Re: [tuning] Digest Number 4043

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks to Gene, we now have pdfs of Rothenberg's three
>> > seminal papers, "A Model for Pattern Perception with
>> > Musical Applications" parts I - III...
>> > >> > http://lumma.org/tuning/rothenberg/Rothenberg1.pdf
>> > http://lumma.org/tuning/rothenberg/Rothenberg2.pdf
>> > http://lumma.org/tuning/rothenberg/Rothenberg3.pdf

Thanks for doing this. I remember pouring over these papers with David Feldman back in the late Pleistocene. It was frustrating, however, not to have the promised fourth and fifth articles. Maybe someone could try to locate Rothenberg and ask him if they exist (the same story went for years with O'Connell's _Tone Spaces_: parts one and two were in Die Reihe, and part three had to wait decades for Xenharmonikon).

By the way, be cautious with Rothenberg's treatment of Javanese music. His source was Bernard Ijzerdraat-Suryabrata, a controversial figure.

DJW

> >> > Thanks to Gene, we now have pdfs of Rothenberg's three
> >> > seminal papers, "A Model for Pattern Perception with
> >> > Musical Applications" parts I - III...
> >> >
> >> > http://lumma.org/tuning/rothenberg/Rothenberg1.pdf
> >> > http://lumma.org/tuning/rothenberg/Rothenberg2.pdf
> >> > http://lumma.org/tuning/rothenberg/Rothenberg3.pdf
>
> Thanks for doing this. I remember pouring over these papers
> with David Feldman back in the late Pleistocene.

:)

> It was frustrating, however, not to have the promised fourth
> and fifth articles. Maybe someone could try to locate
> Rothenberg and ask him if they exist

I hung out with him for a day in 1999 in New York. That was
one of the main things I asked him, and I'm almost 100% sure
I learned they were never written.

> By the way, be cautious with Rothenberg's treatment of
> Javanese music. His source was Bernard Ijzerdraat-Suryabrata,
> a controversial figure.

I remember discussing this with you some time in the mesozoic.
It's good to know. He also cites J. Kunst and Mantle Hood,
the latter of which you've also cautioned about.
IIRC, though, his most basic conclusions are ok. Maybe we
should revisit this now. He says,

"In Java there exist two scale systems, "Slendro" and "Pelog",
each containing a variety of scales. It has been observed that
all scales in the "Slendro" class are strictly proper and that
all in the "Pelog" class are improper."

My understanding is that this is true.

-Carl

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

> I hung out with him for a day in 1999 in New York. That was
> one of the main things I asked him, and I'm almost 100% sure
> I learned they were never written.

Would you consider a Rothenberg bio for Wikipedia?

> IIRC, though, his most basic conclusions are ok. Maybe we
> should revisit this now. He says,

I thought it was bizarre he talked about irrational intervals in this
context, since those are defined by theory alone.

> > I hung out with him for a day in 1999 in New York. That was
> > one of the main things I asked him, and I'm almost 100% sure
> > I learned they were never written.
>
> Would you consider a Rothenberg bio for Wikipedia?

Maybe. Again I think John Chalmers is a better candidate
for the job.

> > IIRC, though, his most basic conclusions are ok. Maybe we
> > should revisit this now. He says,
>
> I thought it was bizarre he talked about irrational intervals
> in this context, since those are defined by theory alone.

What part are you referring to?

-Carl

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

> What part are you referring to?

Part I:

"Helmholtz's attention was centered on European music rather than,
say, Javanese music, which uses intervals comprised of tones with
irrational frequency ratios not approximating those to be found low in
the overtone series and which employs instruments which produce
inharmonic partials".

Actually I think Helmholtz is notable for the extent to which he is
not wedded to an entirely European point of view, which was I think
quite unsual for the times.

One advantage of the djvu versions is that they are searchable, BTW.

> > By the way, be cautious with Rothenberg's treatment of
> > Javanese music. His source was Bernard Ijzerdraat-Suryabrata,
> > a controversial figure.
//
> IIRC, though, his most basic conclusions are ok. Maybe we
> should revisit this now. He says,
>
> "In Java there exist two scale systems, "Slendro" and "Pelog",
> each containing a variety of scales. It has been observed that
> all scales in the "Slendro" class are strictly proper and that
> all in the "Pelog" class are improper."
>
> My understanding is that this is true.

I played around with simple motives on the piano in the
"Chinese" pentatonic, and pelog. Under what Ozan would
call "transposition", it sounded strongly to me that the
motives were preserved in the former case but destroyed
in pelog. I tried transpositions of 3:2 and 4:3 (which
both scales contain), and transpositions by various 2nds.

Anyone else hear this? Comments??

-Carl

Transposition or modulation?

SNIP

I played around with simple motives on the piano in the
"Chinese" pentatonic, and pelog. Under what Ozan would
call "transposition", it sounded strongly to me that the
motives were preserved in the former case but destroyed
in pelog. I tried transpositions of 3:2 and 4:3 (which
both scales contain), and transpositions by various 2nds.

Anyone else hear this? Comments??

-Carl

Whoops, I think I meant modulation!
Anyway, Daniel may not have read that thread.
The point is that I was starting motives on different
scale degrees throughout the scale.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> Transposition or modulation?
>
> SNIP
>
> I played around with simple motives on the piano in the
> "Chinese" pentatonic, and pelog. Under what Ozan would
> call "transposition", it sounded strongly to me that the
> motives were preserved in the former case but destroyed
> in pelog. I tried transpositions of 3:2 and 4:3 (which
> both scales contain), and transpositions by various 2nds.
>
> Anyone else hear this? Comments??
>
> -Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > By the way, be cautious with Rothenberg's treatment of
> > > Javanese music. His source was Bernard Ijzerdraat-Suryabrata,
> > > a controversial figure.
> //
> > IIRC, though, his most basic conclusions are ok. Maybe we
> > should revisit this now. He says,
> >
> > "In Java there exist two scale systems, "Slendro" and "Pelog",
> > each containing a variety of scales. It has been observed that
> > all scales in the "Slendro" class are strictly proper and that
> > all in the "Pelog" class are improper."
> >
> > My understanding is that this is true.
>
> I played around with simple motives on the piano in the
> "Chinese" pentatonic, and pelog. Under what Ozan would
> call "transposition", it sounded strongly to me that the
> motives were preserved in the former case but destroyed
> in pelog. I tried transpositions of 3:2 and 4:3 (which
> both scales contain), and transpositions by various 2nds.
>
> Anyone else hear this? Comments??
>
Hi Carl,

First comment - I don't know what definition of
pelog you're using; presumably something that's
in Scala, and possibly something with a known
rationale (if not known ratios)?

All I have used for Pelog in the past is the
measurements in Ellis' translation of Helmholtz,
App. XX., II. Table of non-harmonic scales, Nos.
96 to 102. I'm happy to use any better defintion;
however, the remainder of my comments are based on
those measurements, which give the pelog gamut in
No. 96. as
0 137 446 575 687 820 1098 (1200)
cents,
from which the various pentatonic scales are drawn,
the one named Pelog being No. 97.,
0 - 446 575 687 - 1098 (1200)

My main comment on this gamut is that the table of
intervals between its notes contains very few exact
repetitions, but when sorted and graphed, these
show distinct clustering at two or three levels of
detail. (I have a spreadsheet showing this if you
want to see it.)

However, there's distinct "progression" within each
cluster of intervals, so it's hard to be sure exactly
what few intervals were intended by its inventors
(assuming they had something so simple in mind).

I did find that 67-EDO gives a reasonable approxima-
tion to all the scale degrees and the intervals be-
tween them, with only a few cents error at most.
Still, I can't see any reasonable way to analyse
this as a scale of only one, two or even three step
sizes. In 67-EDO, the degrees of the gamut are
separated by
8 17 7 6 8 15 6
steps (each of 1200/67 = 17.91045 cents). I suppose
one could make these instead
7 16 7 7 7 16 7
steps, but only if one is willing to introduce errors
of up to 2 steps, around 36 cents.

The nearest fourths are 446 and 513 cents.
The nearest fifths are 687 and 754 cents.
On this basis, I don't see any worthwhile 3/2 or 4/3
- 702 or 498 cents - do you? Is a 15 cent error
"near enough"?

Now, as to whether I've heard the impropriety of
Pelog - No, I haven't played with these scales
enough recently, and I've never been aware of trans-
posing a motif in one (tho I've probably done it).
That's an experiment I ought to make!

However, I doubt it would worry me greatly either
way, since I'm perfectly happy to have both "real"
and "tonal" answers in contrapuntal music generally,
and have no trouble recognising that a motif has
been so transposed. I guess the only time I'd find
it weird would be if a transposition carried a
an interval "across" a perceived fourth or fifth,
eg if an original fifth became a third, or sixth
became a fourth. Does that make sense?

But to answer your question properly, I'd have to
tune up a pelog and play for a while. Maybe this
weekend.

Regards,
Yahya

On 6/8/06, yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> All I have used for Pelog in the past is the
> measurements in Ellis' translation of Helmholtz,
> App. XX., II. Table of non-harmonic scales, Nos.
> 96 to 102. I'm happy to use any better defintion;
> however, the remainder of my comments are based on
> those measurements, which give the pelog gamut in
> No. 96. as
> 0 137 446 575 687 820 1098 (1200)
> cents,
> from which the various pentatonic scales are drawn,
> the one named Pelog being No. 97.,
> 0 - 446 575 687 - 1098 (1200)

That's definitely a pelog, but it's a very harsh pelog to my ears. The
446 is too high, and the 1200 is definitely wrong: the octaves in
pelog are always stretched at least 5 cents and sometimes as much as
20 or 30.

Also, that 5-note subset is called "pelog selisir".

I suggest this tuning instead:

!
Keenan's pelog
7
!
140
395
540
680
820
1080
1215
!

Some of those could certainly be tweaked a little.

And to answer your question about the fifths and fourths: yes, a 15
cent error is definitely near enough for pelog. Even what's nominally
"the same note" on different instruments can be 20 or 30 cents off,
depending on the register. A 702 cent fifth or a 1200 cent octave
would be "dead" because it doesn't beat.

Keenan

> > > > By the way, be cautious with Rothenberg's treatment of
> > > > Javanese music. His source was Bernard
> > > > Ijzerdraat-Suryabrata, a controversial figure.
> > //
> > > IIRC, though, his most basic conclusions are ok. Maybe we
> > > should revisit this now. He says,
> > >
> > > "In Java there exist two scale systems, "Slendro" and "Pelog",
> > > each containing a variety of scales. It has been observed
> > > that all scales in the "Slendro" class are strictly proper
> > > and that all in the "Pelog" class are improper."
> > >
> > > My understanding is that this is true.
> >
> > I played around with simple motives on the piano in the
> > "Chinese" pentatonic, and pelog. Under what Ozan would
> > call "transposition", it sounded strongly to me that the
> > motives were preserved in the former case but destroyed
> > in pelog. I tried transpositions of 3:2 and 4:3 (which
> > both scales contain), and transpositions by various 2nds.
> >
> > Anyone else hear this? Comments??
> >
> Hi Carl,
>
> First comment - I don't know what definition of
> pelog you're using; presumably something that's
> in Scala, and possibly something with a known
> rationale (if not known ratios)?

Hi Yahya,

My piano is in equal temperament, so 0-4-5-7-11-12.

> the one named Pelog being No. 97.,
> 0 - 446 575 687 - 1098 (1200)
>
> My main comment on this gamut is that the table of
> intervals between its notes contains very few exact
> repetitions, but when sorted and graphed, these
> show distinct clustering at two or three levels of
> detail. (I have a spreadsheet showing this if you
> want to see it.)

Sure. Is it anything different than Scala's
"show /line intervals"?

> I did find that 67-EDO gives a reasonable approxima-
> tion to all the scale degrees

For questions regarding Rothenberg propriety, precise
tuning isn't necessary. In fact, the property is
defined over the relative sizes of the intervals in the
scale. Try "show /ranking intervals" in Scala to see
what I mean.

-Carl

On 6/8/06, Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My piano is in equal temperament, so 0-4-5-7-11-12.

Ugh. Now THAT's a bad pelog!

ALWAYS is a bit of a claim

That's definitely a pelog, but it's a very harsh pelog to my ears. The
446 is too high, and the 1200 is definitely wrong: the octaves in
pelog are always stretched at least 5 cents and sometimes as much as
20 or 30.
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > > > By the way, be cautious with Rothenberg's treatment of
> > > > > Javanese music. His source was Bernard
> > > > > Ijzerdraat-Suryabrata, a controversial figure.
> > > //
> > > > IIRC, though, his most basic conclusions are ok. Maybe we
> > > > should revisit this now. He says,
> > > >
> > > > "In Java there exist two scale systems, "Slendro"
and "Pelog",
> > > > each containing a variety of scales. It has been observed
> > > > that all scales in the "Slendro" class are strictly proper
> > > > and that all in the "Pelog" class are improper."
> > > >
> > > > My understanding is that this is true.
> > >
> > > I played around with simple motives on the piano in the
> > > "Chinese" pentatonic, and pelog. Under what Ozan would
> > > call "transposition", it sounded strongly to me that the
> > > motives were preserved in the former case but destroyed
> > > in pelog. I tried transpositions of 3:2 and 4:3 (which
> > > both scales contain), and transpositions by various 2nds.
> > >
> > > Anyone else hear this? Comments??
> > >
> > Hi Carl,
> >
> > First comment - I don't know what definition of
> > pelog you're using; presumably something that's
> > in Scala, and possibly something with a known
> > rationale (if not known ratios)?
>
> Hi Yahya,
>
> My piano is in equal temperament, so 0-4-5-7-11-12.

That's *very* far from the Helmholtz/Ellis scale (based on Land's
measurements), which follows.

> > the one named Pelog being No. 97.,
> > 0 - 446 575 687 - 1098 (1200)
> >
> > My main comment on this gamut is that the table of
> > intervals between its notes contains very few exact
> > repetitions, but when sorted and graphed, these
> > show distinct clustering at two or three levels of
> > detail. (I have a spreadsheet showing this if you
> > want to see it.)
>
> Sure. Is it anything different than Scala's
> "show /line intervals"?

Not familiar enough with Scala to know the answer.

> > I did find that 67-EDO gives a reasonable approxima-
> > tion to all the scale degrees
>
> For questions regarding Rothenberg propriety, precise
> tuning isn't necessary. In fact, the property is
> defined over the relative sizes of the intervals in the
> scale. Try "show /ranking intervals" in Scala to see
> what I mean.

Sounds like a plan ...

Regards,
Yahya

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...>
wrote:
>
> On 6/8/06, yahya_melb <yahya@...> wrote:
> > All I have used for Pelog in the past is the
> > measurements in Ellis' translation of Helmholtz,
> > App. XX., II. Table of non-harmonic scales, Nos.
> > 96 to 102. I'm happy to use any better defintion;
> > however, the remainder of my comments are based on
> > those measurements, which give the pelog gamut in
> > No. 96. as
> > 0 137 446 575 687 820 1098 (1200)
> > cents,
> > from which the various pentatonic scales are drawn,
> > the one named Pelog being No. 97.,
> > 0 - 446 575 687 - 1098 (1200)
>
> That's definitely a pelog, but it's a very harsh pelog to my ears.
The
> 446 is too high, and the 1200 is definitely wrong: the octaves in
> pelog are always stretched at least 5 cents and sometimes as much
as
> 20 or 30.
>
> Also, that 5-note subset is called "pelog selisir".
>
> I suggest this tuning instead:
>
> !
> Keenan's pelog
> 7
> !
> 140
> 395
> 540
> 680
> 820
> 1080
> 1215
> !
>
> Some of those could certainly be tweaked a little.
>
> And to answer your question about the fifths and fourths: yes, a 15
> cent error is definitely near enough for pelog. Even what's
nominally
> "the same note" on different instruments can be 20 or 30 cents off,
> depending on the register. A 702 cent fifth or a 1200 cent octave
> would be "dead" because it doesn't beat.

Keenan,

Thanks for your reply. What are the sources of your information?

Regards,
Yahya

On 6/9/06, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com> wrote:
> ALWAYS is a bit of a claim

And I stand behind it. I've listened to a lot of gamelans and I've
never ever heard a pelog with the octaves stretched less than 5 cents.
Nor, for that matter, have I ever heard a slendro with octaves greater
than 1195 cents. It's a characteristic feature of the scale.

Keenan

On 6/9/06, yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> Keenan,
>
> Thanks for your reply. What are the sources of your information?

I played in FSU's Sekaa Gong Hanuman Agung and the director Michael
Bakan taught us a lot of stuff. Also I've listened to a lot of gamelan
on my own.

http://web.telia.com/~u57011259/pelog_main.htm

I don't totally agree with the conclusions here but the interval data is useful.

Keenan

> > Hi Yahya,
> >
> > My piano is in equal temperament, so 0-4-5-7-11-12.
>
> That's *very* far from the Helmholtz/Ellis scale (based on Land's
> measurements), which follows.
>
> > > the one named Pelog being No. 97.,
> > > 0 - 446 575 687 - 1098 (1200)

Whether or not my scale is a Pelog has nothing to do with
the issue under test, which is whether improper scales allow
modal "modulation".

-Carl

> > My piano is in equal temperament, so 0-4-5-7-11-12.
>
> Ugh. Now THAT's a bad pelog!

Are any pelogs good, in your opinion, on non-gamelan
instruments?

-Carl

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

> And I stand behind it. I've listened to a lot of gamelans and I've
> never ever heard a pelog with the octaves stretched less than 5 cents.

5-limit TOP 7-et has octaves stretched 9.4 cents. Is that an
acceptable pelog tuning?

> Nor, for that matter, have I ever heard a slendro with octaves greater
> than 1195 cents. It's a characteristic feature of the scale.

5-limit TOP 5-et has octaves squashed 20 cents. Is that an acceptable
slendro tuning?

On 6/9/06, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com> wrote:
> 5-limit TOP 7-et has octaves stretched 9.4 cents. Is that an
> acceptable pelog tuning?

Um, I've heard some gamelans that were fairly close to 7-equal, but
they sounded pretty weird to me. I think there's a certain region of
Bali where they prefer tunings like this, though.

Let's take pelog selisir, the mode I'm most familiar with:

345.5 - sounds quite flat to me
518.3 - a little flat, but definitely acceptable
691.1 - good
1036.6 - a little flat
1209.4 - good

So that neutral third is the only thing that really bothers me. But
they go for it in certain places. I'd say it has a "rustic" sound.

> 5-limit TOP 5-et has octaves squashed 20 cents. Is that an acceptable
> slendro tuning?

Yes, definitely. This is way more clear-cut than the pelog case. In
practice the intervals are usually a little different, but this
certainly falls within the range of common slendro tunings.

Keenan

On 6/9/06, Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Are any pelogs good, in your opinion, on non-gamelan
> instruments?

Well, the suling, a flute with harmonic overtones, plays along with
the gamelan, and sometimes people sing. Sure the scales are more
suited to idiophones, but that doesn't mean nothing else can play
them.

It's the reverse of the situation in Western music, where the scale is
suited to harmonic instruments, but that doesn't mean a xylophone
can't play along with the orchestra.

Keenan

> Well, the suling, a flute with harmonic overtones, plays along with
> the gamelan, and sometimes people sing. Sure the scales are more
> suited to idiophones, but that doesn't mean nothing else can play
> them.
>
> It's the reverse of the situation in Western music, where the
> scale is suited to harmonic instruments, but that doesn't mean a
> xylophone can't play along with the orchestra.

Sure it can.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > Hi Yahya,
> > >
> > > My piano is in equal temperament, so 0-4-5-7-11-12.
> >
> > That's *very* far from the Helmholtz/Ellis scale (based on Land's
> > measurements), which follows.
> >
> > > > the one named Pelog being No. 97.,
> > > > 0 - 446 575 687 - 1098 (1200)
>
> Whether or not my scale is a Pelog has nothing to do with
> the issue under test, which is whether improper scales allow
> modal "modulation".

Carl,

Good point! However, I *thought* your original post referred
to your scale as Pelog, which may account for the confusion.
So, as I see it, we are discussing two issues in this thread,
which I now propose to split accordingly:
1. Modal modulations in improper scales.
2. Distinctive characteristics of pelog scales.

But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)

Regards,
Yahya

SNIP

>
> But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
> we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>

Precisely.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
> > >>And I stand behind it. I've listened to a lot of gamelans and I've
>>never ever heard a pelog with the octaves stretched less than 5 cents.
> > > 5-limit TOP 7-et has octaves stretched 9.4 cents. Is that an
> acceptable pelog tuning? All pelog tunings that I've heard have distinctly unequal sizes of steps, closer to 7 out of 9-et than to 7-et. 5-limit (and 7-limit) TOP 9-et has octaves stretched by 8.24 cents. You can get closer to a typical pelog if you start with 0 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 from a stretched 9-ET scale, raise pitches 5 and 7 a little to improve the fifths, and either raise or lower pitch 1.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...>
wrote:
>
> On 6/9/06, yahya_melb <yahya@...> wrote:
> > Keenan,
> >
> > Thanks for your reply. What are the sources of your information?
>
> I played in FSU's Sekaa Gong Hanuman Agung and the director Michael
> Bakan taught us a lot of stuff. Also I've listened to a lot of
gamelan
> on my own.
>
> http://web.telia.com/~u57011259/pelog_main.htm
>
> I don't totally agree with the conclusions here but the interval
data is useful.

Hi Keenan,

Thanks for this!

When I lived in Malaysia, gamelan wan't very big, but every
high school had it's own gamelan anklung [angklung] - all
bamboo instruments, no metallophones as far as I know. There
was also one at the university campus I taught at. These school
bands usually had their angklung tuned to a diatonic scale.

These days, with the Malaysian kids playing death metal, dance
and rap, I don't expect traditional music has gained much
ground :-(.

I just now improvised some melodies using Carl's 12-EDO tuning,
and to my ear at least, they sound very much like the gamelans
I've heard. I'm talking the character, not the exact tuning.
But my feeling was always that the anklung's pitches were very
poorly defined, anyway - probably more to do with their timbre
being very inharmonic, I suspect.

I've just now been reading Matthew Montfort's pages on rhythmic
patterns used in North Javanese gamelan - see:
http://www.ancient-future.com
and will try my hand at combining these with improvised melodies
in (any-old-tuning-at-all-of) pelog.

Finally, I checked wikipedia, which has a stub article on
angklung, linking to articles on pélog, sléndro AND slendro! ;-)
In your opinion, how good is the information there?

Regards,
Yahya

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >
> > But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
> > we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yahya
> >
>
> Precisely.

Oz,

I trust you realise that I didn't write "modUlation",
but have instead coined another word "modAlation" ...?

Regards,
Yahya

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

> All pelog tunings that I've heard have distinctly unequal sizes of
> steps, closer to 7 out of 9-et than to 7-et. 5-limit (and 7-limit) TOP
> 9-et has octaves stretched by 8.24 cents. You can get closer to a
> typical pelog if you start with 0 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 from a stretched 9-ET
> scale, raise pitches 5 and 7 a little to improve the fifths, and either
> raise or lower pitch 1.

Very interesting; it might be nice to make a catalog of pelog scales
under this working assumption, and see how well it plays out.

On 6/9/06, yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> Finally, I checked wikipedia, which has a stub article on
> angklung, linking to articles on pélog, sléndro AND slendro! ;-)
> In your opinion, how good is the information there?

Well, I'd say it's pretty good, considering I wrote much of it. =P
That was a while ago though, so I'll look them over again.

(Also note that sléndro redirects to slendro, as it should.)

Keenan

Kunst would prove you wrong as only one source.
especially on the slendro.
2d.

Re: Pelog impropriety (was: Digest Number 4043)
<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJwc2R1Z2M2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzcwNjA1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDg5Nzc1MwRtc2dJZAM2NjgwMgRzZWMDZG1zZwRzbGsDdm1zZwRzdGltZQMxMTQ5ODg4MTUy;_ylg=1/SIG=11n5gsrad/**http%3a//groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/66802>

And I stand behind it. I've listened to a lot of gamelans and I've
never ever heard a pelog with the octaves stretched less than 5 cents.
Nor, for that matter, have I ever heard a slendro with octaves greater
than 1195 cents. It's a characteristic feature of the scale.

Keenan

Back to top
<mailbox:///Users/kraiggrady/Library/Thunderbird/Profiles/jmxj84tr.default/Mail/pop.anaphoria.com/Inbox?number=1119194769#toc>

Reply (via email)
<mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com?Subject=%20Re:%20Pelog%20impropriety%20%28was:%20Digest%20Number%204043%29>
| Reply
<http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJwYm5lbDM5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzcwNjA1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDg5Nzc1MwRtc2dJZAM2NjgwMgRzZWMDZG1zZwRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMTQ5ODg4MTUy;_ylg=1/SIG=12ds596el/**http%3a//groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/post%3fact=reply%26messageNum=66802>

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> Good point! However, I *thought* your original post referred
> to your scale as Pelog, which may account for the confusion.
> So, as I see it, we are discussing two issues in this thread,
> which I now propose to split accordingly:
> 1. Modal modulations in improper scales.
> 2. Distinctive characteristics of pelog scales.

That seems to be the case. I'm curious about your reactions
to #1. Did you try such an experiment?

Re. #2, I thought Pelog was 5 tones and Slendro 7. Shows
you what I know.

> But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
> we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)

Didn't you object to this meaning when Ozan was using it!?

-Carl

> Very interesting; it might be nice to make a catalog of pelog scales
> under this working assumption, and see how well it plays out.

What about good ol' pelogic, or what is it now, mavila?

-Carl

On 6/10/06, Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Re. #2, I thought Pelog was 5 tones and Slendro 7. Shows
> you what I know.

In practice, they're both pentatonic, but the various pelog modes all
come from a 7-tone master scale, which is only used as a whole in some
weird modern gamelan.

Keenan

On 6/10/06, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com> wrote:
>
> Kunst would prove you wrong as only one source.
> especially on the slendro.
>
> 2d.
>
>
> Re: Pelog impropriety (was: Digest Number 4043)
> <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJwc2R1Z2M2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzcwNjA1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDg5Nzc1MwRtc2dJZAM2NjgwMgRzZWMDZG1zZwRzbGsDdm1zZwRzdGltZQMxMTQ5ODg4MTUy;_ylg=1/SIG=11n5gsrad/**http%3a//groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/message/66802>
>
>
>
>
>
> And I stand behind it. I've listened to a lot of gamelans and I've
> never ever heard a pelog with the octaves stretched less than 5 cents.
> Nor, for that matter, have I ever heard a slendro with octaves greater
> than 1195 cents. It's a characteristic feature of the scale.
>
> Keenan
>
> Back to top
> <mailbox:///Users/kraiggrady/Library/Thunderbird/Profiles/jmxj84tr.default/Mail/pop.anaphoria.com/Inbox?number=1119194769#toc>
>
> Reply (via email)
> <mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com?Subject=%20Re:%20Pelog%20impropriety%20%28was:%20Digest%20Number%204043%29>
> | Reply
> <http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylc=X3oDMTJwYm5lbDM5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzcwNjA1BGdycHNwSWQDMTYwMDg5Nzc1MwRtc2dJZAM2NjgwMgRzZWMDZG1zZwRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMTQ5ODg4MTUy;_ylg=1/SIG=12ds596el/**http%3a//groups.yahoo.com/group/tuning/post%3fact=reply%26messageNum=66802>

I looked through all this garbage in search of a link to whatever
you're talking about, but it seems there isn't any. Please clean up
your emails.

Keenan

>
> And I stand behind it. I've listened to a lot of gamelans and I've
> never ever heard a pelog with the octaves stretched less than 5 cents.
> Nor, for that matter, have I ever heard a slendro with octaves greater
> than 1195 cents. It's a characteristic feature of the scale.
>
> Keenan

I don't want to appear immodest, but I'll bet that I've heard several times the number of gamelan you have, in the US, Indonesia, Suriname and Europe, and have never detected such a pattern. If anything, I'd go with the opinion of the late Ki Suhardi, who thought that Slendro was more tolerant of wide octaves, and taught me to play beatless fifths in pelog on the rebab. He said that the stretching in slendro could help singers who tended to go low in pitch in their upper octave, but wasn't necessary if the singers were trained to listen to the rebab and gender. Gamelan makers do usually like octaves to beat -- which may well be both a kind of timbre and a kind of vibrato disguising the exact intervals of the tempering (Javanese idiophone tunings are compromises, in order to fit three pathet (~=key, not mode) onto a limited number of keys or gongs) -- and it doesn't matter acoustically if that is the result of stretched or squeezed octaves, and all of the best measurements of the best-maintained (=regularly tuned) instruments show a significant number with narrow or near-just octaves. If there is a statistically larger number of wide octaves, that may also be due to plain laziness or cost-cutting, as the bars and gongs are fine-tuned downward in pitch, and it saves time and labor, simply to lower the pitch to a position which is "good enough" rather than ideal.

Daniel Wolf

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "yahya_melb" <yahya@...> wrote:
...
> > the issue under test, which is whether improper scales allow
> > modal "modulation".
>
...
> So, as I see it, we are discussing two issues in this thread,
> which I now propose to split accordingly:
> 1. Modal modulations in improper scales.
> 2. Distinctive characteristics of pelog scales.
>
> But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
> we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)

http://tinyurl.com/k6wlf is a message by Andrew Weintraub on the
Gamelan list at Dartmouth's listserv (needs a subscription); in
this, he writes:

"Koesoemadinata aimed to demonstrate his theory of two laras (pelog
and salendro) from which multiple scales could be derived.
Koesoemadinata explains the derivation of these models in Ilmu Seni-
Raras (1969), a summary of fifty years of work (1916-1966). From
laras pelog, he derived the jawar, liwung, and sorog scales; from
laras salendro, he derived the madenda, degung, and degung mataram
scales. Koesoemadinata's theoretical experiments were motivated by
two overriding concerns.

First, he wished to construct a model for each tuning system (pelog
and salendro) which would allow for the transposition of any scale
within the respective tuning system, and for which each tone of the
scale could theoretically function as the main tone of the scale
(similar to a tonic function, which he called tonica) ..."

Sounds a lot like a full-blown model of modes, doesn't it? However,
that doesn't mean that the different modes would necessarily be used
in the same composition, which is perhaps contrary to the idea of
maintaining a consistent 'pathet' or ethos. Also, Weintraub points
out that Kusumadinata's theoretical descriptions could not apply to
physical instruments - he describes scales ('raras' or 'laras')
drawn from the 9 tones as if they actually existed on an single
instrument, whereas the fixed-pitch instruments have at most seven
pitches.

Outside the gamelan tradition, and considering a particular pelog
scale simply as a tone resource, we have of course no such
limitations, and may cheerfully move thru modes if we so desire. We
may also transpose motifs up and down at will on a (piano or
electronic) keyboard, making the most baroque sequences, without the
limitations of each player having only two notes (as in some gong
arrays) so that even a motif of three or four notes must be divided
between two musicians.

If instead of tuning my pelog selisir in exact 9-EDO, thus:
...bem 0 0
..gulu 1 133
..dada 2 267
[..... 3 400 skipped]
.pelog 4 533
..lima 5 667
...nem 6 800
barang 7 933
[..... 8 1067 skipped]
..bem2 9 1200

I were to tune the small intervals slightly narrower and the other
two slightly wider, with maybe a few extra cents in the octave, thus:
...bem 0 0
..gulu 1 130
..dada 2 260
[..... 3 400 skipped]
.pelog 4 540
..lima 5 670
...nem 6 800
barang 7 930
[..... 8 1070 skipped]
..bem2 9 1210

I'd have a classic pelog (much more conservative in its small
variations from 9-EDO than those graphed in the article Keenan
linked to), in which the wide steps dada:pelog and barang:bem2
are 280 cents, while all the remaining, narrow steps are 130 cents.
Thus two narrow steps always span a smaller interval than one wide
step, so the scale is strictly improper.

I set this up on the keyboard as follows:
...bem 0 0 .......... C .... + 0
..gulu 1 130 ........ Db ... +30
..dada 2 260 ........ Eb ... -40
[..... 3 400 ........ E .... + 0 skipped]
.pelog 4 540 ........ F .... +40
..lima 5 670 ........ G .... -30
...nem 6 800 ........ G# ... + 0
barang 7 930 ........ A .... +30
[..... 8 1070 ....... B .... -30 skipped]
..bem2 9 1200 ....... C .... + 0

(I couldn't manage the 1210 cent bem2, since my keyboard only allows
octave-equivalent retunings within +-63 cents of the 12-EDO notes.)

Thus, if I skip every fourth key in the twelve (nominally, the notes
of the augmented chord D F# A#) and play the remaining 9, I have the
9-EDO gamut, slightly tempered; if I also skip nominal E and B, I
have the laras Pelog selisir, on the nominals C Db Eb F G Ab Bbb
(say).

Well, it's playable! I've fiddled around with it for a few minutes,
using typical Balinese alternating male-and-female rhythmic patterns
(*), and my immediate impression is that the character of these
changes so radically when I transpose the motif, that it's almost
unrecognisable. It's certainly nothing like a common-practice
sequence.

(*) 'kotèkan'; eg, a 'chandetan', in which the 'nyangsih' (male,
strong-beat) part has one note different and lower than, and
the 'polos' (female, weak-beat) part has one note different and
higher than, two common notes - say the nyangsih plays nominals
|: .A.G.E.E :| while polos plays |: G.C.A.G. :| - where the dots are
rests (and ignoring accidentals). With my current tuning, I'd have
to write the resulting melody as:
|: G Ab C G Ab Eb G Eb :|
to be able to sight-read it. But in terms of 9-EDO, it's just the
following series of notes:
|: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| (I use 9 instead of 0 for the octave.)
This is easy to "modalate" by adding or subtracting an integer to
each note. Thus, (motif on 5) (motif on 4) (motif on 5) (motif on
6) (motif on 5) (motif on 5) becomes:
|: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 4 5 8 4 5 1 4 1 :|
|: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 6 7 10 6 7 3 6 3 :|
|: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :|
The only problem with doing this is that notes 3 (nominal E) and 8
(nominal B) don't appear in the scale. So to maintain the pattern
of intervals (as counts of steps), I need to replace each derived 8
with 7 and each derived 3 with 4 - in *this* case:
|: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 4 5 7 4 5 1 4 1 :|
|: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 6 7 10 6 7 4 6 4 :|
|: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :|

Played slowly, the example above has enough evidence of the pattern
that you can sort of recognise the fact of "modalation" - but it's
weird. Played in moderate speed, each note being a quaver (an
eighth note) and lasting 0.25 sec (at 120bpm), it's even weirder,
because the pattern is not so obvious. Faster, it's worse ;-)

Thus, the results of my (admittedly subjective) experiments into
your fascinating question, to date.

Regards,
Yahya

dear keenan these so called links were generated by yahoo i did not put them in unless they were apart of your original proclaimation
there are quite a few sources of slendro and Pelog.
what sounds right to you is rather irrelavant since you are not indonesian nor have you heard all of them
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> > > the issue under test, which is whether improper scales allow
> > > modal "modulation".
//
> in terms of 9-EDO, it's just the
> following series of notes:
> |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| (I use 9 instead of 0 for the octave.)
> This is easy to "modalate" by adding or subtracting an integer
> to each note. Thus, (motif on 5) (motif on 4) (motif on 5)
> (motif on 6) (motif on 5) (motif on 5) becomes:
> |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 4 5 8 4 5 1 4 1 :|
> |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 6 7 10 6 7 3 6 3 :|
> |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :|
> The only problem with doing this is that notes 3 (nominal E)
> and 8 (nominal B) don't appear in the scale. So to maintain
> the pattern of intervals (as counts of steps), I need to
> replace each derived 8 with 7 and each derived 3 with 4 - in
> *this* case:
> |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 4 5 7 4 5 1 4 1 :|
> |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 6 7 10 6 7 4 6 4 :|
> |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :|
> Played slowly, the example above has enough evidence of the
> pattern that you can sort of recognise the fact of
> "modalation" - but it's weird. Played in moderate speed,
> each note being a quaver (an eighth note) and lasting 0.25
> sec (at 120bpm), it's even weirder, because the pattern is
> not so obvious. Faster, it's worse ;-)
>
> Thus, the results of my (admittedly subjective) experiments
> into your fascinating question, to date.

Wow, Yahya (can you say "overkill"?). Er, I can't tell if
what you're doing here is modal modulation. I don't see any
rotation of the scale step pattern 1 3 -4 1 -4 3 -3 on the
right there. What am I missing?

I used 12-tET because it gave me easy access to two scales,
one highly proper and one improper, which share a lot of
the same intervals.

-Carl

Carl Lumma wrote:
>>Very interesting; it might be nice to make a catalog of pelog scales
>>under this working assumption, and see how well it plays out.
> > > What about good ol' pelogic, or what is it now, mavila?
> > -Carl

Pelogic/mavila is good as a first approxmation. If you were to compare actual pelog tunings you'd probably find some that are closer to the 9-ET end of pelogic and others closer to the 7-ET end (like Blackwood's 23-ET pelog scale). As you get closer to 7-ET it sounds more like a Burmese tuning than a pelog scale. The interval between the 5th and 6th note of an actual 7-note pelog scale (or the 4th and 5th notes of 5-note pelog scales) tends to be smaller than the corresponding interval in the mavila approximation. I'm more familiar with the 5-note pelog scales, but my impression of the 7-note pelog scales that I've heard is that the interval between the 6th and 7th notes is larger than you'd expect from a mavila approximation. And the first three notes of the scale are typically not evenly spaced as they are in mavila.

TOP 16-ET by the way has octaves 8.56 cents sharp (5-limit) or 7.45 cents sharp (7-limit), so that might actually be a better point of reference than 7-ET or 9-ET. Intervals could be characterized as smaller or larger than the corresponding intervals of mavila[7] in an octave stretched 16-ET.

> Pelogic/mavila is good as a first approxmation. If you were to
> compare actual pelog tunings you'd probably find some that are
> closer to the 9-ET end of pelogic and others closer to the
> 7-ET end (like Blackwood's 23-ET pelog scale). As you get closer
> to 7-ET it sounds more like a Burmese tuning than a pelog scale.
> The interval between the 5th and 6th note of an actual 7-note
> pelog scale (or the 4th and 5th notes of 5-note pelog scales)
> tends to be smaller than the corresponding interval in the
> mavila approximation.
//
> TOP 16-ET by the way has octaves 8.56 cents sharp (5-limit) or
> 7.45 cents sharp (7-limit), so that might actually be a better
> point of reference than 7-ET or 9-ET. Intervals could be
> characterized as smaller or larger than the corresponding
> intervals of mavila[7] in an octave stretched 16-ET.

Thanks Herman!

-Carl

On 6/10/06, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@snafu.de> wrote:
> I don't want to appear immodest, but I'll bet that I've heard several
> times the number of gamelan you have, in the US, Indonesia, Suriname and
> Europe, and have never detected such a pattern. If anything, I'd go with
> the opinion of the late Ki Suhardi, who thought that Slendro was more
> tolerant of wide octaves, and taught me to play beatless fifths in pelog
> on the rebab. He said that the stretching in slendro could help singers
> who tended to go low in pitch in their upper octave, but wasn't
> necessary if the singers were trained to listen to the rebab and gender.
> Gamelan makers do usually like octaves to beat -- which may well be both
> a kind of timbre and a kind of vibrato disguising the exact intervals of
> the tempering (Javanese idiophone tunings are compromises, in order to
> fit three pathet (~=key, not mode) onto a limited number of keys or
> gongs) -- and it doesn't matter acoustically if that is the result of
> stretched or squeezed octaves, and all of the best measurements of the
> best-maintained (=regularly tuned) instruments show a significant number
> with narrow or near-just octaves. If there is a statistically larger
> number of wide octaves, that may also be due to plain laziness or
> cost-cutting, as the bars and gongs are fine-tuned downward in pitch,
> and it saves time and labor, simply to lower the pitch to a position
> which is "good enough" rather than ideal.
>
> Daniel Wolf

Well, if you have a bar of metal, you can either sharpen it by
scraping the ends to make it shorter or flatten it by scraping the
middle to make it thinner. Are you saying gamelan tuners flatten more
often than they sharpen? Have you ever actually seen a gamelan being
tuned? Don't they use a tool called a "cricket's stomach" or
something?

Can you recommend any recordings that would dispel my misconceptions
(if that's what they are)?

Keenan

On 6/10/06, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@anaphoria.com> wrote:
> dear keenan these so called links were generated by yahoo i did not put
> them in unless they were apart of your original proclaimation
> there are quite a few sources of slendro and Pelog.
> what sounds right to you is rather irrelavant since you are not
> indonesian nor have you heard all of them

This seems insulting and not particularly coherent. Why would you send
me links to what I just wrote myself? What do you mean by "nor have
you heard all of them"? I can safely say that no one has heard every
gamelan that's ever played.

Keenan

Keenan,

Chill out a bit - the Yahoo recoding seems to be causing a bit of
havoc with a number of people posting, so particularly ugly posts
might be common for a few days til everyone figures out how to make it
clear and concise.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...> wrote:
> What do you mean by "nor have
> you heard all of them"? I can safely say that no one has heard every
> gamelan that's ever played.

Which makes it all the more odd that someone would say that tunings
would "always" be within certain parameters, right? I'm guessing you
haven't been to Bali or Java, and it appears your experience is from a
gamalan at a university in Florida, and listening. I've got a
colleague who every year spends 4-8 weeks in Bali/Java, and he is
leaving in a couple weeks. I'll run this by him and see if he can poke
into any answers. But you certainly can't discount local customs,
personal tastes, etc.

Nothing is ever really "always", is it? :)

Cheers,
Jon

On 6/10/06, Jon Szanto <jszanto@cox.net> wrote:
> Nothing is ever really "always", is it? :)

Well, I'm still waiting for a counterexample; that's all I have to say.

i did not send you any links at all
--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > Good point! However, I *thought* your original post referred
> > to your scale as Pelog, which may account for the confusion.
> > So, as I see it, we are discussing two issues in this thread,
> > which I now propose to split accordingly:
> > 1. Modal modulations in improper scales.
> > 2. Distinctive characteristics of pelog scales.
>
> That seems to be the case. I'm curious about your reactions
> to #1. Did you try such an experiment?
>
> Re. #2, I thought Pelog was 5 tones and Slendro 7. Shows
> you what I know.
>
> > But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
> > we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)
>
> Didn't you object to this meaning when Ozan was using it!?

Yeah, but ... I found that other maqam theoreticians besides Ozan,
eg those on maqamworld, had already appropriated ("overloaded"?) the
term "modulation" to also mean transposition of motives so as to
effect a change of mode while remaining in the same scale (and
possibly key).

However, in the interests of clarity, I still think that this
compositional practice would be better served by a distinct term.
Since there appears to be no such term in Arabic, Persian or Turkish
(perhaps Ozan, Shaahin, or Danny, will correct me if I'm wrong), I
thought of the neologisms "to modalate" and "modalation".

Using this would reduce the confusion caused by using the
words "modulate" and "modulation".

Regards,
Yahya

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > > > the issue under test, which is whether improper scales allow
> > > > modal "modulation".
> //
> > in terms of 9-EDO, it's just the
> > following series of notes:
> > |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| (I use 9 instead of 0 for the octave.)
> > This is easy to "modalate" by adding or subtracting an integer
> > to each note. Thus, (motif on 5) (motif on 4) (motif on 5)
> > (motif on 6) (motif on 5) (motif on 5) becomes:
> > |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 4 5 8 4 5 1 4 1 :|
> > |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 6 7 10 6 7 3 6 3 :|
> > |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :|
> > The only problem with doing this is that notes 3 (nominal E)
> > and 8 (nominal B) don't appear in the scale. So to maintain
> > the pattern of intervals (as counts of steps), I need to
> > replace each derived 8 with 7 and each derived 3 with 4 - in
> > *this* case:
> > |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 4 5 7 4 5 1 4 1 :|
> > |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 6 7 10 6 7 4 6 4 :|
> > |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| |: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :|
> > Played slowly, the example above has enough evidence of the
> > pattern that you can sort of recognise the fact of
> > "modalation" - but it's weird. Played in moderate speed,
> > each note being a quaver (an eighth note) and lasting 0.25
> > sec (at 120bpm), it's even weirder, because the pattern is
> > not so obvious. Faster, it's worse ;-)
> >
> > Thus, the results of my (admittedly subjective) experiments
> > into your fascinating question, to date.
>
> Wow, Yahya (can you say "overkill"?).

;-)

> Er, I can't tell if
> what you're doing here is modal modulation.

You tell me.

> I don't see any
> rotation of the scale step pattern 1 3 -4 1 -4 3 -3 on the
> right there. What am I missing?

|: 5 6 9 5 6 2 5 2 :| = 5 + |: 0 1 4 0 1 -3 0 -3 :|
|: 4 5 8 4 5 1 4 1 :| = 4 + |: 0 1 4 0 1 -3 0 -3 :|
|: 6 7 10 6 7 3 6 3 :| = 6 + |: 0 1 4 0 1 -3 0 -3 :|

Each of these three patterns is an elaboration of
a fixed scale degree by a given decoration,
represented by the sequence |: 0 1 4 0 1 -3 0 -3 :|
added to the scale degree number.

Is that what you were missing? Or am I doing something
other than *you* mean by the phrase "modal modulation"?

> I used 12-tET because it gave me easy access to two scales,
> one highly proper and one improper, which share a lot of
> the same intervals.

And I'm not arguing with your choice. Fact,
I think I've already written that your scale
sounds (in character, not timbre) much like
gamelan to me. I just wanted to play with
something a bit more authentic in its tuning.

Overkill? I haven't even *started* yet on
tuning up pairs of instruments a few Hertz
apart, so they produce that nice "gemilang"
or "gamelan" effect, ie "shimmering".

Regards,
Yahya

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@...>
wrote:
>
> On 6/10/06, Carl Lumma <clumma@...> wrote:
> > Re. #2, I thought Pelog was 5 tones and Slendro 7. Shows
> > you what I know.
>
> In practice, they're both pentatonic, but the various pelog modes all
> come from a 7-tone master scale, which is only used as a whole in
some
> weird modern gamelan.
>
> Keenan

A fact which I forgot when mucking around with a 7 out
of 9-EDO scale yesterday ...;-(

Regards,
Yahya

>>
>> Posted by: "Keenan Pepper" keenanpepper@gmail.com
>> <mailto:keenanpepper@gmail.com?Subject=%20Re:%20Pelog%20impropriety%20%28was:%20Digest%20Number%204043%29>
>> keenan_pepper <http://profiles.yahoo.com/keenan_pepper>
>>
>>
> Well, if you have a bar of metal, you can either sharpen it by
>> scraping the ends to make it shorter or flatten it by scraping the
>> middle to make it thinner. Are you saying gamelan tuners flatten more
>> often than they sharpen? Have you ever actually seen a gamelan being
>> tuned? Don't they use a tool called a "cricket's stomach" or
>> something?
>>
>> Can you recommend any recordings that would dispel my misconceptions
>> (if that's what they are)?
>>
>> Keenan
> Well, The slendro set here in my studio right behind me at the moment has 2/1 octaves. As far as the gongsmith was concerned it was just a consumer option. (Some people like corinthian leather seats, others like their tuning copied from the Paku Buwano X gamelan from the Pura Paku Alam).
And yes, I've seem gamelan made and tuned. The bars and gongs come out of the forging process with high pitches. It is very difficult to raise the pitch of a Javanese gong, lowering is by removing metal from the face of the gong. And you don't want to muck about much with the ends of keys, as the gender style ("Blimbing") keys are already thin on the ends, and the ends have to be smooth underneath for damping.

DJW

> Overkill? I haven't even *started* yet on
> tuning up pairs of instruments a few Hertz
> apart, so they produce that nice "gemilang"
> or "gamelan" effect, ie "shimmering".

The point I wish to discuss has exactly nothing
to do with gamelan music. But if you're inspired
to make some, I'd love to listen.

-Carl

Ah... but you realize that modulation (misspelled or not) is based on modes
to begin with. Be it `modal modulation` or `tonal transposition`, these
concepts are just redundant renditions of the one and only `modulation`.

----- Original Message -----
From: "yahya_melb" <yahya@melbpc.org.au>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 10 Haziran 2006 Cumartesi 5:17
Subject: [tuning] Re: "Modalations" in improper scales ( was: Pelog
impropriety)

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > >
> > > But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
> > > we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Yahya
> > >
> >
> > Precisely.
>
> Oz,
>
> I trust you realise that I didn't write "modUlation",
> but have instead coined another word "modAlation" ...?
>
> Regards,
> Yahya
>
>
>

SNIP

>
> > But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
> > we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)
>
> Didn't you object to this meaning when Ozan was using it!?

Yeah, but ... I found that other maqam theoreticians besides Ozan,

======Wow, I've become a maqam theoretician! :)

eg those on maqamworld, had already appropriated ("overloaded"?) the
term "modulation" to also mean transposition of motives so as to
effect a change of mode while remaining in the same scale (and
possibly key).

======How can one remain in the same key if one starts with Ajem and ends
with Buselik? And before you ask, yes there is such a Terkib called
Ajem-Buselik.

However, in the interests of clarity, I still think that this
compositional practice would be better served by a distinct term.
Since there appears to be no such term in Arabic, Persian or Turkish
(perhaps Ozan, Shaahin, or Danny, will correct me if I'm wrong), I
thought of the neologisms "to modalate" and "modalation".

========My, how mistaken you are. We have `gechki` and `chesni` to describe
the very two distinct forms of the phenomenon of modulation in Turkish Maqam
Music.

Using this would reduce the confusion caused by using the
words "modulate" and "modulation".

Regards,
Yahya

=======Oz.

Yahya wrote:

> Yeah, but ... I found that other maqam theoreticians besides Ozan,
> eg those on maqamworld, had already appropriated ("overloaded"?) the
> term "modulation" to also mean transposition of motives so as to
> effect a change of mode while remaining in the same scale (and
> possibly key).
>
> However, in the interests of clarity, I still think that this
> compositional practice would be better served by a distinct term.
> Since there appears to be no such term in Arabic, Persian or Turkish
> (perhaps Ozan, Shaahin, or Danny, will correct me if I'm wrong), I
> thought of the neologisms "to modalate" and "modalation".

I'm still looking for the word for "modulation" myself; I'd imagine there would have to be some term for the concept. I have Hans Wehr's Arabic to English dictionary, which is one of the best there is, but it's not bi-directional. I'll keep Googling.

(I still have yet to learn much of the rules of modulation; I just know most of the individual maqamat.)

~Danny~

Hi Oz,

Glad you're here.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> > > > But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
> > > > we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)
> > >
> > > Didn't you object to this meaning when Ozan was using it!?
> >
> > Yeah, but ... I found that other maqam theoreticians besides
> > Ozan,
>
> ======Wow, I've become a maqam theoretician! :)

Weren't you always?

> > eg those on maqamworld, had already appropriated ("overloaded"?)
> > the term "modulation" to also mean transposition of motives so
> > as to effect a change of mode while remaining in the same scale
> > (and possibly key).
>
> ======How can one remain in the same key if one starts with Ajem
> and ends with Buselik? And before you ask, yes there is such a
> Terkib called Ajem-Buselik.

But can one remain in the same key while changing mode?

> > However, in the interests of clarity, I still think that this
> > compositional practice would be better served by a distinct term.
> > Since there appears to be no such term in Arabic, Persian or
> > Turkish (perhaps Ozan, Shaahin, or Danny, will correct me if
> > I'm wrong), I thought of the neologisms "to modalate"
> > and "modalation".
>
> ========My, how mistaken you are. We have `gechki` and `chesni`
> to describe the very two distinct forms of the phenomenon of
> modulation in Turkish Maqam Music.

Thanks, Ozan, knew I could rely on you! :-)

For the benfit of us all, would you please elaborate on the
distinction? What is "gechki"? And what is "chesni"?

> > Using this would reduce the confusion caused by using the
> > words "modulate" and "modulation".

Regards,
Yahya

Hi

And we have in Persian music some words:

1-Morak-kab navazi or morak-kab khani which means change dastgahs by
using common gushehs in instrumental or vocal music

2- but we have also modulation, for example , the same dastgah a fifth
upper but with different interval sizes due to irregular temperament in
tetrachordal structure.

3- the word mayeh-gardani means changing mayehs by using common
tetrachords . see: (
http://240edo.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/radif.pdf)

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer

My web site , click picture : <http://240edo.tripod.com/index.html>

My tombak musics in Rhythmweb: www.rhythmweb.com/gdg
<http://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>

My musics in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

- A composition based on a folk melody of Shiraz region, in shur-dastgah
by Mohajeri Shahin <http://www.xenharmony.org/mp3/shaahin/shur.mp3>

- An experiment in Iranian homayun and chahargah modes by Mohajeri
Shahin <http://www.xenharmony.org/mp3/shaahin/homayun.mp3>

________________________________

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf
Of yahya_melb
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 6:32 PM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: "Modalations" in improper scales ( was: Pelog
impropriety)

Hi Oz,

Glad you're here.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> , "Ozan
Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> > > > But isn't "modal modulation" a bit of a mouthful? Why don't
> > > > we just call it "modalation" instead? ;-)
> > >
> > > Didn't you object to this meaning when Ozan was using it!?
> >
> > Yeah, but ... I found that other maqam theoreticians besides
> > Ozan,
>
> ======Wow, I've become a maqam theoretician! :)

Weren't you always?

> > eg those on maqamworld, had already appropriated ("overloaded"?)
> > the term "modulation" to also mean transposition of motives so
> > as to effect a change of mode while remaining in the same scale
> > (and possibly key).
>
> ======How can one remain in the same key if one starts with Ajem
> and ends with Buselik? And before you ask, yes there is such a
> Terkib called Ajem-Buselik.

But can one remain in the same key while changing mode?

> > However, in the interests of clarity, I still think that this
> > compositional practice would be better served by a distinct term.
> > Since there appears to be no such term in Arabic, Persian or
> > Turkish (perhaps Ozan, Shaahin, or Danny, will correct me if
> > I'm wrong), I thought of the neologisms "to modalate"
> > and "modalation".
>
> ========My, how mistaken you are. We have `gechki` and `chesni`
> to describe the very two distinct forms of the phenomenon of
> modulation in Turkish Maqam Music.

Thanks, Ozan, knew I could rely on you! :-)

For the benfit of us all, would you please elaborate on the
distinction? What is "gechki"? And what is "chesni"?

> > Using this would reduce the confusion caused by using the
> > words "modulate" and "modulation".

Regards,
Yahya

On 6/11/06, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@snafu.de> wrote:
> Well, The slendro set here in my studio right behind me at the moment
> has 2/1 octaves. As far as the gongsmith was concerned it was just a
> consumer option. (Some people like corinthian leather seats, others like
> their tuning copied from the Paku Buwano X gamelan from the Pura Paku Alam).

But what does that mean though? The differences between the sharp
instruments and the flat instruments are greater in the lower
registers (so the beats will be about the same speed), so the octaves
have to be different. Which ones are exactly 2/1, and why?

> And yes, I've seem gamelan made and tuned. The bars and gongs come out
> of the forging process with high pitches. It is very difficult to raise
> the pitch of a Javanese gong, lowering is by removing metal from the
> face of the gong. And you don't want to muck about much with the ends
> of keys, as the gender style ("Blimbing") keys are already thin on the
> ends, and the ends have to be smooth underneath for damping.

Cool, that makes sense. But what if during a periodic tuning of an old
gamelan one of the keys is found to be too flat? Are all the others
lowered to match it?

Keenan

Ozan Yarman wrote:

> ========My, how mistaken you are. We have `gechki` and `chesni` to describe
> the very two distinct forms of the phenomenon of modulation in Turkish Maqam
> Music.

Finally!

Can you give us definitions of each one? I can only find çes,ni (!damn
computers!) and geçti, of course without any reference to music.

klaus

Morak-kab as in Arabic `murekkeb` meaning `composite`? Navazi as in `nuvaz` meaning `gratifying`? I couldn't figure out khani though. I understand gusheh to mean `edge` (probably some melodic prefix or suffix) and mayeh to mean `base`.

----- Original Message -----
From: Mohajeri Shahin
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Salı 6:15
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: "Modalations" in improper scales ( was: Pelog impropriety)

Hi

And we have in Persian music some words:

1-Morak-kab navazi or morak-kab khani which means change dastgahs by using common gushehs in instrumental or vocal music

2- but we have also modulation, for example , the same dastgah a fifth upper but with different interval sizes due to irregular temperament in tetrachordal structure.

3- the word mayeh-gardani means changing mayehs by using common tetrachords . see: (http://240edo.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/radif.pdf)

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Dear ozan

Murak-akb as you told is composit but "navazi" means "playing" comes from "navakhtan" which means "to play".

Gushehs although means edge but has another musical meaning , mentioned in talai pdf.

Also mayeh which is mentioned there.

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer

My web site , click picture : <http://240edo.tripod.com/index.html>

My tombak musics in Rhythmweb: www.rhythmweb.com/gdg <http://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>

My musics in Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia :

- A composition based on a folk melody of Shiraz region, in shur-dastgah by Mohajeri Shahin <http://www.xenharmony.org/mp3/shaahin/shur.mp3>

- An experiment in Iranian homayun and chahargah modes by Mohajeri Shahin <http://www.xenharmony.org/mp3/shaahin/homayun.mp3>

________________________________

From: tuning@yahoogroups.com [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ozan Yarman
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 8:12 PM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: "Modalations" in improper scales ( was: Pelog impropriety)

Morak-kab as in Arabic `murekkeb` meaning `composite`? Navazi as in `nuvaz` meaning `gratifying`? I couldn't figure out khani though. I understand gusheh to mean `edge` (probably some melodic prefix or suffix) and mayeh to mean `base`.

----- Original Message -----

From: Mohajeri Shahin <mailto:shahinm@kayson-ir.com>

To: tuning@yahoogroups.com

Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Salı 6:15

Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: "Modalations" in improper scales ( was: Pelog impropriety)

Hi

And we have in Persian music some words:

1-Morak-kab navazi or morak-kab khani which means change dastgahs by using common gushehs in instrumental or vocal music

2- but we have also modulation, for example , the same dastgah a fifth upper but with different interval sizes due to irregular temperament in tetrachordal structure.

3- the word mayeh-gardani means changing mayehs by using common tetrachords . see: (http://240edo.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/radif.pdf)

Shaahin Mohaajeri

I have found two scales by Lydia Ayers for Pelog and Slendro. They are:

ayers_ap.scl
ayers_me.scl

in the scala archive.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Keenan Pepper" <keenanpepper@gmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Sal� 8:08
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Pelog impropriety (was: Digest Number 4043)

> On 6/11/06, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@snafu.de> wrote:
> > Well, The slendro set here in my studio right behind me at the moment
> > has 2/1 octaves. As far as the gongsmith was concerned it was just a
> > consumer option. (Some people like corinthian leather seats, others like
> > their tuning copied from the Paku Buwano X gamelan from the Pura Paku
Alam).
>
> But what does that mean though? The differences between the sharp
> instruments and the flat instruments are greater in the lower
> registers (so the beats will be about the same speed), so the octaves
> have to be different. Which ones are exactly 2/1, and why?
>
> > And yes, I've seem gamelan made and tuned. The bars and gongs come out
> > of the forging process with high pitches. It is very difficult to raise
> > the pitch of a Javanese gong, lowering is by removing metal from the
> > face of the gong. And you don't want to muck about much with the ends
> > of keys, as the gender style ("Blimbing") keys are already thin on the
> > ends, and the ends have to be smooth underneath for damping.
>
> Cool, that makes sense. But what if during a periodic tuning of an old
> gamelan one of the keys is found to be too flat? Are all the others
> lowered to match it?
>
> Keenan
>
>

> :
> > > Well, The slendro set here in my studio right behind me at the moment
> > > has 2/1 octaves. As far as the gongsmith was concerned it was just a
> > > consumer option. (Some people like corinthian leather seats, > others like
> > > their tuning copied from the Paku Buwano X gamelan from the Pura Paku
> Alam).
> >
> > But what does that mean though? The differences between the sharp
> > instruments and the flat instruments are greater in the lower
> > registers (so the beats will be about the same speed), so the octaves
> > have to be different. Which ones are exactly 2/1, and why?
> >

Some gamelan beat, others don't (the term for beatless is "pleng"). In Javanese gamelan (unlike Balinese, the tuning practice of which you describe well), there is not a tradition of paired instruments (in a standard Solonese gamelan, there will be maybe one pair of saron or demung) so the beating has either to be by octaves, or between different types of instruments. > > > And yes, I've seem gamelan made and tuned. The bars and gongs come out
> > > of the forging process with high pitches. It is very difficult to > raise
> > > the pitch of a Javanese gong, lowering is by removing metal from the
> > > face of the gong. And you don't want to muck about much with the ends
> > > of keys, as the gender style ("Blimbing") keys are already thin on the
> > > ends, and the ends have to be smooth underneath for damping.
> >
> > Cool, that makes sense. But what if during a periodic tuning of an old
> > gamelan one of the keys is found to be too flat? Are all the others
> > lowered to match it?
> >
> > Keenan
You can always do a bit of fine-tuning upward, but often, one will simply buy a new key or pot rather than bother retuning upward. In some cases where a gamelan has been "modernised", the whole tuning is shifted up one key, and the old pitch number 2 is now called number 1, a new high key is made, and then the whole is fine-tuned downward.

On 6/16/06, Daniel Wolf <djwolf@snafu.de> wrote:
> Some gamelan beat, others don't (the term for beatless is "pleng"). In
> Javanese gamelan (unlike Balinese, the tuning practice of which you
> describe well), there is not a tradition of paired instruments (in a
> standard Solonese gamelan, there will be maybe one pair of saron or
> demung) so the beating has either to be by octaves, or between different
> types of instruments.

Yeah, I keep forgetting about the differences between Balinese and
Javanese gamelan. My friend Sam Hyson is in the Javanese gamelan at
Wesleyan University; I should visit him sometime. (After all, it's way
cheaper than actually going to Java.) Anyway, thanks for enlightening
me.

> You can always do a bit of fine-tuning upward, but often, one will
> simply buy a new key or pot rather than bother retuning upward. In some
> cases where a gamelan has been "modernised", the whole tuning is shifted
> up one key, and the old pitch number 2 is now called number 1, a new
> high key is made, and then the whole is fine-tuned downward.

Makes sense.

Keenan

>>>>> Dear brother Yahya,

Hi Oz,

Glad you're here.

>>>> likewise!

> > Yeah, but ... I found that other maqam theoreticians besides
> > Ozan,
>
> ======Wow, I've become a maqam theoretician! :)

Weren't you always?

>>>>>> Not really. I found myself a champion and defender only recently. ;)

>
> ======How can one remain in the same key if one starts with Ajem
> and ends with Buselik? And before you ask, yes there is such a
> Terkib called Ajem-Buselik.

But can one remain in the same key while changing mode?

>>>>>> Only if "remaining in the same key" corresponds to a time-frame the
lenght of which is determined by a passage, movement or the entire piece....
e. g., Prelude and Fugue in C minor, where the mode is the principal key of
the form, hence tonality.

> ========My, how mistaken you are. We have `gechki` and `chesni`
> to describe the very two distinct forms of the phenomenon of
> modulation in Turkish Maqam Music.

Thanks, Ozan, knew I could rely on you! :-)

For the benfit of us all, would you please elaborate on the
distinction? What is "gechki"? And what is "chesni"?

>>>>>> This shall also be an answer to Klaus.

Gechki is modulation proper, where you abandon a maqam and move on to
another for a considerable period before returning back. Here, I mean maqam
in the context of a key system of course.

Cheshni, in retrospect, is synonymous with tonicization.

For example... consider a Fasil ensemble tuned to the Mansur Ahenk where
perde rast corresponds to G3 of roughly 195hz. Imagine that they started
playing the famous Sharki in Hisar-Buselik by Tanburi Mustafa Chavush (the
composite maqam being his invention), where the principal scales are:

F E D C B A (G#) - Buselik (Pythagorean minor)
a g# F E D# C B A (G#)

http://www.turkmusiki.com/arsiv/2022.jpg

The Penchgah opening is unusual indeed. Let's play polyphony:

1. Play a C major chord until the last note of the first measure.
2. Press a G major chord with this last note.
3. Now a G minor second inversion in the second measure and quickly modulate
to C major dominant seventh on Bb, and to F major on F.
4. F major 2nd inv. on measure three's first beat.
5. Modulate to D minor on the second beat.
6. D minor 2nd inv. on the third beat.
7. G major dominant seventh chord on the fourth measure.
8. Modulate to C major on the last note of this measure.

The first measure was... CM > GM
second measure was... Gm2ndinv > CMdom7th > FM
third measure was... FM2ndinv > Dm > Dm2ndinv
fourth measure was... GMdom7th > CM

Now play solo and hear the tonicization of this passage.

The latter two measures move from CM to GM, and the last two measures just
before the refrain is where you have ultimately modulated to Buselik. In the
Ara-naghme alone, you have made several tonicizations (in particular, from
Penchgah on C to Mahur [Suz-i dilara, if you will] on G) and a concrete
modulation, from Mahur on G to Buselik on A.

In Maqam Music terms, we would call this a Buselik Ara-naghme with a
Penchgah chesni on perde chargah and Mahur chesnis on perdes ajem, chargah
and rast.

Now, with a chromatic alteration on D, we have moved on to Hisar-Buselik.
Notice how the composer persists on the Penchgah cheshni.

Cordially,
Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "klaus schmirler" <KSchmir@online.de>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 12 Haziran 2006 Pazartesi 15:49
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: "Modalations" in improper scales ( was: Pelog
impropriety)

Ozan Yarman wrote:

> ========My, how mistaken you are. We have `gechki` and `chesni` to
describe
> the very two distinct forms of the phenomenon of modulation in Turkish
Maqam
> Music.

Finally!

Can you give us definitions of each one? I can only find �es,ni (!damn
computers!) and ge�ti, of course without any reference to music.

klaus