"Arabic mode"

The following meantone scale:

C D E F Gb- Ab- Bb-

is called "Arabic" by some sources, which I suspect is balony, but I'd
like input. It is also called "Locrian major". I'd like an actual
citable source for this or any name, for any mode of the scale. The
scale is interesting as one of the five strictly proper seven-note
scales which arise naturally in meantone, and the other four
(diatonic, ascending minor, harmonic minor, harmonic major) are all
well-known. This one isn't, and doesn't have a Wikipedia article to go
with it, but as a strictly proper meantone scale, maybe it should.

> C D E F Gb- Ab- Bb-

Yahoo is doing something weird with the encoding here?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > C D E F Gb- Ab- Bb-
>
> Yahoo is doing something weird with the encoding here?

Apparently it is ignoring it.

C D E F Gb Ab Bb

How's that? Anyone have a cite for a name?

on 6/9/06 10:48 PM, Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> C D E F G♭ A♭ B♭
>
> Yahoo is doing something weird with the encoding here?

"♭" is the html dingbat code ("character entity") for the flat symbol.
A good reference for these is here:

http://www.bigbaer.com/reference/character_entity_reference.htm

I'd guess this resulted from Gene doing a copy/paste from a web page without
noticing what happenned.

So you can translate the above to:

>> C D E F Gb Ab Bb

-Kurt

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Kurt Bigler <kkb@...> wrote:

> I'd guess this resulted from Gene doing a copy/paste from a web page
without
> noticing what happenned.

Actually I did notice what happened--what happened was that it looked
fine. So I posted it.

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>>
>> > C D E F G♭ A♭ B♭
>>
>> Yahoo is doing something weird with the encoding here?
>
> Apparently it is ignoring it.
>
> C D E F Gb Ab Bb
>
> How's that? Anyone have a cite for a name?

I don't know, but the only thing close to that among real "Arabic scales" is Maqam Bayati Shuri (or Maqam Karjighar):

D Ed F G Ab B C D (Ed = E quarter tone flat)

http://www.maqamworld.com/maqamat/bayati.html#bayati-shuri

The Turkish equivalent, Karcigar, is described at http://www.oud.eclipse.co.uk/karcigar.html.

Other than that, it's really just a whole tone scale with an added perfect fourth.

~Danny~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel A. Wier" <dawiertx@...> wrote:
>
> Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> > C D E F Gb Ab Bb

> Other than that, it's really just a whole tone scale with an added
perfect
> fourth.

In fact, one mode of it is called the "leading whole tone" scale.
However, this is a meantone scale, so it's important that E-Gb is a
diminished minor third and not a second; in septimal meantone, that
means an approximate 8/7. The added fourth is snuck in between, and in
a typical meantone tuning there's a little more sneaking room than in
12-equal.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:

> > C D E F Gb Ab Bb

> "Major Locrian" -- according to Vincent Persichetti,
>
> "20th-Century Harmony: Creative Aspects and Practice", W.W.Norton & Co.,
> 1961

Perfect cite! Thanks.

In a treatise entitled _Kitab Al-Adwar_, Safi Al-Din
(d. 1294) defines 84 Melodic Modes based on a
seven-by-twelve matrix of conjunct tetrachords
(followed by the octave, C'), or of conjunct
tetrachord-pentachord combinations. He gives
Mode 3 as: C, D, E, F, Gb, Ab, Bb, C'.

Cris Forster, Music Director
www.chrysalis-foundation.org

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:
>
> In a treatise entitled _Kitab Al-Adwar_, Safi Al-Din
> (d. 1294) defines 84 Melodic Modes based on a
> seven-by-twelve matrix of conjunct tetrachords
> (followed by the octave, C'), or of conjunct
> tetrachord-pentachord combinations. He gives
> Mode 3 as: C, D, E, F, Gb, Ab, Bb, C'.

Thanks! I'll see if I can track this down.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@>
wrote:
> >
> > In a treatise entitled _Kitab Al-Adwar_, Safi Al-Din
> > (d. 1294) defines 84 Melodic Modes based on a
> > seven-by-twelve matrix of conjunct tetrachords
> > (followed by the octave, C'), or of conjunct
> > tetrachord-pentachord combinations. He gives
> > Mode 3 as: C, D, E, F, Gb, Ab, Bb, C'.
>
> Thanks! I'll see if I can track this down.

Gene,

Certain challenges exist in separating Safi Al-Din's
and Al-Jurjani's texts. Here is the opening
paragraph from my book _Musical Mathematics: A
Practice in the Mathematics of Tuning Instruments
and Analyzing Scales_, Chapter 11, Section 74:

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

Before we continue with Safi Al-Din's 84 Melodic
Modes, let us first examine a second description of
the First Ud Tuning, which appears in Al-Jurjani's
_Sharh Maulana Mubarak Shah_ (The Mubarak
Shah commentary). Throughout this work, Al-
Jurjani cites quotations from Safi Al-Din's second
treatise entitled _Kitab al-adwar_ (Book of the
modes [of music]), and gives commentaries on
such excerpted passages. Therefore, in the
following description of a 17-tone monochord
tuning, all texts that appear in quotation marks
belong to the _Kitab al-adwar_.

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

You will find Al-Din's 84 Melodic Modes in
D'Erlanger _La Musique Arab_, Vol. III., pp. 337-
343. Because the translator(s) chose G as the
tonic, on p. 337, Mode 3 appears as: G, A, B, C,
Db, Eb, F, G'.

Cris

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@...> wrote:

> Certain challenges exist in separating Safi Al-Din's
> and Al-Jurjani's texts. Here is the opening
> paragraph from my book _Musical Mathematics: A
> Practice in the Mathematics of Tuning Instruments
> and Analyzing Scales_, Chapter 11, Section 74:

Thanks. I'm not sure this is citable in a Wikipedia article, as it is
unpublished and not available on the web.

> You will find Al-Din's 84 Melodic Modes in
> D'Erlanger _La Musique Arab_, Vol. III., pp. 337-
> 343. Because the translator(s) chose G as the
> tonic, on p. 337, Mode 3 appears as: G, A, B, C,
> Db, Eb, F, G'.

OK, this looks citable.

The mode in question is defined by Safi Al-Din Urmawi in his book as the 3rd
variation (devr) of the Usshaq scale (daire) which he identifies as openly
dissonant. The scale's primary tetrachord remains the same throughout the 12
variations of Usshaq. The mode in question uses the following consecutive
intervals:

W W L L W W W

and the following pitches:

0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime
1: 9/8 203.910 major whole tone
2: 81/64 407.820 Pythagorean major third
3: 4/3 498.045 perfect fourth
4: 1024/729 588.270 Pythagorean diminished fifth
5: 128/81 792.180 Pythagorean minor sixth
6: 16/9 996.090 Pythagorean minor seventh
7: 2/1 1200.000 octave

Cordially,
Oz.

>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@>
wrote:
> >
> > In a treatise entitled _Kitab Al-Adwar_, Safi Al-Din
> > (d. 1294) defines 84 Melodic Modes based on a
> > seven-by-twelve matrix of conjunct tetrachords
> > (followed by the octave, C'), or of conjunct
> > tetrachord-pentachord combinations. He gives
> > Mode 3 as: C, D, E, F, Gb, Ab, Bb, C'.
>

SNIP

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

You will find Al-Din's 84 Melodic Modes in
D'Erlanger _La Musique Arab_, Vol. III., pp. 337-
343. Because the translator(s) chose G as the
tonic, on p. 337, Mode 3 appears as: G, A, B, C,
Db, Eb, F, G'.

Cris

It is mentioned by Urmawi, as Chris and I have exlained. But I suspect the
scale has a long history in the middle east. Apparently, Islam has
considered it impracticable in the music-making process, so how can a scale
unused by Arabs be considered Arabic?

What are the ratios you aim for in a meantone rendition?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 10 Haziran 2006 Cumartesi 8:22
Subject: [tuning] "Arabic mode"

> The following meantone scale:
>
> C D E F Gâ™­ Aâ™­ Bâ™­
>
> is called "Arabic" by some sources, which I suspect is balony, but I'd
> like input. It is also called "Locrian major". I'd like an actual
> citable source for this or any name, for any mode of the scale. The
> scale is interesting as one of the five strictly proper seven-note
> scales which arise naturally in meantone, and the other four
> (diatonic, ascending minor, harmonic minor, harmonic major) are all
> well-known. This one isn't, and doesn't have a Wikipedia article to go
> with it, but as a strictly proper meantone scale, maybe it should.
>
>
>
>

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

> What are the ratios you aim for in a meantone rendition?

You don't actually aim at ratios in meantone, but you could consider
it a tempered version of [9/8,5/4,4/3,10/7,8/5,9/5] if you liked.

The site below tells of a counterintuitive tuning of the raised major third that is more consonant than the equal tempered or just major third.
http://www.stage3music.com/tuning/tuning.html (Paul E. did the high third demos for this site.)

I find much of the information on the tuning of the major third to be contradictory. In theory the major third is best tuned as 5/4 and it is consonant when tuned in 12edo as 400 cents. Various sources in my reading call the Pythagorean third 81/64 unharmonic even though it is only a few cents higher then 400 cents. On my old homemade guitar (now broken) the raised third 9/7 is a howler even though it is a somewhat simple ratio. By Parchian reasoning should be somewhat harmonic. The supramajor third 9/7 does have three low pairs of harmonics that clash as semitones. 21/16 has a similar overtone clash.

There is very little space between the consonant 12edo third and the somewhat dissonant Pythagorean third. I believe the ultraconsonant high third of the site above must be between the Pythagorean third and 9/7. Still, it is hard to believe the real estate around the major third is so variable.

When I test this thirdish region with pure tone harmonies I simply observe a gradual increase in brightness and a decrease in dissonance.

My own theory is that this third is some other whole number ratio with a lesser partial clash. (Simple ratios may not equal greater consonance as Partch preaches.) I also suspect this third may be more dissonant if played in upper registers where the partial clash is harsher. The demo is played in a very low register which may tend to soften the partial clash. Also, perhaps this interval is not so consonant on instruments with strong overtones.

I would like to know the EXACT tuning (in cents) of the most consonant high third.
Peoples observations and input should also be very interesting since we have here a clash between theory and observation. It seems we all could learn a great deal.

This challenges many points of music theory. Do other intervalic regions have similar issues? What is the true foundation of consonance? Should we consider putting this raised third in our scales? Should the dissonant frequency ratios near the P4th be treated like the 4th and be avoided in the bass? Should we adjust our rules of harmony to control partial clashes? (This point is almost completely ignored in classic music theory.) Should we used this raised third as an enhanced leading tone and perhaps use a harmonic and melodic major scale? Can we even trust just intonation as the ideal if it errors so much on an issue as basic as the nature of the Major triad?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Sparky Fuzball
<rodney_clownpuncher@...> wrote:
>
> The site below tells of a counterintuitive tuning of the raised
major third that is more consonant than the equal tempered or just
major third.
> http://www.stage3music.com/tuning/tuning.html (Paul E. did the
high third demos for this site.)

When this was mentioned I couldn't figure out what was being claimed,
and still don't know. What is this extra-consonant third, why do you
think it is extra-consonant, and what in all that rather unpleasant
mess of examples is supposed to demonstrate this?

> I find much of the information on the tuning of the major third to
be contradictory. In theory the major third is best tuned as 5/4 and
it is consonant when tuned in 12edo as 400 cents.

Doing that produces a particular effect you don't get any other way.
It was the targer for tuning in the meantone era, so there is a long
history in the West behind finding it desirable. It also comes up in
scale theory elsewhere.

>Various sources in my reading call the Pythagorean third 81/64
unharmonic even though it is only a few cents higher then 400 cents.

Thbirds sharper than 400 cents can certainly be used, but the effect
is not the same as a 5/4 third. You don't suddenly run into another
third which sounds like a 5/4 third; or if you do, I'd like someone to
say where that happens.

>On my old homemade guitar (now broken) the raised third 9/7 is a
howler even though it is a somewhat simple ratio.

The 9/7 interval is a quarter-tone (36/35) sharper than 5/4, and
produces an interval with a quite different sound to it. Expecting the
steely sounds of thirds this sharp to be like thirds in the neighhood
of 5/4 is certain to disappoint; you must take them on their own
merits. However, in the meantone era these thirds appeared (as
diminished fourths) in remote keys, and did not excite the same kind
of negative commentary as the "wolf" fifth, a diminished sixth, did.

>By Parchian reasoning should be somewhat harmonic. The supramajor
third 9/7 does have three low pairs of harmonics that clash as
semitones. 21/16 has a similar overtone clash.

You mean 28:27 and 36:35? This kind of stuff always happens somewhere.
4/3 and 5/4 are semiconvergents to 9/7, so you see 4*7=3*9+1 and
4*9=5*7+1, but even irrational intervals have continued fractions and
semiconvergent approximations.

> There is very little space between the consonant 12edo third and
the somewhat dissonant Pythagorean third.

You can certainly argue 400 cents sounds more like the Pythagorean
third of 407.8 cents than the just third of 386.3 cents. Of course the
Pythagorean third is much closer to the 19/15 third, if you think that
high up in the overtone series matters.

>I believe the ultraconsonant high third of the site above must be
between the Pythagorean third and 9/7.

I didn't hear any "ultraconsonant third". What "ultraconsonant third"???

> When I test this thirdish region with pure tone harmonies I simply
observe a gradual increase in brightness and a decrease in dissonance.

Sine waves don't work to test consonance with.

> I would like to know the EXACT tuning (in cents) of the most
consonant high third.

I'd like evidence it even exists.

If I may chime in yet again, "Bayati-Shuri" is so named because of the usage
of perdes bayati and shuri:

(C#) D Ed F G Ab B C D (Ed = E quarter tone flat)

( 0: 1/1 C RAST)
1: 16/15 C# shuri - leading tone
2: 9/8 D DUGAH - tonic
3: 53/43 Ed segah
4: 4/3 F chargah
5: 3/2 G nawa
6: 8/5 Ab bayati
7: 15/8 B evdj
8: 2/1 C gerdaniye
9: 9/4 D MUHAYYER

In contrast, "Karjighar" is given by Ekrem Karadeniz as:

0: 1/1 D DUGAH - tonic
1: 137/125 Ed `usshaq` (when descending)
2: 111/100 E segah (when ascending)
3: 237/200 F chargah
4: 1333/1000 G nawa
5: 717/500 Ad hisar
6: 1667/1000 B evdj
7: 889/500 C gerdaniye
8: 2/1 D MUHAYYER

The difference between the two (when the pitches of the first are moved by
8/9) are:

0: 0: 1/1 0.000000 0.0000 Hertz, DUGAH
1: 1: 53000/53019 -0.620519 0.1151 Hertz, segah
2: 3: 6400/6399 0.270526 0.0543 Hertz, chargah
3: 4: 4000/3999 0.432862 0.0977 Hertz, nawa
4: 5: 6400/6453 -14.27774 3.4509 Hertz, bayati/hisar
5: 6: 5000/5001 -0.346212 0.0977 Hertz, evdj
6: 7: 8000/8001 -0.216390 0.0651 Hertz, gerdaniye
7: 8: 1/1 0.000000 0.0000 Hertz, MUHAYYER
Mode: 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
Total absolute difference : 16.1643 cents
Average absolute difference: 2.3092 cents
Root mean square difference: 5.4072 cents
Highest absolute difference: 14.2777 cents
Number of notes different: 6

The cardinal distinction being the usage of perde hisar instead of bayati in
Maqam Karjighar.

Sadly, Arabic theory cannot explain why the two maqams are named
differently. The upper tetrachord of the latter maqam is supposed to be a
Huzzam flavoured Hijaz.

Cordially,
Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel A. Wier" <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 10 Haziran 2006 Cumartesi 11:41
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: "Arabic mode"

> Gene Ward Smith wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> > C D E F Gâ™­ Aâ™­ Bâ™­
> >>
> >> Yahoo is doing something weird with the encoding here?
> >
> > Apparently it is ignoring it.
> >
> > C D E F Gb Ab Bb
> >
> > How's that? Anyone have a cite for a name?
>
> I don't know, but the only thing close to that among real "Arabic scales"
is
> Maqam Bayati Shuri (or Maqam Karjighar):
>
> D Ed F G Ab B C D (Ed = E quarter tone flat)
>
> http://www.maqamworld.com/maqamat/bayati.html#bayati-shuri
>
> The Turkish equivalent, Karcigar, is described at
> http://www.oud.eclipse.co.uk/karcigar.html.
>
> Other than that, it's really just a whole tone scale with an added perfect
> fourth.
>
> ~Danny~
>

Ozan Yarman wrote:
> If I may chime in yet again, "Bayati-Shuri" is so named because of the > usage
> of perdes bayati and shuri:
>
> (C#) D Ed F G Ab B C D (Ed = E quarter tone flat)
>
> ( 0: 1/1 C RAST)
> 1: 16/15 C# shuri - leading tone
> 2: 9/8 D DUGAH - tonic
> 3: 53/43 Ed segah
> 4: 4/3 F chargah
> 5: 3/2 G nawa
> 6: 8/5 Ab bayati
> 7: 15/8 B evdj
> 8: 2/1 C gerdaniye
> 9: 9/4 D MUHAYYER

You have 53/43 for segah; why not Al-Farabi's 27/22? And could 16/13 work?

> In contrast, "Karjighar" is given by Ekrem Karadeniz as:
>
> 0: 1/1 D DUGAH - tonic
> 1: 137/125 Ed `usshaq` (when descending)
> 2: 111/100 E segah (when ascending)
> 3: 237/200 F chargah
> 4: 1333/1000 G nawa
> 5: 717/500 Ad hisar
> 6: 1667/1000 B evdj
> 7: 889/500 C gerdaniye
> 8: 2/1 D MUHAYYER

The only pitch that's different is hisar, which replaces bayati. But isn't bayati more like 128/81 and hisar 8/5?

> Sadly, Arabic theory cannot explain why the two maqams are named
> differently. The upper tetrachord of the latter maqam is supposed to be a
> Huzzam flavoured Hijaz.

I got the information at Maqam World. They use 24-tET, so if there are two different kinds of A half-flat in traditional tuning, they got mapped to the same pitch, I guess. The maqam Nahawand Murassah is shown as also being called Sunbulah, but the pitch Sunbulah, high E-flat, is not part of the scale (http://www.maqamworld.com/maqamat/nahawand.html#nahawand-murassah).

I have a Xeroxed copy of the maqamat from the appendix of Scott Lloyd Marcus' dissertation somewhere; my space is such a mess.

~Danny~

Of course you aim for ratios in meantone, as in quarter comma meantone
giving a pure 5/1.

If those are the ratios you desire, I can tell you that the Urmawi's 17-tone
system cannot produce them. The closest is the 39th devir, that goes:

0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime
1: 9/8 203.910 major whole tone
2: 8192/6561 384.360 Pythagorean diminished fourth
3: 4/3 498.045 perfect fourth
4: 1024/729 588.270 Pythagorean diminished fifth
5: 128/81 792.180 Pythagorean minor sixth
6: 16/9 996.090 Pythagorean minor seventh
7: 2/1 1200.000 octave

Again, openly dissonant according to Safi Al-Din.

*

Compared to:

0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime
1: 9/8 203.910 major whole tone
2: 5/4 386.314 major third
3: 4/3 498.045 perfect fourth
4: 10/7 617.488 Euler's tritone
5: 8/5 813.686 minor sixth
6: 9/5 1017.596 just minor seventh, BP seventh

There are important discrepancies in the upper tetrachord:

1: 3: 1/1 0.000000 0.0000 Hertz, 0.0000
cycles/min.
2: 5: 32805/32768 1.953720 0.5541 Hertz, 33.2442 cycles/min.
3: 7: 1/1 0.000000 0.0000 Hertz, 0.0000
cycles/min.
4: 8: 3645/3584 29.21781 9.3956 Hertz, 563.7390 cycles/min.
5: 11: 81/80 21.50628 7.7630 Hertz, 465.7778
cycles/min.
6: 14: 81/80 21.50628 8.7333 Hertz, 524.0000
cycles/min.
7: 17: 1/1 0.000000 0.0000 Hertz, 0.0000
cycles/min.
Mode: 3 2 2 1 3 3 3
Total absolute difference : 74.1841 cents
Average absolute difference: 10.5977 cents
Root mean square difference: 15.9577 cents
Highest absolute difference: 29.2178 cents
Number of notes different: 4

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 12 Haziran 2006 Pazartesi 5:15
Subject: [tuning] Re: "Arabic mode"

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

> What are the ratios you aim for in a meantone rendition?

You don't actually aim at ratios in meantone, but you could consider
it a tempered version of [9/8,5/4,4/3,10/7,8/5,9/5] if you liked.

> >I would like to know the EXACT tuning (in cents) of the most
> >consonant high third.
>
> I'd like evidence it even exists.

That was one of the most painful threads in my time here.
The bottom line is there's no evidence anyone, including
Jerry, knows what this is about.

-Carl

27/22 is too low... oh well, how about this:

0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime Ra
1: 9/8 203.910 major whole tone DU
2: 16/13 359.472 tridecimal neutral third Ush
3: 21/17 365.825 submajor third Se
OR 26/21 369.747
4: 4/3 498.045 perfect fourth Cha
5: 3/2 701.955 perfect fifth
Naw
6: 11/7 782.492 undecimal augmented fifth Bay
7: 13/7 1071.702 16/3-tone Ve

Use 21/17 when ascending, 16/13 when desceding. There is a nice 706 cent
fifth between 21/17 and 13/7 (new evdj) now. If you want a pure fifth, use
26/21 instead.

You are correct, perde hisar is higher than perde bayati... you are an
aspiring maqam music theorist! However, you didn't correct me about shuri.
It appears, the maqam by that name, rather than the perde is inferred. Shuri
is the mixture of `Mahur`+`Nihawand on perde chargah`:

c B A G F E D C (pythagorean major diatonic descending)
F G Ab Bb C Db E(b) f (3-limit diatonic minor scale)

The Shuri Terkib (with the tonic on F) has been invented by Tartar Gazi
Giray Han of Crimea of the 16th century. I see what this means... shuri was
the perde that was used synonymously with perde bayati in 16th-18th
centuries. The Terkib uses this perde... here, it happens to be Ab... (perde
shuri was transposed a pure fifth down later, and we see this in effect with
Abdulbaki Nasir Dede of the 19th century.)

So, Bayati-Shuri becomes an interesting Terkib:

D Ed F G Ab B(b) (the scale above)
c B A G F E(d) D C (3-limit to 11-limit major with Rast ending)
F G Ab Bb C Db E(b) f (3 to 5-limit JI)

Unfortunately, a few centuries of progress have rendered most historical
maqams unrecognizable.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel A. Wier" <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Sal� 1:01
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: "Arabic mode"

Ozan Yarman wrote:
> If I may chime in yet again, "Bayati-Shuri" is so named because of the
> usage
> of perdes bayati and shuri:
>
> (C#) D Ed F G Ab B C D (Ed = E quarter tone flat)
>
> ( 0: 1/1 C RAST)
> 1: 16/15 C# shuri - leading tone
> 2: 9/8 D DUGAH - tonic
> 3: 53/43 Ed segah
> 4: 4/3 F chargah
> 5: 3/2 G nawa
> 6: 8/5 Ab bayati
> 7: 15/8 B evdj
> 8: 2/1 C gerdaniye
> 9: 9/4 D MUHAYYER

You have 53/43 for segah; why not Al-Farabi's 27/22? And could 16/13 work?

> In contrast, "Karjighar" is given by Ekrem Karadeniz as:
>
> 0: 1/1 D DUGAH - tonic
> 1: 137/125 Ed `usshaq` (when descending)
> 2: 111/100 E segah (when ascending)
> 3: 237/200 F chargah
> 4: 1333/1000 G nawa
> 5: 717/500 Ad hisar
> 6: 1667/1000 B evdj
> 7: 889/500 C gerdaniye
> 8: 2/1 D MUHAYYER

The only pitch that's different is hisar, which replaces bayati. But isn't
bayati more like 128/81 and hisar 8/5?

> Sadly, Arabic theory cannot explain why the two maqams are named
> differently. The upper tetrachord of the latter maqam is supposed to be a
> Huzzam flavoured Hijaz.

I got the information at Maqam World. They use 24-tET, so if there are two
different kinds of A half-flat in traditional tuning, they got mapped to the
same pitch, I guess. The maqam Nahawand Murassah is shown as also being
called Sunbulah, but the pitch Sunbulah, high E-flat, is not part of the
scale (http://www.maqamworld.com/maqamat/nahawand.html#nahawand-murassah).

I have a Xeroxed copy of the maqamat from the appendix of Scott Lloyd
Marcus' dissertation somewhere; my space is such a mess.

~Danny~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "J.Smith" <jsmith9624@...> wrote:

> Gene, are there any (relatively) small-number just intervals slightly
> below 5/4, which might casually be heard as, or mistaken for, 5/4?

There are never any such numbers close to small integer ratios; they
have a sort of zone of repulsion in effect. Below 5/4 you can find
21/17 and then 16/13 and then the 11/9 neutral third; these are hardly
close to 5/4. The Minkowski ? relates to this; it flattens out near
the small integer ratios.

> I'm fairly certain I didn't hear anything either, but again -- with
> those poor audio examples, it was really difficult to tell.

Some of them sounded very out of tune as well.

> Perhaps we ARE talking about some sort of psycho-acoustic phenomenon
> here. Maybe something involving perceived sum/difference tones?

Someone once mentioned a study which claimed there were two kinds of
people, only one of whom preferred intervals near to just values; the
other liked them 15-20 cents off. If so, it would really add to the
confusion.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Of course you aim for ratios in meantone, as in quarter comma meantone
> giving a pure 5/1.

The question I thought assumed we had already picked a meantone
tuning, so you can't very well aim at pure 5s then.

>...why not Al-Farabi's 27/22? And could 16/13 work?

Danny,

Despite all perpetuated half-truths (and I mean
*1/2-truth* quite literally) about what Safi Al-Din did
not accomplish, you are absolutely on the right
track.

Cris Forster, Music Director
www.chrysalis-foundation.org

I just want to throw in my two cents and say I can't hear the alleged
super-consonant sharp third either.

The only thing I can add is that as the third moves down, some
difference tones move up. For example, in a 4:5 major third, there is
a difference tone between the octave above the 4 and the 5 which is 8
- 5 = 3. As the 5 moves down from 5.01 to 5, the 3 moves up from 2.99
to 3. There are plenty of other difference tones that move in the
opposite direction as well.

Keenan

The Mystery of
The High Third Excerpted from �Lies My Music Teacher Told Me,� page 70�
In case you are getting the impression that I think I have it all figured
out, let me assure you that I haven�t. Every book needs a bit of mystery.
Here�s ours. The numbers indicate that the fifth partial (scale step 3) is lower
than the tempered major third. Yet, I have observed that many pitch-sensitive
musicians (particularly string players and singers) seem to prefer a tuning
that is higher than the tempered third when the fifth of the chord is
also sounding. Evidently, there is more happening here than just
simple partials. Here's an opportunity for cutting-edge research.

The above excert is from Gerald Eskelin's site
http://www.stage3music.com/tuning/tuning.html.
>> The site tells of a counterintuitive tuning of the raised
>>major third that is more consonant than the equal
>>tempered or just major third.

Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com> wrote:
>When this was mentioned I couldn't figure out what
>was being claimed, and still don't know. What is this
>extra-consonant third, why do you think it is extra-
>consonant, and what in all that rather unpleasant
>mess of examples is supposed to demonstrate this?

Rodney:
Gerald claims his pitch sensitive musicians prefer a
third higher than the 12edo third of 400 cents.
Perhaps I erred in calling this third extraconsonant,
so I'll just call it the "preferred" third. I would expect
5/4 to be the "preferred" third since it is the simplest
ratio for a third. Also, the thirds I know decrease in
"preferredness" from the 12edo 400 cent major third
to the Pythagorean third to the 9/7 third, which is quite
harsh.

If a third higher than the 12edo major third is
consistantly preferred, even under special
circumstances, it would be very important theoretically.

The main point I was trying to make was that
consonance is not just related to the simplicity
of frequency ratios. Partial clashes are also important
and they are not strictly related to simplicity. Thus,
listeners could prefer a raised third where the clash of
partials is especially low. The interval 9/7 is somewhat
simple but has an especially strong partial clash. A still
more complex ratio could thus be the "preferred third" if
it has a weaker partial clash.

Such a "preferred" third would imply microtonalists can
not depend on the Parchian central dogma of simple ratios.

Alternatively, since raised thirds are brighter, the
"preferred" third could arise when partials are simply
too weak to cause objections. Perhaps to get the
best major thirds we should be reducing partials and
raising our thirds instead of lowering them.
Perhaps instead of focusing on the "justness" of our
thirds we should focus on controlling brightness.

A "preferred" third of this nature might challenge the
central dogma of JI which raises minor thirds and lowers
major thirds thus rendering them less expressive.

>>Rodney:
> >I find much of the information on the tuning of the
>>major third to be contradictory. In theory the major
>>third is best tuned as 5/4 and it is consonant when
>>tuned in 12edo as 400 cents.
>>Various sources in my reading call the Pythagorean
>>third 81/64 unharmonic even though it is only a few
>>cents higher then 400 cents.

Gene:
>Thirds sharper than 400 cents can certainly be used,
>but the effect is not the same as a 5/4 third. You don't
>suddenly run into another third which sounds like a
>5/4 third; or if you do, I'd like someone to
>say where that happens.

Rodney:
The contradiction here is that the Pythagorean third is
bad enough that some writers such as Yasser and
Helmholtz claim it stunted the development of harmony
based on thirds. Yet the 400 cent third just below it a
few cents encouraged the use of thirds in harmony.
Of course, the "preferred" third also challenges
conventional wisdom.

Rodney:
>On my old homemade guitar (now broken) the raised third 9/7 is a
>howler even though it is a somewhat simple ratio.

Here I simply meant 9/7 is NOT the preferred third unless perhaps
the harmonics happen to be very weak or close enough to unity
that the clash is mute. This close to unity "mute clash" may
happen at lower registers since beat frequency is cut by half for
every octave lowered.

Thanks for your patience.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

We have also high third in practice of Persian music ! (-:

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 Sparky Fuzball
Sent: Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:51 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or 12edo
major third.

The Mystery of
The High Third

Excerpted from "Lies My Music Teacher Told Me," page 70-
In case you are getting the impression that I think I have it all
figured
out, let me assure you that I haven't. Every book needs a bit of
mystery.
Here's ours. The numbers indicate that the fifth partial (scale step 3)
is lower
than the tempered major third. Yet, I have observed that many
pitch-sensitive
musicians (particularly string players and singers) seem to prefer a
tuning
that is higher than the tempered third when the fifth of the chord is
also sounding. Evidently, there is more happening here than just
simple partials. Here's an opportunity for cutting-edge research.

The above excert is from Gerald Eskelin's site

http://www.stage3music.com/tuning/tuning.html
<http://www.stage3music.com/tuning/tuning.html> .
>> The site tells of a counterintuitive tuning of the raised

>>major third that is more consonant than the equal

>>tempered or just major third.

Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com> wrote:
>When this was mentioned I couldn't figure out what

>was being claimed, and still don't know. What is this

>extra-consonant third, why do you think it is extra-

>consonant, and what in all that rather unpleasant
>mess of examples is supposed to demonstrate this?

Rodney:

Gerald claims his pitch sensitive musicians prefer a

third higher than the 12edo third of 400 cents.

Perhaps I erred in calling this third extraconsonant,

so I'll just call it the "preferred" third. I would expect

5/4 to be the "preferred" third since it is the simplest

ratio for a third. Also, the thirds I know decrease in

"preferredness" from the 12edo 400 cent major third

to the Pythagorean third to the 9/7 third, which is quite

harsh.

If a third higher than the 12edo major third is

consistantly preferred, even under special

circumstances, it would be very important theoretically.

The main point I was trying to make was that

consonance is not just related to the simplicity

of frequency ratios. Partial clashes are also important

and they are not strictly related to simplicity. Thus,

listeners could prefer a raised third where the clash of

partials is especially low. The interval 9/7 is somewhat

simple but has an especially strong partial clash. A still

more complex ratio could thus be the "preferred third" if

it has a weaker partial clash.

Such a "preferred" third would imply microtonalists can

not depend on the Parchian central dogma of simple ratios.

Alternatively, since raised thirds are brighter, the

"preferred" third could arise when partials are simply

too weak to cause objections. Perhaps to get the

best major thirds we should be reducing partials and

raising our thirds instead of lowering them.

Perhaps instead of focusing on the "justness" of our

thirds we should focus on controlling brightness.

A "preferred" third of this nature might challenge the

central dogma of JI which raises minor thirds and lowers

major thirds thus rendering them less expressive.

>>Rodney:
> >I find much of the information on the tuning of the

>>major third to be contradictory. In theory the major

>>third is best tuned as 5/4 and it is consonant when

>>tuned in 12edo as 400 cents.
>>Various sources in my reading call the Pythagorean

>>third 81/64 unharmonic even though it is only a few

>>cents higher then 400 cents.

Gene:
>Thirds sharper than 400 cents can certainly be used,

>but the effect is not the same as a 5/4 third. You don't

>suddenly run into another third which sounds like a

>5/4 third; or if you do, I'd like someone to
>say where that happens.

Rodney:

The contradiction here is that the Pythagorean third is

bad enough that some writers such as Yasser and

Helmholtz claim it stunted the development of harmony

based on thirds. Yet the 400 cent third just below it a

few cents encouraged the use of thirds in harmony.

Of course, the "preferred" third also challenges

conventional wisdom.

Rodney:
>On my old homemade guitar (now broken) the raised third 9/7 is a
>howler even though it is a somewhat simple ratio.

Here I simply meant 9/7 is NOT the preferred third unless perhaps

the harmonics happen to be very weak or close enough to unity

that the clash is mute. This close to unity "mute clash" may

happen at lower registers since beat frequency is cut by half for

every octave lowered.

Thanks for your patience.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Why, we have several high thirds in Turkish Music! :)
----- Original Message -----
From: Mohajeri Shahin
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Salı 15:27
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or 12edo major third.

We have also high third in practice of Persian music ! (-:

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Alright then.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Sal� 2:51
Subject: [tuning] Re: "Arabic mode"

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Of course you aim for ratios in meantone, as in quarter comma meantone
> giving a pure 5/1.

The question I thought assumed we had already picked a meantone
tuning, so you can't very well aim at pure 5s then.

How uncouth.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cris Forster" <cris.forster@comcast.net>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Sal� 6:07
Subject: [tuning] Re: "Arabic mode"

> >...why not Al-Farabi's 27/22? And could 16/13 work?
>
> Danny,
>
> Despite all perpetuated half-truths (and I mean
> *1/2-truth* quite literally) about what Safi Al-Din did
> not accomplish, you are absolutely on the right
> track.
>
> Cris Forster, Music Director
> www.chrysalis-foundation.org
>
>

Why, we have several high thirds in Turkish Music! :)

Hmm... What are the tunings?

Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com> wrote:
Why, we have several high thirds in Turkish Music! :)
----- Original Message -----
From: Mohajeri Shahin
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Sal� 15:27
Subject: RE: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or 12edo major third.

We have also high third in practice of Persian music ! (-:

Shaahin Mohaajeri

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Mohajeri Shahin <shahinm@kayson-ir.com> wrote:
We have also high third in practice of Persian music ! (-:

What is the tuning?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Posted by: "Carl Lumma" clumma@yahoo.com <mailto:clumma@yahoo.com?Subject=%20Re:%20Raised%20third%20more%20harmonic%20than%20just%20or%2012edo%20major%20third.> clumma <http://profiles.yahoo.com/clumma>
>
>
> Mon Jun 12, 2006 3:36 pm (PST)
>
> > >I would like to know the EXACT tuning (in cents) of the most
> > >consonant high third.
> >
> > I'd like evidence it even exists.
>
> That was one of the most painful threads in my time here.
> The bottom line is there's no evidence anyone, including
> Jerry, knows what this is about.
I will second Carl completely. This was one of those cases in which almost everyone in the community gave Eskelin the benefit of many doubts, trying to figure out exactly what he was hearing. Lots of patient words, incisive questions, plausible explainations, audible examples to hear, and in the end, nobody could replicate the "raised third", least of all in Eskelin's own recordings. Indeed, the third that Eskelin finally recognized as "his" was a garden variety 5:4. And then, as suddenly as he came, he left the list to go off and write his next book and do some more (presumably lucrative) "forensic musicology"...

DJW

Why, they are anywhere from 63/50 to 9/7, including, but not limited to 24/19, 81/64, 19.15, 14/11...
----- Original Message -----
From: Sparky Fuzball
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Salı 17:52
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or 12edo major third.

Why, we have several high thirds in Turkish Music! :)

Hmm... What are the tunings?

Forensic Musicology! LOL.

SNIP

Indeed, the third that
> Eskelin finally recognized as "his" was a garden variety 5:4. And then,
> as suddenly as he came, he left the list to go off and write his next
> book and do some more (presumably lucrative) "forensic musicology"...
>
> DJW
>

Ozan Yarman wrote:

> Why, they are anywhere from 63/50 to 9/7, including, but not limited to > 24/19, 81/64, 19.15, 14/11...

in response to

> > Why, we have several high thirds in Turkish Music! :)
>
> Hmm... What are the tunings?

I just happen to be making a chart of an octave-normalized 125 odd-limit square tonality diamond -- all 3,201 ratios. (I had to tweak the params in Scala to get it to handle scales with thousands of pitches.) Here's the list of JI intervals between 5/4 and 9/7 inclusive, 129 in all:

5/4 154/123 144/115 134/107 124/99 119/95 114/91 109/87 104/83 99/79 94/75 89/71 84/67 79/63 74/59 69/55 64/51 123/98 59/47 113/90 54/43 103/82 152/121 49/39 142/113 93/74 44/35 83/66 122/97 39/31 112/89 73/58 107/85 34/27 97/77 63/50 92/73 121/96 150/119 29/23 140/111 111/88 82/65 53/42 130/103 77/61 101/80 125/99 24/19 115/91 91/72 158/125 67/53 110/87 43/34 148/117 105/83 62/49 81/64 100/79 119/94 138/109 19/15 128/101 109/86 90/71 71/56 123/97 52/41 85/67 118/93 33/26 146/115 113/89 80/63 47/37 108/85 61/48 136/107 75/59 89/70 103/81 117/92 14/11 121/95 107/84 93/73 79/62 144/113 65/51 116/91 51/40 88/69 125/98 37/29 134/105 97/76 60/47 83/65 106/83 152/119 23/18 124/97 101/79 78/61 55/43 142/111 87/68 119/93 32/25 105/82 73/57 114/89 41/32 132/103 91/71 50/39 109/85 59/46 68/53 77/60 86/67 95/74 104/81 113/88 122/95 140/109 158/123 9/7

I've proposed 33/26 in particular as a 18-comma major third, since it's 13-limit, simpler than traditional 81/64, and a better approximation than 14/11. 19/15 is even better if you don't mind 19-limit.

This list also includes 32/25, the classic diminished fourth.

~Danny~

Cris Forster:

> >...why not Al-Farabi's 27/22? And could 16/13 work?
>
> Danny,
>
> Despite all perpetuated half-truths (and I mean
> *1/2-truth* quite literally) about what Safi Al-Din did
> not accomplish, you are absolutely on the right
> track.

Wild guess.

I was wondering if anyone had proposed 13-limit for Persian tuning. I was going to, but I haven't heard a lot of music from Iran, and I didn't want to sound like a patronizing Orientalist.

~Danny~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Sparky Fuzball
<rodney_clownpuncher@...> wrote:

> If a third higher than the 12edo major third is
> consistantly preferred, even under special
> circumstances, it would be very important theoretically.

What listeners say they prefer in an instrumental sample is probably
less relevant than what happens with sustained chords in a capella
singing. I think the adoption of the 5/4 third in Western music, which
historically did happen before the 400 cent third came in vogue, is
tracable largely to the practice of harmonized singing without
instrumental support. The exact same thing happened in Barbershop,
this time with the 7/4 interval.

> The main point I was trying to make was that
> consonance is not just related to the simplicity
> of frequency ratios. Partial clashes are also important
> and they are not strictly related to simplicity.

A particular kind of sound will only occur with sustained "otonal"
chords in just or nearly just intonation, and choirs listening to each
other can zero in on such chords, producing the particular harmonic
effect. A 1-9/7-3/2 chord isn't best understood as an otonal chord,
and is not likely to work from this point of view, I think. But a
1-5/3-3/2 chord most definately does.

> The contradiction here is that the Pythagorean third is
> bad enough that some writers such as Yasser and
> Helmholtz claim it stunted the development of harmony
> based on thirds.

In medieval Europe, composers began composing pieces with the idea of
vertical harmony in mind--true chords. However, the sharp major thirds
were treated as dissonances.

Then, something funny happened, apparently in England. People, used to
the idea of part-singing, began to do it in a folk context. They seem
to have discovered, just as Barbershop groups did in the last century,
that certain kinds of harmonies made for a unique sound. At least, it
is difficult to see how else to explain "Sumer is Icumen In", which
dates to the mid Thirteenth Century. Late Medieval English composers,
John Dunstaple and Leonel Powers, began lingering over thirds, and
composers on the continent, in particular the Burgundian school around
Dufay, took note of the unique sound and imported it into their own
music. The third and triadic harmony was launched.

As to whether Pythagorean tuning impeded this process, the diminished
fourth interval C-Fb, is a nearly pure major third in Pythagorean
tuning, and this may have been used for a time, Mark Lindley suggests;
which would mean also a parallel development of the third stemming
from the tuning system in use of the time, rather than from
adjustments made in the course of a capella singing, and including
keyboards. But I think a capella singing was the key factor myself.

Yet the 400 cent third just below it a
> few cents encouraged the use of thirds in harmony.

I don't think it encourages thirds all that much. It works with busier
music, but it's pretty much of a disaster with Renassiance polyphony.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
> A 1-9/7-3/2 chord isn't best understood as an otonal chord,
> and is not likely to work from this point of view, I think. But a
> 1-5/3-3/2 chord most definately does.

1-5/4-3/2.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel A. Wier" <dawiertx@...> wrote:
>
> Cris Forster:
>
> > >...why not Al-Farabi's 27/22? And could 16/13 work?
> >
> > Danny,
> >
> > Despite all perpetuated half-truths (and I mean
> > *1/2-truth* quite literally) about what Safi Al-Din did
> > not accomplish, you are absolutely on the right
> > track.
>
> Wild guess.
>
> I was wondering if anyone had proposed 13-limit for Persian
tuning. I was
> going to, but I haven't heard a lot of music from Iran, and I
didn't want to
> sound like a patronizing Orientalist.
>
> ~Danny~
>

Never give in to the forces of ethno-Kitsch.
Patronizing attitudes are ubiquitous. A theory is not
necessarily an opinion. Therefore, there exist
many different theories for a given music.

Cris Forster wrote (replying to me):

> > I was wondering if anyone had proposed 13-limit for Persian
> tuning. I was
> > going to, but I haven't heard a lot of music from Iran, and I
> didn't want to
> > sound like a patronizing Orientalist.
> >
> > ~Danny~
>
> Never give in to the forces of ethno-Kitsch.
> Patronizing attitudes are ubiquitous. A theory is not
> necessarily an opinion. Therefore, there exist
> many different theories for a given music.

True, I just don't want to second guess Al-Farabi, Abu Sina, Ramis, Sarangdev or anyone else who knew their music and culture far better than I do. It's not my place to decide that 27/22 is "wrong" for a neutral third and 11/9, 16/13 or 21/17 is "right".

I'm still reading Genesis of a Music, and this might be a hasty assumption, but I get the sense Partch had that attitude about ancient and medieval music, using statements like "Arabic theory fell into a groove of Pythagoreanism from which it has been seemingly never extricated itself" on page 371 (as if it's automatically a bad thing). He seems quite dogmatic about traditional music theory in general.

I tend more towards traditionalism, and impose my own dogmas only on my own music.

~Danny~

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel A. Wier" <dawiertx@...> wrote:
>
> Cris Forster wrote (replying to me):
>
> > > I was wondering if anyone had proposed 13-limit for Persian
> > tuning. I was
> > > going to, but I haven't heard a lot of music from Iran, and I
> > didn't want to
> > > sound like a patronizing Orientalist.
> > >
> > > ~Danny~
> >
> > Never give in to the forces of ethno-Kitsch.
> > Patronizing attitudes are ubiquitous. A theory is not
> > necessarily an opinion. Therefore, there exist
> > many different theories for a given music.
>
> True, I just don't want to second guess Al-Farabi, Abu Sina,
Ramis,
> Sarangdev or anyone else who knew their music and culture far
better than I
> do. It's not my place to decide that 27/22 is "wrong" for a
neutral third
> and 11/9, 16/13 or 21/17 is "right".
>
> I'm still reading Genesis of a Music, and this might be a hasty
assumption,
> but I get the sense Partch had that attitude about ancient and
medieval
> music, using statements like "Arabic theory fell into a groove of
> Pythagoreanism from which it has been seemingly never extricated
itself" on
> page 371 (as if it's automatically a bad thing). He seems quite
dogmatic
> about traditional music theory in general.
>
> I tend more towards traditionalism, and impose my own dogmas only
on my own
> music.
>
> ~Danny~
>

My great teacher, Page Smith, cofounder of the
University of California at Santa Cruz, taught me
there is no substitute for reading original texts and
sources.

Cris

Gene,

A wonderful post! I think a part of the issue is this:
A professional piano tuner and barbershop singer I know had adiscussion
with me in which he argued that even going from a one chord to a five-seven,
such a C major to G7, that even the G note held from chord to chord needed
to sharp for the G7 chord! This guy really is no slouch and is totally clear
on the issues. He tunes his pianos unconventionally to acheive beatless
5ths. He is not fundamentalist classical theorist.

When it came to discussing the 3rd, he said that we need to tell singers to
sharp. He asked, "how often do you hear barbershoppers with their thirds
too sharp?"
But even though his overall statement was vague and simplistic, there's
something to it. Perhaps away from the piano, a cappella singers are as
or more likely to be flat of 5/4 than sharp. So telling them to sharp gets
closer to 5/4. And maybe they subjectively feel that the tuning that sounds
good is when they THINK "sharp."

When we remember that the reality of pitch and vocal folds is one of
fast and slow, we realize that just like a motor, relaxing will lead to slowing
down, which means flatting. So it takes energy and focus to maintain pitch
and not sing flat. So singers are generally taught to think sharp.

As a teacher, I feel it is better to expose singers to the issues and challenges
of singing so they learn to support and maintain pitch, and then teach them
to sing "right" not flat or sharp. And "right" for blended harmony in major
chords is undeniably 5/4.

I've heard a couple singers sing thirds sharp, and those are the two in my
chapter who are piano players with perfect pitch. And when I tell them to
slightly flat, they find the blended 5/4 and agree that it's what we're aiming
for. Everyone else in the group is more likely to sing thirds flat than sharp.

What we have to remember is that the vast majority of musicians (let alone
the general public) don't really have a sense of pitch that is THAT fine
tuned as to know and remember what piano thirds sound like once you
apply any other timbre to the harmony. So we can't use the piano or the 5/4
reference point when talking about "sharp" or "flat."

My friend's admonition that we must tell singers to sing "sharp" is clearly
from a sense that most are flat. It is completely foundless to take his
statement and infer that you know what starting point he is telling singers
to sing sharp OF.

A professor of mine who had perfect pitch said the same thing about
playing thirds sharp on a violin, but another violinist with perfect pitch
told me they blend better when flat of piano notes. Which leads to one
further issue. In many cases, musicians are listening horizontally and
sharp the third as a leading tone to the next note. This is a melodic
function and has not much to do with what "blends." And I expect that is
what we are talking about when we objectively have sharp thirds (as opposed
to sharper than flat, meaning correct 5/4 thirds).

-Aaron

P.S. I should find an editor who will widdle down my long posts before they
are sent to the list or something...

> He tunes his pianos unconventionally to acheive beatless
> 5ths.

1.5^(1/7) tuning, likely. Does he do that by ear? I've
always wanted a bearing plan for it. Do you think you could
ask him?

> He asked, "how often do you hear barbershoppers with their
> thirds too sharp?"
> But even though his overall statement was vague and
> simplistic, there's something to it. Perhaps away from
> the piano, a cappella singers are as or more likely to
> be flat of 5/4 than sharp.

I think this is highly unlikely. The region below 5/4
gets dissonant much more quickly than the region above,
and any input from cultural conditioning would seem to
push North as well.

> And maybe they subjectively feel that the tuning that sounds
> good is when they THINK "sharp."

In general singers need to think sharp, in my experience,
to stay in tune. That doesn't mean sharp of anything in
particular -- just sharp of where they would otherwise be.
Usually this sort of advice applies more to melodic
intervals. The comma "problem" can be part of this, but
more often the problem is just laziness/fatigue.

-Carl

On 6/16/06, Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > He tunes his pianos unconventionally to acheive beatless
> > 5ths.
>
> 1.5^(1/7) tuning, likely. Does he do that by ear? I've
> always wanted a bearing plan for it. Do you think you could
> ask him?

12-equal with an eigenmonzo of 3/2! Sorry, sorry... =P

Keenan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > He tunes his pianos unconventionally to acheive beatless
> > 5ths.
>
> 1.5^(1/7) tuning, likely. Does he do that by ear? I've
> always wanted a bearing plan for it. Do you think you could
> ask him?
>
> > He asked, "how often do you hear barbershoppers with their
> > thirds too sharp?"
> > But even though his overall statement was vague and
> > simplistic, there's something to it. Perhaps away from
> > the piano, a cappella singers are as or more likely to
> > be flat of 5/4 than sharp.
>
> I think this is highly unlikely. The region below 5/4
> gets dissonant much more quickly than the region above,
> and any input from cultural conditioning would seem to
> push North as well.
>
> > And maybe they subjectively feel that the tuning that sounds
> > good is when they THINK "sharp."
>
> In general singers need to think sharp, in my experience,
> to stay in tune. That doesn't mean sharp of anything in
> particular -- just sharp of where they would otherwise be.
> Usually this sort of advice applies more to melodic
> intervals. The comma "problem" can be part of this, but
> more often the problem is just laziness/fatigue.
>
> -Carl
>

Carl, my statement of "more likely to be flat of 5/4 than sharp" is exactly
what you agree with in the last paragraph. I'm not saying that fine-tuned,
well-supported, champion barbershoppers do that. I wasn't anywhere
implying that they PREFER to be flat, just that they ARE often (probably).
So his admonition to sing sharp is a pragmatic approach because he
believes that teaching gets people to do what is necessary.

I have big problems with that approach. It teaches exaggeration, and it
encourages people to do things because they are told to, not because they
are using their ears and knowing what their goals are. And furthermore,
people like me are all confused about what the teacher is actually trying
to say.

Anyway, my whole point is that maybe the entire "some people prefer
thirds to be SHARP of ET" is a complete misunderstanding. Because
singers are unsupported, teachers tell them they need to sing their
thirds sharp. These teachers get very confident and adamant in teaching
this. Then theorists, like others on this list go around claiming, "I know
that some singers prefer SHARP thirds!" which is ridiculous. Perhaps
that's all it is.

-Aaron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > He tunes his pianos unconventionally to acheive beatless
> > 5ths.
>
> 1.5^(1/7) tuning, likely. Does he do that by ear? I've
> always wanted a bearing plan for it. Do you think you could
> ask him?
>

This guy is top-notch. He absolutely does EVERYTHING by ear and
does not agree with any sort of intellectual planning and just going
with what the math says. He expressed to me that his tuning is
not some common type of tuning, it is the balance that he came to
and is done on all the pianos at the college where he works.
His 5ths may be close to 3/2, but they probably aren't exactly, because
he is adjusting for exact timbre and issues of the piano, which likely
has less than perfectly harmonic overtones. He also expressed that he
stretches octaves much more than subtly. And he claims that musicians
hear theoretically correct octaves as flat, particularly multiple octaves.
He understands the theory, but is a musician and arranger, not a
mathematician.

Why don't you go and e-mail him: BuckScott--at--juno-dot-com
his name is Scott Kitzmiller

-Aaron

> > > He tunes his pianos unconventionally to acheive beatless
> > > 5ths.
> >
> > 1.5^(1/7) tuning, likely. Does he do that by ear? I've
> > always wanted a bearing plan for it. Do you think you could
> > ask him?
>
> This guy is top-notch. He absolutely does EVERYTHING by ear
> and does not agree with any sort of intellectual planning and
> just going with what the math says. He expressed to me that
> his tuning is not some common type of tuning, it is the
> balance that he came to and is done on all the pianos at the
> college where he works. His 5ths may be close to 3/2, but
> they probably aren't exactly, because he is adjusting for
> exact timbre and issues of the piano, which likely has less
> than perfectly harmonic overtones. He also expressed that he
> stretches octaves much more than subtly. And he claims that
> musicians hear theoretically correct octaves as flat,
> particularly multiple octaves.

When discussing piano tunings, I give the tunigs for harmonic
timbres and assume that the necessary adjustments will be
made either automatically ("beatless") in the field or on
paper after measuring the harmonicity of the instrument to
be tuned. Thus 'tuning 3/2s beatless with octaves stretched
more than subtly' would be described as 1.5^(1/7) tuning,
which is 7 equal steps to a 3/2.

> Why don't you go and e-mail him: BuckScott--at--juno-dot-com
> his name is Scott Kitzmiller

I'll do that, thanks.

-Carl

Talk about overkill! Still, I find 33/26 palatable. Here is a nice
tetrachord involving this third:

0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime
1: 26/23 212.253
2: 33/26 412.745 tridecimal major third
3: 4/3 498.045 perfect fourth

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Daniel A. Wier" <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 13 Haziran 2006 Sal� 20:03
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or 12edo
major third.

Ozan Yarman wrote:

> Why, they are anywhere from 63/50 to 9/7, including, but not limited to
> 24/19, 81/64, 19.15, 14/11...

in response to

> > Why, we have several high thirds in Turkish Music! :)
>
> Hmm... What are the tunings?

I just happen to be making a chart of an octave-normalized 125 odd-limit
square tonality diamond -- all 3,201 ratios. (I had to tweak the params in
Scala to get it to handle scales with thousands of pitches.) Here's the list
of JI intervals between 5/4 and 9/7 inclusive, 129 in all:

5/4 154/123 144/115 134/107 124/99 119/95 114/91 109/87 104/83 99/79 94/75
89/71 84/67 79/63 74/59 69/55 64/51 123/98 59/47 113/90 54/43 103/82 152/121
49/39 142/113 93/74 44/35 83/66 122/97 39/31 112/89 73/58 107/85 34/27 97/77
63/50 92/73 121/96 150/119 29/23 140/111 111/88 82/65 53/42 130/103 77/61
101/80 125/99 24/19 115/91 91/72 158/125 67/53 110/87 43/34 148/117 105/83
62/49 81/64 100/79 119/94 138/109 19/15 128/101 109/86 90/71 71/56 123/97
52/41 85/67 118/93 33/26 146/115 113/89 80/63 47/37 108/85 61/48 136/107
75/59 89/70 103/81 117/92 14/11 121/95 107/84 93/73 79/62 144/113 65/51
116/91 51/40 88/69 125/98 37/29 134/105 97/76 60/47 83/65 106/83 152/119
23/18 124/97 101/79 78/61 55/43 142/111 87/68 119/93 32/25 105/82 73/57
114/89 41/32 132/103 91/71 50/39 109/85 59/46 68/53 77/60 86/67 95/74 104/81
113/88 122/95 140/109 158/123 9/7

I've proposed 33/26 in particular as a 18-comma major third, since it's
13-limit, simpler than traditional 81/64, and a better approximation than
14/11. 19/15 is even better if you don't mind 19-limit.

This list also includes 32/25, the classic diminished fourth.

~Danny~

> Anyway, my whole point is that maybe the entire "some people prefer
> thirds to be SHARP of ET" is a complete misunderstanding. Because
> singers are unsupported, teachers tell them they need to sing their
> thirds sharp. These teachers get very confident and adamant in
> teaching this. Then theorists, like others on this list go around
> claiming, "I know that some singers prefer SHARP thirds!" which is
> ridiculous. Perhaps that's all it is.
>
> -Aaron

Ah. Yes, maybe.

-Carl

As dogmatic as he may sound, he still has a case Danny. However, it was
Edvar/Maqam Theory that could not extricate itself from the clutches of
Pythagoreanism until the early 19th century, not Arabic theory. Be that as
it may, Mushaqa is the modern founder of Arabic theory based today on
24-tET.

Pythagorean tuning is not bad of course, it just is not the desired tuning
for many Maqams according to our studies.

SNIP

>
> I'm still reading Genesis of a Music, and this might be a hasty
assumption,
> but I get the sense Partch had that attitude about ancient and medieval
> music, using statements like "Arabic theory fell into a groove of
> Pythagoreanism from which it has been seemingly never extricated itself"
on
> page 371 (as if it's automatically a bad thing). He seems quite dogmatic
> about traditional music theory in general.
>
> I tend more towards traditionalism, and impose my own dogmas only on my
own
> music.
>
> ~Danny~
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
However, it was
> Edvar/Maqam Theory that could not extricate itself from the clutches of
> Pythagoreanism until the early 19th century, not Arabic theory.

Ozan --

From what I've observed, the term "pythagoreanism" has been used with
a number of meanings. It can be the strict application of a three
limit to the generation of intervals. It can be simply the use of
ratios, including terms beyond a three limit, to generate intervals.
Or it can, even more generally, indicate the application of
quantification to the description of physical phenemenon.

It could be said that medieval music theory, including European,
Byzantine and Islamicate theory labored under the limitations of the
first kind of pythagoreanism, and that more modern theory has labored
under the third kind, via one reading of Aristoxenus, in searching for
the equal division that solves all problems in harmonics. As you can
probably tell, my own sympathies lie between these extremes, but I
believe that it remains important, given these confusions, to identify
more clearly what is meant by the term "Pythagoreanism".

And yes, pythagoreanism is both a rational and a mystical tradition.
To moderns that seems like squaring the circle, or a coincidence of
opposites. That seems important to note, but beyond that, I am
completely at a loss.

DJW

> Ozan --
>
> >From what I've observed, the term "pythagoreanism" has been used with
> a number of meanings. It can be the strict application of a three
> limit to the generation of intervals. It can be simply the use of
> ratios, including terms beyond a three limit, to generate intervals.
> Or it can, even more generally, indicate the application of
> quantification to the description of physical phenemenon.
>

The meaning here is associated closely with the use of 3-limit intervals
implying the `sanctity of the pure fifth`.

> It could be said that medieval music theory, including European,
> Byzantine and Islamicate theory labored under the limitations of the
> first kind of pythagoreanism, and that more modern theory has labored
> under the third kind, via one reading of Aristoxenus, in searching for
> the equal division that solves all problems in harmonics.

To the contrary, prominent treatises on the science of Edvar have little to
do with 3-limit intervals, but much to do with high prime ratios. Only with
Safi Al-Din do we see a complete reversion to Pythagoreanism which is
promulgated by Yekta, Arel and Ezgi in Turkey. Apparently, the "founding
fathers" cared less for the actual representation of perdes compared to
crude 3-limit approximations (notwithstanding famous ETs).

As you can
> probably tell, my own sympathies lie between these extremes, but I
> believe that it remains important, given these confusions, to identify
> more clearly what is meant by the term "Pythagoreanism".
>

"An adoration, adoptation and application of the principles of musical scale
generation by way of stacking pure fifths one on top of the other."

> And yes, pythagoreanism is both a rational and a mystical tradition.
> To moderns that seems like squaring the circle, or a coincidence of
> opposites. That seems important to note, but beyond that, I am
> completely at a loss.
>

It is a valid method of creating scales. It is not the only method though.
Far from it, it is highly inappropriate for Maqam Music.

> DJW
>
>

Oz.

This was a couple of months ago, but being one of those who prefer a
very high major third, and running through the various thirds in my
pet tuning, I have to put in a vote for the weepingly beautiful (to
my ears) 23/18 (and the lovely minor third with which it shares 3/2,
27/23). 424.3643 cents, for whomever was asking in the original
post.

-Cameron Bobro

-- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel A. Wier" <dawiertx@...> wrote:
>
> Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> > Why, they are anywhere from 63/50 to 9/7, including, but not
limited to
> > 24/19, 81/64, 19.15, 14/11...
>
> in response to
>
> > > Why, we have several high thirds in Turkish Music! :)
> >
> > Hmm... What are the tunings?
>
> I just happen to be making a chart of an octave-normalized 125 odd-
limit
> square tonality diamond -- all 3,201 ratios. (I had to tweak the
params in
> Scala to get it to handle scales with thousands of pitches.)
Here's the list
> of JI intervals between 5/4 and 9/7 inclusive, 129 in all:
>
> 5/4 154/123 144/115 134/107 124/99 119/95 114/91 109/87 104/83
99/79 94/75
> 89/71 84/67 79/63 74/59 69/55 64/51 123/98 59/47 113/90 54/43
103/82 152/121
> 49/39 142/113 93/74 44/35 83/66 122/97 39/31 112/89 73/58 107/85
34/27 97/77
> 63/50 92/73 121/96 150/119 29/23 140/111 111/88 82/65 53/42
130/103 77/61
> 101/80 125/99 24/19 115/91 91/72 158/125 67/53 110/87 43/34
148/117 105/83
> 62/49 81/64 100/79 119/94 138/109 19/15 128/101 109/86 90/71 71/56
123/97
> 52/41 85/67 118/93 33/26 146/115 113/89 80/63 47/37 108/85 61/48
136/107
> 75/59 89/70 103/81 117/92 14/11 121/95 107/84 93/73 79/62 144/113
65/51
> 116/91 51/40 88/69 125/98 37/29 134/105 97/76 60/47 83/65 106/83
152/119
> 23/18 124/97 101/79 78/61 55/43 142/111 87/68 119/93 32/25 105/82
73/57
> 114/89 41/32 132/103 91/71 50/39 109/85 59/46 68/53 77/60 86/67
95/74 104/81
> 113/88 122/95 140/109 158/123 9/7
>
> I've proposed 33/26 in particular as a 18-comma major third, since
it's
> 13-limit, simpler than traditional 81/64, and a better
approximation than
> 14/11. 19/15 is even better if you don't mind 19-limit.
>
> This list also includes 32/25, the classic diminished fourth.
>
> ~Danny~
>

23/18 is overkill, eh? :-) Depends on where it's going I guess! To
my ears, and way of working, major thirds don't do too much in the
way of being sustained resting points, so they can bite and squirm
around as they like.

14/11 is another sweatheart IMO, unfortunately I just lost it in my
main tuning, getting rid of a spectacular but out of place 9/7.

Your tetrachord is cool.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Talk about overkill! Still, I find 33/26 palatable. Here is a nice
> tetrachord involving this third:
>
> 0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime
> 1: 26/23 212.253
> 2: 33/26 412.745 tridecimal major third
> 3: 4/3 498.045 perfect fourth
>
> Oz.

Hi

In works of maestro ebadi , we can find major third of about 420 cent.

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer

My web site <http://240edo.tripod.com/>

My page in Harmonytalk <http://www.harmonytalk.com/id/908>

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

My article in DrumDojo <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 misterbobro
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 10:54 AM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or 12edo major third.

23/18 is overkill, eh? :-) Depends on where it's going I guess! To
my ears, and way of working, major thirds don't do too much in the
way of being sustained resting points, so they can bite and squirm
around as they like.

14/11 is another sweatheart IMO, unfortunately I just lost it in my
main tuning, getting rid of a spectacular but out of place 9/7.

Your tetrachord is cool.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> , "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Talk about overkill! Still, I find 33/26 palatable. Here is a nice
> tetrachord involving this third:
>
> 0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime
> 1: 26/23 212.253
> 2: 33/26 412.745 tridecimal major third
> 3: 4/3 498.045 perfect fourth
>
> Oz.

Wonder where that interval came from? The 22/21 semitone down from
4/3 gives you 14/11 at about 417.5 so that's not it. Is the fourth
at 4/3 in the tuning with a 420 cent M3, or something higher? Of
course maybe the maestro just eared the third in, can't argue with
that, :-)

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mohajeri Shahin" <shahinm@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> In works of maestro ebadi , we can find major third of about 420
cent.
>
>
>
> Shaahin Mohaajeri
>

Hi Cameron

In works of the late maestro ebadi and in a tetrachordal structure , you can trace major second about 215 cent , major third about 421 cent , P4 about 505 and P5 about 708-716 cent (according to measurements of jean during)

Nature of Persian music shows such an irregular temperaments and is very related to traditional-players tastes.

You can also see a work of ebadi in 17-edo :

http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/i/iranian-segah-mode.aspx

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer

My web site <http://240edo.tripod.com/>

My page in Harmonytalk <http://www.harmonytalk.com/id/908>

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

My article in DrumDojo <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 misterbobro
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 12:35 PM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or 12edo major third.

Wonder where that interval came from? The 22/21 semitone down from
4/3 gives you 14/11 at about 417.5 so that's not it. Is the fourth
at 4/3 in the tuning with a 420 cent M3, or something higher? Of
course maybe the maestro just eared the third in, can't argue with
that, :-)

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> , "Mohajeri Shahin" <shahinm@...> wrote:
>
> Hi
>
>
>
> In works of maestro ebadi , we can find major third of about 420
cent.
>
>
>
> Shaahin Mohaajeri
>

Hi Shaahin,

Very interesting! When you say "trace", do you mean getting pitches
from recordings, measuring frets? Is there or was there a
theoretical tuning of 17 intervals to the octave in Persian music?

-Cameron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Mohajeri Shahin" <shahinm@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Cameron
>
>
>
> In works of the late maestro ebadi and in a tetrachordal
structure , you can trace major second about 215 cent , major
third about 421 cent , P4 about 505 and P5 about 708-716 cent
(according to measurements of jean during)
>
> Nature of Persian music shows such an irregular temperaments and
is very related to traditional-players tastes.
>
> You can also see a work of ebadi in 17-edo :
>
> http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/i/iranian-segah-mode.aspx
>
>
>
>
>
> Shaahin Mohaajeri
>
> Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer
>
> My web site <http://240edo.tripod.com/>
>
> My page in Harmonytalk <http://www.harmonytalk.com/id/908>
>
> My tombak musics in Rhythmweb <http://www.rhythmweb.com/gdg>
>
> My article in DrumDojo
<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 misterbobro
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 12:35 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or
12edo major third.
>
>
>
> Wonder where that interval came from? The 22/21 semitone down from
> 4/3 gives you 14/11 at about 417.5 so that's not it. Is the fourth
> at 4/3 in the tuning with a 420 cent M3, or something higher? Of
> course maybe the maestro just eared the third in, can't argue with
> that, :-)
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%
40yahoogroups.com> , "Mohajeri Shahin" <shahinm@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >
> > In works of maestro ebadi , we can find major third of about 420
> cent.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shaahin Mohaajeri
> >
>

> Wonder where that interval came from? The 22/21 semitone down from
> 4/3 gives you 14/11 at about 417.5 so that's not it.

It's pretty darn close. -C.

Hi

Yes , you can approximate pitches from recordings or measuring frets. Persian music is monophonic and it is easier to approximate.

But about , 17 or 18 tone in Persian music , yes some tars <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar_%28lute%29> , as main instrument of Persian music has 17 or 18 , differing on the first semitone which is not structural in radif <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_radif> .

You can see my 18-tone system in :

/tuning/topicId_65431.html#65954

Shaahin Mohaajeri

Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer

My web site <http://240edo.tripod.com/>

My page in Harmonytalk <http://www.harmonytalk.com/id/908>

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

My article in DrumDojo <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 misterbobro
Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 2:47 PM
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or 12edo major third.

Hi Shaahin,

Very interesting! When you say "trace", do you mean getting pitches
from recordings, measuring frets? Is there or was there a
theoretical tuning of 17 intervals to the octave in Persian music?

-Cameron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> , "Mohajeri Shahin" <shahinm@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Cameron
>
>
>
> In works of the late maestro ebadi and in a tetrachordal
structure , you can trace major second about 215 cent , major
third about 421 cent , P4 about 505 and P5 about 708-716 cent
(according to measurements of jean during)
>
> Nature of Persian music shows such an irregular temperaments and
is very related to traditional-players tastes.
>
> You can also see a work of ebadi in 17-edo :
>
> http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/i/iranian-segah-mode.aspx <http://www.tonalsoft.com/enc/i/iranian-segah-mode.aspx>
>
>
>
>
>
> Shaahin Mohaajeri
>
> Tombak Player & Researcher , Microtonal Composer
>
> My web site <http://240edo.tripod.com/ <http://240edo.tripod.com/> >
>
> My page in Harmonytalk <http://www.harmonytalk.com/id/908 <http://www.harmonytalk.com/id/908> >
>
> My tombak musics in Rhythmweb <http://www.rhythmweb.com/gdg <http://www.rhythmweb.com/gdg> >
>
> My article in DrumDojo
<http://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 <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 <http://www.xenharmony.org/mp3/shaahin/homayun.mp3> >
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> ] On
Behalf Of misterbobro
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 12:35 PM
> To: tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or
12edo major third.
>
>
>
> Wonder where that interval came from? The 22/21 semitone down from
> 4/3 gives you 14/11 at about 417.5 so that's not it. Is the fourth
> at 4/3 in the tuning with a 420 cent M3, or something higher? Of
> course maybe the maestro just eared the third in, can't argue with
> that, :-)
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <mailto:tuning%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:tuning%
40yahoogroups.com> , "Mohajeri Shahin" <shahinm@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi
> >
> >
> >
> > In works of maestro ebadi , we can find major third of about 420
> cent.
> >
> >
> >
> > Shaahin Mohaajeri
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > Wonder where that interval came from? The 22/21 semitone down from
> > 4/3 gives you 14/11 at about 417.5 so that's not it.
>
> It's pretty darn close. -C.
>

Close enough to be covered by fingering technique from a lower fretted
interval, certainly.

I'm not sure about the whole idea of what I'd jokingly
call "justification" of intervals, though, ie. validity/identity
through proximity to the nearest most simple ratio.

Just by coincidence the tuning I've been working on (sing what sounds
most enjoyable to me and go from there) has 17 tones per octave and
contains the very intervals discussed in this thread (found the
thread in the archive by searching the intervals). So every day I'm
tweaking "23-limit" RI and hmmm... 3 or 4 cents can mean a big
difference in the feel of a tetrachord! It's the higher limits
which are harder to "justify" that "weep" and "laugh", to my ears.

> I'm not sure about the whole idea of what I'd jokingly
> call "justification" of intervals, though, ie. validity/identity
> through proximity to the nearest most simple ratio.

Me neither, in this context.

-C.

Thanx Bob.

BTW, I just acquired a Peterson Autostrobe 590 tuner. I would appreciate any
hints and tips on how best to make good use of the gadget. Does anyone else
possess the tuner? Carl, you perhaps?

Cordially,
Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "misterbobro" <misterbobro@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 18 Eyl�l 2006 Pazartesi 10:24
Subject: [tuning] Re: Raised third more harmonic than just or 12edo major
third.

> 23/18 is overkill, eh? :-) Depends on where it's going I guess! To
> my ears, and way of working, major thirds don't do too much in the
> way of being sustained resting points, so they can bite and squirm
> around as they like.
>
> 14/11 is another sweatheart IMO, unfortunately I just lost it in my
> main tuning, getting rid of a spectacular but out of place 9/7.
>
> Your tetrachord is cool.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > Talk about overkill! Still, I find 33/26 palatable. Here is a nice
> > tetrachord involving this third:
> >
> > 0: 1/1 0.000 unison, perfect prime
> > 1: 26/23 212.253
> > 2: 33/26 412.745 tridecimal major third
> > 3: 4/3 498.045 perfect fourth
> >
> > Oz.
>
>

> BTW, I just acquired a Peterson Autostrobe 590 tuner. I would
> appreciate any hints and tips on how best to make good use of
> the gadget. Does anyone else possess the tuner? Carl, you
> perhaps?

I have a 590. It's a good piece of equipment. I've had it
for years. I've tuned several pianos with it... it's not
ideal for this, but it works better most cheaper solutions.
I mainly use it for tuning my slide guitar. I don't have
any particular tips, really. Unless they've updated it,
you'll need to store your 79-tone scale in several of the
12-tone memory slots.

-Carl