
>
>
> >
>> >>
>> >>
>
> >

--
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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/16/2005 6:31:52 AM

Klaus,
----- Original Message -----
From: klaus schmirler
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 15 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 1:54
Subject: Re: [tuning] Keys and modes

>
> It is wider. "Mode" refers to the organisation of notes from a melodic
> point of view, and there are different modal principles more or less
> important in different parts of the world.
>
> -----------
>
> I beg to differ.

Differ from me or from the encyclopedia?

Depends.

> To think that theory only matters on paper makes me wonder what these
> `modes` really are.

They were subclassified into having less or more tones than in theory
or into sticking with one mode or "pereginating". The repertory was
there before they applied Greek theory to it.

I shall take a look at this Grove definition on mode at my earliest leisure.

>
> How about tonal center, or tone-of-origin then?

"Lower end of the range" seems to be what they mean.

It certainly won't hold then, as the register of a mode is well beyond what is conceived in theory.

>
> And I said they are akin to keys more than they can be defined as modes,
> simply because all the modes utilize just one diatonical scale, while the
> Maqamat utilize many scales.

This is the very reason why I would call them modes. There is nothing
inherently bad, by the way, about transposing modes as far as voice
and instruments allow. Naming a key, however, consists of a pitch
designation in addition to the mode name.

Exactly. You need a pitch designation so that you can safely modulate to Segah from Huzzam without a change in key. Besides, mode is a fundamental ingredient of key, not vice versa.

>
> Perhaps Margo Schulter's `focality` deserves more mention.

I found one usenet post where she uses that term, and there she
describes the usual cadences in 3-part music. The octaves or unisons
derive from the stepwise approach to "structure notes" in a given
melody. They come from the mode.

OK, now I see it. Above, I used "cadence" in the functional harmonic
sense, as in V-I. This is about melodic cadences that early polyphony
took over from the modes. You approach a (e.g. Dorian) finalis by
steps; if the tenor goes E-D, the cantus goes C(#)-D. A third part has
to end in A. Counterpoint allows A or G as the note before (depending
on context, since A is dissonace when E is in the bass and has to be
introduced properly). But with A, the third part would also not
partake in the cadence, so it's G. And if the C is sharp, so is the G.
In melodic terms, this is a double approach to D. In harmonic terms,
it would be C# minor-D without a third, but implied minor. So in
modern, functional terms, this is no cadence at all. Functional
harmony would have opted for the A and solved the dissonant fourth
problem by putting the A in the bass. This solution was only possible
when a fourth, bass, part was introduced in the 15th century.

So thou sayest!

>
> Where? I do not recall having done so. Even if I did, I must have misread,
> mis-interpreted or dismissed that remark.

Yes, I was inexact. Carl was quoting from a web site, and thre was no
mention of rags:

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

That is a modal structure, not a modal system. Granted, since keys comprise modes, and not vice versa.

>
> The concept of key does this pretty well.

But a piece in D doesn't use jumps and scalewise progressions
differently from a piece in F, as long as they are in the same mode?

Right. Nevertheless, key comprises all possible modes, and more. And I'm not talking about 18th century keys either!

One of my professors was of the minority opinion that the full modal
system (the octoechos) was still in use during the high renaissance
whereas even contemporary sources were speaking of modi commixti
(fusions of the authentic and plagal modes) in polyphony. If tenor and
cantus were authentic, said he, altus and bassus were plagal and vice
versa. The finales could not be relied on, of course, since this music
uses triads. Any other deviations from the modes as they should be
were ascribed to modulations; there was usually some reason in the
text to adapt the ethos and thus the mode of the music, and the
so-called mixture of modes was really an intentional expressive
device. I find this intriguing, but I don't know the music well enough
to have my own opinion about its truth. Anyway, he stood more or less
alone against the scientific community claiming that melodies built
from modal principles could and have been used in polyphonic music.

You can write a canon and only think about harmony. But the result
will most likely be arpeggiatied triads that outline a cadence and not
a melody with its own strong sense of direction.

So thou sayest once more!

klaus

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/16/2005 6:35:19 AM

I bought it. It's translation from French to Turkish is done by Cem Behar and the book is published by Pan in Istanbul.
----- Original Message -----
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 15 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 18:24
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

> Would that I could give you a link! You must do some library-research I'm
afraid.
>
This is always possible :-). May I ask where you found your copy
(or translation) of the Essaie?

Regards,
Yahya

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/16/2005 6:32:17 AM

Forgiven and forgotten then!
----- Original Message -----
From: klaus schmirler
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 15 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 2:52
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>
> I was likewise horrified to see the phrase: `To teach them Turks
> some real music...` Fortunately, I am used to dealing with
> chauvanist supremacism.
>

Ozan, I'm sorry you took it like hat. In context, I meant that phrase
to portray the supposed sentiment of someone who's been "imported"
from the West to assemble and train a military band - and it probably
really is the sentiment of the one who brought him in. I myself don't
use "them" as a deictic if I can help it. I am also aware where the
percussion instruments in Western military music really come from.

klaus

> My immediate reaction is to blame the translation on someone like
> Hindemith or rather Donizetti who appropriated the next available
> Turkish term to teach them Turks some real music - it certainly
> doesn't fit the matter.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/16/2005 6:50:54 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 15 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 18:24
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

Hi Ozan,

Obviously, you disagree with me! But what you think on mode, I don't
know. Perhaps you could clarify?

Simply this: You take a single diatonical or pentatonical scale, change the degree for the tonic (rotate the scale), add some minor alterations here and there, and voila! You acquire several modes, or octave-species if you will, from a single instance of tuning.

Surely you realize that the Maqam is much more than this!

Is that not the case with Western tonality also?

And do you
identify the Seyir solely by the keys it uses, or also by melodic
contour?

Both and depends.

>
> I don't know what more you want it to be. Indeed, in such
> condescending terms, a Turkish Maqam is "just a European
> key with a funny tuning".

Must be my turn to be misunderstood! :-(

I only want it to be what it is. I still don't know what that is.

I have to demonstrate with my Qanun then. Maybe some recording are in order...

Yours, mine or the soap-operas? :-)

Modality vs Tonality! ;)

> ... Maqam Music everywhere
> is tonal, because the pitch relationships in Maqam scales
> retain their tonal characteristics that set them apart from
> modes.

Now, see, that's just what I don't get. Are the pitch
relationships in maqam scales anything more than the
intervals between the pitches?

Yes, there are certain degrees that play the role of dominant, sub-dominant, mediant, etc... These are terms that define tonality and their proper usage is what makes a music tonal as in a `system of keys`. Maqams also use certain degrees as stepping-stones to modulate and transpose. That is why I claim that they can be identified with keys.

Are there defined melodic
relationships between pitches? What are these tonal
characteristics of which you speak? And how do these
set them apart from modes?

A mode is simply an octave-species of a single scale. Maqams definately utilize melodic relationships around certain tonal centres. Would that I could show you on my Qanun!

And you cannot hear a hidden chordal progression in that music? I can very well harmonize it without damaging the content if the matter was to convince you.

So far, none of your
explanations have shown me why that is the wrong general
category for that music.

I _would_ like to understand where the difference lies.

Without clear visual demonstration on my instruments, I'm not sure if I can succeed in my explanations.

Regards,
Yahya

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/17/2005 11:48:27 AM

No, I am a firm believer in quality and depth of research and
thought, such as that exhibited by the New Grove, and quite lacking
in the Harvard text (based on my general experience with these works).

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Sheer weight of pages does not add up to a better understanding of
concepts. But obviously, you are a firm believer in quantity as
compared to conciseness of definition.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 14 Ekim 2005 Cuma 23:51
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes
>
>
>
> >
> > I beg to differ.
>
> On what basis? The Harvard book is truly a joke when lined up
next to
> the other references Klaus mentioned in this thread, particularly
> when it comes to the concepts discussed around here.
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/17/2005 12:03:10 PM

So you say.
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 17 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 21:48
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/17/2005 12:42:54 PM

I don't get it. What does Bach's music have to do witht he high
renaissance?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
> I read someones master thesis at UCLA which showed the Bach use of
Acidentals was consistent to how they were and not used in modal
writing.
> This would add credence to the minority opinion
>
>
>
> One of my professors was of the minority opinion that the full
modal
> system (the octoechos) was still in use during the high renaissance
> whereas even contemporary sources were speaking of modi commixti
> (fusions of the authentic and plagal modes) in polyphony. If tenor
and
> cantus were authentic, said he, altus and bassus were plagal and
vice
> versa. The finales could not be relied on, of course, since this
music
> uses triads. Any other deviations from the modes as they should be
> were ascribed to modulations; there was usually some reason in the
> text to adapt the ethos and thus the mode of the music, and the
> so-called mixture of modes was really an intentional expressive
> device. I find this intriguing, but I don't know the music well
enough
> to have my own opinion about its truth. Anyway, he stood more or
less
> alone against the scientific community claiming that melodies built
> from modal principles could and have been used in polyphonic music.
>
> You can write a canon and only think about harmony. But the result
> will most likely be arpeggiatied triads that outline a cadence and
not
> a melody with its own strong sense of direction.
>
>
> klaus
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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
>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/17/2005 12:55:41 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:

> I certainly never
> heard a systematic use of harmonies built in thirds. If
> anyone had asked me - without knowing your views - I
> would have classified that music as modal, as opposed to
> homophonic or harmonic.

At the risk of being misundestood again, I just want to point out that
Western music continued being 'modal' (according to the English-
language literature on the subject) for some 200 years after it adopted
harmonies built in thirds (and what we call their "inversions" today)
as stable consonances and as a textural mainstay. c. 1450-1670.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/17/2005 1:11:44 PM

Then perhaps your statement confused your readers, Kraig. What
exactly did you mean when you wrote, "to how they were and not used
in modal writing"? I'm not being facetious -- I'd really like to know!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:
>
>
> I am quite aware it is a latter era. the point being if he was
still using accidentals in this way, those before him were also.
> for example not using a raised tonic to go to the 2nd tone in
Dorian, but would use the lowered second degree to go to the tonic
>
> From: klaus schmirler
>
>
> >I read someones master thesis at UCLA which showed the Bach use of
Acidentals was consistent to how they were and not used in modal
writing.
> >> This would add credence to the minority opinion
> >
> >
> Sorry wrong era.
>
> >
> >> One
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/17/2005 2:04:02 PM

Agreed!
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 17 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 22:55
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

10/17/2005 2:07:25 PM

Dear Ozan,

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

> > [Paul Erlich]
> > No, I am a firm believer in quality and depth of research
> > and thought, such as that exhibited by the New Grove,
> > and quite lacking in the Harvard text (based on my general
> > experience with these works).
>
> So you say.

Have you consulted Grove's Dictionary for the subjects
you've been discussing here? I haven't, but i have used
it for research into many other areas of my musical interests.

I can agree completely with Paul that, while the Harvard
Dictionary is useful as a quick-access 1-volume reference
to have by your desk, it in no way compares with the depth
of research that has gone into the 20-volume Grove's.

I'm familiar with the 1980 edition, which is marvellous.
Some reviews i've read of the New Grove say that it's not
as good as the 1980 edition.

Any good library should have. If you want it yourself,
you can pick it up at Amazon.com for only $2,200.00 US.
;-)

You can also subscribe at
http://www.grovemusic.com

- monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com>

10/17/2005 2:22:11 PM

This thesis showed or attempted to show that Bach used only certain accidentals based on earlier modal practices and gave a series of examples. I am making the assumption that if this process had been abandoned in the high renaissance, Bach probably would not have used it either.
________________________________________________________________________

Message: 18 Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:11:44 -0000
From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Keys and modes

Then perhaps your statement confused your readers, Kraig. What exactly did you mean when you wrote, "to how they were and not used in modal writing"? I'm not being facetious -- I'd really like to know!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@a...> wrote:

>>
>> >> I am quite aware it is a latter era. the point being if he was > >
still using accidentals in this way, those before him were also.

>> for example not using a raised tonic to go to the 2nd tone in > >
Dorian, but would use the lowered second degree to go to the tonic >> >> From: klaus schmirler > >

>
>
> >

--
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

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/17/2005 2:34:36 PM

Monz, I never doubt the depth of work that Grove covers. I was priviledged to scrutinize some articles there myself. But that is no reason to mock Harvard's just because it dwarves in comparison to sheer volumes. As a staunch believer in conciseness of definition, I would much rather consult a quick-reference in a yahoo group debate than an entire library shelf, and reserve the huge stacks for serious academic work.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salı 0:07
Subject: [tuning] Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)

Dear Ozan,

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

Have you consulted Grove's Dictionary for the subjects
you've been discussing here? I haven't, but i have used
it for research into many other areas of my musical interests.

I'm familiar with the 1980 edition, which is marvellous.
Some reviews i've read of the New Grove say that it's not
as good as the 1980 edition.

Any good library should have. If you want it yourself,
you can pick it up at Amazon.com for only $2,200.00 US.
;-)

You can also subscribe at
http://www.grovemusic.com

- monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/17/2005 2:43:15 PM

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

> Monz, I never doubt the depth of work that Grove covers. I was
>priviledged to scrutinize some articles there myself. But that is no
>reason to mock Harvard's just because it dwarves in comparison to
>sheer volumes.

I certainly don't mock it for that. However, the information Harvard's
gives for many theory, tuning and acoustics terms show me that it is
sorely lacking in many areas, independently from considerations of
conciseness. As with linguistic dictionaries, it is best to have two or
three independent sources available and not rely unduly on one source.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/17/2005 2:54:20 PM

You shouldn't mock any scientific reference just because you find certain `faults` in it that may have been introduced for pedantic reasons and on purpose.

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salı 0:43
Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)

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

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

10/17/2005 3:20:27 PM

wallyesterpaulrus wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
> > >>I certainly never
>>heard a systematic use of harmonies built in thirds. If
>>anyone had asked me - without knowing your views - I
>>would have classified that music as modal, as opposed to
>>homophonic or harmonic.
> > > At the risk of being misundestood again,

Same caveat.

I just want to point out that
> Western music continued being 'modal' (according to the English-
> language literature on the subject) for some 200 years after it adopted > harmonies built in thirds (and what we call their "inversions" today) > as stable consonances and as a textural mainstay. c. 1450-1670.

I still wouldn't describe music of this period as made from "harmonies built in thirds". Sure, the idea of inversions being functionally the same chords has likely existed before Rameau published it (in the 1720s?). But during much of that period, thinking was contrapuntal. You could add thirds and either a fifth or a sixth to note, and resulting fourths had to be treated as a dissonance when involving the bass note. The idea of triads might prevent a careless composer from writing both a fifth and a sixth against a given note, but apart from tha I see no use in reducing the possible chords to one form built from thirds.

klaus

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/17/2005 3:21:46 PM

It's too bad you see my dislike for unchecked misinformation
as 'mockery'. I don't know how. I don't recall mocking anything. The
most widely-used one-volume English language dictionary of music
isn't necessarily the best and shouldn't be trusted without checking
other references, that's all.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> You shouldn't mock any scientific reference just because you find
>certain `faults` in it that may have been introduced for pedantic
>reasons and on purpose.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salý 0:43
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
wrote:
>
> > Monz, I never doubt the depth of work that Grove covers. I was
> >priviledged to scrutinize some articles there myself. But that
is no
> >reason to mock Harvard's just because it dwarves in comparison
to
> >sheer volumes.
>
> I certainly don't mock it for that. However, the information
Harvard's
> gives for many theory, tuning and acoustics terms show me that it
is
> sorely lacking in many areas, independently from considerations
of
> conciseness. As with linguistic dictionaries, it is best to have
two or
> three independent sources available and not rely unduly on one
source.
>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/17/2005 3:26:21 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, klaus schmirler <KSchmir@o...> wrote:
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...>
wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I certainly never
> >>heard a systematic use of harmonies built in thirds. If
> >>anyone had asked me - without knowing your views - I
> >>would have classified that music as modal, as opposed to
> >>homophonic or harmonic.
> >
> >
> > At the risk of being misundestood again,
>
> Same caveat.
>
> I just want to point out that
> > Western music continued being 'modal' (according to the English-
> > language literature on the subject) for some 200 years after it
adopted
> > harmonies built in thirds (and what we call their "inversions"
today)
> > as stable consonances and as a textural mainstay. c. 1450-1670.
>
> I still wouldn't describe music of this period as made
from "harmonies
> built in thirds".

Neither would I -- that's why I added the clause 'and what we call
their "inversions" today' above.

> Sure, the idea of inversions being functionally the
> same chords has likely existed before Rameau published it (in the
> 1720s?).

It doesn't matter -- I just referred to the things that today are
called inversions, regardless of what they were called back then.

> But during much of that period, thinking was contrapuntal.

Undoubtedly!

> You could add thirds and either a fifth or a sixth to note,

Thus resulting, in 3-or-more-part music, in what we call triads and
their inversions today.

> and
> resulting fourths had to be treated as a dissonance when involving
the
> bass note. The idea of triads might prevent a careless composer
from
> writing both a fifth and a sixth against a given note,

You mean at the same time?

> but apart from
> tha I see no use in reducing the possible chords to one form built
> from thirds.

I just meant that the same sonorities that 'define' the harmony in
common-practice music were already in use 200 years earlier as stable
consonances, though of course their preparation, resolution, rhythm,
and one could say "musical meaning" was very different -- as well as
the way the sonorities were thought/written about by musicians.

🔗klaus schmirler <KSchmir@online.de>

10/17/2005 3:41:50 PM

Ozan Yarman wrote:

> Forgiven and forgotten then!

Çok teşekkür ederim!

klaus

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/17/2005 4:16:25 PM

You said Harvard's was truly a joke compared to Grove's. If that is not mocking, I don't know what is. And I am not against cross-checking. Also, I do not believe in redundancy.

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salı 1:21
Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

10/17/2005 4:59:48 PM

Dear Ozan,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
> The
> most widely-used one-volume English language dictionary of music
> isn't necessarily the best and shouldn't be trusted without checking
> other references, that's all.

I have to say I concur in this. My copy of Harvard has a special place
for me, given to me by my high school music instructor as I left to go
to university (this was a long time ago). I have always had it on the
shelf, and consult it when I need to.

But I also realize it's shortcomings, both in what is omitted or
reduced for brevity's sake, as well as areas where the scholarship
seems a bit weak. I also own a complete Groves, and while H is handy
to have, if I am the least bit unsure I go to G and get a deeper
picture. If I really want to make sure of something then I go online
or to a brick-and-mortar library.

All this is to say that Harvard has been valued and still has it's
place, but it is not the ultimate arbiter in musical matters. You can
see that I don't think it is a joke, and actually it is like an 'old
friend', but it isn't the last word either.

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/17/2005 5:35:26 PM

Agreed entirely Jon. I never claimed Harvard's was the last word on this matter. Now that you mention it, what does Grove say on Key?

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Szanto
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salı 2:59
Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)

Dear Ozan,

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net>

10/17/2005 5:47:20 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Now that you mention it, what does Grove say on Key?

Ozan, I heartily wish I had the time and ability, but people are
coming tomorrow to pummel the walls in our kitchen with sledgehammers,
and I am frantic with things to do. My input will have to wait for a
few days, as I have already packed all those books up to keep the
plaster dust off of them!

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/17/2005 6:01:58 PM

Jon, I sincerely sympathize with your plight! I myself suffered at least a full year of drudgery as chief architect and supervisor in the midst of an excruciating construction work in our mansion (during which time I composed the Golden Horn Shipyards Concerto in a crummy pile of dirt). Picturing your situation brings up memories from the not so distant past, and it's as if the plaster dust is setting on me this very moment. Yikes!

I am eagerly anticipating your input from Grove upon your earliest convenience.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Szanto
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salı 3:47
Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Now that you mention it, what does Grove say on Key?

Cheers,
Jon

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

10/17/2005 10:49:50 PM

> I composed the Golden Horn Shipyards Concerto in a crummy pile of
> dirt).

I do like that concerto.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/18/2005 4:50:16 AM

Oh come on, it needs a lot of improvement and the addition of solo passages. I had only Encore 4.1 back then. The torture! Now that I look back, it appears I have performed a miraculous feat battling against all the notes that wouldn't stand still! Also, I used the entire 32 channels available in my Yamaha MU80. I am such a control freak.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salı 8:49
Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)

> I composed the Golden Horn Shipyards Concerto in a crummy pile of
> dirt).

I do like that concerto.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

10/18/2005 11:56:23 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Oh come on, it needs a lot of improvement and the addition of solo
> passages. I had only Encore 4.1 back then. The torture! Now that I
> look back, it appears I have performed a miraculous feat battling
> against all the notes that wouldn't stand still! Also, I used the
> entire 32 channels available in my Yamaha MU80. I am such a control
> freak.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan

Hi Ozan,

I use Encore 4.5.4 to this day! And I am also a control freak.
What have you replaced it with, may I ask?

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/18/2005 12:20:25 PM

I haven't replaced it actually, I still use it. In the meantime I have acquired Turandot, Sibelius 3.1 and Finale 2006. These are much better in capacity and note placement, however they don't facilitate individual note accent, dynamic, duration control as in Encore.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salı 21:56
Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)

Hi Ozan,

I use Encore 4.5.4 to this day! And I am also a control freak.
What have you replaced it with, may I ask?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

10/18/2005 2:02:19 PM

>I haven't replaced it actually, I still use it. In the meantime I
>have acquired Turandot, Sibelius 3.1 and Finale 2006. These are
>much better in capacity and note placement, however they don't
>facilitate individual note accent, dynamic, duration control as
>in Encore.

I tried the demo of Turandot about a year ago, but didn't like
it that much. Finale is still supposed to be the most flexible
for microtones, but I haven't taken the time to learn it yet.
Sibelius seems to annoy the control freak in me by trying to do
everything automatically.

Have you tried Notion?

http://www.notionmusic.com

-Carl

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/18/2005 8:30:55 PM

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, "wallyesterpaulrus" wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
> <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
> > I certainly never
> > heard a systematic use of harmonies built in thirds. If
> > anyone had asked me - without knowing your views - I
> > would have classified that music as modal, as opposed to
> > homophonic or harmonic.
>
> At the risk of being misundestood again, I just want to point out that
> Western music continued being 'modal' (according to the English-
> language literature on the subject) for some 200 years after it adopted
> harmonies built in thirds (and what we call their "inversions" today)
> as stable consonances and as a textural mainstay. c. 1450-1670.

Paul,

You won't get any argument from me.

Yet some of my English-language sources also apply the
term "tonal" in a broad sense to aspects of mediaeval
church modal music ...

Why is clarity of terminology so hard to achieve? :-(
Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/139 - Release Date: 17/10/05

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

10/18/2005 9:26:41 PM

Hi Carl and Ozan,

Ozan is going to be Tonescape's first representative
in the (semi-)non-Western market.

(... i guess the "non-Western" part depends on whether
or not Turkey makes it into the EU? ...)

Anyway, my point is: he and i are both looking forward
to seeing what Tonescape can do for non-Western music.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> I haven't replaced it actually, I still use it. In the
> meantime I have acquired Turandot, Sibelius 3.1 and
> Finale 2006. These are much better in capacity and
> note placement, however they don't facilitate individual
> note accent, dynamic, duration control as in Encore.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Lumma
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salý 21:56
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)
>
>
> Hi Ozan,
>
> I use Encore 4.5.4 to this day! And I am also a control freak.
> What have you replaced it with, may I ask?
>
> -Carl
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/19/2005 1:13:29 AM

That would be an honor Monz, but truly, I categorize myself as an Islamicized-Westernized humanitarian-liberal democrat orienatalist of Turkic/Mongol origin. ;)

As for Turkey making it into the EU, I hardly think this country could ever become eligible for admission as a whole. The dichotomy between the secular state and the muslim masses is severe even today. While the Kemalists worship the flag, fatherland and the founder (three sacred f's), the muslims are terribly confused as to their faith (for some the fourth sacred f) and find comfort in outdated (primitive?) parochial customs. Intolerance of `cultural infiltration` from your side of the world is of disturbing proportions. The mutation of the clergy under state-sponsored authorianism is equally distressing. Your only hope of marketing Tonescape is restricted to a minority of about 20.000 who have been educated to understand and perform Maqam Music via the Arel-Ezgi staff notation. While you would undoubtedly seek to profit in this direction, I would urge you to ditch this inconsistent scheme in favor of what I have been proposing for the past few months to the detriment of exploiting the notational needs of this population in the short-run.

Please visit http://www.ozanyarman.com/anonymous/ and download Ney Perdeleri.jpg along with Huruf-Staff Notation to scrutinize what I mean.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 19 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 7:26
Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)

Hi Carl and Ozan,

Ozan is going to be Tonescape's first representative
in the (semi-)non-Western market.

(... i guess the "non-Western" part depends on whether
or not Turkey makes it into the EU? ...)

Anyway, my point is: he and i are both looking forward
to seeing what Tonescape can do for non-Western music.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> I haven't replaced it actually, I still use it. In the
> meantime I have acquired Turandot, Sibelius 3.1 and
> Finale 2006. These are much better in capacity and
> note placement, however they don't facilitate individual
> note accent, dynamic, duration control as in Encore.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Lumma
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 18 Ekim 2005 Salı 21:56
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Grove vs. Harvard (was: Keys and modes)
>
>
> Hi Ozan,
>
> I use Encore 4.5.4 to this day! And I am also a control freak.
> What have you replaced it with, may I ask?
>
> -Carl
>

You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "tuning" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

10/19/2005 9:19:15 AM

Hi Ozan,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> That would be an honor Monz, but truly, I categorize myself
> as an Islamicized-Westernized humanitarian-liberal democrat
> orienatalist of Turkic/Mongol origin. ;)

I wrote too briefly on that. What i was really alluding to
was the fact that Turkey cannot really be considered a
non-Western culture. Constantinople was the for a time the
capital of the *Roman* Empire. So it really is a mix of
east and west. Your description of modern Turkey sounds
an awful lot like America today.

> Your only hope of marketing Tonescape is restricted to
> a minority of about 20.000 who have been educated to
> understand and perform Maqam Music via the Arel-Ezgi
> staff notation. While you would undoubtedly seek to
> profit in this direction, I would urge you to ditch this
> inconsistent scheme in favor of what I have been proposing
> for the past few months to the detriment of exploiting
> the notational needs of this population in the short-run.

It's going to take awhile for us to get different notations
into Tonescape -- our first priority is on creating really
good-sounding mp3's.

But eventually, we'll be able to provide *both* the
Arel-Ezgi notation and also any number of your new schemes.

From the beginning (i.e., when i first thought of the
software that has now become Tonescape -- 1984) i have
been insistent on being able to represent microtonal
music in a wide variety of different notations and other
visual representations, simultaneously. I'm a big believer
in "redundant coding".

> Please visit http://www.ozanyarman.com/anonymous/ and
> download Ney Perdeleri.jpg along with Huruf-Staff Notation
> to scrutinize what I mean.

Thanks for that, it's quite interesting. I'm looking
forward to the day when i have the time to go back into
the archives of this list and really study all the stuff
that you've posted about maqam. I have done very little
research into it, compared to what i know about Western
classical music, blues, and jazz, and i certainly want
to learn a lot more. But Tonescape takes up all of my
time these days.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/19/2005 4:00:12 PM

Notion? How is that supposedly better than Turandot, Carl?
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 19 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 0:02
Subject: [tuning] notation software (was Re: Grove vs. Harvard)

Have you tried Notion?

http://www.notionmusic.com

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

10/19/2005 4:20:23 PM

> Notion? How is that supposedly better than Turandot, Carl?

One can always hopes for customizable accidentals that play back.
And, dare I say, customizable staves.

But in general my biggest problem with these packages isn't
microtonal features, but the user interface.

Though Notion's big selling point is the included custom samples
of the London Phil, I am always interested to see my options as
far as user interface.

Unfortunately Notion doesn't seem to have a downloadable demo.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/19/2005 4:46:14 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 19 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 19:19
Subject: [tuning] Tonescape for maqam (was: Grove vs. Harvard)

Hi Ozan,

The crux of the issue is, Constantinople is too `Eastern` as compared to the `West`. As for the similarities between Turkey and the States, no wonder this country is so deserving of the monicker: `li'l America`. By allying ourselves with the US during and after the apex of WWII, we have made a mockery of our cultural heritage and every moral code we held sacred for centuries.

It's going to take awhile for us to get different notations
into Tonescape -- our first priority is on creating really
good-sounding mp3's.

And oggs?

But eventually, we'll be able to provide *both* the
Arel-Ezgi notation and also any number of your new schemes.

That would be ill-advised. You know that this notation is with faults due to the fact that it misrepresents the sharps which should have been the apotome equivalents of flats. Besides, the transpositions are a mess. If you somehow agree to follow my suggestion and replace the `5-comma sharp` sign with the `4-comma sharp` sign (#) and use a similar sharp symbol without the lower perpendicular line for the latter, it would be most agreeable then. We may call this the revised-AEU (Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek) for the time being if you like.

As for my new schemes, I am happy to report that my implementation on the Qanun is a big success. Ruhi Ayangil, a renown Qanun virtuoso who honored us as our guest, tried it firsthand tonight and commended me on my efforts. The music was even more beautiful than I could have ever imagined! And the pitches are just right! Of course, this monster temperament should be notated with the conventional quarter-tone symbols in my opinion.

>From the beginning (i.e., when i first thought of the
software that has now become Tonescape -- 1984) i have
been insistent on being able to represent microtonal
music in a wide variety of different notations and other
visual representations, simultaneously. I'm a big believer
in "redundant coding".

In contrast, I am a believer in simplification. But a little diversity wouldn't hurt I guess.

> Please visit http://www.ozanyarman.com/anonymous/ and
> download Ney Perdeleri.jpg along with Huruf-Staff Notation
> to scrutinize what I mean.

I discovered that I have made a fundamental mistake concerning Ney pitches from the start. All instances of perde Rast in all my posts on this matter should actually be taken as Kaba Rast, which is an octave below Rast. Kaba Rast is the first harmonic, Rast is the second. I conferred with a Neyzen today, and he informed me that they did not any longer think of the first partial pitches as "dem", or "breathy (pedal) tones". Now, either my hearing is fundamentally flawed, or I was actually listening to the first partial and paid no attention whatsoever to the second while I was sounding Rast. Accordinly:

the rast of Kiz Ahenk is 440 Hz.
of Mansur Ahenk, it is 9/8 lower.
of Shah Ahenk, it is 81/64 lower.
of Davud Ahenk, it is 4/3 lower.
of Bolanehk it is 3/2 lower.

Mustahsen Ahenk's rast is 9/8 above Kiz.
Sipurde Ahenk's rast is 81/64 above Kiz.
Yildiz Ahenk's rast is 4/3 above Kiz.

I hope this clears up the matter. I have made the necessary corrections on my symposium presentation neyhuruf.zip in my website (academical studies section) should you want to scrutinize it.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/20/2005 1:38:47 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, "wallyesterpaulrus" wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
> > <yahya@m...> wrote:
> >
> > > I certainly never
> > > heard a systematic use of harmonies built in thirds. If
> > > anyone had asked me - without knowing your views - I
> > > would have classified that music as modal, as opposed to
> > > homophonic or harmonic.
> >
> > At the risk of being misundestood again, I just want to point out
that
> > Western music continued being 'modal' (according to the English-
> > language literature on the subject) for some 200 years after it
adopted
> > harmonies built in thirds (and what we call their "inversions"
today)
> > as stable consonances and as a textural mainstay. c. 1450-1670.
>
> Paul,
>
> You won't get any argument from me.
>
> Yet some of my English-language sources also apply the
> term "tonal" in a broad sense to aspects of mediaeval
> church modal music ...

Dear Yahya,

At your leisure, would you mind providing a few quotes from these
sources (with date and author, of course)? I don't believe I've ever
seen such a usage before, so it would be of great interest for me!

Thanks,
Paul

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/21/2005 1:28:04 AM

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, "wallyesterpaulrus" wrote:

... [much snipt]

> I just meant that the same sonorities that 'define' the harmony in
> common-practice music were already in use 200 years earlier as stable
> consonances, though of course their preparation, resolution, rhythm,
> and one could say "musical meaning" was very different -- as well as
> the way the sonorities were thought/written about by musicians.

Very well said, Paul!

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/139 - Release Date: 17/10/05

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/21/2005 1:27:55 AM

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, klaus schmirler wrote:
>
> wallyesterpaulrus wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz"
> <yahya@m...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I certainly never
> >>heard a systematic use of harmonies built in thirds. If
> >>anyone had asked me - without knowing your views - I
> >>would have classified that music as modal, as opposed to
> >>homophonic or harmonic.
> >
> >
> > At the risk of being misundestood again,
>
> Same caveat.

Hey, me too! :-)

> I just want to point out that
> > Western music continued being 'modal' (according to the English-
> > language literature on the subject) for some 200 years after it adopted
> > harmonies built in thirds (and what we call their "inversions" today)
> > as stable consonances and as a textural mainstay. c. 1450-1670.
>
> I still wouldn't describe music of this period as made from "harmonies
> built in thirds". Sure, the idea of inversions being functionally the
> same chords has likely existed before Rameau published it (in the
> 1720s?). But during much of that period, thinking was contrapuntal.
> You could add thirds and either a fifth or a sixth to note, and
> resulting fourths had to be treated as a dissonance when involving the
> bass note. The idea of triads might prevent a careless composer from
> writing both a fifth and a sixth against a given note, but apart from
> tha I see no use in reducing the possible chords to one form built
> from thirds.
>
> klaus

While claiming no expert knowledge of music of the period,
I largely agree with the thrust of Klaus' comments. To me,
there's a fairly clear distinction between contrapuntal and
homophonic styles of music, quite apart from whether the
music is chordal or has parts moving at different speeds.

In my own music, I often write music that is completely
contrapuntal in its impulse, taking care of questions of
harmony only in a very local manner. This will on occasion
give rise to using -
'harmonies built in thirds (and what we call their "inversions"
today) as stable consonances and as a textural mainstay'.

But I occasionally write simple tunes with a clear and simple
harmonic framework in mind, and I set them accordingly,
often with broken chords or with melodic patterns derived
largely from such arpeggios. And then I sometimes write
Haydnesque or Mozartesque stuff for small chamber groups
which subordinates my often contrapuntal means to a larger
and perhaps more complex harmonic framework. Finally,
many of my simple tunes will only admit of a modal treatment,
in which it would be a gross distortion to try to harmonise
them simply with tonal progressions of chords. The kind of
accompaniment that they demand is more spare, more open
in texture, and more likely to seem antiphonal. In this,
they are similar to many of the modal folk tunes I learnt
in Malaysia, and also to much of classical Indian music.

The above illustrate the broad categories I use for
classifying the feel and the means of music. I offer this
description to avoid being misunderstood :-) by writing, as
I did "modal, as opposed to homophonic or harmonic."
Perhaps my usage of these terms is not quite standard.

But I agree also with Paul's point that these categories do
not set up some kind of Berlin Wall dividing "modal" from
"tonal" or "built on tertian harmony".

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/139 - Release Date: 17/10/05

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/21/2005 2:23:15 AM

Paul,

You wrote:
At the risk of being misundestood again, I just want to point out that
Western music continued being 'modal' (according to the English-
language literature on the subject) for some 200 years after it adopted
harmonies built in thirds (and what we call their "inversions" today)
as stable consonances and as a textural mainstay. c. 1450-1670.

I replied:
You won't get any argument from me.
Yet some of my English-language sources also apply the
term "tonal" in a broad sense to aspects of mediaeval
church modal music ...

You asked:
At your leisure, would you mind providing a few quotes from these
sources (with date and author, of course)? I don't believe I've ever
seen such a usage before, so it would be of great interest for me!

The answer:
What I had mostly in mind was a small paperback Dictionary of
Music which I picked up years ago secondhand in the market.
I was moved to look this up because of the recent renewal of the
conflagration we set in motion some months ago on this list over the
meanings of "mode". Let me see now ... here it is:

Dictionary of Music, by Theodore Karp, Dell (1973). 448pp.
[Juillard; PhD (Mus) NYU; Chairman of Dept of Music at UCD
in 1973.]

Obviously not a patch on Groves or Harvard, but an occasionally
useful quick reference. As you're unlikely to find this around now,
let me quote the entire article; it's not overly long:

"Tonality:
(1) in the most comprehensive meaning, a sense of tonal gravity.
The musical styles denoted are such that the listener consciously
or subconsciously perceives that:
(a) the main musical impulses arise from and flow toward one or
a limited number of tone centers, these tones thus acquiring
greater importance than the remainder;
(b) these tone centers themselves vary in importance and
function, the main center serving as the point of ultimate repose
(see FORM). In this sense, tonality may be observed in music
based on the CHURCH MODES, in music based on the major and
minor modes, and in much MODERN MUSIC that has broken
away from the conventions of major and minor. (Much of the
latter music is often -- though incorrectly -- referred to as
_atonal_.) To a large extent, tonality is an objective quality
dependent merely upon musical construction. However, there is
also a limited area in which tonality is a subjective quality,
dependent upon the listener's perceptivity and familiarity with
a given idiom. Those who regularly listen to and perform music
in contemporary idioms acquire the ability to perceive tone
centers whose existence passes unnoticed by those who do not
have a thorough familiarity with those idioms.

(2) In a more restricted meaning, the melodic, harmonic, and
rhythmic vocabulary or the major-minor system. The basic
PITCH materials of major and minor are discussed under
SCALE. Some ofthe conventions of this system are as follows.
MELODY normally unfolds against a harmonic background,
whether reall or imaginary. (The frequency of broken chords
in melodic writing -- e.g., in _The Star Spangled Banner_ and in
BEETHOVEN's _Erocia Symphony_ -- is one illustration of this
trait.) The most important tonal center is established by the
tonic chord. Ths is contrasted with a second important center
established by the DOMINANT chord (based on the fifth
degree), the sub-dominant chord constituting a possible third
center. Each chord has but a few functions, these serving
ultimately to circumscribe the TONIC. There is a powerful
drive toward the tonic from the half-step below, the leading
tone (seventh dgree). The basic harmonic drives are
reinforced by symmetrical rhythms, which help the informed
listener to anticipate many progressions toward the tonal
center. The compoer may introduce tones foreign to the key
for ornamental puposes, or, in an extended movement or work,
he may introduce such notes in order to establish new keys --
momentarily cancelling the sense of tonal gravity that accrues
to the main tone center. The various keys are related to each
other in a fixed hierarchy. For any given key there are certain
others that are considered as being "close" (i.e., those sharing
the greatest amount of tonal material in common), while the
remainder are considerd as "distant" (with relatively little
tonal material in common). The composer normally is expected
to evolve a course between closely related keys, though he
may often surprise the listener by an imaginative excursion to
distant keys. Regardless of the freedom that may be
employed in modulating from one key to another, a return to
the original tonic is an inevitable expectation of the major-
minor system.

(3) In the most limited sense, a synonym for KEY."

Apart from the fact that, in meaning (2), Karp gives us a
perfectly adequate synopsis of the usual connotations and
conventions of (major-minor) tonality, what most appeals to
me about this article is that he provides a range of meanings.
from the most to least general.

I also consulted my Pelican History of Music, Volume I,
about 1966 IIRC, but don't remember what it said. Anyway,
pizza calls! :-) It's just fresh out of the oven, so I don't
want it to get too cold to enjoy.

Regards,
Yahya
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/143 - Release Date: 19/10/05

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/21/2005 6:15:51 AM

Do you use it? Can you recommend it to me?
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 20 Ekim 2005 Perşembe 2:20
Subject: [tuning] notation software (was Re: Grove vs. Harvard)

> Notion? How is that supposedly better than Turandot, Carl?

One can always hopes for customizable accidentals that play back.
And, dare I say, customizable staves.

But in general my biggest problem with these packages isn't
microtonal features, but the user interface.

Though Notion's big selling point is the included custom samples
of the London Phil, I am always interested to see my options as
far as user interface.

Unfortunately Notion doesn't seem to have a downloadable demo.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

10/21/2005 12:38:46 PM

No, I was hoping you had it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Do you use it? Can you recommend it to me?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Lumma
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 20 Ekim 2005 Perþembe 2:20
> Subject: [tuning] notation software (was Re: Grove vs. Harvard)
>
>
> > Notion? How is that supposedly better than Turandot, Carl?
>
> One can always hopes for customizable accidentals that play back.
> And, dare I say, customizable staves.
>
> But in general my biggest problem with these packages isn't
> microtonal features, but the user interface.
>
> Though Notion's big selling point is the included custom samples
> of the London Phil, I am always interested to see my options as
> far as user interface.
>
> Unfortunately Notion doesn't seem to have a downloadable demo.
>
> -Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/23/2005 4:38:13 PM

Dear brother in Islam,
----- Original Message -----
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
To: Tuning group at yahoo
Sent: 21 Ekim 2005 Cuma 12:23
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

Paul,

SNIP

Dictionary of Music, by Theodore Karp, Dell (1973). 448pp.
[Juillard; PhD (Mus) NYU; Chairman of Dept of Music at UCD
in 1973.]

Obviously not a patch on Groves or Harvard, but an occasionally
useful quick reference. As you're unlikely to find this around now,
let me quote the entire article; it's not overly long:

Thank you for providing this valuable bit of information which vindicates what I have been saying on this matter thus far.

This definition is wonderfully accurate in the case of Maqams. Hence, maqams are keys, where the scales they utilize comprise certain degrees emphasized as tonal centers.

In this sense, tonality may be observed in music
based on the CHURCH MODES, in music based on the major and
minor modes, and in much MODERN MUSIC that has broken
away from the conventions of major and minor. (Much of the
latter music is often -- though incorrectly -- referred to as
_atonal_.) To a large extent, tonality is an objective quality
dependent merely upon musical construction. However, there is
also a limited area in which tonality is a subjective quality,
dependent upon the listener's perceptivity and familiarity with
a given idiom. Those who regularly listen to and perform music
in contemporary idioms acquire the ability to perceive tone
centers whose existence passes unnoticed by those who do not
have a thorough familiarity with those idioms.

Such is also my observation concerning some, who, while not very much acquainted with Maqam Music, erroneously conclude after their first impression that this genre is modal rather than tonal.

Oddly enough, the majority wishes to percieve just this, and nothing more about tonality.

There is a powerful
drive toward the tonic from the half-step below, the leading
tone (seventh degree).

The leading tone is a most important diatonical feature for the majority of Maqams.

The basic harmonic drives are
reinforced by symmetrical rhythms, which help the informed
listener to anticipate many progressions toward the tonal
center.

Maqam Music rhythms, otherwise known as Usuls, also serve to reinforce this tonal response.

The compoer may introduce tones foreign to the key
for ornamental puposes, or, in an extended movement or work,
he may introduce such notes in order to establish new keys --
momentarily cancelling the sense of tonal gravity that accrues
to the main tone center.

Wonderfully accurate in the case of Maqam Music, which is largely diatonical - and thus, tonal - in nature as far as I know.

The various keys are related to each
other in a fixed hierarchy.

So are Maqams, though this feature is to a great extent clandestine.

For any given key there are certain
others that are considered as being "close" (i.e., those sharing
the greatest amount of tonal material in common), while the
remainder are considerd as "distant" (with relatively little
tonal material in common).

Such is also the case when establishing consonance-dissonance relationships in Maqam Music. Some Maqams are indeed quite distant to others, and a straightforward modulation to and fro would seem awkward at best.

The composer normally is expected
to evolve a course between closely related keys, though he
may often surprise the listener by an imaginative excursion to
distant keys.

A splendid yet simple illustration as to the melodic genius of many historic Maqam Music composers.

Regardless of the freedom that may be
employed in modulating from one key to another, a return to
the original tonic is an inevitable expectation of the major-
minor system.

Likewise with Maqams, where an eventual return to the tonic is customary.

(3) In the most limited sense, a synonym for KEY."

Bingo! Yet, I wouldn not have over-stressed the limited part. Certainly, tonality is key-orientation in relation to form. I would have said that Key is a synonym for Tonality in the broadest sense.

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/24/2005 9:03:45 AM

Hi Ozan,

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 "Ozan Yarman" wrote:
>
> Dear brother in Islam,
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz

SNIP

> You asked:
> At your leisure, would you mind providing a few quotes from these
> sources (with date and author, of course)? I don't believe I've ever
> seen such a usage before, so it would be of great interest for me!
>
> The answer:
> What I had mostly in mind was a small paperback Dictionary of
> Music which I picked up years ago secondhand in the market.
> I was moved to look this up because of the recent renewal of the
> conflagration we set in motion some months ago on this list over the
> meanings of "mode". Let me see now ... here it is:
>
> Dictionary of Music, by Theodore Karp, Dell (1973). 448pp.
> [Juillard; PhD (Mus) NYU; Chairman of Dept of Music at UCD
> in 1973.]
>
> Obviously not a patch on Groves or Harvard, but an occasionally
> useful quick reference. As you're unlikely to find this around now,
> let me quote the entire article; it's not overly long:
>
>
>
> Thank you for providing this valuable bit of information which vindicates
what I have been saying on this matter thus far.

I'm happy if it makes you happy.

> "Tonality:
> (1) in the most comprehensive meaning, a sense of tonal gravity.
> The musical styles denoted are such that the listener consciously
> or subconsciously perceives that:
> (a) the main musical impulses arise from and flow toward one or
> a limited number of tone centers, these tones thus acquiring
> greater importance than the remainder;
> (b) these tone centers themselves vary in importance and
> function, the main center serving as the point of ultimate repose
> (see FORM).
>
>
> This definition is wonderfully accurate in the case of Maqams. Hence,
maqams are keys, where the scales they utilize comprise certain degrees
emphasized as tonal centers.

This definition does not use the word "key". But insofar as it
describes maqam music, that music shows evidence of tonality.

> In this sense, tonality may be observed in music
> based on the CHURCH MODES, in music based on the major and
> minor modes, and in much MODERN MUSIC that has broken
> away from the conventions of major and minor. (Much of the
> latter music is often -- though incorrectly -- referred to as
> _atonal_.) To a large extent, tonality is an objective quality
> dependent merely upon musical construction. However, there is
> also a limited area in which tonality is a subjective quality,
> dependent upon the listener's perceptivity and familiarity with
> a given idiom. Those who regularly listen to and perform music
> in contemporary idioms acquire the ability to perceive tone
> centers whose existence passes unnoticed by those who do not
> have a thorough familiarity with those idioms.
>
>
> Such is also my observation concerning some, who, while not very much
acquainted with Maqam Music, erroneously conclude after their first
impression that this genre is modal rather than tonal.

Guilty!

> (2) In a more restricted meaning, the melodic, harmonic, and
> rhythmic vocabulary or the major-minor system. The basic
> PITCH materials of major and minor are discussed under
> SCALE. Some of the conventions of this system are as follows.
> MELODY normally unfolds against a harmonic background,
> whether reall or imaginary. (The frequency of broken chords
> in melodic writing -- e.g., in _The Star Spangled Banner_ and in
> BEETHOVEN's _Erocia

[Eroica]
> Symphony_ -- is one
illustration of this
> trait.) The most important tonal center is established by the
> tonic chord. Ths is contrasted with a second important center
> established by the DOMINANT chord (based on the fifth
> degree), the sub-dominant chord constituting a possible third
> center. Each chord has but a few functions, these serving
> ultimately to circumscribe the TONIC.
>
>
> Oddly enough, the majority wishes to percieve just this, and nothing more
about tonality.

That's just the limits of their knowledge, I guess.

> There is a powerful
> drive toward the tonic from the half-step below, the leading
> tone (seventh degree).
>
>
> The leading tone is a most important diatonical feature for the majority
of Maqams.

Yes, and in much modal music, too. Though such music may have
leading tones on other degrees a well, eg the minor second.

> The basic harmonic drives are
> reinforced by symmetrical rhythms, which help the informed
> listener to anticipate many progressions toward the tonal
> center.
>
>
> Maqam Music rhythms, otherwise known as Usuls, also serve to reinforce
this tonal response.

Lovely! Where can I learn more about these "Usuls" (`Usulun,
meaning bases?) ?

> The compo[s]er may introduce tones foreign to the key
> for ornamental puposes, or, in an extended movement or work,
> he may introduce such notes in order to establish new keys --
> momentarily cancelling the sense of tonal gravity that accrues
> to the main tone center.
>
> Wonderfully accurate in the case of Maqam Music, which is largely
diatonical - and thus, tonal - in nature as far as I know.

I still haven't heard an example of this, but would like to.

> The various keys are related to each
> other in a fixed hierarchy.
>
> So are Maqams, though this feature is to a great extent clandestine.

> For any given key there are certain
> others that are considered as being "close" (i.e., those sharing
> the greatest amount of tonal material in common), while the
> remainder are considerd as "distant" (with relatively little
> tonal material in common).
>
> Such is also the case when establishing consonance-dissonance
relationships in Maqam Music. Some Maqams are indeed quite distant to
others, and a straightforward modulation to and fro would seem awkward at
best.

Presumably distance is along the circle of fifths?
Or would modulation by a third also be common?

> The composer normally is expected
> to evolve a course between closely related keys, though he
> may often surprise the listener by an imaginative excursion to
> distant keys.
>
>
> A splendid yet simple illustration as to the melodic genius of many
historic Maqam Music composers.

Again, I'd love to hear this.

> Regardless of the freedom that may be
> employed in modulating from one key to another, a return to
> the original tonic is an inevitable expectation of the major-
> minor system.
>
> Likewise with Maqams, where an eventual return to the tonic is customary.
>
> (3) In the most limited sense, a synonym for KEY."
>
> Bingo! Yet, I wouldn not have over-stressed the limited part. Certainly,
tonality is key-orientation in relation to form. I would have said that Key
is a synonym for Tonality in the broadest sense.

I wouldn't, since that would imply that a clearly tonal piece,
in one of the Japanese pentatonics, say, was in a particular
key - yet any atttempt to harmonise it according to that
key will destroy its character.

> Cordially,
> Ozan

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/05

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/24/2005 10:44:29 PM

Yahya,

----- Original Message -----
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 24 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 19:03
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

Hi Ozan,

> Dictionary of Music, by Theodore Karp, Dell (1973). 448pp.
> [Juillard; PhD (Mus) NYU; Chairman of Dept of Music at UCD
> in 1973.]
>
> Obviously not a patch on Groves or Harvard, but an occasionally
> useful quick reference. As you're unlikely to find this around now,
> let me quote the entire article; it's not overly long:
>
>
>
> Thank you for providing this valuable bit of information which vindicates
what I have been saying on this matter thus far.

I'm happy if it makes you happy.

It's not a question of satisfying me, it's just that I was relieved to see a non-oriental reference which supported my arguments thus far.

This definition does not use the word "key". But insofar as it
describes maqam music, that music shows evidence of tonality.

How can tonal gravity (musical flow through closely related tone centers) be achieved without `key` might I ask?

>
> Such is also my observation concerning some, who, while not very much
acquainted with Maqam Music, erroneously conclude after their first
impression that this genre is modal rather than tonal.

Guilty!

as charged!

> Oddly enough, the majority wishes to percieve just this, and nothing more
about tonality.

That's just the limits of their knowledge, I guess.

Or cultural conditioning? Branding Maqamat as modes does not show the lack of a better substitute term, it just shows how easily biased people tend to categorize non-Western melodic scales as `contra-tonal`, and how eventually Easterners incline to accept such terminological norms in order to facilitate communications with the aforementioned party.

> There is a powerful
> drive toward the tonic from the half-step below, the leading
> tone (seventh degree).
>
>
> The leading tone is a most important diatonical feature for the majority
of Maqams.

Yes, and in much modal music, too. Though such music may have
leading tones on other degrees a well, eg the minor second.

In tonal music, the leading tone is always the 7th from the tonic, unless I am unaware of something here? You will find this feature to be a dominant trait of the Maqamat.

Lovely! Where can I learn more about these "Usuls" (`Usulun,
meaning bases?) ?

Have you tried Walter Feldman's `Music of the Ottoman Court`?

I still haven't heard an example of this, but would like to.

Shortage of readily available streaming audio content in this genre is a major bummer. But surely I am not to blame. For more examples, you may want to go to the local CD store and take a look at the world music shelves. There are recordings of improvisations on the traditional tanbur and ney that you may chance upon.

>>
> Such is also the case when establishing consonance-dissonance
relationships in Maqam Music. Some Maqams are indeed quite distant to
others, and a straightforward modulation to and fro would seem awkward at
best.

Presumably distance is along the circle of fifths?
Or would modulation by a third also be common?

Sometimes fourths and even major sixths as well.

Again, I'd love to hear this.

Again, I wish I could illustrate to you right hand on my Qanun, or my bowed Tanbur!

Not necessarily, it will not. And why should we refrain from calling a Japanese pentatonic a key, but not a mode?

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/26/2005 6:08:51 AM

Hi Ozan,

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, "Ozan Yarman" wrote:
> > "Tonality:
> > (1) in the most comprehensive meaning, a sense of tonal gravity.
> > The musical styles denoted are such that the listener consciously
> > or subconsciously perceives that:
> > (a) the main musical impulses arise from and flow toward one or
> > a limited number of tone centers, these tones thus acquiring
> > greater importance than the remainder;
> > (b) these tone centers themselves vary in importance and
> > function, the main center serving as the point of ultimate repose
> > (see FORM).
> >
> >
> > This definition is wonderfully accurate in the case of Maqams. Hence,
> maqams are keys, where the scales they utilize comprise certain degrees
> emphasized as tonal centers.
>
> This definition does not use the word "key". But insofar as it
> describes maqam music, that music shows evidence of tonality.
>
> How can tonal gravity (musical flow through closely related tone centers)
be achieved without `key` might I ask?

You're asking me? In my view, we have many techniques available
for creating tone centres; among them are: meter, rhythm, stress,
duration, and ornament. oh yes; and leading tones. In order to
achieve musical flow through closely related tone centres, we have
only to shift the emphasis from one of those tone centre to another
in a musical (usually a measured or metrical) way.

I can give you an example, a traditional English song called "Who
will buy (my beautiful ribbons)". At least as I hear it and play it,
this is in the minor pentatonic mode of E, and modulates momentarily
(for the second phrase of four) to the minor pentatonic mode of A.
These two tone centres are established purely by melodic and
rhythmic means; there is no need of any second part or harmony.
Nor is there any leading tone available to use. I could send you a
NoteWorthy Composer score file if you wish. There are many more
modal folk tunes from the same mould. While you can set these
tunes in tertian harmonies from a heptatonic key (and many have),
this does much violence to their essentially pentatonic and modal
nature. It actually sounds much better harmonised mostly with
fourths.

> > Such is also my observation concerning some, who, while not very much
> acquainted with Maqam Music, erroneously conclude after their first
> impression that this genre is modal rather than tonal.
>
> Guilty!
>
> as charged!

Oho! I *thought* you were having a go at me! :-)

Still, I wonder whether you will hear "Who will buy" as being in
the key of E minor, rather than being modal - just *because* it
modulates?

> > Oddly enough, the majority wishes to percieve just this, and nothing
more
> about tonality.
>
> That's just the limits of their knowledge, I guess.
>
> Or cultural conditioning? Branding Maqamat as modes does not show the lack
of a better substitute term, it just shows how easily biased people tend to
categorize non-Western melodic scales as `contra-tonal`, and how eventually
Easterners incline to accept such terminological norms in order to
facilitate communications with the aforementioned party.

I defer to your experience of this situation.

> > There is a powerful
> > drive toward the tonic from the half-step below, the leading
> > tone (seventh degree).
> >
> > The leading tone is a most important diatonical feature for the
majority
> of Maqams.
>
> Yes, and in much modal music, too. Though such music may have
> leading tones on other degrees a well, eg the minor second.
>
> In tonal music, the leading tone is always the 7th from the tonic, unless
I am unaware of something here? You will find this feature to be a dominant
trait of the Maqamat.

Perhaps you might say instead, "in tonal music of a given key, the
leading tone ...". The example I gave of the minor second occurs
in some Japanese modes and Indian ragas, most particularly and
obviously in those whose scales have a flat seventh or no seventh
at all. There's a rag - I forget the name - with a scale like this:
take the notes of F harmonic minor, but C is the tonic. You may
try improvising in it on a keyboard if you like, like this: with the
right hand, play a melody with lots of stepwise movements and
sequences, predominantly falling rather than rising; do not dwell
especially in the region of the notes F or E, but rather more so
on Db and C. To reinforce the feeling that C is the tonic note,
use the left hand to simulate a Dotara accompaniment, softly
cycling through the notes C3, G3 and C4. If you introduce any
chromatic notes in your improvised melody, avoid using B natural
over much, except as a melodic anticipation of a move to Bb and
beyond. If you undertake this experiment, you will probably begin
to feel the pull of the Db toward the C. You may notice, as a
secondary effect of similar kind, that the other two semitones
also have a strong pull: Ab to G and E to F. In this rag, it is not
usually proper to emphasise the subdominant degree on F, but it
is normal to emphasise the dominant degree on G.

Try it: it's fun!

> > The basic harmonic drives are
> > reinforced by symmetrical rhythms, which help the informed
> > listener to anticipate many progressions toward the tonal
> > center.
> >
> > Maqam Music rhythms, otherwise known as Usuls, also serve to reinforce
> this tonal response.
>
> Lovely! Where can I learn more about these "Usuls" (`Usulun,
> meaning bases?) ?
>
> Have you tried Walter Feldman's `Music of the Ottoman Court`?

Haven't even heard of it before now! Would you recommend it
as an accurate account?

> > The compo[s]er may introduce tones foreign to the key
> > for ornamental puposes, or, in an extended movement or work,
> > he may introduce such notes in order to establish new keys --
> > momentarily cancelling the sense of tonal gravity that accrues
> > to the main tone center.
> >
> > Wonderfully accurate in the case of Maqam Music, which is largely
> diatonical - and thus, tonal - in nature as far as I know.
>
> I still haven't heard an example of this, but would like to.
>
> Shortage of readily available streaming audio content in this genre is a
major bummer. But surely I am not to blame. For more examples, you may want
to go to the local CD store and take a look at the world music shelves.
There are recordings of improvisations on the traditional tanbur and ney
that you may chance upon.

Streaming audio is of little use on slow dial-up, anyway :-(
So it seems that you will leave me to flounder, rather than
lighting the way? If I went to the local CD store I would
find mostly rubbish on the world music shelves, as I have
before. And if I made my way to the specialist music
stores in the city, I could spend much more than I could
afford in buying up everything that looked likely, and still
have no guarantee of hearing the phenomenon that you
describe!

As you yourself said, you could show me these things
best directly, if we could meet face to face. But failing
that, the next most useful thing, surely, would be for you
to recommend a particular piece by a particular artist,
and tell me what to listen for and when. If you could do
that, I would be very grateful - and perhaps a little more
enlightened.

> > Such is also the case when establishing consonance-dissonance
> relationships in Maqam Music. Some Maqams are indeed quite distant to
> others, and a straightforward modulation to and fro would seem awkward
at
> best.
>
> Presumably distance is along the circle of fifths?
> Or would modulation by a third also be common?
>
> Sometimes fourths and even major sixths as well.

Excellent! And how would you prepare for a modulation to
the major sixth - or could you step there directly?

> > The composer normally is expected
> > to evolve a course between closely related keys, though he
> > may often surprise the listener by an imaginative excursion to
> > distant keys.
> >
> > A splendid yet simple illustration as to the melodic genius of many
> historic Maqam Music composers.
>
> Again, I'd love to hear this.
>
> Again, I wish I could illustrate to you right hand on my Qanun, or my
bowed Tanbur!

And so do I! :-)

> > Regardless of the freedom that may be
> > employed in modulating from one key to another, a return to
> > the original tonic is an inevitable expectation of the major-
> > minor system.
> >
> > Likewise with Maqams, where an eventual return to the tonic is
customary.
> >
> > (3) In the most limited sense, a synonym for KEY."
> >
> > Bingo! Yet, I wouldn not have over-stressed the limited part.
Certainly,
> tonality is key-orientation in relation to form. I would have said that
Key
> is a synonym for Tonality in the broadest sense.
>
> I wouldn't, since that would imply that a clearly tonal piece,
> in one of the Japanese pentatonics, say, was in a particular
> key - yet any attempt to harmonise it according to that
> key will destroy its character.

> Not necessarily, it will not.

Are you familiar with the popular Japanese song "Sakura"?
If you play it with F as the tonic note, the scale is similar
to the rag I described before, but without the fourth and
seventh. That is, it uses the notes F G Ab C Db. Is this just
an impoverished F minor key? I think not, for if you
harmonise it using Fm, Bb and C7, you've introduced two
foreign notes and given them more weight than the melody
can support. As in much Japanese art, it's the _spaces
between_ that really count. It's possible to harmonise the
melody using only scale tones, but it needs a light touch -
and definitely has no leading tone on the seventh!

> And why should we refrain from calling a Japanese pentatonic a key, but
not a mode?

Because it's not a key, and it is a mode. :-)

I've just shown how one pentatonic scale, with tonic F,
has no leading tone. Is it still a key despite that?
I don't think so - not unless "key" suddenly has much
wider connotations than usual.

By choosing the note C as tonic, yet using the same
scale, we clearly have another mode. Again, try it
for yourself; use all your wiles and musical prowess
to emphasise the note C rather than any other -
particularly Db. Here is another mode of the same
scale as before; it, too, lacks a leading tone.

Ozan, I would like to be able to hear what you hear
in maqam music. I would also like you to be able to
hear what I hear in modal music. Perhaps we can
achieve these aims if we continue to share
information to the best of our ability, while avoiding
the temptation to score points off each other. :-)
(I know I find that hard.)

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/05

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/28/2005 2:54:22 PM

Dear Yahya,
----- Original Message -----
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 26 Ekim 2005 Çarşamba 16:08
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

>
> How can tonal gravity (musical flow through closely related tone centers)
be achieved without `key` might I ask?

You're asking me?

Indeed, you along with any who might be interested to respond.

In my view, we have many techniques available
for creating tone centres; among them are: meter, rhythm, stress,
duration, and ornament. oh yes; and leading tones. In order to
achieve musical flow through closely related tone centres, we have
only to shift the emphasis from one of those tone centre to another
in a musical (usually a measured or metrical) way.

The `key` comprises all that you say here.

Obviously in the `Key of E Pentatonic Minor` from what I understand.

These two tone centres are established purely by melodic and
rhythmic means; there is no need of any second part or harmony.

Certainly polyphony is not a prerequisite to `key`, although tradition encourages it to a great extent.

Nor is there any leading tone available to use.

A pity! But no matter, a key is a key even without the leading tone.

I could send you a
NoteWorthy Composer score file if you wish.

A simple midi file will suffice.

There are many more
modal folk tunes from the same mould.

No doubt, in their own respective keys.

While you can set these
tunes in tertian harmonies from a heptatonic key (and many have),
this does much violence to their essentially pentatonic and modal
nature.

Huh? They are pentatonic keys obviously. Why do you assume a key has to be septatonic, or worse, diatonic all the time?

It actually sounds much better harmonised mostly with
fourths.

It would still remain a key no matter what.

Oho! I *thought* you were having a go at me! :-)

Touche.

Still, I wonder whether you will hear "Who will buy" as being in
the key of E minor, rather than being modal - just *because* it
modulates?

I would most likely hear it in the key of E pentatonic minor, simply because it modulates with gusto.

> Or cultural conditioning? Branding Maqamat as modes does not show the lack
of a better substitute term, it just shows how easily biased people tend to
categorize non-Western melodic scales as `contra-tonal`, and how eventually
Easterners incline to accept such terminological norms in order to
facilitate communications with the aforementioned party.

I defer to your experience of this situation.

You'd better! Just kidding... ;)

> In tonal music, the leading tone is always the 7th from the tonic, unless
I am unaware of something here? You will find this feature to be a dominant
trait of the Maqamat.

Perhaps you might say instead, "in tonal music of a given key, the
leading tone ...".

Done and done! Thank you for reminding me what I omitted and took for granted.

The example I gave of the minor second occurs
in some Japanese modes and Indian ragas, most particularly and
obviously in those whose scales have a flat seventh or no seventh
at all. There's a rag - I forget the name - with a scale like this:
take the notes of F harmonic minor, but C is the tonic.

A plagal mode obviously. Furthermore, it bears a striking resemblance to the principal Devr (mode, or scale/gamut) of Maqam Hijaz.

You may
try improvising in it on a keyboard if you like, like this: with the
right hand, play a melody with lots of stepwise movements and
sequences, predominantly falling rather than rising; do not dwell
especially in the region of the notes F or E, but rather more so
on Db and C. To reinforce the feeling that C is the tonic note,
use the left hand to simulate a Dotara accompaniment, softly
cycling through the notes C3, G3 and C4. If you introduce any
chromatic notes in your improvised melody, avoid using B natural
over much, except as a melodic anticipation of a move to Bb and
beyond. If you undertake this experiment, you will probably begin
to feel the pull of the Db toward the C. You may notice, as a
secondary effect of similar kind, that the other two semitones
also have a strong pull: Ab to G and E to F. In this rag, it is not
usually proper to emphasise the subdominant degree on F, but it
is normal to emphasise the dominant degree on G.

Try it: it's fun!

Are you kidding? Almost all the worthy Hijaz pieces do what you say. This is nothing new to us, with microtonal intonation as bonus!

>
> Lovely! Where can I learn more about these "Usuls" (`Usulun,
> meaning bases?) ?
>
> Have you tried Walter Feldman's `Music of the Ottoman Court`?

Haven't even heard of it before now! Would you recommend it
as an accurate account?

As accurate as any orientalist's observation of this genre can be. All the other significant resources are written in either Turkish, Arabic or Persian and few in Greek and Armenian. I would suggest that you await my doctorate dissertation in English. It'll be any minute now! ;)

> I still haven't heard an example of this, but would like to.
>

No matter what I say, I cannot make you hear what I hear. It seems you have to make the pilgrimage on your own volition. :)

This phenomenon is not seldom, but frequently encountered. I have assumed that specialized music stores do not all sell junk. Here, you may want to follow this link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000002R8/103-4537299-2195854?v=glance

Listen especially to Refik Fersan and Tanburi Cemil Bey among others. I hope this time you will hear what I mean.

Not being sure whether you can find what I would suggest here (since there may be no international sales of those particular items), I believe you should try to locate the CDs in the link I gave above.

>
> Presumably distance is along the circle of fifths?
> Or would modulation by a third also be common?
>
> Sometimes fourths and even major sixths as well.

Excellent! And how would you prepare for a modulation to
the major sixth - or could you step there directly?

Sometimes directly, sometimes after a jump by a fourth, sometimes in other eloquent ways.

>
> I wouldn't, since that would imply that a clearly tonal piece,
> in one of the Japanese pentatonics, say, was in a particular
> key - yet any attempt to harmonise it according to that
> key will destroy its character.

> Not necessarily, it will not.

Are you familiar with the popular Japanese song "Sakura"?

Maybe if you reminded me?

If you play it with F as the tonic note, the scale is similar
to the rag I described before, but without the fourth and
seventh. That is, it uses the notes F G Ab C Db. Is this just
an impoverished F minor key?

Nope, it is a composition in the Key of F pentatonic (of whatever category this may fall into), which happens to be the SCALA 1-4-2-1-4 mode, dubbed the Han-kumoi-joshi.

I think not, for if you
harmonise it using Fm, Bb and C7, you've introduced two
foreign notes and given them more weight than the melody
can support.

I would do no such thing of course. You do not need those notes in the polyphony.

As in much Japanese art, it's the _spaces
between_ that really count.

So it is the case for Maqam Music.

It's possible to harmonise the
melody using only scale tones, but it needs a light touch -
and definitely has no leading tone on the seventh!

Granted. But it still is a key if it modulates or tranposes with gusto.

> And why should we refrain from calling a Japanese pentatonic a key, but
not a mode?

Because it's not a key, and it is a mode. :-)

And a minor is not a mode???? Come on now, all keys are based on modes.

I've just shown how one pentatonic scale, with tonic F,
has no leading tone. Is it still a key despite that?
I don't think so - not unless "key" suddenly has much
wider connotations than usual.

What deprives us from thinking in that manner while you agree to over-stretch the historical definition of ecclesiastical modes to comprise maqams and ragas?

By choosing the note C as tonic, yet using the same
scale, we clearly have another mode.

Upon which a key is based.

Again, try it
for yourself; use all your wiles and musical prowess
to emphasise the note C rather than any other -
particularly Db. Here is another mode of the same
scale as before; it, too, lacks a leading tone.

One needs no leading tone to modulate, only wit and gusto. Domenico Scarlatti himself uses to supertonic as a substitute for the leading tone. Does he not compose in keys then?

But it's so much fun!

Regards,
Yahya

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Yahya Abdal-Aziz <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

10/29/2005 1:52:36 AM

Ozan,

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, you wrote:

[-------------8><--- snip!]

> > There are many more
> > modal folk tunes from the same mould.
>
> No doubt, in their own respective keys.

No doubt, in their own respective modes.

> > While you can set these
> > tunes in tertian harmonies from a heptatonic key (and many have),
> > this does much violence to their essentially pentatonic and modal
> > nature.
>
> Huh? They are pentatonic keys obviously. Why do you assume a key has to be
septatonic, or worse, diatonic all the time?

They are pentatonic modes obviously.
Why do you assume a mode has to be a key?

If you build triads on each scale degree of a
pentatonic mode, you naturally need to include
the third above the second, namely the fourth,
and also the fifth above the third, namely the
seventh. The resulting gamut is unavoidably
heptatonic. It does not follow that it has to
be diatonic, but then I never said it did.

[-------------8><--- snip!]

> > Still, I wonder whether you will hear "Who will buy" as being in
> > the key of E minor, rather than being modal - just *because* it
> > modulates?
>
> I would most likely hear it in the key of E pentatonic minor, simply
because it modulates with gusto.

Your definition of a key is any mode which modulates?

[-------------8><--- snip!]

> > The example I gave of the minor second occurs
> > in some Japanese modes and Indian ragas, most particularly and
> > obviously in those whose scales have a flat seventh or no seventh
> > at all. There's a rag - I forget the name - with a scale like this:
> > take the notes of F harmonic minor, but C is the tonic.
>
> A plagal mode obviously. Furthermore, it bears a striking resemblance to
the principal Devr (mode, or scale/gamut) of Maqam Hijaz.

A mode, you say ... not a key?

> > You may
> > try improvising in it on a keyboard if you like, like this:
[-------------8><--- snip!]
>
> Are you kidding? Almost all the worthy Hijaz pieces do what you say. This
is nothing new to us, with microtonal intonation as bonus!

> > > Lovely! Where can I learn more about these "Usuls" (`Usulun,
> > > meaning bases?) ?
> > >
> > > Have you tried Walter Feldman's `Music of the Ottoman Court`?
> > >
> > Haven't even heard of it before now! Would you recommend it
> > as an accurate account?
>
> As accurate as any orientalist's observation of this genre can be. All the
other significant resources are written in either Turkish, Arabic or Persian
and few in Greek and Armenian. I would suggest that you await my doctorate
dissertation in English. It'll be any minute now! ;)

Still waiting, still eager!

> > I still haven't heard an example of this, but would like to.
> >
> No matter what I say, I cannot make you hear what I hear. It seems you
have to make the pilgrimage on your own volition. :)

Now that's sheerly perverse of you; I repeatedly bow
at the guru's knee, only to be told "Patience! All will
be revealed ...".

[-------------8><--- snip!]
> > .... And if I made my way to the specialist music
> > stores in the city, I could spend much more than I could
> > afford in buying up everything that looked likely, and still
> > have no guarantee of hearing the phenomenon that you
> > describe!
>
> This phenomenon is not seldom, but frequently encountered. I have assumed
that specialized music stores do not all sell junk. Here, you may want to
follow this link:
>
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000002R8/103-4537299-2195854
?v=glance
>
> Listen especially to Refik Fersan and Tanburi Cemil Bey among others. I
hope this time you will hear what I mean.

Thank you for this gift! I also hope so.

[-------------8><--- snip!]
> > > > I wouldn't, since that would imply that a clearly tonal piece,
> > > > in one of the Japanese pentatonics, say, was in a particular
> > > > key - yet any attempt to harmonise it according to that
> > > > key will destroy its character.

> > > Not necessarily, it will not.

> > Are you familiar with the popular Japanese song "Sakura"?

> > If you play it with F as the tonic note, the scale is similar
> > to the rag I described before, but without the fourth and
> > seventh. That is, it uses the notes F G Ab C Db. Is this just
> > an impoverished F minor key?

> Nope, it is a composition in the Key of F pentatonic (of whatever category
this may fall into), which happens to be the SCALA 1-4-2-1-4 mode, dubbed
the Han-kumoi-joshi.

F is the tonic; the mode is 2-1-4-1-4. Please tell me why it is a key?

> > I think not, for if you
> > harmonise it using Fm, Bb and C7, you've introduced two
> > foreign notes and given them more weight than the melody
> > can support.
>
> I would do no such thing of course. You do not need those notes in the
polyphony.

I'm glad to hear it. But am fascinated to know how
harmonising this tune with only notes from this mode
can turn it into a key.

> > As in much Japanese art, it's the _spaces
> > between_ that really count.
>
> So it is the case for Maqam Music.

Wonderful! I'll be listening for them.

> > It's possible to harmonise the
> > melody using only scale tones, but it needs a light touch -
> > and definitely has no leading tone on the seventh!
>
> Granted. But it still is a key if it modulates or tranposes with gusto.

Diatonic transpositions within the notes of the mode?

> > > And why should we refrain from calling a Japanese pentatonic a key,
but
> > > not a mode?
> >
> > Because it's not a key, and it is a mode. :-)
>
> And a minor is not a mode???? Come on now, all keys are based on modes.

What is the extra something that says: with this,
we have a key, without it, we have [only] a mode?

> > I've just shown how one pentatonic scale, with tonic F,
> > has no leading tone. Is it still a key despite that?
> > I don't think so - not unless "key" suddenly has much
> > wider connotations than usual.
>
> What deprives us from thinking in that manner while you agree to
over-stretch the historical definition of ecclesiastical modes to comprise
maqams and ragas?

I thought I was using the term "mode" in the generally
accepted sense of a system of tonality not characterised
by the use of tertian harmonies, and where harmony is
forever the servant of melody. The term "mode" does not,
for me, first and foremost evoke the Dark Ages of Europe,
but rather the Golden Age of Greece.

> > By choosing the note C as tonic, yet using the same
> > scale, we clearly have another mode.
>
> Upon which a key is based.

Again, what's the difference? Is a key just a mode that
you're so unsure of you keep changing and jumping from
one to another?

> > Again, try it
> > for yourself; use all your wiles and musical prowess
> > to emphasise the note C rather than any other -
> > particularly Db. Here is another mode of the same
> > scale as before; it, too, lacks a leading tone.
>
> One needs no leading tone to modulate, only wit and gusto. Domenico
Scarlatti himself uses to supertonic as a substitute for the leading tone.
Does he not compose in keys then?

Now there's an interesting question! Ralph Kirkpatrick,
I believe, makes the point that more than a few of
Scarlatti's Sonatas cannot be considered to be in keys.
And that is certainly my experience of some of them.

> > Ozan, I would like to be able to hear what you hear
> > in maqam music. I would also like you to be able to
> > hear what I hear in modal music. Perhaps we can
> > achieve these aims if we continue to share
> > information to the best of our ability, while avoiding
> > the temptation to score points off each other. :-)
> > (I know I find that hard.)
>
> But it's so much fun!

Grrr.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/150 - Release Date: 27/10/05

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

10/30/2005 1:36:19 PM

>>> How can tonal gravity (musical flow through closely related
>>> tone centers) be achieved without `key` might I ask?
>>
>> You're asking me?
>
> Indeed, you along with any who might be interested to
> respond.

That does seem to be a good definition of "key". But we
might ask under what circumstances a piece might be said
to be in a "mode". I would say the theme song from the
TV show "The Simpsons" (one of Danny Elfman's best works
in my opinion) is in Lydian mode (as is a Bartok Mikrokosmos
piece of that name). The reason this can be true is that
the composition creates gravity around the Lydian mode of
the diatonic scale, but the diatonic scale itself, to
Western ears accustomed to Western tonal music, has weaker
modes and stronger modes, and only 2 of its modes are
traditionally considered strong enough to denote key.

Paul's explanation for this (IIRC from his paper on the
decatonic scales) is that the diminished fifth (the only
dissonance in a diatonic interval class that contains
consonances) is adjacent to the root perfect fifths of
only the Ionian and Aeolian modes. And if you play open
fifths on I-II-VII-I in all modes, there does seem to be
subtle pull in those modes: from the VII up in the Ionian
and from the II down in the Aeolian.

So in Western music, there is the gravity created by
the composition (mode) and the gravity created by the
scale, all else being equal (key). When these are
the same, we just specify a "key". When they differ,
we specify a mode and/or a key.

I'm barging in on this thread... am I all wet here?

>> I could send you a NoteWorthy Composer score file
>> if you wish.
>
> A simple midi file will suffice.

Yahya, I hope you can comply... I'd love to hear these
tunes.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

10/30/2005 3:36:42 PM

> > > .... And if I made my way to the specialist music
> > > stores in the city, I could spend much more than I could
> > > afford in buying up everything that looked likely, and still
> > > have no guarantee of hearing the phenomenon that you
> > > describe!
> >
> > This phenomenon is not seldom, but frequently encountered.
> > I have assumed that specialized music stores do not all
> > sell junk. Here, you may want to follow this link:
> >
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000002R8/
> >
> > Listen especially to Refik Fersan and Tanburi Cemil Bey among
> > others. I hope this time you will hear what I mean.

Ozan,

I enjoyed these samples as much as I have enjoyed traditional
Turkish music in the past. I think it is simply heart-stopping
music. But I cannot find the original message which explained
the "phenomenon you describe", which has been cut in the process
of conversation. What is this phenomenon? I'd like to see if
I can hear it!

-Carl

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

10/31/2005 7:08:57 AM

Hi Carl,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> ... the diatonic scale itself, to
> Western ears accustomed to Western tonal music, has weaker
> modes and stronger modes, and only 2 of its modes are
> traditionally considered strong enough to denote key.

What you say is essentially true, but i would amend it to
note that all the other modes besides major (ionian) and
minor (aeolian) are often classified by musicians into
"major-like" and "minor-like", depending on whether the
3rd above the root is major or minor, thus:

8ve species .. name .... major/minor

.... C ..... ionian ...... major
.... D ..... dorian ...... minor
.... E ..... phrygian .... minor
.... F ..... lydian ...... major
.... G ..... mixolydian .. major
.... A ..... aeolian ..... minor
.... B ..... locrian ..... minor

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Mark <mark@equiton.waitrose.com>

10/31/2005 7:25:49 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>[snip]
> .... B ..... locrian ..... minor
>
Q:

Is there any music written in this mode? Old music that is, not
contemporary composers writing in this mode purely for the novelty of
it.

I have been led to believe that this mode was never written in and that
as a result there really are only six church modes.

Mark

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

10/31/2005 9:51:57 AM

Hi Mark,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark@e...> wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
> >[snip]
> > .... B ..... locrian ..... minor
> >
> Q:
>
> Is there any music written in this mode? Old music that is,
> not contemporary composers writing in this mode purely for
> the novelty of it.
>
> I have been led to believe that this mode was never
> written in and that as a result there really are only six
> church modes.

During the time that the church modes were originally
the "common-practice" -- that is, the medieval and early
Renaissance, the answer is no. Musicians of that time
avoided the locrian mode like the plague, primarily because
the 5th above the tonic is a diminished-5th and not a
perfect-5th -- close relative of the "tritone", the old
_diabolus in musica_,

The "tritone" is properly the augmented-4th, and in
12-edo the diminished-5th is exactly the same pitch.
But during the medieval/Renaissance, the tuning was
theoretically pythagorean and not 12-edo, so they
actually were different intervals.

This is a very interesting topic which has a lot to
do with the history of musical notation -- the flat and
sharp symbols have their origins in the desire to
"mutate" from one hexachord to another so as to avoid
the _diabolus in musica_ by altering the diminished-5ths
and augmented-4ths into their respective "perfect"
counterparts.

Thus, wherever a composition would have putatively made
use of the locrian mode, a mutation was made so that
the F would be made sharp or the B would be made flat,
so as to transform the F:B into F#:B or F:Bb, or the
B:F into B:F# or Bb:F. Whether it was F going sharp or
B going flat depended on the requirements of the particular
chant or tune.

Originally, the flat and sharp symbols were simply the
"round-B" or "square-B" respectively, and indicated only
that a mutation was to be made into a "soft" or "hard"
hexachord. Over time, the two different B's evolved
into our modern symbols, and eventually, instead of
signifying a mutation into a certain hexachord, they
came to mean simply a raising or lowering of pitch by
a semitone.

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Mocfujita@aol.com

10/31/2005 2:14:41 PM

The Secret of Prelude No.24 B minor
An Addictive Analysis by Carl Philipp Emanuel Bach
in 1744 (fiction by imyfujita)

> My great father Johann Sebastian Bach told me to make some comments about
> this prelude, the Well Tempered Clavier Prelude No. 24 B minor. I am not so
> addictive as people may suppose me to be. But I found out its secret that
> Johann Sebastian had buried under an ordinary face of this beautiful arioso or
> cantabile. To tell the truth, the walking bass line of the first half of this
> prelude is made of the Dorian Mode using mainly the notes in the A Major Scale
> in some minor mood.
>

http://www.geocities.jp/imyfujita/wtcpage1241m.html

imyfujita

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

10/31/2005 5:03:55 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> >>> How can tonal gravity (musical flow through closely related
> >>> tone centers) be achieved without `key` might I ask?
> >>
> >> You're asking me?
> >
> > Indeed, you along with any who might be interested to
> > respond.
>
> That does seem to be a good definition of "key". But we
> might ask under what circumstances a piece might be said
> to be in a "mode". I would say the theme song from the
> TV show "The Simpsons" (one of Danny Elfman's best works
> in my opinion) is in Lydian mode (as is a Bartok Mikrokosmos
> piece of that name). The reason this can be true is that
> the composition creates gravity around the Lydian mode of
> the diatonic scale, but the diatonic scale itself, to
> Western ears accustomed to Western tonal music, has weaker
> modes and stronger modes, and only 2 of its modes are
> traditionally considered strong enough to denote key.

The Simpsons theme is not in the Lydian mode. It's in Lydian flat 7
or Mixolydian sharp 4.

> Paul's explanation for this (IIRC from his paper on the
> decatonic scales) is that the diminished fifth (the only
> dissonance in a diatonic interval class that contains
> consonances) is adjacent to the root perfect fifths of
> only the Ionian and Aeolian modes.

You should read what it says again (and thank you for hosting it!) --
the diminished fifth resolves by both instances of the rare step size
in contrary motion to one of the *thirds* in the tonic triad --
perfect fifths don't come into it.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

10/31/2005 5:23:14 PM

Nope, It's a piece composed in the key of Simpsian major. :)

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 01 Kasım 2005 Salı 3:03
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

The Simpsons theme is not in the Lydian mode. It's in Lydian flat 7
or Mixolydian sharp 4.

🔗Mark <mark@equiton.waitrose.com>

11/1/2005 12:04:01 AM

See The theme of the opening movement of Bartok's Divertimento.

Theme is based on a lydian mode, but flattens the 7th frequently.

Lendvai calls this Bartok's 'Diatonic' mode. Interestingly it has both
characteristic notes of the diatonic altered. Lendvai proposes that
this mode should really read

8:9:10:11:12:[13]:14. The 13th harmonic is replaced by the major 6th
5/3, so I suppose the series could read:

24:27:30:33:36:40:42:48

but that places it on 3 rather than 1.

Also the raised 7th appears (15/8), so maybe we should really interpret
Bartok's scale as partials 8 through 16. However, the absence of the
13th partial makes this questionable.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> Nope, It's a piece composed in the key of Simpsian major. :)
>
I would say the theme song from the
> > TV show "The Simpsons" (one of Danny Elfman's best works
> > in my opinion) is in Lydian mode (as is a Bartok Mikrokosmos
> > piece of that name).
> The Simpsons theme is not in the Lydian mode. It's in Lydian flat 7
> or Mixolydian sharp 4.
>

🔗Mark <mark@equiton.waitrose.com>

11/1/2005 12:10:29 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:
>
> Hi Mark,
>
>
> During the time that the church modes were originally
> the "common-practice" -- that is, the medieval and early
> Renaissance, the answer is no. [snip]

I thought so. It is interesting that the shaped notes of the square B
and the round B live on in German notation of H and B. In the
Fitzwilliam Virginal books I have come across a great many passages
where the requirement for a leading note or a perfect fifth creates
situations where altered and unaltered notes get very close together.
A typical situation occurs near cadences (in say Dorian) where Csharp
is required upward, yet a downward part has C, and very occasionally
they can clash. Such cross relations can be found in later music - I
can recall it in Bach and Mozart, and in Beethoven.

Correct me if I am wrong but I was also under the impression that in
modal writing the 'hypo-' modeswith a different final were also used,
and iirc this was to do with adding another tetrachord lower than the
usual modes.

Mark

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

11/1/2005 12:34:35 PM

Hi Mark,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <mark@e...> wrote:

> Correct me if I am wrong but I was also under the impression
> that in modal writing the 'hypo-' modeswith a different
> final were also used, and iirc this was to do with adding
> another tetrachord lower than the usual modes.

Medieval music-theory is an attempt to amalgamate ancient
Greek theory with the practice current during the Frankish
era (c.700-1000).

Details on the Greek PIS ("Perfect Immutable System") can
be found on my Encyclopedia page:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/p/pis.aspx

Unfortunately, i have yet to make an Encyclopedia page
explaining how that evolved into the Medieval system.

Basically, the Frankish theorists set up a system where
their 4 main modes were the ones which today we would call:

1. D E F G A B C
2. E F G A B C D
3. F G A B C D E
4. G A B C D E F

(but they were usually less than 7 tones)

There was an auxillary group of 4 modes which used the
same notes but had the "finals" (D, E, F, G) in the middle
of the tessitura instead of at the bottom.

They simply used the Greek words _protos_ (1st),
_deuteros_ (2nd), _tritos_ (3rd), and _tetrardos_ (4th)
to name them, and called the main group "authentic" and
the secondary group "plagal".

During the early 900s, Hucbald rearranged the Greek PIS by:

1. shifting the entire system down a whole-tone,

2. using Greek letters for the names of the notes,
instead of the long Greek names, and

3. using Latin names for the shifted tetrachords, to
replace the Greek names:

* _finales_ for the main set (D, E, F, G) instead of _meson_,

* _graves_ for the lowest (A, B, C, D) instead of _hypaton_,

* _superiores_ for the tetrachord above the center, instead
of _diezeugmenon_,

* _excellentes_ for the highest, instead of _hyperbolaion_,

* a single low-G spelled with the Greek letter "gamma" at
the very bottom, instead of _proslambanomenos_.

The _synemmenon_ (conjunct) tetrachord, which involved what
we would today call "Bb", was still used, but not given
any special name ... instead, the process of "mutation" was
invented (actually, reinvented, since the Greeks used it too.)

You can read about some of this on my "Daseian" page:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/d/daseian.aspx

However, note that on that webpage i offer my radical
interpretation of the _musica enchiriadis_ gamut as a
set of 4 conjunct tetrachords.

During the next century, the use of the Greek letters
was replaced with the first seven letters of the Roman
alphabet A B C D E F G, with the two different kinds
of B ("round" and "square") used to denote the disjunct
and conjunct tetrachords, respectively, above the _finales_.

The _dialogus de musica_, usually attributed to Odo of Cluny
(but actually not written by him), is the earliest treatise
i know of which uses the Roman letters and two B's. Here
is the full Latin text with diagrams:

http://www.music.indiana.edu/tml/9th-11th/ODODIA_TEXT.html

This treatise describes a monochord division giving a
pythagorean chain-of-5ths 3^(-3...+4) Bb F C G D A E B,
with G as 3^0 (i.e., 1/1 ratio).

It was only later that the modes were given the Greek
names, with the "hypo" prefix used for the plagal modes.
But medieval theorists thought of scales in ascending order,
whereas the ancient Greeks denoted them as descending, so
that the pitch patterns of tone/semitone were reversed by
the Franks and their names do not correspond with the same
modal patterns as those of the ancient Greeks.

There's also some relevant info here:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/n/notation.aspx

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

11/1/2005 1:59:45 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <monz@t...> wrote:

> During the early 900s, Hucbald rearranged the Greek PIS by:
>
> ...
> 3. using Latin names for the shifted tetrachords, to
> replace the Greek names:
>
> ...
> * a single low-G spelled with the Greek letter "gamma" at
> the very bottom, instead of _proslambanomenos_.
>
>
> The _synemmenon_ (conjunct) tetrachord, which involved what
> we would today call "Bb", was still used, but not given
> any special name ... instead, the process of "mutation" was
> invented (actually, reinvented, since the Greeks used it too.)

I just took another look at Hucbald's treatise, and some
of this is not quite correct.

Hucbald did use the Greek letter "gamma", but not for the
low-G. Actually, his system of Greek-letter notation used
exactly the same pitch-relationships as the ancient Greek
system, so that his lowest note was A. The "gamma" was used
for the B a whole-tone above that. There was no "added tone"
at the bottom: Hucbald's low-A was the bottom of the _graves_
tetrachord.

Also, he did in fact continue to use the Greek name
_synemmenon_ for the conjunct tetrachord.

The pseudo-Odo _dialogus de musica_ is, again, the earliest
example i know of which has the entire system based on G,
and includes the low-G "gamma" ... which note, BTW, is the
origin of the word "gamut". See:

http://tonalsoft.com/enc/g/gamut.aspx

-monz
http://tonalsoft.com
Tonescape microtonal music software

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

11/1/2005 2:45:43 PM

Yahya,
----- Original Message -----
From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 29 Ekim 2005 Cumartesi 10:52
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

Ozan,

On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, you wrote:

[-------------8><--- snip!]

> > There are many more
> > modal folk tunes from the same mould.
>
> No doubt, in their own respective keys.

No doubt, in their own respective modes.

Upon which their respective keys are based.

They are pentatonic modes obviously.
Why do you assume a mode has to be a key?

Not the mode, but the piece which utilizes a particular mode to begin with.

Septatonic has a diatonic flavor to it, almost unavoidably.

[-------------8><--- snip!]

Your definition of a key is any mode which modulates?

My definition of key is any tonal setting which modulates around a particular mode and uses relative pitch designations for that purpose. I furthermore assert that such a definition ought to be considered universal for all musics. All tunes are based on keys in my eyes, modal or otherwise.

[-------------8><--- snip!]

A mode, you say ... not a key?

Devr is mode, as in octave species of a scale from a global set of pitches. That is why Ilm-i Edvar, or the Science of Cycles/Modes bears a striking resemblance to Medieval music theories of Europe. Maqam is not mode, it is key, as in modal rotations around a tonal center. It is surprising that Maqams came into existence in the Middle East around the same time as keys evolved from modality in the West. The Rast Maqam is the Key of Rast based on the 5-limit tempered Ionian mode as well as other modes around which it modulates.

Still waiting, still eager!

I admire your passion, really!

> > I still haven't heard an example of this, but would like to.
> >
> No matter what I say, I cannot make you hear what I hear. It seems you
have to make the pilgrimage on your own volition. :)

Now that's sheerly perverse of you; I repeatedly bow
at the guru's knee, only to be told "Patience! All will
be revealed ...".

That is what the noble sheik decreed. Behold! It shall all be revealed in due time! :)

> Nope, it is a composition in the Key of F pentatonic (of whatever category
this may fall into), which happens to be the SCALA 1-4-2-1-4 mode, dubbed
the Han-kumoi-joshi.

F is the tonic; the mode is 2-1-4-1-4. Please tell me why it is a key?

It will become a key once a piece is composed with it. One would have to be a pretty dull composer to labor so that a mode does not become a key. All modes eventually become keys once a good piece is composed with it, unless a modulation is specifically avoided throughout, in which case I would consign it the term mode, avoid calling it worthwhile music and be done with it.

I'm glad to hear it. But am fascinated to know how
harmonising this tune with only notes from this mode
can turn it into a key.

First give me a section of the music, then I will try to harmonise it according to its pentatonic key the way I hear it.

Diatonic transpositions within the notes of the mode?

Modulations as in rotations of the scale, transpositions as in an exact linear pitch-shift while preserving the intervallic structure.

What is the extra something that says: with this,
we have a key, without it, we have [only] a mode?

We have a mode when it is explained on paper, just as we have a scale when we look at a scala file. We have a key once we do something with them which we call music.

Just because Ancient Greek Music is based on modal heterophony does not mean that mode itself implies any extra information for tonality, be it tertian or otherwise. We say major and minor, but we correlate them in a system of keys, specifically because they acquire the necessary tonal meaning when utilized as keys. And no, a key does not imply tertian harmony, it only relates modes and their transpositions to each other by certain rules which are subject to change depending on culture and tradition. Late 19th Century European Music differs widely from Classical and Baroque, in that Romantic composers utilize another system of keys (still widely unformulated) altogether. That is why Respigni is so much more different from Couperin, although they are both tonal composers who employed keys in their works.

> > By choosing the note C as tonic, yet using the same
> > scale, we clearly have another mode.
>
> Upon which a key is based.

Again, what's the difference? Is a key just a mode that
you're so unsure of you keep changing and jumping from
one to another?

Are you even following what I've been trying to say since the beginning?

Balderdash. Scarlatti was a tonal composer whose works are based on keys entirely, be they conventional or unconventional. Would you be kind enough to show me which Scarlatti sonatas are not in keys? If we were to give in to that logic, we would have to dump thousands of tonal works out the window just because they do not conform to a narrow understanding of key, which is oft imagined to be a synoym for mainstream tertian harmony.

Grrr.

Regards,
Yahya

Harumph!

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

11/1/2005 3:01:38 PM

Carl,
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 30 Ekim 2005 Pazar 23:36
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

That does seem to be a good definition of "key". But we
might ask under what circumstances a piece might be said
to be in a "mode".

All pieces are in modes obviously! We are so infatuated with major and minor that we cannot even think of them as modes anymore.

I would say the theme song from the
TV show "The Simpsons" (one of Danny Elfman's best works
in my opinion) is in Lydian mode (as is a Bartok Mikrokosmos
piece of that name). The reason this can be true is that
the composition creates gravity around the Lydian mode of
the diatonic scale, but the diatonic scale itself, to
Western ears accustomed to Western tonal music, has weaker
modes and stronger modes, and only 2 of its modes are
traditionally considered strong enough to denote key.

Itchy and Scratchy are making fun of you even as we speak. Nearly all modes of all scales are powerful enough to denote keys and a consequent tonality. It is just that we don't want to see the possibilities.

Other modes have no less tempting tonal attractions, and I'm not even talking about Church modes.

Do you agree that a C Major key and a C Minor key are different tonalities? Do you agree that Rast and Nihavend in a particular Ahenk are different Maqams? Touche.

I'm barging in on this thread... am I all wet here?

Depends whether or not you are typing in the tub with soapy hands.

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

11/1/2005 3:12:13 PM

The phenomenon is simply that Maqams are not modes, Devrs are modes=octave species upon which Maqamat are based. A Rast Maqam will do all sorts of things, modulate, transpose, alterate... tonal characteristics that can only be explained by a system of keys unique to Maqam Music.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 31 Ekim 2005 Pazartesi 1:36
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

Ozan,

-Carl

SPONSORED LINKS Music production education Music education degree Degree education music online
Music business education Music education online Music industry education

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "tuning" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

11/1/2005 4:24:54 PM

> I would say the theme song from the
> TV show "The Simpsons" (one of Danny Elfman's best works
> in my opinion) is in Lydian mode (as is a Bartok Mikrokosmos
> piece of that name). The reason this can be true is that
> the composition creates gravity around the Lydian mode of
> the diatonic scale, but the diatonic scale itself, to
> Western ears accustomed to Western tonal music, has weaker
> modes and stronger modes, and only 2 of its modes are
> traditionally considered strong enough to denote key.
>
> Itchy and Scratchy are making fun of you even as we speak.
> Nearly all modes of all scales are powerful enough to denote
> keys and a consequent tonality. It is just that we don't want
> to see the possibilities.

I agree. But in Western terminology, at least in common
practice music (which admittedly is obsolete today), it's
but a peculiar convention to say only Ionian and Aeolian
modes may denote key. But now I think I understand your
point better.

> So in Western music, there is the gravity created by
> the composition (mode) and the gravity created by the
> scale, all else being equal (key). When these are
> the same, we just specify a "key". When they differ,
> we specify a mode and/or a key.
>
> Do you agree that a C Major key and a C Minor key are
> different tonalities?

Yes.

> Do you agree that Rast and Nihavend in a particular
> Ahenk are different Maqams? Touche.

Unfortunately you know more about Western music than I do
of Maqam music. :)

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

11/1/2005 4:28:08 PM

> > > > .... And if I made my way to the specialist music
> > > > stores in the city, I could spend much more than I could
> > > > afford in buying up everything that looked likely, and
> > > > still have no guarantee of hearing the phenomenon that
> > > > you describe!
> > >
> > > This phenomenon is not seldom, but frequently encountered.
> > > I have assumed that specialized music stores do not all
> > > sell junk. Here, you may want to follow this link:
> > >
> > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0000002R8/
> > >
> > > Listen especially to Refik Fersan and Tanburi Cemil Bey
> > > among others. I hope this time you will hear what I mean.
>
> Ozan,
>
> I enjoyed these samples as much as I have enjoyed traditional
> Turkish music in the past. I think it is simply heart-stopping
> music. But I cannot find the original message which explained
> the "phenomenon you describe", which has been cut in the process
> of conversation. What is this phenomenon? I'd like to see if
> I can hear it!
>
> The phenomenon is simply that Maqams are not modes, Devrs are
> modes=octave species upon which Maqamat are based. A Rast Maqam
> will do all sorts of things, modulate, transpose, alterate...
> tonal characteristics that can only be explained by a system of
> keys unique to Maqam Music.

In that case I might agree, as the music samples above sound
tonal to me. But I always hesitate because I'm afraid I'm
merely hearing in them what I expect in Western music,
projecting, as it were a cultural bias onto them. Maybe I'll
worry less about this after I read your dissertation!

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

11/1/2005 4:47:19 PM

Dear Carl,
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 02 Kasım 2005 Çarşamba 2:24
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

> Itchy and Scratchy are making fun of you even as we speak.
> Nearly all modes of all scales are powerful enough to denote
> keys and a consequent tonality. It is just that we don't want
> to see the possibilities.

Hurray!

Yes.

In that case, even without the pitch designation, any frequency acting as a tone center is enough to differentiate between a major key and a minor key (including all modulations, transpositions and alterations), correct?

> Do you agree that Rast and Nihavend in a particular
> Ahenk are different Maqams? Touche.

Unfortunately you know more about Western music than I do
of Maqam music. :)

-Carl

I know less of Maqam Music than you do of Western Music. ;) We are both musicians educated by Western standards, remember?

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

11/1/2005 4:48:24 PM

Fabulous. Hesitate not, this Music is as tonal as Western classical gems.
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 02 Kasım 2005 Çarşamba 2:28
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

> The phenomenon is simply that Maqams are not modes, Devrs are
> modes=octave species upon which Maqamat are based. A Rast Maqam
> will do all sorts of things, modulate, transpose, alterate...
> tonal characteristics that can only be explained by a system of
> keys unique to Maqam Music.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

11/1/2005 10:10:08 PM

> > So in Western music, there is the gravity created by
> > the composition (mode) and the gravity created by the
> > scale, all else being equal (key). When these are
> > the same, we just specify a "key". When they differ,
> > we specify a mode and/or a key.
> >
> > Do you agree that a C Major key and a C Minor key are
> > different tonalities?
>
> Yes.
>
> In that case, even without the pitch designation, any frequency
> acting as a tone center is enough to differentiate between a
> major key and a minor key (including all modulations,
> transpositions and alterations), correct?

It seems we would need at least two frequencies... the tonic,
and another which is present in either C Maj or C min but not
in both. Example: C and Eb would probably be enough to
establish the key of C min. C and G would not. Or maybe I
misunderstand the question.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

11/2/2005 2:58:56 AM

That could just as well be an Ab Major, why do you assume at first that it has to be a C minor?

The point is, you don't need any note names or a standard diapason to identify whether a piece is in major key or minor key. We attribute pitch designations to frequencies just so that we can explain how the tonality unfolds.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 02 Kasım 2005 Çarşamba 8:10
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

>
> In that case, even without the pitch designation, any frequency
> acting as a tone center is enough to differentiate between a
> major key and a minor key (including all modulations,
> transpositions and alterations), correct?

-Carl

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

11/3/2005 11:15:38 AM

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

> All modes eventually become keys once a good piece is composed with
>it, unless a modulation is specifically avoided throughout, in which
>case I would consign it the term mode, avoid calling it worthwhile
>music and be done with it.

!!!

Sorry to hear you have such a limited conception of what constitutes
worthwhile music. It doesn't sound like any Indian music would be
considered worthwhile to you, and that makes me sad, because so much
Indian music stirs my soul very deeply.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

11/3/2005 11:29:05 AM

I never said Indian Music was not worthwhile Paul. Are you sure we understood each other entirely and correctly?
----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kasım 2005 Perşembe 21:15
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

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

!!!

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

11/3/2005 11:51:57 AM

I guess not, Ozan. Indian music, even if you insist on saying it
uses "keys", does not modulate. Somehow your statement below seemed
to indicate to me that you would therefore avoid calling it
worthwhile music. Clearly I misunderstood you, but I don't know how.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> I never said Indian Music was not worthwhile Paul. Are you sure we
understood each other entirely and correctly?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 03 Kasým 2005 Perþembe 21:15
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...>
wrote:
>
> > All modes eventually become keys once a good piece is composed
with
> >it, unless a modulation is specifically avoided throughout, in
which
> >case I would consign it the term mode, avoid calling it
worthwhile
> >music and be done with it.
>
> !!!
>
> Sorry to hear you have such a limited conception of what
constitutes
> worthwhile music. It doesn't sound like any Indian music would be
> considered worthwhile to you, and that makes me sad, because so
much
> Indian music stirs my soul very deeply.
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

11/3/2005 12:08:26 PM

The proper the conclusion you should have drawn from my statement would then require you to tell me that my assertion was flawed instead of assuming that I could actually consent to musical supremacism.

In any case, I am not sure if you are an authority on Indian Sangeet. I am not even sure if you mean Carnatic or Hindustani Sangeet. The latter is a branch of Maqam Music as far as I know and hear. I hope that you do not insinuate an improvisation based on a rag never borrows material from another rag during musical exposition and development, however scarce. Even a single modulation lasting the duration of a second should be enough to denote a key in my opinion.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kasım 2005 Perşembe 21:51
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

11/3/2005 2:41:37 PM

I would love to see a response from Haresh or another Indian
musician. Meanwhile, I can't tell you your assertion is flawed --
you're perfectly entitled to consider music to be worthless for
whatever reason -- only that it's sad to me. Plenty of music I love
doesn't modulate; that's all.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:
>
> The proper the conclusion you should have drawn from my statement
>would then require you to tell me that my assertion was flawed
>instead of assuming that I could actually consent to musical
>supremacism.
>
> In any case, I am not sure if you are an authority on Indian
>Sangeet. I am not even sure if you mean Carnatic or Hindustani
>Sangeet. The latter is a branch of Maqam Music as far as I know and
>hear. I hope that you do not insinuate an improvisation based on a
>rag never borrows material from another rag during musical
>exposition and development, however scarce. Even a single modulation
>lasting the duration of a second should be enough to denote a key in
>my opinion.
>
> Cordially,
> Ozan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: wallyesterpaulrus
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 03 Kasým 2005 Perþembe 21:51
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes
>
>
> I guess not, Ozan. Indian music, even if you insist on saying it
> uses "keys", does not modulate. Somehow your statement below
seemed
> to indicate to me that you would therefore avoid calling it
> worthwhile music. Clearly I misunderstood you, but I don't know
how.
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@superonline.com>

11/3/2005 2:58:01 PM

Maybe we understand different things from modulation?

----- Original Message -----
From: wallyesterpaulrus
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Kasım 2005 Cuma 0:41
Subject: [tuning] Re: Keys and modes