5ths based tuning

I've been reading a book Haresh sent me, "Srutis and Srutibheda," and it's been real interesting to see that, according to the book, the traditional Indian 22 srutis were derived from combining cycles of 5ths and 4ths. And, what I didn't realize was that when you go up 9 5ths, you come to a D# at about 318 cents, which is just about a perfect flat 3rd...but, all of the traditional Pythagorean tunings I've seen over the years, use the 294 cent b3 (32/27). I'm assuming that this is because it's a smaller ratio, but it's not as close to the 6/5 as the other one. And, it's also interesting that you can get an almost pure maj 3rd by going down 8 5ths, but again, the 81/64 at 408 cents is the one you usually see given in Pythagorean scales. So, why didn't European theorists over the years just use those close to perfect 3rds instead of the more out of tune (for chords) ones? What am I missing?
Jeez, this is pretty basic stuff I'm sure, but I'm still learning about this topic. The Sruti book is a real eye opener, and talking to Haresh is real interesting as well, as he points out that traditionally, Indian musicians learned the location of the pitches by the more direct method of copying the sensei, not by any sort of mathematical calculations. And, I've also come to understand that Arabic music was also transmitted in this way as well, and I imagine, actually, that most musicians around the world learned this way too. It was mainly the European method of writing everything down that changed this way of learning.
So, if one was learning pitch placement as an intregal part of a piece (raga/maqam), then as the needs of the piece changed from form to form, the pitch of a particular note would change as well, but only because of the need to express a different emotion/feeling, not as a mathematical formula divorced from the actual experience of playing the music. And, I guess this is the age old division of theory versus actual musical practice...musicians place notes where they will best express what the music is communicating, but if theory is formulated as something not connected to actual playing, than perhaps it is not as real as the music itself.
Can Akkoc's paper on non deterministic scales seems to be right on the money as far as actual musical practice is concerned, since musicians may be putting pitches other places than the so called theoretical models say. And, as I've often mentioned, blues pitch bending is not tied down to any one theoretical concept...a note area is real fluid, and can change from moment to moment.
In fact, I've come to realize that, for me, if I had to sum up the most important thing I've learned from my study of tunings, it's the fact that a note's pitch is in an AREA of the pitch continuum, not tied down to a specific place, as in an instrument like the piano, where a note only has one position. Learning that has been most liberating, and has greatly affected the way I think about, and play, music. If I had to tell beginning students one profound truth about what tuning was all about, that would be it (and yes, I know there's many important facets of tuning)...best...HHH

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick" <microstick@m...> wrote:
>
> I've been reading a book Haresh sent me, "Srutis and Srutibheda,"
and
> it's been real interesting to see that, according to the book, the
> traditional Indian 22 srutis were derived from combining cycles of
5ths and
> 4ths. And, what I didn't realize was that when you go up 9 5ths, you
come to
> a D# at about 318 cents, which is just about a perfect flat
3rd...but, all
> of the traditional Pythagorean tunings I've seen over the years, use
the 294
> cent b3 (32/27). I'm assuming that this is because it's a smaller
ratio,
> but it's not as close to the 6/5 as the other one. And, it's also
> interesting that you can get an almost pure maj 3rd by going down 8
5ths,
> but again, the 81/64 at 408 cents is the one you usually see given in
> Pythagorean scales. So, why didn't European theorists over the years
just
> use those close to perfect 3rds instead of the more out of tune (for
chords)
> ones? What am I missing?

They did - at least, late in the medieval period. Read about van
Zwolle. With 12 or fewer keys to the octave the number of chords which
can be played with these 'good' thirds is relatively small. Also, the
numerical ratios of the 'good' thirds are so ugly-looking that I
suspect they made little impact in the truly theoretical (i.e.
mathematical) sphere. In pratice, rather soon after the pure thirds
became listenable as consonances, meantone arrived as a much more
efficient way of producing them.

We need not even assume that anyone *wanted* to produce good
approximations to 5-limit intervals until late medieval times.

~~~T~~~

On 1/20/06, Neil Haverstick <microstick@msn.com> wrote:
> I've been reading a book Haresh sent me, "Srutis and Srutibheda," and
> it's been real interesting to see that, according to the book, the
> traditional Indian 22 srutis were derived from combining cycles of 5ths and
> 4ths. And, what I didn't realize was that when you go up 9 5ths, you come to
> a D# at about 318 cents, which is just about a perfect flat 3rd...but, all
> of the traditional Pythagorean tunings I've seen over the years, use the 294
> cent b3 (32/27). I'm assuming that this is because it's a smaller ratio,
> but it's not as close to the 6/5 as the other one. And, it's also
> interesting that you can get an almost pure maj 3rd by going down 8 5ths,
> but again, the 81/64 at 408 cents is the one you usually see given in
> Pythagorean scales. So, why didn't European theorists over the years just
> use those close to perfect 3rds instead of the more out of tune (for chords)
> ones? What am I missing?

This is called "schismatic" temperament, because it tempers out the
"schisma" of 32805/32768 (the difference between a minor third and
nine fifths). There's a Wikipedia article on it.

> Jeez, this is pretty basic stuff I'm sure, but I'm still learning about
> this topic. The Sruti book is a real eye opener, and talking to Haresh is
> real interesting as well, as he points out that traditionally, Indian
> musicians learned the location of the pitches by the more direct method of
> copying the sensei, not by any sort of mathematical calculations. And, I've
> also come to understand that Arabic music was also transmitted in this way
> as well, and I imagine, actually, that most musicians around the world
> learned this way too. It was mainly the European method of writing
> everything down that changed this way of learning.
> So, if one was learning pitch placement as an intregal part of a piece
> (raga/maqam), then as the needs of the piece changed from form to form, the
> pitch of a particular note would change as well, but only because of the
> need to express a different emotion/feeling, not as a mathematical formula
> divorced from the actual experience of playing the music. And, I guess this
> is the age old division of theory versus actual musical practice...musicians
> place notes where they will best express what the music is communicating,
> but if theory is formulated as something not connected to actual playing,
> than perhaps it is not as real as the music itself.
> Can Akkoc's paper on non deterministic scales seems to be right on the
> money as far as actual musical practice is concerned, since musicians may be
> putting pitches other places than the so called theoretical models say. And,
> as I've often mentioned, blues pitch bending is not tied down to any one
> theoretical concept...a note area is real fluid, and can change from moment
> to moment.
> In fact, I've come to realize that, for me, if I had to sum up the most
> important thing I've learned from my study of tunings, it's the fact that a
> note's pitch is in an AREA of the pitch continuum, not tied down to a
> specific place, as in an instrument like the piano, where a note only has
> one position. Learning that has been most liberating, and has greatly
> affected the way I think about, and play, music. If I had to tell beginning
> students one profound truth about what tuning was all about, that would be
> it (and yes, I know there's many important facets of tuning)...best...HHH

Well said. That's why I think equal temperments with more than 50 or
60 pitches to the octave (at most) are just silly. There's no way
anyone could actually modulate into all those different keys, so it
doesn't really matter that it's an equal temperament.

Keenan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick" <microstick@m...> wrote:
>
> I've been reading a book Haresh sent me, "Srutis and Srutibheda,"
and
> it's been real interesting to see that, according to the book, the
> traditional Indian 22 srutis were derived from combining cycles of
5ths and
> 4ths. And, what I didn't realize was that when you go up 9 5ths, you
come to
> a D# at about 318 cents, which is just about a perfect flat
3rd...but, all
> of the traditional Pythagorean tunings I've seen over the years, use
the 294
> cent b3 (32/27).

Yeah, schismatic or schismic or helmholtz temperament. We've discused
before on this list how some of the theoretcal Indian scales seem to
strongly imply it. I'd be interested to know if that is connected to
actual practice.

So, why didn't European theorists over the years just
> use those close to perfect 3rds instead of the more out of tune (for
chords)
> ones? What am I missing?

It's more complex, but apparently in the switch from Pythagorean to
meantone there was a period where it might well have been used. If
European music had taken another direction, maybe we'd be playing in
53-edo scales today.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@g...> wrote:

> Well said. That's why I think equal temperments with more than 50 or
> 60 pitches to the octave (at most) are just silly. There's no way
> anyone could actually modulate into all those different keys, so it
> doesn't really matter that it's an equal temperament.

You are missing another reason to use them, which is that they temper
out commas you would like to temper out. If you want to temper out
225/224, 243/242, 385/384, 441/440, 540/539, 1029/1024 etc, which is
to say if you want miracle temperament, then 72 is self-recommending.
If in addition you'd like to temper out 15625/15552 or 4000/3993, 72
equal is the only game in town.

Keenan, I do not agree with you. Pitch detail is one thing, modulation is
another.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@gmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 20 Ocak 2006 Cuma 23:38
Subject: Re: [tuning] 5ths based tuning

SNIP

> > In fact, I've come to realize that, for me, if I had to sum up the
most
> > important thing I've learned from my study of tunings, it's the fact
that a
> > note's pitch is in an AREA of the pitch continuum, not tied down to a
> > specific place, as in an instrument like the piano, where a note only
has
> > one position. Learning that has been most liberating, and has greatly
> > affected the way I think about, and play, music. If I had to tell
beginning
> > students one profound truth about what tuning was all about, that would
be
> > it (and yes, I know there's many important facets of
tuning)...best...HHH
>
> Well said. That's why I think equal temperments with more than 50 or
> 60 pitches to the octave (at most) are just silly. There's no way
> anyone could actually modulate into all those different keys, so it
> doesn't really matter that it's an equal temperament.
>
> Keenan
>

Hi Neil,

Indeed, Maqam Music (Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Hindustani etc..) pitches
VARY a lot, since they are - as you succintly put it - AREAS in the pitch
continuum. They are often found to be fuzzy/cloudy regions in our
investigations. This is why I had to find a temperament solution that
incorporated a lot of detail while agreeing with pitch measurements as well
as celebrated historical models.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Neil Haverstick" <microstick@msn.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 20 Ocak 2006 Cuma 20:39
Subject: [tuning] 5ths based tuning

> I've been reading a book Haresh sent me, "Srutis and Srutibheda," and
> it's been real interesting to see that, according to the book, the
> traditional Indian 22 srutis were derived from combining cycles of 5ths
and
> 4ths. And, what I didn't realize was that when you go up 9 5ths, you come
to > a D# at about 318 cents, which is just about a perfect flat 3rd...but,
all
> of the traditional Pythagorean tunings I've seen over the years, use the
294
> cent b3 (32/27). I'm assuming that this is because it's a smaller ratio,
> but it's not as close to the 6/5 as the other one. And, it's also
> interesting that you can get an almost pure maj 3rd by going down 8 5ths,
> but again, the 81/64 at 408 cents is the one you usually see given in
> Pythagorean scales. So, why didn't European theorists over the years just
> use those close to perfect 3rds instead of the more out of tune (for
chords)
> ones? What am I missing?
> Jeez, this is pretty basic stuff I'm sure, but I'm still learning about
> this topic. The Sruti book is a real eye opener, and talking to Haresh is
> real interesting as well, as he points out that traditionally, Indian
> musicians learned the location of the pitches by the more direct method of
> copying the sensei, not by any sort of mathematical calculations. And,
I've
> also come to understand that Arabic music was also transmitted in this way
> as well, and I imagine, actually, that most musicians around the world
> learned this way too. It was mainly the European method of writing
> everything down that changed this way of learning.
> So, if one was learning pitch placement as an intregal part of a piece
> (raga/maqam), then as the needs of the piece changed from form to form,
the
> pitch of a particular note would change as well, but only because of the
> need to express a different emotion/feeling, not as a mathematical formula
> divorced from the actual experience of playing the music. And, I guess
this
> is the age old division of theory versus actual musical
practice...musicians
> place notes where they will best express what the music is communicating,
> but if theory is formulated as something not connected to actual playing,
> than perhaps it is not as real as the music itself.
> Can Akkoc's paper on non deterministic scales seems to be right on the
> money as far as actual musical practice is concerned, since musicians may
be
> putting pitches other places than the so called theoretical models say.
And,
> as I've often mentioned, blues pitch bending is not tied down to any one
> theoretical concept...a note area is real fluid, and can change from
moment
> to moment.
> In fact, I've come to realize that, for me, if I had to sum up the most
> important thing I've learned from my study of tunings, it's the fact that
a
> note's pitch is in an AREA of the pitch continuum, not tied down to a
> specific place, as in an instrument like the piano, where a note only has
> one position. Learning that has been most liberating, and has greatly
> affected the way I think about, and play, music. If I had to tell
beginning
> students one profound truth about what tuning was all about, that would be
> it (and yes, I know there's many important facets of tuning)...best...HHH
>
>

tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> Message: 1 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:37:23 +0200
> From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
> Subject: Re: 5ths based tuning
>
> Hi Neil,
>
> Indeed, Maqam Music (Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Hindustani etc..)

I would be extremely hesistant about lumping Hindustani music into the "Maqam Music" label. While there has indeed been a massive admixture of islamicate traditions into Hindustani music, and that admixture is an important factor in distinguishing it from parallel traditions sharing a common Indic ancestry (Karnatic, Sri Lankan among them), it is a bit like calling English a Romance language because of the massive French lexicon in English. My hesitancy becomes a real caution when I note that such a lumping can go the other way as well: one might as well include all of the "Maqam Music" repertoires listed above (with North African, Andalusian/Iberian, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Arab-Orthodox and Arab-Catholic Christian, Sinti/Rom etc. thrown in for good measure) into an even broader category of "Rag Music", but by a certain point one strains to hear a meaningful common denominator and the distinctions definitely become more interesting than the commonalities.

Seeking commonalities can often be diplomatically useful, but when pressed too far, one can fall into meaninglessness, or worse, banal imperialism. (On that topic, which is OT here, I've found http://anthropik.com/ to be very interesting).

DJW

The area of influence of the once powerful Islamic Civilization, or rather
what remains of it today, defines the boundaries of Maqam Music.

As an example, one can mention the mighty British empire, now resting in
pieces in Highgate Cemetery, whose octopus tentacles did `cultivate` and
`civilize` the lucky `priviledged` classes in its distant colonies,
injecting there the seeds of Westernization, and hence, converting the local
elite into wannabes behaving-thinking-performing like Westerners (or rather,
Brits, French, Dutch, German according to who occupied where).

We have them in plenty hereabouts... yea, even I, the staunch defender of
the tradition, am susceptible to propaganda.

Nowadays, acting like a spoiled American seems to be the trend - not just in
Turkey, but around the world.

It's all about Islamization vs. Westernization as the rest of the global
contenders degenerate into a decadent slump of unaesthetic hip-hop fusion.

As soon as I hear clamours of a majestic Hindu empire stretching accross
continents and spreading its culture far and wide, I will indeed abandon all
mention of the Maqamat and adopt Rags instead.

Banal imperialism? It's all the rage!

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel Wolf" <djwolf@snafu.de>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 �ar�amba 3:06
Subject: [tuning] Re: 5ths based tuning

> tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > Message: 1 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:37:23 +0200
> > From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
> > Subject: Re: 5ths based tuning
> >
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> > Indeed, Maqam Music (Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Hindustani etc..)
>
>
>
> I would be extremely hesistant about lumping Hindustani music into the
> "Maqam Music" label. While there has indeed been a massive admixture of
> islamicate traditions into Hindustani music, and that admixture is an
> important factor in distinguishing it from parallel traditions sharing a
> common Indic ancestry (Karnatic, Sri Lankan among them), it is a bit
> like calling English a Romance language because of the massive French
> lexicon in English. My hesitancy becomes a real caution when I note
> that such a lumping can go the other way as well: one might as well
> include all of the "Maqam Music" repertoires listed above (with North
> African, Andalusian/Iberian, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Arab-Orthodox and
> Arab-Catholic Christian, Sinti/Rom etc. thrown in for good measure) into
> an even broader category of "Rag Music", but by a certain point one
> strains to hear a meaningful common denominator and the distinctions
> definitely become more interesting than the commonalities.
>
> Seeking commonalities can often be diplomatically useful, but when
> pressed too far, one can fall into meaninglessness, or worse, banal
> imperialism. (On that topic, which is OT here, I've found
> http://anthropik.com/ to be very interesting).
>
> DJW
>
>

Hi Daniel,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@s...> wrote:
>
> tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > Message: 1 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:37:23 +0200
> > From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...>
> > Subject: Re: 5ths based tuning
> >
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> > Indeed, Maqam Music (Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Hindustani etc..)
>
>
>
> I would be extremely hesistant about lumping Hindustani
> music into the "Maqam Music" label. While there has indeed
> been a massive admixture of islamicate traditions into
> Hindustani music, and that admixture is an important factor
> in distinguishing it from parallel traditions sharing a
> common Indic ancestry (Karnatic, Sri Lankan among them),
> it is a bit like calling English a Romance language because
> of the massive French lexicon in English. My hesitancy
> becomes a real caution when I note that such a lumping
> can go the other way as well: one might as well include
> all of the "Maqam Music" repertoires listed above (with
> North African, Andalusian/Iberian, Greek, Armenian, Coptic,
> Arab-Orthodox and Arab-Catholic Christian, Sinti/Rom etc.
> thrown in for good measure) into an even broader category
> of "Rag Music", but by a certain point one strains to hear
> a meaningful common denominator and the distinctions
> definitely become more interesting than the commonalities.
>
> Seeking commonalities can often be diplomatically useful,
> but when pressed too far, one can fall into meaninglessness,
> or worse, banal imperialism. (On that topic, which is OT here,
> I've found http://anthropik.com/ to be very interesting).
>
> DJW

I'm so happy when i see you contribute a post to the tuning list.
I know that you're busy these days with a new daughter, but
i *always* welcome your intelligent and comprehensive posts
on tuning matters and musical history, and wish you would
post more and lurk less. :)

Daniel has been mostly lurking for the past 5 years or so,
so for those newer members who aren't familiar, here's his
website (new and much improved, i should add):

http://home.snafu.de/djwolf/

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

Hi Neil,

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Neil Haverstick" <microstick@m...>
wrote:
>
> I've been reading a book Haresh sent me, "Srutis and
Srutibheda," and
> it's been real interesting to see that, according to the book, the
> traditional Indian 22 srutis were derived from combining cycles of
5ths and
> 4ths. And, what I didn't realize was that when you go up 9 5ths,

That takes you out of any Pythagorean diatonic scale that includes
your starding point.

> you come to
> a D# at about 318 cents, which is just about a perfect flat
3rd...but, all
> of the traditional Pythagorean tunings I've seen over the years,
use the 294
> cent b3 (32/27).

This is the diatonic one, down 3 fifths.

This issue has come up in many contexts. But you must have especially
missed the discussions of Western tuning practice in part of the 15th
century, which has been referred to as "schismatic", before meantone.
Lindley discusses this in his book. Keyboard tuners would sometimes,
during this period, tune a chain of pure fifths from Gb to B, but
much of the associated music "looks" like it's in a key of two to
four sharps. So the resulting almost-pure intervals would be:

D-Gb: 384 cents
A-Db: 384 cents
E-Ab: 384 cents
B-Eb: 384 cents
Gb-A: 318 cents
Db-E: 318 cents
Ab-B: 318 cents

> I'm assuming that this is because it's a smaller ratio,

Smaller?

> but it's not as close to the 6/5 as the other one. And, it's also
> interesting that you can get an almost pure maj 3rd by going down 8
5ths,

That takes you out of any Pythagorean diatonic scale that includes
your starding point.

> but again, the 81/64 at 408 cents is the one you usually see given
in
> Pythagorean scales.

That's the diatonic one you get by going up 4 fifths.

> So, why didn't European theorists over the years just
> use those close to perfect 3rds instead of the more out of tune
(for chords)
> ones?

They did for a few decades in the 15th century, but there were a lot
of problems with this approach, which were ultimately solved by
meantone, which tempers each fifth by about 5 cents, and brings the
diatonic major and minor thirds close to purity.

> What am I missing?

Here are four things:

(1) You can't even get all the chords in a single diatonic scale to
be in tune with the 15th century 12-note schismatic strategy. If you
to exploit the schismatic thirds in a key of two or three sharps,
you'll see that B-F#, which is now tuned B-Gb, is a wolf fifth, and B-
D is the rough 32:27. In a key of four sharps, D#-F# is tuned Eb-Gb
which is again the rough 32:27.

(2) You can start adding more notes to allow for schismatic thirds
and pure fifths in more places but the number you need grows with the
number of keys you want to play in, and are separated from notes you
already have by a comma (a small interval for fretted instruments, to
be sure).

(3) If you've added all the extra notes you could need and play
harmonic progressions such as I-vi-ii-V-I or I-vi-IV-V-I (or myriad
other examples that can be found in almost every piece), you have to
either let a note shift by a comma when it's repeated (or worse yet,
being held) from one chord to the next -- a melodically unsettling
effect; or let the entire progression drift by a comma so that you
end up at a different pitch level even though the music hasn't
modulated -- and these drifts can add up over the course of a piece!

(4) Consider a chord with the following intervals over the tonic:
major third, perfect fifth, major sixth, major ninth. How would you
tune it so that all the consonant intervals stay consonant?

> Jeez, this is pretty basic stuff I'm sure, but I'm still
learning about
> this topic.

The books by Helmholtz and Barbour both discuss schismatic
approaches, so you may want to review them.

> In fact, I've come to realize that, for me, if I had to sum up
the most
> important thing I've learned from my study of tunings, it's the
fact that a
> note's pitch is in an AREA of the pitch continuum, not tied down to
a
> specific place, as in an instrument like the piano, where a note
only has
> one position. Learning that has been most liberating, and has
greatly
> affected the way I think about, and play, music. If I had to tell
beginning
> students one profound truth about what tuning was all about, that
would be
> it (and yes, I know there's many important facets of
tuning)...best...HHH

That's cool, I agree, and I note that it flies in the face of some of
the JI propaganda about.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
<wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:

> (2) You can start adding more notes to allow for schismatic thirds
> and pure fifths in more places but the number you need grows with the
> number of keys you want to play in, and are separated from notes you
> already have by a comma (a small interval for fretted instruments, to
> be sure).

I suspect Neil, at least, could handle the commas. If he wanted to try
it, 17 notes tuned to a chain of 16 pure fifths has a lot of harmonic
resources. Despite the antiquity of this notion, I don't know that
anyone has ever really made use of that fact.

> (3) If you've added all the extra notes you could need and play
> harmonic progressions such as I-vi-ii-V-I or I-vi-IV-V-I (or myriad
> other examples that can be found in almost every piece), you have to
> either let a note shift by a comma when it's repeated (or worse yet,
> being held) from one chord to the next -- a melodically unsettling
> effect; or let the entire progression drift by a comma so that you
> end up at a different pitch level even though the music hasn't
> modulated -- and these drifts can add up over the course of a piece!

Or else use harmonic progressions more suited to your tuning system.

> The books by Helmholtz and Barbour both discuss schismatic
> approaches, so you may want to review them.

Helmholtz, in particular, actually used it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@s...> wrote:
>
> tuning@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>
> > Message: 1 Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 13:37:23 +0200
> > From: "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...>
> > Subject: Re: 5ths based tuning
> >
> > Hi Neil,
> >
> > Indeed, Maqam Music (Arabic, Turkish, Persian, Hindustani etc..)
>
>
>
> I would be extremely hesistant about lumping Hindustani music into
the
> "Maqam Music" label.

Me too, but Ozan has dismissed my protests on this. He seems to feel
that if even one piece of Hindustani music is demonstrated to contain
a modulation of any sort, this immediately makes it "Maqam". I'm not
sure I've heard any such piece, but hoped that Haresh or others would
respond at that point in my conversation with Ozan. No one did, so
that's where it stood.

> My hesitancy becomes a real caution when I note
> that such a lumping can go the other way as well: one might as well
> include all of the "Maqam Music" repertoires listed above (with
North
> African, Andalusian/Iberian, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Arab-Orthodox
and
> Arab-Catholic Christian, Sinti/Rom etc. thrown in for good measure)
into
> an even broader category of "Rag Music",

Indeed!

> but by a certain point one
> strains to hear a meaningful common denominator and the
distinctions
> definitely become more interesting than the commonalities.

Agreed.

> > I would be extremely hesistant about lumping Hindustani music
> > into the "Maqam Music" label.
>
> Me too, but Ozan has dismissed my protests on this.

He's not the only one. I've seen many references to raga
and maqam equivalence. Here's a quick google, not one of
the ones I've seen in the past...

http://www.sridhar.org/reviews.html

> > one might as well include all of the "Maqam Music"
> > repertoires listed above (with North African,
> > Andalusian/Iberian, Greek, Armenian, Coptic, Arab-Orthodox
> > and Arab-Catholic Christian, Sinti/Rom etc. thrown in for
> > good measure) into an even broader category of "Rag Music",
>
> Indeed!

Why's that? Is there any evidence it was invented in India?

-Carl

Yea, the all-permeating Islamic Civilization (or rather what it inherited
and propagated more than a thousand years ago) is the root of all these
cultures.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 31 Ocak 2006 Sal� 4:30
Subject: [tuning] Re: 5ths based tuning

> > > I would be extremely hesistant about lumping Hindustani music
> > > into the "Maqam Music" label.
> >
> > Me too, but Ozan has dismissed my protests on this.
>
> He's not the only one. I've seen many references to raga
> and maqam equivalence. Here's a quick google, not one of
> the ones I've seen in the past...
>
> http://www.sridhar.org/reviews.html
>

SNIP

The last time there was a discussion here along these lines (before
you arrived, Ozan), virulent accusations of racism against Turks were
lobbed about for no apparent reason. I am not a historian so I leave
this topic in a state of blissful ignorance.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Yea, the all-permeating Islamic Civilization (or rather what it
inherited
> and propagated more than a thousand years ago) is the root of all
these
> cultures.
>
> Oz.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 31 Ocak 2006 Salý 4:30
> Subject: [tuning] Re: 5ths based tuning
>
>
> > > > I would be extremely hesistant about lumping Hindustani music
> > > > into the "Maqam Music" label.
> > >
> > > Me too, but Ozan has dismissed my protests on this.
> >
> > He's not the only one. I've seen many references to raga
> > and maqam equivalence. Here's a quick google, not one of
> > the ones I've seen in the past...
> >
> > http://www.sridhar.org/reviews.html
> >
>
> SNIP
>