back to list

about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian music and ......

🔗Mohajeri Shahin <shahinm@kayson-ir.com>

1/21/2006 3:34:52 AM

,Hi Yahya

Thanks a lot for your hearing . what about your sheet of excell?

1- the degrees where approximated to ratios of 53 degree-phythagorean
system.

2- the iranian historic works shows that the pythagorean theory is the
resource for fretting instrument in iran , also we can trace evidence of
working on other limmits (more than 3 for example 27/22 of zalzal)

work of ormavi shows a new look to pythagorean style by use of 17
different degrees in scale . he deleted many intervals in tetreachord
for simplification :

In tetrachord of al-kindi we can see these frets : 1/1 : 9/8 : 32/27 :
81/64 : 4/3

In tetrachord of zalzal we can see these frets: 1/1 : 256/243 : 12/11 :
9/8 : 32/27 : 27/22 : 81/64 : 4/3

In tetrachord of farabi and ibn-sina we can see these frets : 1/1 :
256/243 : 18/17 : 13/12 : 162/149 : 54/49 : 9/8 : 32/27 : 81/68 : 39
/32 : 27/22 : 81/64 : 4/3

In tetrachord of ormavi we can see these frets: 1/1 : 256/243 :
(65536/59049)10/9 : 9/8 : 32/27 : (8192/6561)5/4 : 81/64 : 4/3/

: Ormavi changed 355 and 853 cent to 384 and 882 cent.

: he also worked and presented the greek genuses by different values :
266, 119, 111(7/6 : 15/14 : 16/15) , it shows his movement to other
limits.

He shows divisions of pentachord also : 14/13: 8/7 : 13/12 : 14/13 :
117/112

3- works of maestro majid kyanee on tar-fretting of maestro
agha-mirza-hossein gholi shows that the systems of interval is near to
zalzal system without fret of 256/243

The sizes of 12/11 and 27/22 is changeable.

4- iranian researcher , partovi proposed 51-EDO for iranian music.( I
analyzed a segah work of maestro ebadi and monzo put it in 17-edo)

5- maestro vaziri proposed 24-edo for iranian music

6- the sizes of c-d in works of partovi calculated as about 211 and 188
cent .

So we see that it is hard to estimate the basic intervallic system but
we must know that fifth and forth are very important and consider
deviaition of ear errors and .... Yet it may be is pythagorean with
usage of rational neutral intervals like zalzal system. But if we have
evidence of c-d as about 211 cent in pyth.system?

7- I belive that we can play iranian music in every systems which shows
fifth and forth pure or near pure. So 53 is only a choice but for better
neutral second and third we can use 106 or 159-edo or other systems. We
must also know that harmony is not important in traditional music , only
melodic taste guide you in fretting instruments. And obviously jnd is
important for change of melodic taste in each system.( such as my piece)

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Composer

www.geocities.com/acousticsoftombak

My tombak musics : www.rhythmweb.com/gdg

My articles in ''Harmonytalk'':

www.harmonytalk.com/archives/000296.html
<http://www.harmonytalk.com/archives/000296.html>

www.harmonytalk.com/archives/000288.html
<http://www.harmonytalk.com/archives/000288.html>

My article in DrumDojo:

www.drumdojo.com/world/persia/tonbak_acoustics.htm
<http://www.drumdojo.com/world/persia/tonbak_acoustics.htm>

________________________________

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of Yahya Abdal-Aziz
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:14 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] RE: cents of the mp3 file

Hi Shaahin,

I like the sound of your "experiment".

On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 you wrote:
> 0: 1/1
> 1: 90.566 cents
> 2: 203.774 cents
> 3: 316.981 cents
> 4: 384.906 cents
> 5: 498.113 cents
> 6: 611.321 cents
> 7: 701.887 cents
> 8: 815.094 cents
> 9: 905.660 cents
> 10: 1018.868 cents
> 11: 1109.434 cents
> 12: 2/1

Earlier, you described the piece as:
"... an experiment in iranian homayun and chahargah modes with 12
semitones of 53-edo system".

Could you please tell me -

1. What JI ratios these 12 semitones approximate to.

2. Are they the traditional ratios, or something else.

3. Would this have sounded much different, if you
had tuned it by ratios or string lengths, rather than
by counting steps of size 2^(1/53).

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/235 - Release Date: 19/1/06

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.

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

1/21/2006 10:41:33 PM

Hi Shaahin,

on Sat, 21 Jan 2006 Shaahin Mohajeri wrote:
>
> ,Hi Yahya
>
> Thanks a lot for your hearing . what about your sheet of excell?

Tried repeatedly to upload it yesterday, but
it kept failing. So today I zipped it up (much
smaller) and had no trouble with the upload.

> 1- the degrees where approximated to ratios of 53 degree-phythagorean
> system.

Cool.

It seems like your remaining numbered points
are a sort of "potted history" of tuning in Iran.
Interesting stuff, if I could follow it all. So
I will ask a few more impertinent questions in
the hope you will be able to find time to help me
understand this history a little better.

> 2- the iranian historic works shows that the pythagorean theory is the
> resource for fretting instrument in iran , also we can trace evidence of
> working on other limmits (more than 3 for example 27/22 of zalzal)
>
> work of ormavi shows a new look to pythagorean style by use of 17
> different degrees in scale . he deleted many intervals in tetreachord
> for simplification :

Is this "Ormavi" the same person that Ozan calls "Urmevi"?

> In tetrachord of al-kindi we can see these frets : 1/1 : 9/8 : 32/27 :
> 81/64 : 4/3
>
> In tetrachord of zalzal we can see these frets: 1/1 : 256/243 : 12/11 :
> 9/8 : 32/27 : 27/22 : 81/64 : 4/3
>
> In tetrachord of farabi and ibn-sina we can see these frets : 1/1 :
> 256/243 : 18/17 : 13/12 : 162/149 : 54/49 : 9/8 : 32/27 : 81/68 : 39
> /32 : 27/22 : 81/64 : 4/3
>
> In tetrachord of ormavi we can see these frets: 1/1 : 256/243 :
> (65536/59049)10/9 : 9/8 : 32/27 : (8192/6561)5/4 : 81/64 : 4/3/

Doesn't LOOK any simpler! :-) Did he use the
pure Pythagorean (3-limit) ratios:
65536/59049 and 8192/6561

or their 5-limit approximations:
10/9 and 5/4 ?

> : Ormavi changed 355 and 853 cent to 384 and 882 cent.

Why?

> : he also worked and presented the greek genuses by different values :
> 266, 119, 111(7/6 : 15/14 : 16/15) , it shows his movement to other
> limits.

Do the first three numbers 266, 119, 111 refer to
(just guessing) ADOs? or to EDOs? or what?

> He shows divisions of pentachord also : 14/13: 8/7 : 13/12 : 14/13 :
> 117/112

The whole being 13-limit. When did this happen?

> 3- works of maestro majid kyanee on tar-fretting of maestro
> agha-mirza-hossein gholi shows that the systems of interval is near to
> zalzal system without fret of 256/243
>
> The sizes of 12/11 and 27/22 is changeable.

For example, the 12/11 might be replaced by 13/12;
is that right? Is there a complete list of the
alternate sizes? And are we still talking of Ormavi,
or of classical Iranian practice since his time?

> 4- iranian researcher , partovi proposed 51-EDO for iranian music.( I
> analyzed a segah work of maestro ebadi and monzo put it in 17-edo)

When did Partovi do this?

> 5- maestro vaziri proposed 24-edo for iranian music

Again, when was this?

> 6- the sizes of c-d in works of partovi calculated as about 211 and 188
> cent .
>
> So we see that it is hard to estimate the basic intervallic system but
> we must know that fifth and forth are very important and consider
> deviaition of ear errors and .... Yet it may be is pythagorean with
> usage of rational neutral intervals like zalzal system. But if we have
> evidence of c-d as about 211 cent in pyth.system?

Yes, I see.

> 7- I belive that we can play iranian music in every systems which shows
> fifth and forth pure or near pure. ...

That is a very interesting statement! It suggests
that you might:

a) recognise a piece in a Western major key in a
good meantone tuning as being "Iranian music".

b) and also recognise its transposition to the
relative minor key as being essentially the same
piece of "Iranian music".

Would this be so?

> ... So 53 is only a choice but for better
> neutral second and third we can use 106 or 159-edo or other systems. We
> must also know that harmony is not important in traditional music , only
> melodic taste guide you in fretting instruments. And obviously jnd is
> important for change of melodic taste in each system.( such as my piece)

If harmony is not important, does traditional
Iranian music nevertheless modulate between
different modes or keys?

One final question: in your mind, what is the
biggest difference between your music and
traditional music?

--------------------------------------
> From: Yahya Abdal-Aziz
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:14 AM
> To: tuning
> Subject: [tuning] RE: cents of the mp3 file
>
> Hi Shaahin,
>
> I like the sound of your "experiment".
>
> On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 you wrote:
> > 0: 1/1
> > 1: 90.566 cents
> > 2: 203.774 cents
> > 3: 316.981 cents
> > 4: 384.906 cents
> > 5: 498.113 cents
> > 6: 611.321 cents
> > 7: 701.887 cents
> > 8: 815.094 cents
> > 9: 905.660 cents
> > 10: 1018.868 cents
> > 11: 1109.434 cents
> > 12: 2/1
>
> Earlier, you described the piece as:
> "... an experiment in iranian homayun and chahargah modes with 12
> semitones of 53-edo system".
>
> Could you please tell me -
>
> 1. What JI ratios these 12 semitones approximate to.
>
> 2. Are they the traditional ratios, or something else.
>
> 3. Would this have sounded much different, if you
> had tuned it by ratios or string lengths, rather than
> by counting steps of size 2^(1/53).

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 20/1/06

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

1/22/2006 9:39:40 PM

Hi Shaahin!

Thank you for your full and informative answers!

On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 Shaahin Mohaajeri wrote:
[snip]
> In another article by nida abou morad , it is mentioned that ormavi in
his book , risalat-ol-sharafiyeh , has written: the players didn't accept my
model to delete zalazl intervals and continue to use farabi model and zalal
intervals.

Proving once again that theoreticians can't stop
practitioners from making music the way they
hear it, rather than the way it "should" be! :-)

> He wanted to change the sasanid model of intervals in khorasan region.
this effort never used in tradition of arabs and iranians up to now , but
after 18 century ï¿½ turkey accepted it for being different from iran and arab
music and be near to western music.

Aha! So the Arabs and Iranians (stubborn
reactionaries!) persist in thinking "Farabi
& Zalzal had all the answers we need", but
the Turks accepted Safi-ud-Din al-Urmawi
(Urmevi, Ormavi)'s innovations to distinguish
themselves from their neighbours. It's all
politics, it seems ...

[snip]
> > > He shows divisions of pentachord also : 14/13: 8/7 : 13/12 : 14/13 :
> > > 117/112
>
> >The whole being 13-limit. When did this happen?
>
> I donï¿½t know. What do u mean?

I meant, when did Ormavi write his books?

> > > 3- works of maestro majid kyanee on tar-fretting of maestro
> > > agha-mirza-hossein gholi shows that the systems of interval is near to
> > > zalzal system without fret of 256/243
> > >
> > > The sizes of 12/11 and 27/22 is changeable.
>
> >For example, the 12/11 might be replaced by 13/12;
> >is that right? Is there a complete list of the
> >alternate sizes? And are we still talking of Ormavi,
> >or of classical Iranian practice since his time?
>
> in iranian tradition of practice , you cant say 13/12 or 12/11 , may be
near or far to these 2 or exactly these 2.the thing which is important is
showing the musical sense , not only in past but now.

Thank you! I had thought that the spirit of
the tuning was more important than "the letter
of the law" - that is, the exact ratios or numbers
of cents, and you have confirmed my belief.

[snip]
> > > 5- maestro vaziri proposed 24-edo for iranian music

> >Again, when was this?
> Professor Hormoz Farhat, composer and musicologist, writes, "In the course
of the twentieth century, three separate theories on intervals and scales of
Persian music have been proposed. The first of these, put forward in the
1920s by Vaziri, identifies a 24-quarter-tone scale as the basis for Persian
music...
> http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/AliNaghi.htm
<http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/AliNaghi.htm>

So, this was a long time after the Arabs had decided
that 24-EDO was accurate enough to describe their
tuning practice, as described by Helmholtz quoting an
article by Mikha'il Meshaaqah of 1847.

From the way you described it, I don't think this
quarter-tone theory upsets your way of thinking,
about the "spirit" of Iranian tuning, very much.

A vexing question for me has always been: Just
how precise do our tuning systems need to be?
Where is the cutoff between audible differences
and purely theoretical hair-splitting? I do realise,
of course, that the answer must depend in large
part upon the character of the music itself, whether
fast or slow in tempo, thin or dense in texture, and
the instrumental timbres and style of intonational
embellishments such as trills, vibratos etc; and also
in small part on the sensibilities of the listener.
Still, I feel there ought to be some sort of general
purpose answer that will do for a particular style
of music, or even for a culture. For example, Indian
music, for centuries, did not see a need for a tuning
system beyond the 22 s'rutis.

Against this background, we have specific styles
that seem to demand the utmost precision of tuning
in order to produce their special effects. I'm
thinking, of course, of the kind of thing done by
La Monte Young and recently by Dave Seidel. But
these are (as yet!) special cases, and the vast
majority of music continues to be made using a more
limited palette of pitches.

I'm wondering whether, for most of us, most of the
time, 24-EDO is "good enough"?

> > > 7- I belive that we can play iranian music in every systems which
shows
> > > fifth and forth pure or near pure. ...
> >
> >That is a very interesting statement! It suggests
> >that you might:
> >
> >a) recognise a piece in a Western major key in a
> >good meantone tuning as being "Iranian music".
> >b) and also recognise its transposition to the
> >relative minor key as being essentially the same
> >piece of "Iranian music".
> >Would this be so?

> no , I told , for example I can play iranian music in 53-edo or 144-edo
orï¿½ï¿½or just intonation ar ados or edls ï¿½.

Is 53-EDO "good enough" for all the Iranian music
you play? Or do you _need_ to go to 144-EDO or
higher?

> By the way , I don't know how to calculate neutral thirds in for example
1/6-comma meantone or better to ask how to generate system with for example
53-tone in 1/4-comma meantone?

I do hope you're not asking me, tho I'm sure
that other list members can help with this.
I've never tried to do that kind of thing before.
But I will tell you my thoughts, for what they're
worth. (Remember you're getting them for free,
so that may be indicative ...) And I'm sure the
mental exercise will do me good!

I think there are two questions here:

Q1. given a tuning (1/6-comma meantone), what
notes of the gamut, if any, are a neutral third
apart?

Q2. given a tuning (1/4-comma meantone), does
it support a gamut of 53 distinct notes, and if
it does, how do I find them?

Here are some factors I would consider in trying
to answer these questions, in the order I thought
of them:

a) what is your tolerance for deviation in the style
of music? (expressed as a number of cents, or
perhaps in terms of harmonic entropy.)

b) what is the exact interval (or set of intervals)
you are trying to approximate? Eg it could be a
neutral third of, say 150 cents, or perhaps some
average of just major and minor thirds 5/4 and 6/5,
examples being -

. the arithmetic mean
= (5/4+6/5)/2 = 49/40
= 1.225
or

. the geometric mean
= ((5/4)*(6/5))^(1/2)
~= 1.2247
or

. the harmonic mean
= 2/(1/(5/4)+1/(6/5)) = 2/(4/5+5/6) = 60/49
~= 1.2245
(For easier comparisons, of course, one would
convert these ratios to cents first. For small ratios,
these three kinds of average are quite close to each
other, so the simple arithmetic mean would do.)

c) What proportion of the notes of the gamut
need to be related by this interval to other
notes of the gamut?

d) Are particular scales required from this
gamut, and if so, what proportion of the notes
of each scale need to be related by this interval
to other notes of the scale?

e) Are octaves equivalent?

f) How many independent non-octave generators
does [or should] the tuning have? Eg it may have
a single generator of a (tempered) fifth and
equivalent octaves, in which case we have a two-
dimensional temperament we can plot on a lattice
as, for example, Paul Erlich does in his "Middle Path"
paper. Or again, it may have distinct generators of
a (tempered) third and a (tempered) fifth, which
with octave equivalence makes it three-dimensional.
Or it can be a mixed temperament, partly generated
by a sequence of fifths tempered by one amount
and partly by another sequence of fifths tempered
by another amount. We've recently had some
"quasi-meantone" tunings like that on this list and on
MakeMicroMusic.

g) Do you prefer to use notes which are the fewest
possible generator intervals apart, or does the
distance between notes measured in this way not
matter? (What "metric" are you using?)

h) Do you want all the notes of your scale to be
reached in a few steps from each other (make
a "compact ball" of pitches on the lattice)?

If I were trying to determine a neutral third in
a fixed tuning with one generator, I'd simply look
to see how many steps of that tuning, up or down
from the tonic, brought me "close enough", to the
desired interval.

If the tuning had one or two generators, a
spreadsheet would come in handy. It would still
be useful with more generators.

> >If harmony is not important, does traditional
> >Iranian music nevertheless modulate between
> >different modes or keys?
> yes , but very limmited and mainly as modal movement, some times I think
that modal spaces of and in dastgahs are brother with modes by changing
tonic in major and minor scales. ...

Do these modal spaces typically involve a lower
and a higher tetrachord, or the lower and the
higher octave? I've heard that often in Indian
music. The raga can proceed in the second "space"
with the same general melodic structure, but with
different melodic inflections.

> ... for example fifth upper : shur in c changes to shur in g. it is
interesting that intervallic structure of 2 tetrachords in scale are
different so we have 2 different intervallic structure for tetrachords in
dastgah.

I'm afraid I don't understand your example.
Could you give a little more detail, perhaps of
the sequence of notes?

> >One final question: in your mind, what is the
> >biggest difference between your music and
> >traditional music?
> it is based on my sense (80%)and history(20%) and that is based on
others(20%) and history(80%) <-;

So you are guided more by your own intuitions
than history; I'm sure this makes you quite an
unusual person in your society. I do hope your
friends and family appreciate your particular
creativity.

Regards,
Yahya

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.21/236 - Release Date: 20/1/06

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

1/22/2006 10:51:06 PM

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

> Aha! So the Arabs and Iranians (stubborn
> reactionaries!) persist in thinking "Farabi
> & Zalzal had all the answers we need", but
> the Turks accepted Safi-ud-Din al-Urmawi
> (Urmevi, Ormavi)'s innovations to distinguish
> themselves from their neighbours. It's all
> politics, it seems ...

Since Safi-ud-Din al-Urmawi lived in the 13th century, it seems to me
the shiny gloss has worn off the innovations by now.

> I meant, when did Ormavi write his books?

Thirteenth century.

People say all kinds of different things about Arabic music. I just
read something which said it was based on a 17 tone scale in 19-edo,
11111121111112111. This was written back before 24 was decided on.

> Q1. given a tuning (1/6-comma meantone), what
> notes of the gamut, if any, are a neutral third
> apart?

In 55-et, the fifth is 32 steps. That means not only can you split the
fifth into neutral thirds, you can keep on splitting.

> Q2. given a tuning (1/4-comma meantone), does
> it support a gamut of 53 distinct notes, and if
> it does, how do I find them?

In theory it supports a chain of fifths of any length. In practice, it
can be considered to close in a circle of 205 fifths, if not earlier.
If we accept 119 steps of 205 as the tuning for our fifth,
then 51616616151616616166166161661615161661616616616166161 are the
steps of a 53-note gamut from a chain of fifths.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/24/2006 3:48:38 AM

Brother Mohajeri,

Urmevi did not just delete complex prime intervals, but simplified them according to 3-limit ratios. I detect telltale signs of a battle between Pythagoreans and Neo-Platonists during the period between 9th-13th centuries. Obviously there are two camps. Those who defend only `comma-differences`, and those who suggest `quarter-tones`. The division seems to have escalated toward a nationalistic level during the late 19th century.

But I would like you to tell me where Urmevi defends 13-limit systems?

51-edo is also suggested by my senior colleagues Can Akkoc and Kemal Karaosmanoglu as a means to detail tri-fold 17-equal. I do not believe it is appropriate for Maqam Music.

24, on the otherhand, is as incomplete as Yekta-Arel-Ezgi's 24-tone Pythagorean tuning is IMNSHO.

I agree entirely with your statement in article 7, yet there may be hidden harmonic precepts with the melodic flow.

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Mohajeri Shahin
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 21 Ocak 2006 Cumartesi 13:34
Subject: [tuning] about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian music and ......

,Hi Yahya

Thanks a lot for your hearing . what about your sheet of excell?

1- the degrees where approximated to ratios of 53 degree-phythagorean system.

2- the iranian historic works shows that the pythagorean theory is the resource for fretting instrument in iran , also we can trace evidence of working on other limmits (more than 3 for example 27/22 of zalzal)

work of ormavi shows a new look to pythagorean style by use of 17 different degrees in scale . he deleted many intervals in tetreachord for simplification :

In tetrachord of al-kindi we can see these frets : 1/1 : 9/8 : 32/27 : 81/64 : 4/3

In tetrachord of zalzal we can see these frets: 1/1 : 256/243 : 12/11 : 9/8 : 32/27 : 27/22 : 81/64 : 4/3

In tetrachord of farabi and ibn-sina we can see these frets : 1/1 : 256/243 : 18/17 : 13/12 : 162/149 : 54/49 : 9/8 : 32/27 : 81/68 : 39 /32 : 27/22 : 81/64 : 4/3

In tetrachord of ormavi we can see these frets: 1/1 : 256/243 : (65536/59049)10/9 : 9/8 : 32/27 : (8192/6561)5/4 : 81/64 : 4/3/

: Ormavi changed 355 and 853 cent to 384 and 882 cent.

: he also worked and presented the greek genuses by different values : 266, 119, 111(7/6 : 15/14 : 16/15) , it shows his movement to other limits.

He shows divisions of pentachord also : 14/13: 8/7 : 13/12 : 14/13 : 117/112

3- works of maestro majid kyanee on tar-fretting of maestro agha-mirza-hossein gholi shows that the systems of interval is near to zalzal system without fret of 256/243

The sizes of 12/11 and 27/22 is changeable.

4- iranian researcher , partovi proposed 51-EDO for iranian music.( I analyzed a segah work of maestro ebadi and monzo put it in 17-edo)

5- maestro vaziri proposed 24-edo for iranian music

6- the sizes of c-d in works of partovi calculated as about 211 and 188 cent .

So we see that it is hard to estimate the basic intervallic system but we must know that fifth and forth are very important and consider deviaition of ear errors and …. Yet it may be is pythagorean with usage of rational neutral intervals like zalzal system. But if we have evidence of c-d as about 211 cent in pyth.system?

7- I belive that we can play iranian music in every systems which shows fifth and forth pure or near pure. So 53 is only a choice but for better neutral second and third we can use 106 or 159-edo or other systems. We must also know that harmony is not important in traditional music , only melodic taste guide you in fretting instruments. And obviously jnd is important for change of melodic taste in each system.( such as my piece)

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Composer

www.geocities.com/acousticsoftombak

My tombak musics : www.rhythmweb.com/gdg

My articles in ''Harmonytalk'':

www.harmonytalk.com/archives/000296.html

www.harmonytalk.com/archives/000288.html

My article in DrumDojo:

www.drumdojo.com/world/persia/tonbak_acoustics.htm

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/24/2006 3:54:02 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 23 Ocak 2006 Pazartesi 8:51
Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian
music and ......

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@m...> wrote:
>
> > Aha! So the Arabs and Iranians (stubborn
> > reactionaries!) persist in thinking "Farabi
> > & Zalzal had all the answers we need", but
> > the Turks accepted Safi-ud-Din al-Urmawi
> > (Urmevi, Ormavi)'s innovations to distinguish
> > themselves from their neighbours. It's all
> > politics, it seems ...
>
> Since Safi-ud-Din al-Urmawi lived in the 13th century, it seems to me
> the shiny gloss has worn off the innovations by now.
>

Some make sure that the faded luster appears sparkling.

> > I meant, when did Ormavi write his books?
>
> Thirteenth century.
>
> People say all kinds of different things about Arabic music. I just
> read something which said it was based on a 17 tone scale in 19-edo,
> 11111121111112111. This was written back before 24 was decided on.
>

Where did you read that?

SNIP

Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/24/2006 3:51:54 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yahya Abdal-Aziz" <yahya@melbpc.org.au>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 23 Ocak 2006 Pazartesi 7:39
Subject: [tuning] RE: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian
music and ......

> > In another article by nida abou morad , it is mentioned that ormavi in
> his book , risalat-ol-sharafiyeh , has written: the players didn't accept
my
> model to delete zalazl intervals and continue to use farabi model and
zalal
> intervals.
>
> Proving once again that theoreticians can't stop
> practitioners from making music the way they
> hear it, rather than the way it "should" be! :-)
>

Oh but you are mistaken... In Turkey, the Yekta-Arel-Ezgi trend is actually
hampering practitioners from making music the way tradition and hearing
requires. I have already made mention of some obscurants who dictate their
whims as the absolute and demand the eradication of all pitches not
conforming to their views.

>
> > He wanted to change the sasanid model of intervals in khorasan region.
> this effort never used in tradition of arabs and iranians up to now , but
> after 18 century ï¿½ turkey accepted it for being different from iran and
arab
> music and be near to western music.
>
> Aha! So the Arabs and Iranians (stubborn
> reactionaries!) persist in thinking "Farabi
> & Zalzal had all the answers we need", but
> the Turks accepted Safi-ud-Din al-Urmawi
> (Urmevi, Ormavi)'s innovations to distinguish
> themselves from their neighbours. It's all
> politics, it seems ...
>

As far as I can tell, Farabi and Zalzal had indeed some important answers
that Urmevi saw fit to smear. It is not just politics my dear fellow, but
`dirty, bloody politics`, as my father is used to say. Blame the
nationalists!

>
> [snip]
> > > > He shows divisions of pentachord also : 14/13: 8/7 : 13/12 : 14/13 :
> > > > 117/112
> >
> > >The whole being 13-limit. When did this happen?
> >
> > I donï¿½t know. What do u mean?
>
> I meant, when did Ormavi write his books?
>

He wrote his Kitab-ul Edvar just before the invasion of Baghdad by Hulagu's
Mongol Hordes. There is a famous anecdote displaying him as performing on
his sleep-inducing lute for the ruler in his commander's tent.

>
> > > > 3- works of maestro majid kyanee on tar-fretting of maestro
> > > > agha-mirza-hossein gholi shows that the systems of interval is near
to
> > > > zalzal system without fret of 256/243
> > > >
> > > > The sizes of 12/11 and 27/22 is changeable.
> >
> > >For example, the 12/11 might be replaced by 13/12;
> > >is that right? Is there a complete list of the
> > >alternate sizes? And are we still talking of Ormavi,
> > >or of classical Iranian practice since his time?
> >
> > in iranian tradition of practice , you cant say 13/12 or 12/11 , may be
> near or far to these 2 or exactly these 2.the thing which is important is
> showing the musical sense , not only in past but now.
>
> Thank you! I had thought that the spirit of
> the tuning was more important than "the letter
> of the law" - that is, the exact ratios or numbers
> of cents, and you have confirmed my belief.
>

That is why I have been pestering this tuning list for the past year about
the importance of my senior colleague Can Akkoc's work. I'm not against
Yekta-Arel-Ezgi because of any spite, but because I know they are very much
lacking when it comes to notating the tradition.

>
> >From the way you described it, I don't think this
> quarter-tone theory upsets your way of thinking,
> about the "spirit" of Iranian tuning, very much.
>
> A vexing question for me has always been: Just
> how precise do our tuning systems need to be?
> Where is the cutoff between audible differences
> and purely theoretical hair-splitting? I do realise,
> of course, that the answer must depend in large
> part upon the character of the music itself, whether
> fast or slow in tempo, thin or dense in texture, and
> the instrumental timbres and style of intonational
> embellishments such as trills, vibratos etc; and also
> in small part on the sensibilities of the listener.
> Still, I feel there ought to be some sort of general
> purpose answer that will do for a particular style
> of music, or even for a culture. For example, Indian
> music, for centuries, did not see a need for a tuning
> system beyond the 22 s'rutis.

But those are very fluid pitch-clusters or perdes. When your instrument is a
Qanun or a piano, or worse, when you want things explained on paper for
dummies, you need a temperament solution eventually. That is why I keep
proposing my 79 MOS 159-tET model, and expect people knowledged in the
Near-Eastern tradition to react.

>
> Against this background, we have specific styles
> that seem to demand the utmost precision of tuning
> in order to produce their special effects. I'm
> thinking, of course, of the kind of thing done by
> La Monte Young and recently by Dave Seidel. But
> these are (as yet!) special cases, and the vast
> majority of music continues to be made using a more
> limited palette of pitches.
>
> I'm wondering whether, for most of us, most of the
> time, 24-EDO is "good enough"?
>

If it were good enough, I wouldn't be here.

>
> > > > 7- I belive that we can play iranian music in every systems which
> shows
> > > > fifth and forth pure or near pure. ...
> > >
> > >That is a very interesting statement! It suggests
> > >that you might:
> > >
> > >a) recognise a piece in a Western major key in a
> > >good meantone tuning as being "Iranian music".
> > >b) and also recognise its transposition to the
> > >relative minor key as being essentially the same
> > >piece of "Iranian music".
> > >Would this be so?
>
> > no , I told , for example I can play iranian music in 53-edo or 144-edo
> orï¿½ï¿½or just intonation ar ados or edls ï¿½.
>
> Is 53-EDO "good enough" for all the Iranian music
> you play? Or do you _need_ to go to 144-EDO or
> higher?
>

Even if it takes me a whole year, I will do my utmost to convince brother
Mohajeri and others that the totality of Maqam Music genres today requires a
tuning no less elaborate than 152-tET, which is the universal tuning
solution suggested by Paul Erlich.

SNIP

Cordially,
Ozan

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/24/2006 3:54:40 PM

I have met personally this Julien `Jalaleddin` Weiss and hosted him at my place. He's nuts about Qanun tuning. We even organized a home-made mini-Fasl once. He lives in a mansion in Aleppo and occasionally visits Istanbul from time to time.

The fact that contemporaries of Urmevi refused to adulterate sesqui-tones is ample evidence that Maqam Music tradition resisted `theoretical simplification via Pythagorean reform`. Go figure.

The only reason for the change - as far as I can surmise - was the Westernization trend which took hold of Turkey since 1839 (Tanzimat Proclamation). When Rauf Yekta emerged, nationalistic fervor was already adamant and Arabic influence in the tradition had to be cleansed to appease the Kemalist masters.

The end result was disasterous, both for the tradition, and the freakish nationalist school of music supported by the state.

As for Iranians... they seem to be affected by Mushaqa more than they are willing to admit. I also think brother Mohajeri is overlooking the possibility of Maqam flavors in meantone scales comprising +12 notes per octave.

Cordially,
Ozan
----- Original Message -----
From: Mohajeri Shahin
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 22 Ocak 2006 Pazar 16:37
Subject: FW: [tuning] RE: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian music and ......

Hi yahya

>>Tried repeatedly to upload it yesterday, but
it kept failing. So today I zipped it up (much
smaller) and had no trouble with the upload.

I saw it.

>>Is this "Ormavi" the same person that Ozan calls "Urmevi"?

yes

>Doesn't LOOK any simpler! :-) Did he use the
>pure Pythagorean (3-limit) ratios:
>65536/59049 and 8192/6561 or their 5-limit approximations 10/9 and 5/4 ?

in every iranian and translated works about ormavi you see these pythagorean ratios instead of 10/9 and 5/4.

> : Ormavi changed 355 and 853 cent to 384 and 882 cent.

>Why?

In time of Ormavi, it was belived in simplfication of near intervals for example in an article by julien bernard jalaladin weiss we see that ormavi has told:the players uses 9/8 instead of 8/7 or 10/9.

May be he deleted 27/22 for usage of 8192/6561 as a tradition of the time. And another thing :

In another article by nida abou morad , it is mentioned that ormavi in his book , risalat-ol-sharafiyeh , has written: the players didn't accept my model to delete zalazl intervals and continue to use farabi model and zalal intervals.

He wanted to change the sasanid model of intervals in khorasan region. this effort never used in tradition of arabs and iranians up to now , but after 18 century ¡ turkey accepted it for being different from iran and arab music and be near to western music.

>Do the first three numbers 266, 119, 111 refer to
>(just guessing) ADOs? or to EDOs? or what?

in cents.(266 cent,…..)

> He shows divisions of pentachord also : 14/13: 8/7 : 13/12 : 14/13 :
> 117/112

>The whole being 13-limit. When did this happen?

I don’t know. What do u mean?
> 3- works of maestro majid kyanee on tar-fretting of maestro
> agha-mirza-hossein gholi shows that the systems of interval is near to
> zalzal system without fret of 256/243
>
> The sizes of 12/11 and 27/22 is changeable.

>For example, the 12/11 might be replaced by 13/12;
>is that right? Is there a complete list of the
>alternate sizes? And are we still talking of Ormavi,
>or of classical Iranian practice since his time?

in iranian tradition of practice , you cant say 13/12 or 12/11 , may be near or far to these 2 or exactly these 2.the thing which is important is showing the musical sense , not only in past but now.

>When did Partovi do this?
I have an article by him without exact timing but between 1999-2003

> 5- maestro vaziri proposed 24-edo for iranian music

>Again, when was this?
Professor Hormoz Farhat, composer and musicologist, writes, "In the course of the twentieth century, three separate theories on intervals and scales of Persian music have been proposed. The first of these, put forward in the 1920s by Vaziri, identifies a 24-quarter-tone scale as the basis for Persian music...

http://www.iran-heritage.org/interestgroups/AliNaghi.htm

> 7- I belive that we can play iranian music in every systems which shows
> fifth and forth pure or near pure. ...

>That is a very interesting statement! It suggests
>that you might:

>a) recognise a piece in a Western major key in a
>good meantone tuning as being "Iranian music".
>b) and also recognise its transposition to the
>relative minor key as being essentially the same
>piece of "Iranian music".
>Would this be so?
no , I told , for example I can play iranian music in 53-edo or 144-edo or……or just intonation ar ados or edls ….

By the way , I don't know how to calculate neutral thirds in for example 1/6-comma meantone or better to ask how to generate system with for example 53-tone in 1/4-comma meantone?

>If harmony is not important, does traditional
>Iranian music nevertheless modulate between
>different modes or keys?
yes , but very limmited and mainly as modal movement, some times I think that modal spaces of and in dastgahs are brother with modes by changing tonic in major and minor scales. for example fifth upper : shur in c changes to shur in g. it is interesting that intervallic structure of 2 tetrachords in scale are different so we have 2 different intervallic structure for tetrachords in dastgah.

>One final question: in your mind, what is the
>biggest difference between your music and
>traditional music?
it is based on my sense (80%)and history(20%) and that is based on others(20%) and history(80%) <-;

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Composer

www.geocities.com/acousticsoftombak

My tombak musics : www.rhythmweb.com/gdg

My articles in ''Harmonytalk'':

www.harmonytalk.com/archives/000296.html

www.harmonytalk.com/archives/000288.html

My article in DrumDojo:

www.drumdojo.com/world/persia/tonbak_acoustics.htm

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

1/24/2006 5:32:35 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>

> > People say all kinds of different things about Arabic music. I just
> > read something which said it was based on a 17 tone scale in 19-edo,
> > 11111121111112111. This was written back before 24 was decided on.

> Where did you read that?

"The Musical Scales of the Different Nations" by Carl Engel; first
printed I don't know when, but reprinted in 1882 by S. M. Tagore.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

1/24/2006 5:37:44 PM

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

> Oh but you are mistaken... In Turkey, the Yekta-Arel-Ezgi trend is
actually
> hampering practitioners from making music the way tradition and hearing
> requires. I have already made mention of some obscurants who dictate
their
> whims as the absolute and demand the eradication of all pitches not
> conforming to their views.

53 notes to the octave is a lot of notes, as I recently had occasion
to observe. It seems to me that limits the amount of damage you can
inflict on a melody line by adhering only to those notes. If harmony
is a consideration it becomes a bigger deal.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/24/2006 5:45:29 PM

And what is his basis for saying that?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 ï¿½arï¿½amba 3:32
Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian
music and ......

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
> > From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
>
> > > People say all kinds of different things about Arabic music. I just
> > > read something which said it was based on a 17 tone scale in 19-edo,
> > > 11111121111112111. This was written back before 24 was decided on.
>
> > Where did you read that?
>
> "The Musical Scales of the Different Nations" by Carl Engel; first
> printed I don't know when, but reprinted in 1882 by S. M. Tagore.
>
>
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/24/2006 5:47:04 PM

Is there any reason to prefer 53 and not 193?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 ï¿½arï¿½amba 3:37
Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian
music and ......

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
>
> > Oh but you are mistaken... In Turkey, the Yekta-Arel-Ezgi trend is
> actually
> > hampering practitioners from making music the way tradition and hearing
> > requires. I have already made mention of some obscurants who dictate
> their
> > whims as the absolute and demand the eradication of all pitches not
> > conforming to their views.
>
> 53 notes to the octave is a lot of notes, as I recently had occasion
> to observe. It seems to me that limits the amount of damage you can
> inflict on a melody line by adhering only to those notes. If harmony
> is a consideration it becomes a bigger deal.
>
>
>

🔗monz <monz@tonalsoft.com>

1/24/2006 8:20:11 PM

Hi Oz,

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

> <snip>
>
> But those are very fluid pitch-clusters or perdes.
> When your instrument is a Qanun or a piano, or worse,
> when you want things explained on paper for dummies,
> you need a temperament solution eventually. That is
> why I keep proposing my 79 MOS 159-tET model, and
> expect people knowledged in the Near-Eastern tradition
> to react.
>
> <snip>
>
> Even if it takes me a whole year, I will do my utmost
> to convince brother Mohajeri and others that the totality
> of Maqam Music genres today requires a tuning no less
> elaborate than 152-tET, which is the universal tuning
> solution suggested by Paul Erlich.

That last sentence seems to imply that you are an advocate
of using 152-edo as a model tuning for Maqam music, however
your "ideal" tuning for Maqam is the 79-MOS 159-edo. I'm
confused about the discrepancy.

In fact, i'm confused about why you decided on 159-edo
in the first place -- and i have to admit that i have
skipped past most of the discussion of Maqam music which
you've posted here in the last year. (I'm simply too busy
with Tonescape to dig deeply into matters about which
i know little.) But i have taken a good hard look at
152-edo, and it is indeed a very impressive tuning for
a number of different reasons.

PS -- please contact me offlist regarding the infiltration
of Tonescape into Turkish music. ;-)

monz(AT)tonalsoft.com

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

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

1/24/2006 9:53:46 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
>
> Is there any reason to prefer 53 and not 193?

193 requires far more notes. If you are looking for accurate fifths,
53 is far more accurate anyway. On the other hand, if you are
interested in high-prime-limit systems, 193 does OK, but if you are
going to go that route why not go whole hog and use 311?

But I imagine the fact that 193 can do an excellent meantone if
necessary is part of what you have in mind. It will indeed let you do
that, and various other things besides.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/25/2006 7:29:01 AM

Hello monz,

----- Original Message -----
From: "monz" <monz@tonalsoft.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 ï¿½arï¿½amba 6:20
Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian
music and ......
SNIP

> >
> > Even if it takes me a whole year, I will do my utmost
> > to convince brother Mohajeri and others that the totality
> > of Maqam Music genres today requires a tuning no less
> > elaborate than 152-tET, which is the universal tuning
> > solution suggested by Paul Erlich.
>
>
>
> That last sentence seems to imply that you are an advocate
> of using 152-edo as a model tuning for Maqam music, however
> your "ideal" tuning for Maqam is the 79-MOS 159-edo. I'm
> confused about the discrepancy.
>

If you can extract a circular system out of 152-edo for practical usage
without disrupting the 19-tET framework, be my guest. Until then, I have to
consign myself to the usage of 79 tones from 159-edo.

> In fact, i'm confused about why you decided on 159-edo
> in the first place -- and i have to admit that i have
> skipped past most of the discussion of Maqam music which
> you've posted here in the last year. (I'm simply too busy
> with Tonescape to dig deeply into matters about which
> i know little.) But i have taken a good hard look at
> 152-edo, and it is indeed a very impressive tuning for
> a number of different reasons.
>

I decided on 159-edo for practical reasons:

1. It preserved the 53 commas per octave conception.
2. It was detailed enough to contain three sizes of fifths.
3. One could obtain a reasonable cycle from any degree.
4. Limma alterations could be achieved without breaking the chain.

Were it not for the fact that I was able apply the 79 MOS tuning to my
Qanun, I would be hard pressed to sacrifice key transpositions, as no other
tuning satisfies my criteria.

>
> PS -- please contact me offlist regarding the infiltration
> of Tonescape into Turkish music. ;-)
>

I'm still expecting to be a beta-user. You haven't included me in the
project yet!

> monz(AT)tonalsoft.com
>
>
>

Oz(AT)psychedelicdudes.com

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/25/2006 7:31:32 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 ï¿½arï¿½amba 7:53
Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian
music and ......

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
> >
> > Is there any reason to prefer 53 and not 193?
>
> 193 requires far more notes. If you are looking for accurate fifths,
> 53 is far more accurate anyway. On the other hand, if you are
> interested in high-prime-limit systems, 193 does OK, but if you are
> going to go that route why not go whole hog and use 311?
>

How about 171 instead? 331 is horrid.

> But I imagine the fact that 193 can do an excellent meantone if
> necessary is part of what you have in mind. It will indeed let you do
> that, and various other things besides.
>
>
>

Exactly.
Oz.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

1/25/2006 11:56:57 AM

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

> How about 171 instead? 331 is horrid.

What I said was 311. However, 171 is a very interesting choice. With
it, you can do 7-limit music very accurately, and it also works as a
schismatic system, so something like the schismatic scale of 22 srutis
we've been discussing works excellently with it. It also contains
19-et, and hence supports the 19-et version of meantone tuning.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/25/2006 2:49:12 PM

311 is nowhere near the beauty of 171. I propose 171 as a universal tuning.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@svpal.org>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 ï¿½arï¿½amba 21:56
Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian
music and ......

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
>
> > How about 171 instead? 331 is horrid.
>
> What I said was 311. However, 171 is a very interesting choice. With
> it, you can do 7-limit music very accurately, and it also works as a
> schismatic system, so something like the schismatic scale of 22 srutis
> we've been discussing works excellently with it. It also contains
> 19-et, and hence supports the 19-et version of meantone tuning.
>
>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

1/25/2006 4:47:12 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
>
> 311 is nowhere near the beauty of 171. I propose 171 as a universal
tuning.

311 is interesting if you want higher prime limits. 171 is great for
anyone who wants audibly just intonation in the 5 and 7 limits, which
is the basis of much harmony. There's clearly a hell of a lot you
could do with it.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

1/30/2006 1:01:38 PM

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

> > : he also worked and presented the greek genuses by different
values :
> > 266, 119, 111(7/6 : 15/14 : 16/15) , it shows his movement to other
> > limits.
>
> Do the first three numbers 266, 119, 111 refer to
> (just guessing) ADOs? or to EDOs? or what?

They are cents, respectively for the ratios that immediately follow.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

1/30/2006 2:15:04 PM

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

> Even if it takes me a whole year, I will do my utmost to convince
brother
> Mohajeri and others that the totality of Maqam Music genres today
requires a
> tuning no less elaborate than 152-tET, which is the universal tuning
> solution suggested by Paul Erlich.

. . . for purposes utterly removed from those of Maqam Music.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

1/30/2006 2:23:34 PM

My guess: Probably a lack of any real measuring devices.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
>
> And what is his basis for saying that?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 Çarþamba 3:32
> Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of
iranian
> music and ......
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...>
wrote:
> > > From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> >
> > > > People say all kinds of different things about Arabic music.
I just
> > > > read something which said it was based on a 17 tone scale in
19-edo,
> > > > 11111121111112111. This was written back before 24 was
decided on.
> >
> > > Where did you read that?
> >
> > "The Musical Scales of the Different Nations" by Carl Engel; first
> > printed I don't know when, but reprinted in 1882 by S. M. Tagore.
> >
> >
> >
>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

1/30/2006 2:35:30 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
>
> Hello monz,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "monz" <monz@t...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 Çarþamba 6:20
> Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of
iranian
> music and ......
> SNIP
>
> > >
> > > Even if it takes me a whole year, I will do my utmost
> > > to convince brother Mohajeri and others that the totality
> > > of Maqam Music genres today requires a tuning no less
> > > elaborate than 152-tET, which is the universal tuning
> > > solution suggested by Paul Erlich.
> >
> >
> >
> > That last sentence seems to imply that you are an advocate
> > of using 152-edo as a model tuning for Maqam music, however
> > your "ideal" tuning for Maqam is the 79-MOS 159-edo. I'm
> > confused about the discrepancy.
> >
>
>
> If you can extract a circular system out of 152-edo for practical
usage
> without disrupting the 19-tET framework,

What does this "disrupting" consist of?

> be my guest. Until then, I have to
> consign myself to the usage of 79 tones from 159-edo.

I don't understand. In particular, it's quite easy to arrange 152-
equal as a circular system, using a variety of generators. It's also
quite possible to find a 12-note circulating tuning in there. So what
do you mean? (And I still have no idea why you say "I have to consign
myself to the usage of 79 tones from 159-edo" or why this doesn't
cause worse problems -- but I'm willing to be shown what I've been
missing.)

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/30/2006 2:52:09 PM

Disrupting the 19-tET framework would be your 12-tone suggestion below:

0: 1/1 C unison, perfect prime
1: 86.842 cents C#\< Db
2: 197.368 cents D<
3: 292.105 cents D#\< Eb
4: 386.842 cents E\
5: 497.368 cents F
6: 584.211 cents F#\< Gb
7: 702.632 cents G
8: 789.474 cents G#\< Ab
9: 892.105 cents Av
10: 994.737 cents A#\< Bb
11: 1081.579 cents A#] B\<
12: 2/1 C octave

Can you extract a circular 50 or so tones without disrupting the cycle of
fifths? Can you also preserve the 19-tET subset at the same time?

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 31 Ocak 2006 Salï¿½ 0:35
Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian
music and ......

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
>
> Hello monz,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "monz" <monz@t...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 ï¿½arï¿½amba 6:20
> Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of
iranian
> music and ......
> SNIP
>
> > >
> > > Even if it takes me a whole year, I will do my utmost
> > > to convince brother Mohajeri and others that the totality
> > > of Maqam Music genres today requires a tuning no less
> > > elaborate than 152-tET, which is the universal tuning
> > > solution suggested by Paul Erlich.
> >
> >
> >
> > That last sentence seems to imply that you are an advocate
> > of using 152-edo as a model tuning for Maqam music, however
> > your "ideal" tuning for Maqam is the 79-MOS 159-edo. I'm
> > confused about the discrepancy.
> >
>
>
> If you can extract a circular system out of 152-edo for practical
usage
> without disrupting the 19-tET framework,

What does this "disrupting" consist of?

> be my guest. Until then, I have to
> consign myself to the usage of 79 tones from 159-edo.

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

1/30/2006 3:07:14 PM

What do you mean by "universal"? It's probably completely different
from what I meant in connection with 152, where supporting my
decatonic scales was one of the criteria.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
>
> 311 is nowhere near the beauty of 171. I propose 171 as a universal
tuning.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 25 Ocak 2006 Çarþamba 21:56
> Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of
iranian
> music and ......
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...>
wrote:
> >
> > > How about 171 instead? 331 is horrid.
> >
> > What I said was 311. However, 171 is a very interesting choice.
With
> > it, you can do 7-limit music very accurately, and it also works
as a
> > schismatic system, so something like the schismatic scale of 22
srutis
> > we've been discussing works excellently with it. It also contains
> > 19-et, and hence supports the 19-et version of meantone tuning.
> >
> >
>

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

1/30/2006 5:27:02 PM

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

> Disrupting the 19-tET framework would be your 12-tone suggestion
>below:

Funny -- I don't remember suggeting this, and either way, it's
certainly not expressed in the notation I suggested.

> 0: 1/1 C unison, perfect prime
> 1: 86.842 cents C#\< Db
> 2: 197.368 cents D<
> 3: 292.105 cents D#\< Eb
> 4: 386.842 cents E\
> 5: 497.368 cents F
> 6: 584.211 cents F#\< Gb
> 7: 702.632 cents G
> 8: 789.474 cents G#\< Ab
> 9: 892.105 cents Av
> 10: 994.737 cents A#\< Bb
> 11: 1081.579 cents A#] B\<
> 12: 2/1 C octave

What "disrupts" what? I have no idea what you mean. Also, you're
aware that Scala was notating some ETs, like 103, incorrectly, right?

> Can you extract a circular 50 or so tones without disrupting the
cycle of
> fifths?

Again I have no idea what you mean by "disrupting". Sure, I can find
plenty of intervals that give you a circle of 38 or 76 notes in 152-
equal. So?

> Can you also preserve the 19-tET subset at the same time?

152-equal will always have eight 19-equal subsets, no matter what
else you do with it. I don't know what could fail to "preserve" it.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

1/30/2006 5:51:44 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 31 Ocak 2006 Salï¿½ 3:27
Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of iranian
music and ......

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...> wrote:
>
> > Disrupting the 19-tET framework would be your 12-tone suggestion
> >below:
>
> Funny -- I don't remember suggeting this, and either way, it's
> certainly not expressed in the notation I suggested.
>

You suggested a circular 12-tone temperament out of 152-tET, I extracted
one. Do you deny it's one of your possible suggestions?

The notation is that of E152 from SCALA.

> > 0: 1/1 C unison, perfect prime
> > 1: 86.842 cents C#\< Db
> > 2: 197.368 cents D<
> > 3: 292.105 cents D#\< Eb
> > 4: 386.842 cents E\
> > 5: 497.368 cents F
> > 6: 584.211 cents F#\< Gb
> > 7: 702.632 cents G
> > 8: 789.474 cents G#\< Ab
> > 9: 892.105 cents Av
> > 10: 994.737 cents A#\< Bb
> > 11: 1081.579 cents A#] B\<
> > 12: 2/1 C octave
>
> What "disrupts" what? I have no idea what you mean. Also, you're
> aware that Scala was notating some ETs, like 103, incorrectly, right?
>

I couldn't have noticed it even if it was shoved to my face at point blank
range.

Maybe my choice of words is haphazard. What I require is a system which is
cyclic, where the chain has no wolves, the circle closes on itself after a
managable number of tones, a 19-tET subset could be achieved on any degree,
etc...

> > Can you extract a circular 50 or so tones without disrupting the
> cycle of
> > fifths?
>
> Again I have no idea what you mean by "disrupting". Sure, I can find
> plenty of intervals that give you a circle of 38 or 76 notes in 152-
> equal. So?
>

Please provide me a system out of 152-tET that has half the number of tones
and where the cycle closes without any wolf fifths.

> > Can you also preserve the 19-tET subset at the same time?
>
> 152-equal will always have eight 19-equal subsets, no matter what
> else you do with it. I don't know what could fail to "preserve" it.
>
>

Can you preserve the 19 equal subset in my request above?

Oz.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

1/30/2006 6:13:40 PM

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

> What "disrupts" what? I have no idea what you mean. Also, you're
> aware that Scala was notating some ETs, like 103, incorrectly, right?

I don't know that Manuel would agree to this. It didn't do things the
way I expected, but it did do things the way Manuel expected people
would expect, so I don't think he regarded it as a bug. Then again, it
still doesn't make much sense to me.

🔗Manuel Op de Coul <manuel.op.de.coul@eon-benelux.com>

2/1/2006 1:12:11 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "wallyesterpaulrus"
> <wallyesterpaulrus@y...> wrote:
>
> > What "disrupts" what? I have no idea what you mean. Also, you're
> > aware that Scala was notating some ETs, like 103, incorrectly, right?
>
> I don't know that Manuel would agree to this. It didn't do things the
> way I expected, but it did do things the way Manuel expected people
> would expect, so I don't think he regarded it as a bug. Then again, it
> still doesn't make much sense to me.

Yes I concluded there was no bug. Gene used a notation that didn't
match the tuning, 103-tET, so he should have used E103 but chose P31
instead. Since the fifth in 31-tET is different, you get different
approximations in 103-tET and therefore an irregular cycle of fifths.
I still don't know exactly what Gene expected, since he almost never
mentions the relevant assumptions he makes in his bug reports.

Manuel

🔗Gene Ward Smith <gwsmith@svpal.org>

2/1/2006 1:48:56 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Manuel Op de Coul"
<manuel.op.de.coul@...> wrote:

> Yes I concluded there was no bug. Gene used a notation that didn't
> match the tuning, 103-tET, so he should have used E103 but chose P31
> instead. Since the fifth in 31-tET is different, you get different
> approximations in 103-tET and therefore an irregular cycle of fifths.
> I still don't know exactly what Gene expected, since he almost never
> mentions the relevant assumptions he makes in his bug reports.

What I expected is that "P31" would determine the notation, and "equal
103" the tuning. I expected this partly because I thought you had told
me that, and partly because it makes more sense to me than what
actually does happen. What actually does happen, to anyone wanting to
try this, is that "E103" can use Pythagorean notation even though it
appears, from looking at it, that it can't. But it can use it since it
gives a particular value to sharp and flat symbols.

I'd like to know two things:

(1) Does "#" always mean where 2187/2048 is mapped to, assuming the
best (rounded, or standard val) value is used for the fifth?

(2) When are the nominals F-B equal to a chain of best-value fifths?

🔗wallyesterpaulrus <wallyesterpaulrus@yahoo.com>

2/17/2006 3:01:52 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "wallyesterpaulrus" <wallyesterpaulrus@...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 31 Ocak 2006 Salý 3:27
> Subject: [tuning] Re: about 53-edo and intervallic structure of
iranian
> music and ......
>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@o...>
wrote:
> >
> > > Disrupting the 19-tET framework would be your 12-tone suggestion
> > >below:
> >
> > Funny -- I don't remember suggeting this, and either way, it's
> > certainly not expressed in the notation I suggested.
> >
>
>
> You suggested a circular 12-tone temperament out of 152-tET, I
extracted
> one. Do you deny it's one of your possible suggestions?
>
> The notation is that of E152 from SCALA.
>
>
> > > 0: 1/1 C unison, perfect prime
> > > 1: 86.842 cents C#\< Db
> > > 2: 197.368 cents D<
> > > 3: 292.105 cents D#\< Eb
> > > 4: 386.842 cents E\
> > > 5: 497.368 cents F
> > > 6: 584.211 cents F#\< Gb
> > > 7: 702.632 cents G
> > > 8: 789.474 cents G#\< Ab
> > > 9: 892.105 cents Av
> > > 10: 994.737 cents A#\< Bb
> > > 11: 1081.579 cents A#] B\<
> > > 12: 2/1 C octave
> >
> > What "disrupts" what? I have no idea what you mean. Also, you're
> > aware that Scala was notating some ETs, like 103, incorrectly,
right?
> >
>
>
> I couldn't have noticed it even if it was shoved to my face at
point blank
> range.

Then I presume the notation given my Scala above can be safely
ignored for the purposes of this discussion, and has nothing to do
with your requirements/conclusions?

> Maybe my choice of words is haphazard.

The below continues to be a bit murky, but I'll do my best:

> What I require is a system which is
> cyclic,

A great many generators are capable of yielding a complete circle of
152 tones.

> where the chain has no wolves,

Isn't that the same as "cyclic"? Can you be a bit more explicit?

> the circle closes on itself after a
> managable number of tones,

If it's "cyclic", that implies that all the tones are visited before
the circle closes. But if you want smaller circles, 152-equal
certainly has them in spades.

> a 19-tET subset could be achieved on any degree,

Obviously this is the case in 152-equal, since 152 = 19*8.

> etc...

More explicit conditions would help, and it wouldn't hurt if you show
exactly how your proposal (with 159-equal) satisfies them.

> > > Can you extract a circular 50 or so tones without disrupting the
> > cycle of
> > > fifths?
> >
> > Again I have no idea what you mean by "disrupting". Sure, I can
find
> > plenty of intervals that give you a circle of 38 or 76 notes in
152-
> > equal. So?
> >
>
>
> Please provide me a system out of 152-tET that has half the number
of tones
> and where the cycle closes without any wolf fifths.

Obviously, 76-equal does it. I'm assuming you're talking specifically
about a cycle of *fifths* here since you mention wolf fifths. The
fifths here would be 710.5263 cents (which I like because, in
conjuction with pure octaves, they work great for Superpythagorean
and Pajara purposes).

> > > Can you also preserve the 19-tET subset at the same time?
> >
> > 152-equal will always have eight 19-equal subsets, no matter what
> > else you do with it. I don't know what could fail to "preserve"
it.
>
> Can you preserve the 19 equal subset in my request above?

76-equal contains four different transpositions of 19-equal in it. So
as best I can understand your question, 19-equal is trivially
preserved.