back to list

Maqam podcast lecture

🔗Jacob <jbarton@rice.edu>

2/4/2007 11:19:02 PM

<http://shumays.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=177745>

Arabic violin player Sami Abu Shumays plays 12 different kinds of "E"
in and out of the context of their maqam and discusses the
shortcomings of 24-edo, 53-edo, and JI as measuring schemes for maqam
scales. Quite an earful.

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@gmail.com>

2/5/2007 7:12:19 AM

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>

2/5/2007 11:11:26 AM

Jacob wrote:

> <http://shumays.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=177745>
>
> Arabic violin player Sami Abu Shumays plays 12 different kinds of "E"
> in and out of the context of their maqam and discusses the
> shortcomings of 24-edo, 53-edo, and JI as measuring schemes for maqam
> scales. Quite an earful.

That'll keep me busy for a good part of the day, thanks! I spent some time a while back researching Arabic/Turkish/Persian music theory a while back, but I'm no expert.

I was able to pick out the E's, E half-flats and E-flats easily, but some of those pitches Abu Shumays was playing sounded like they were a cent apart. I didn't hear a pitch difference nearly as much as I heard a change in timbre due to room resonance, I guess.

I did notice the difference in E naturals in maqams Ajam and Hijaz. The former sounded like untempered Pythagorean (but Ozan said 14/11 suits the interval better); the latter closer to 5/4, a comma flat. The Ajam tetrachord in C is C D E F, and Hijaz is C Db E F, with the D-flat raised by a comma and E lowered a comma.

There's supposed to be a slight difference between the E half-flat of Rast (C D Ed F; d = half-flat) and the E half-flat of Bayati (D Ed F G), and I have no idea what Sikah baladi (C Dd Ed F) is supposed to be.

~D.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/5/2007 4:45:33 PM

> heres a video someone uploaded last month to youtube of the
> great Farid al Atrache playing one of his famous oud improvs:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-WO8K9Ie8c

He's just crushingly good. I'm trying to think of a
Western violinist with this much expressivity.

> > <http://shumays.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=177745>
> >
> > Arabic violin player Sami Abu Shumays plays 12 different
> > kinds of "E"

Good stuff. I won't have time to listen to this until later
tonight.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/5/2007 6:46:46 PM

He is, of course, talking about the controversial range through perdes
kurdi-segah-buselik.

However, I use 14/11 for dik buselik only.

Overall, 79 MOS 159-tET represents the spectrum very well (10 notes from
D#\| to E|\).

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Wier" <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 05 ï¿½ubat 2007 Pazartesi 21:11
Subject: Re: [tuning] Maqam podcast lecture

> Jacob wrote:
>
> > <http://shumays.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=177745>
> >
> > Arabic violin player Sami Abu Shumays plays 12 different kinds of "E"
> > in and out of the context of their maqam and discusses the
> > shortcomings of 24-edo, 53-edo, and JI as measuring schemes for maqam
> > scales. Quite an earful.
>
> That'll keep me busy for a good part of the day, thanks! I spent some time
a
> while back researching Arabic/Turkish/Persian music theory a while back,
but
> I'm no expert.
>
> I was able to pick out the E's, E half-flats and E-flats easily, but some
of
> those pitches Abu Shumays was playing sounded like they were a cent apart.
I
> didn't hear a pitch difference nearly as much as I heard a change in
timbre
> due to room resonance, I guess.
>
> I did notice the difference in E naturals in maqams Ajam and Hijaz. The
> former sounded like untempered Pythagorean (but Ozan said 14/11 suits the
> interval better); the latter closer to 5/4, a comma flat. The Ajam
> tetrachord in C is C D E F, and Hijaz is C Db E F, with the D-flat raised
by
> a comma and E lowered a comma.
>
> There's supposed to be a slight difference between the E half-flat of Rast
> (C D Ed F; d = half-flat) and the E half-flat of Bayati (D Ed F G), and I
> have no idea what Sikah baladi (C Dd Ed F) is supposed to be.
>
> ~D.
>
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/5/2007 11:22:23 PM

> > http://shumays.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=177745
> >
> > Arabic violin player Sami Abu Shumays plays 12 different
> > kinds of "E"
>
> Good stuff. I won't have time to listen to this until later
> tonight.

The two songs at the end are quite sweet. I don't know what
it is, but I have a real soft spot for maqam music. I feel
I could just listen all day.

It's an excellent presentation, but I was a bit let down by
his position on theoretical inquiry into maqam intonation,
which seems to be, 'Learn them by ear, what more do you want?'
Like any good phenomenon, it seems worthy of study in its
own right. And you never know, it might be beneficial for
instructing musicians in the end. Just because the attempt
of the 1930s was inadequate doesn't mean we shoudln't try again!

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/6/2007 12:20:52 AM

That's what I'm here for.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 06 ï¿½ubat 2007 Salï¿½ 9:22
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> > > http://shumays.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=177745
> > >
> > > Arabic violin player Sami Abu Shumays plays 12 different
> > > kinds of "E"
> >
> > Good stuff. I won't have time to listen to this until later
> > tonight.
>
> The two songs at the end are quite sweet. I don't know what
> it is, but I have a real soft spot for maqam music. I feel
> I could just listen all day.
>
> It's an excellent presentation, but I was a bit let down by
> his position on theoretical inquiry into maqam intonation,
> which seems to be, 'Learn them by ear, what more do you want?'
> Like any good phenomenon, it seems worthy of study in its
> own right. And you never know, it might be beneficial for
> instructing musicians in the end. Just because the attempt
> of the 1930s was inadequate doesn't mean we shoudln't try again!
>
> -Carl
>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

2/6/2007 1:44:48 AM

As far as a museum tradition (and I'm a big fan of that), I think
this guy is right- learning by rote is the old way, and "the" way.
Lou Harrison gave a wonderful lecture about this.

However, in order for maqam (or any other, for that matter) music to
mutate, branch, evolve, whatever, there have to be parallel and
intersecting approaches like Ozan's. This seems very obvious.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> That's what I'm here for.
>
> Oz.

A word of advice from the Hungarian physicist George Kampis:

"...the notion of immensity translates as irreducible variety of
the component-types ... This kind of immensity is an immediately
complexity-related property, for it is about variety and
heterogeneity, and not simply as numerousness."

Not doing maqam music, but tetrachordal and modal melody-based music
nonetheless, I take these words to heart. :-)

-Cameron Bobro

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...>
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 06 Þubat 2007 Salý 9:22
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture
>
>
> > > > http://shumays.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=177745
> > > >
> > > > Arabic violin player Sami Abu Shumays plays 12 different
> > > > kinds of "E"
> > >
> > > Good stuff. I won't have time to listen to this until later
> > > tonight.
> >
> > The two songs at the end are quite sweet. I don't know what
> > it is, but I have a real soft spot for maqam music. I feel
> > I could just listen all day.
> >
> > It's an excellent presentation, but I was a bit let down by
> > his position on theoretical inquiry into maqam intonation,
> > which seems to be, 'Learn them by ear, what more do you want?'
> > Like any good phenomenon, it seems worthy of study in its
> > own right. And you never know, it might be beneficial for
> > instructing musicians in the end. Just because the attempt
> > of the 1930s was inadequate doesn't mean we shoudln't try again!
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/6/2007 2:17:44 AM

Precisely. Learning by rote leads nowhere without a system upon which
tradition can bloom.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 06 ï¿½ubat 2007 Salï¿½ 11:44
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

As far as a museum tradition (and I'm a big fan of that), I think
this guy is right- learning by rote is the old way, and "the" way.
Lou Harrison gave a wonderful lecture about this.

However, in order for maqam (or any other, for that matter) music to
mutate, branch, evolve, whatever, there have to be parallel and
intersecting approaches like Ozan's. This seems very obvious.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> That's what I'm here for.
>
> Oz.

A word of advice from the Hungarian physicist George Kampis:

Not doing maqam music, but tetrachordal and modal melody-based music
nonetheless, I take these words to heart. :-)

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@gmail.com>

2/6/2007 9:38:52 AM

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/6/2007 10:15:37 AM

Danny, the era of 24-tone teaching has come to a sticky end. These systems cannot cope with the sheer volume of intonational subtleties practiced. Thus need begin the transition to triplefold tonality.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dante Rosati
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 06 Şubat 2007 Salı 19:38
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

the vast majority of aural-tradition musicians on the planet learn by copying their teacher and learning by rote. Then (possibly) they innovate, and pass that on to their students in the same way.

On 2/6/07, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com> wrote:
Precisely. Learning by rote leads nowhere without a system upon which
tradition can bloom.

🔗yahya_melb <yahya@melbpc.org.au>

2/7/2007 2:58:17 AM

Hi all,

Yes, Dante, that's true; however, too great a reverence for teachers
and masters brings about the phenomenon known as "the dead hand of
tradition", where all knowledge of the fundamental bases of a
traditional practice eventually disappears, until finally, all
thinking ceases. Such a tradition is like "the Bride of
Frankenstein": worse than a monster.

Regards,
Yahya

Dante Rosati wrote:
>
> the vast majority of aural-tradition musicians on the planet learn
by copying their teacher and learning by rote. Then (possibly) they
innovate, and pass that on to their students in the same way.
>
> On 2/6/07, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > Precisely. Learning by rote leads nowhere without a system upon
which tradition can bloom.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...>
> >
> > As far as a museum tradition (and I'm a big fan of that), I think
this guy is right- learning by rote is the old way, and "the" way.
Lou Harrison gave a wonderful lecture about this.
> >
> > However, in order for maqam (or any other, for that matter) music
to mutate, branch, evolve, whatever, there have to be parallel and
intersecting approaches like Ozan's. This seems very obvious.
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> > >
> > > That's what I'm here for.
> > >
> > > Oz.
> >
> > A word of advice from the Hungarian physicist George Kampis:
> >
> > "...the notion of immensity translates as irreducible variety of
the component-types ... This kind of immensity is an immediately
complexity-related property, for it is about variety and
heterogeneity, and not simply as numerousness."
> >
> > Not doing maqam music, but tetrachordal and modal melody-based
music nonetheless, I take these words to heart. :-)
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@gmail.com>

2/7/2007 6:34:53 AM

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/7/2007 10:00:06 AM

i'm so glad my podcast stimulated such discussion! i'd like to make a
few clarifications. first of all, a caveat: you are all a specialist
audience, whereas in general, i intend my podcasts for a general
audience. that may be why some of you found it dissapointing from the
point of view of theory.

i am not against theory at all. i am simply against a certain kind of
theory, and a certain kind of approach, which puts theory first and
practice second. i can tell you from personal experience: it is
impossible to learn to reproduce the variety of microtones present in
arabic music without the aid of MELODY. melody is the key to those
intonations--and i can tell you, as you probably observed from the
podcast, those individual E notes were extracted from melody segments.
there is no way i could make that demonstration without the use of
typical melodies from each maqam.

therefore, what i oppose is:
1. the attempt to classify notes independently from melody.
2. the attempt to fit an explanation of the tuning of notes into some
kind of equal-tempered system
3. the attempt to squeeze the actual practice of intonations into a
system which is *supposedly* more rational, but in actual fact is
simply less accurate, or misses the point entirely.

let me address 2 & 3. there is no basis for an equal-tempered system
in arabic music. fourths and fifths are generally pure (with some
exceptions--but those exceptions are much like the other microtones,
inflectional lowerings and raisings with a specific affect--you will
notice in the Jiharkah example I give, that the fourth note (F) is
very close to the third note, and considerably lower than a perfect
fourth above C), and hence the whole step in many positions in a maqam
is usually a pure pythagorean 9/8 wholestep. so any theoretical
position which starts from assuming some kind of equal divisions
misses the most basic structural elements of tuning a maqam.

second, what i object to most strenuously is the procrustean-bed
approach of much theory. because a system says that a note should
occur at such-and-such a position, we therefore force its tuning to
fit the system. much of the approach of early-twentieth century
theorists has been in this vein, and despite the fact that in certain
areas of academia there have been various shifts in the meaning of
systems & theoretical systems, it seems to me that music theory has
stagnated philosophically--and in particular theoretical approaches to
arabic music have not developed much at all. if you do a web search
on microtones on arabic music, & if you look on wikipedia (i and a few
other maqam experts are attempting to revise it), you will find
copious assertions that arabic music uses a 24-tone system.

the other problem, i'll mention in passing, with the 24-note system,
is that it, like other equal tempered systems, makes the assumption
that all keys are equal, and should be treated equally. just as this
wasn't true in 15th century western music, it isn't true in arabic
music. in actual practice, not all notes have the same degree of
microtonal diversity. you'll find as many different A's, B's, and F's
as E's, but not as many G's, C's, or D's. an equal tempered system
misses this entirely, and, for the sake of an internally consistent
theory, forces arabic music into something that doesn't fit it.

so the comma system is equally problematic for all the reasons
mentioned above.

again, as i pointed out in the podcast, the different microtones are
not equal distances apart from each other. in trying to force them
into some kind of equal-division system, we miss what they really are.
instead of trying to make the microtones used in arabic music fit
some kind of system, a theoretical system should be an EXPLANATION of
why certain intonations are used--and should be based on the actual
practice of real musicians.

in fact, i don't see any ideas in music theory which really fit the
maqam system as i understand it. i think a more fruitful approach to
developing a theory could probably be found through linguistics,
dialect-ology, or semiology.

before i go on with what i mean by this, i want to clarify something:
the intonations for most of these notes exist in some kind of a range,
for most musicians. which is to say, there is definitely an
acceptable plus-or-minus region around the notes. The sense of being
"in-tune" in a maqam definitely has to do with rhythm, phrase
structure, and the relationship with other notes. so there is a
flexibility with regards precise intonation. the e-half-flat in maqam
Rast as played in syria is higher than that in the same maqam in
Egypt, yet both are recognizable to any arab musician as RAST. in
fact, an arab musician listening to a turkish musician playing rast,
will STILL RECOGNIZE RAST, even though he may think the third note is
way too high for his taste. even if the third note is occupying the
absolute frequency position of a note an arab would use in an entirely
different maqam, the arab will still recognize that the turk is
playing RAST.

one of the listeners on this list commented that the difference
between my bayati & rast E-half-flats may have had to do with
differences in room resonance--a very good observation. a different
musician might play the bayati and rast e-half-flats more differently;
i suspect the similarity in my playing of those two notes has to do
with the mid-20th century egyptian repertory i've been focusing on
heavily over the last year. when i was more concentrated on earlier
repertory, and syrian repertory, i suspect my bayati and rast
e-half-flats were more different.

my point is, however, that each of these different E's is recognizable
as a distinct KIND of note, even if the range of acceptable intonation
for that note overlaps with others. because of the melodic &
inflectional relationships with the surrounding notes, each E, in each
different maqam I played, has a distinctly different character.

this is why i bring up the study of dialects and linguistics. to me,
the different Es are like different phonemes within the language. as
any linguist will tell you, actual speech doesn't divide neatly into
phonemes--but the human ear hears them anyway, **even when they aren't
actually there.** units of meaning & units of sound overlap, and are
not necessarily easy to separate out.

i'm not going to get too much into that right now... but as a
practitioner and listener to arabic music, it is clear to me that
those different E's function like units of language--they have
different meanings. and, furthermore, the basic units of maqam
language are not NOTES, they are the small phrases out of which larger
phrases and melodies are built. these different E's acquire their
"meaning" through their relationship and place in those phrases.

therefore, an approach to microtonal theory which focuses exclusively
on the absolute intonation of notes misses the boat entirely. that's
why i'm so against it--not because i think theory is bad, but because
i think this approach to theory is completely misguided.

you must realize that thousands of arab musicians may have no idea
about the frequencies of the different notes they use--just as
billions of speakers of the worlds languages can't tell you about the
frequency ratios present in their speech, or in the overtone series of
the vowels they use. but everybody can tell you from what geographic
region a certain vowel comes from, when they hear it in the actual
speech of a person speaking in this dialect or that.

that identifiability of exact frequencies by the ear as pertaining to
certain meanings/certain regions/certain other characteristics of
language, is what is mirrored in the maqam system.

arab musicians learn those notes as part of phrases, as part of
maqams. therefore, we shouldn't study them apart from those maqams
and phrases.

there is yet another element to all of this, which most theorists seem
to have missed. the theory of intonation in western music is based on
the idea of harmony, or notes sounding concurrently. in arabic music,
there is no harmony, or none in the western sense at least. the
emphasis is on notes sounded in sequence. and i should add, the vast
majority (let me pull out of my ass the figure 93%) of melodic motion
in arabic music is stepwise. so a theory, which is meant as an
EXPLANATION of the tunings of microtones in arabic (and other
maqam-based) music must take this into account: what is the affect of
a certain intonational difference between two notes sounded
sequentially? i harp back again to the idea of the AFFECT of an
intonation, rather than simply its absolute measurable frequency, and
remind you that the theory of intonation in the west is based on the
PLEASING QUALITY of consonant harmony, and even of dissonance. the
intervals of western harmony have their attraction because we like the
sound of two notes resonating together in integer frequency ratios.

again, this is a fruitful subject to explore theoretically.

so, in conclusion--i think that there are a lot of potentially
rewarding theoretical directions to take regarding microtones in
arabic music (and other maqam music, as well as many other genres of
world music that use microtones--from blues to swedish fiddling to
indian music), i just don't think that the theoretical approaches
taken *SO FAR* are fruitful--a useless linnaen taxonomy of the
frequencies of notes, forced to fit into an outdated conception of
intonation, which doesn't really enlighten anyone, whether they be
listener, student, or practitioner.

of course, my bias is towards practicality & pedagogy. as those of
you who may have explored my maqam lessons
http://maqamlessons.com <http://maqamlessons.com>
may know, i have found the phrase approach to be most useful when it
comes to teaching people to hear the different microtones in arabic
music. it is important to be able to hear & distinguish these
different notes before we talk about them...

yours,
sami abu shumays

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/7/2007 11:10:57 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "sami_shumays" <abushumays@...> wrote:

> let me address 2 & 3. there is no basis for an equal-tempered
system
> in arabic music.

If you divide things finely enough, you can always shoehorn it into
an equal division. The question is whether this gets you anywhere.

> fourths and fifths are generally pure ... so any theoretical
> position which starts from assuming some kind of equal divisions
> misses the most basic structural elements of tuning a maqam.

Well, in fact not. 53 has nearly pure fifths and excellent (in case
it matters) major thirds, and has been suggested, of course. If that
isn't good enough, and apparently it isn't, 612 has even better
fifths and thirds, for example. The fifths of 665 could not possibly
be distinguished from pure ones.

> before i go on with what i mean by this, i want to clarify
something:
> the intonations for most of these notes exist in some kind of a
range,
> for most musicians. which is to say, there is definitely an
> acceptable plus-or-minus region around the notes.

Which insures that, *provably* from the math, you can shoehorn it
into an equal temperament of some kind. It can be done. The question
is whether it should be done, and that isn't clear (to me.)

Very interesting posting--thanks!

🔗Keenan Pepper <keenanpepper@gmail.com>

2/7/2007 12:26:14 PM

On 2/7/07, Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com> wrote:
> fifths and thirds, for example. The fifths of 665 could not possibly
> be distinguished from pure ones.

I was about to disagree and say something about beats, but then I
actually did the math and it turns out that even if the two tones are
so high you can't hear them (above 20 kHz), it still takes more than
10 minutes for the phase difference to come full circle. So, you're
absolutely right, there's no way to distinguish. Maybe La Monte Young
would care if he were using it for the Dream House
(http://www.melafoundation.org/), but no one would notice.

> into an equal temperament of some kind. It can be done. The question
> is whether it should be done, and that isn't clear (to me.)

Exactly. I mean, if you say you're using some giant equal temperament,
but only use a tiny fraction of the pitches, which aren't equally
spaced, then it's de facto unequal.

Keenan

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/7/2007 3:17:11 PM

> Both those with creative talent and those without must first
> learn from the masters. Those without talent will first copy
> and then later copy and die copying. Those with talent begin
> by copying then develop their creativity.
> Its always been this way and always will be.
>
> Dante

None of this has anything to do with whether the music is
worth understanding from a theoretical perspective.

Also it can't explain jazz. Most of the great masters of
jazz were self-taught. If they had learned from the masters
of either the West or of their native lands, jazz wouldn't
exist.

-Carl

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@gmail.com>

2/7/2007 3:28:42 PM

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/7/2007 4:10:48 PM

Hi Sami,

First, let me thank you for your podcast, which has already
contributed to my understanding and appreciation of maqam
music.

> i can tell you from personal experience: it is
> impossible to learn to reproduce the variety
> of microtones present in arabic music without
> the aid of MELODY.

What if I only want to describe them, not reproduce them?

> melody is the key to those intonations--and i can tell you,
> as you probably observed from the podcast, those individual
> E notes were extracted from melody segments.
> there is no way i could make that demonstration without
> the use of typical melodies from each maqam.

Yes, it's clear that giving a 'master tuning' for all
maqams isn't the best way to describe maqam music.

> therefore, what i oppose is:
> 1. the attempt to classify notes independently from melody.

Agree.

> 2. the attempt to fit an explanation of the tuning of notes
> into some kind of equal-tempered system

Depends. If I use 12,000-tone ET, that's probably enough
resolution. But then one might ask, am I using all the
notes? Probably there is no correspondence to maqams and
ETs, since there doesn't seem to be any selective pressure
in maqam music for flexible modulation (since few of the
instruments are fixed-pitch). The qanun may be an exception,
and I should study how they are used in maqam music.

> second, what i object to most strenuously is the procrustean-bed
> approach of much theory. because a system says that a note should
> occur at such-and-such a position, we therefore force its tuning
> to fit the system. much of the approach of early-twentieth
> century theorists has been in this vein,

It's safe to say there are no 20th-century theorists on this
list. :)

> it seems to me that music theory has
> stagnated philosophically--and in particular theoretical
> approaches to arabic music have not developed much at all.

That is regrettably true. However, are you familiar with
the work of Can Akkoc?

> the other problem, i'll mention in passing, with the 24-note
> system, is that it, like other equal tempered systems, makes
> the assumption that all keys are equal, and should be treated
> equally.

One thing I noticed is that even your presentation talked
about Es as absolute pitches, and scales as defining that
pitch. But I would approach maqams from a relative pitch
perspective, unless in fact they are never transposed (and
you seemed to say, near the end of the podcast, that
hijaz could be played on different tonics).

Is there even a pitch standard in Arabic music (like A=440)?

> in fact, i don't see any ideas in music theory which really
> fit the maqam system as i understand it. i think a more
> fruitful approach to developing a theory could probably be
> found through linguistics, dialect-ology, or semiology.

Can Akkoc started by analysing recordings, and proceded
with statistics. Which seems like the right way to describe
the intonation of free-pitch instruments from any musical
culture, really.

> my point is, however, that each of these different E's is
> recognizable as a distinct KIND of note, even if the range
> of acceptable intonation for that note overlaps with others.

Which is why, it seems to me, we're not talking about Es
but about degrees of maqamat.

> there is yet another element to all of this, which most
> theorists seem to have missed. the theory of intonation in
> western music is based on the idea of harmony, or notes
> sounding concurrently. in arabic music, there is no harmony,
> or none in the western sense at least. the emphasis is on
> notes sounded in sequence.

Yes. Though there is often a percieved relation of the
melodic notes to a tonic.

Thanks for your thoughts,

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/7/2007 4:14:15 PM

> Charlie Parker

...was already an nth-generation jazz artist. Nobody learns
anything in a vacuum -- there's no point in saying that.
What exactly are you saying?

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/7/2007 4:46:52 PM

Dear Sami, my replies are below:

----- Original Message -----
From: sami_shumays
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 07 Şubat 2007 Çarşamba 20:00
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

While I appreciated your demonstration of the richness of intonation in Maqam Music, my dissapointment was your Arabocentric explanation of Maqams. Obviously, there are differences of understanding among the prominent nations of the Middle East. Surely you will agree that a great many of these so-called Arabic maqams are developed in Istanbul. Therefore, Turks have as much, if not more, right to make claims of ownership for Maqam Music, which, in my opinion, is verily a cosmopolitan art.

i am not against theory at all. i am simply against a certain kind of
theory, and a certain kind of approach, which puts theory first and
practice second.

Without a viable theory through which the variation of perdeler can be explained, all methods of melodic teaching will remain arbitrary. Regional flavours will always remain, but a common resolution must be determined to account for all instances of modulations/transposition at every possible Ahenk (key).

i can tell you from personal experience: it is
impossible to learn to reproduce the variety of microtones present in
arabic music without the aid of MELODY. melody is the key to those
intonations--and i can tell you, as you probably observed from the
podcast, those individual E notes were extracted from melody segments.
there is no way i could make that demonstration without the use of
typical melodies from each maqam.

Are we to conclude from this statement, that your variations of pitch on E did not always correctly reflect the melodic practice? That you played them haphazardly or nonchalantly?

These statement seem to be in favour of 24-edo, which, as you have shown, is as incompatible with actual practice as the Turkish 24-tone Pythagorean system proposed by Yekta and later usurped by Arel and Ezgi.

let me address 2 & 3. there is no basis for an equal-tempered system
in arabic music.

Oh yes there is: The influence of Mikhail Mushaqa.

fourths and fifths are generally pure (with some
exceptions--but those exceptions are much like the other microtones,
inflectional lowerings and raisings with a specific affect--you will
notice in the Jiharkah example I give, that the fourth note (F) is
very close to the third note, and considerably lower than a perfect
fourth above C), and hence the whole step in many positions in a maqam
is usually a pure pythagorean 9/8 wholestep. so any theoretical
position which starts from assuming some kind of equal divisions
misses the most basic structural elements of tuning a maqam.

Not necessarily so, as Gene has pointed out very well. I think "generally pure" is the keyword here, which sometimes sanctions tempering fifths and fourths depending on the Maqam.

This is a most keen observation on your part. The result of that approach, if unconforming with practice, is the adulteration of many maqams, as has been the case with both Arabic 24-edo and Turkish 24-pythagorean theory. I wouldn't know about the Persians; yet, I suspect they are in the same predicament as we are.

much of the approach of early-twentieth century
theorists has been in this vein, and despite the fact that in certain
areas of academia there have been various shifts in the meaning of
systems & theoretical systems, it seems to me that music theory has
stagnated philosophically--and in particular theoretical approaches to
arabic music have not developed much at all.

Yes! Stagnation is the word. All progress in Maqam Music is coming to a dead halt because of theoretical conceptions hampering practice. Hopefully, I propose a model to get us out of this mess, which I shall present shortly.

if you do a web search
on microtones on arabic music, & if you look on wikipedia (i and a few
other maqam experts are attempting to revise it), you will find
copious assertions that arabic music uses a 24-tone system.

This whole deal of quarter-tones had done as much damage to Maqam Music as the "commatism" abound in Turkiye.

Nor is it true in Turkish Music, which also IS a branch of Maqam Music.

in actual practice, not all notes have the same degree of
microtonal diversity. you'll find as many different A's, B's, and F's
as E's, but not as many G's, C's, or D's.

That is to say, you will find that such ranges as "segah to buselik" and "hisar to huseyni" swarming with microtones in the form of pitch-clusters, whereas, perdes rast, dugah and neva are comparatively more stationary.

an equal tempered system
misses this entirely, and, for the sake of an internally consistent
theory, forces arabic music into something that doesn't fit it.

The same is true for Turkish 24-tone theory.

so the comma system is equally problematic for all the reasons
mentioned above.

Quite so, if we are talking in terms of 53-edo.

But this outlook is detrimental to the construction of such fixed-pitch instruments as the qanun. Surely sufficient detail can be incorporated into a voluminous temperament with which instruments like qanun may faultlessly accompany violins and ouds. This shall be demonstrated a little further down.

No need to go that far. Just lend an ear to what I have to say in a moment.

That is because of the wide relative frequency compass of the perde named segah. It is anywhere between 27:22 to 5:4 compared to perde rast (1/1). But why Arabicise Rast when it is equally renown in Turkiye?

in fact, an arab musician listening to a turkish musician playing rast,
will STILL RECOGNIZE RAST, even though he may think the third note is
way too high for his taste.

Or vice versa, a Turkish musician can distinguish Rast in the hands of Arabic musicians although the third note of the scale is too low for his taste.

even if the third note is occupying the
absolute frequency position of a note an arab would use in an entirely
different maqam, the arab will still recognize that the turk is
playing RAST.

That is because, the perdes (pitch ratios and ranges) remain the same (though fickle) no matter what.

All I have to say at this point is, that I cannot understand how Maqam Bayati is performed without perde bayati by either Arabs or Turks, and how these two factions have come to possess a mutually exclusive understanding of it.

As part of a distinct tetrachord, indeed!

Ah, we have transcended the boundaries of the tangible to the metaphysical, which theory cannot cope with.

Which can very well be explained in theory through the employment of diverse microtones + alterations in a myriad of tetrachords or melodic phrases.

and, furthermore, the basic units of maqam
language are not NOTES, they are the small phrases out of which larger
phrases and melodies are built. these different E's acquire their
"meaning" through their relationship and place in those phrases.

Such as perde segah being performed lower during the cadance of the Maqam Ushshaq, or perde saba having the curious habit of frolicking about in Maqam Saba.

While acceding to your point that the idea of stationary pitch is detrimental to the general character of Maqam Music, we nevertheless need a solid system with which qanuns, for instance, can be manufactured!

that identifiability of exact frequencies by the ear as pertaining to
certain meanings/certain regions/certain other characteristics of
language, is what is mirrored in the maqam system.

Simply because the ear recognizes the chain of relative frequencies which we call "perdeler" of Maqam Music.

arab musicians learn those notes as part of phrases, as part of
maqams. therefore, we shouldn't study them apart from those maqams
and phrases.

I agree that they should only be mentioned when divulging the structure of the Maqam in which they are found to occur.

Neiterh Arabs, nor Turks, nor Persians, nor any other nation has a monopoly in what you say. We share a cosmopolitan art which is overwhelmingly step-wise melody-oriented.

so a theory, which is meant as an
EXPLANATION of the tunings of microtones in arabic (and other
maqam-based) music must take this into account: what is the affect of
a certain intonational difference between two notes sounded
sequentially? i harp back again to the idea of the AFFECT of an
intonation, rather than simply its absolute measurable frequency, and
remind you that the theory of intonation in the west is based on the
PLEASING QUALITY of consonant harmony, and even of dissonance. the
intervals of western harmony have their attraction because we like the
sound of two notes resonating together in integer frequency ratios.

While Maqam Music enjoys a freedom of intonation due to being monodic, "implied harmony" nevertheless is inwrought.

again, this is a fruitful subject to explore theoretically.

Bear with me a little longer when I say that I do not entirely agree to your preference given the need to implement the cornucopia of pitch ratios of Maqam Music on fixed-pitch instruments such as qanun and santur.

of course, my bias is towards practicality & pedagogy. as those of
you who may have explored my maqam lessons
http://maqamlessons.com
may know, i have found the phrase approach to be most useful when it
comes to teaching people to hear the different microtones in arabic
music. it is important to be able to hear & distinguish these
different notes before we talk about them...

But the whole notion of theory is reflected in notation, where micro-accidentals ultimately tell us which microtones to sound.

Since neither of the two current theories (Arabic vs Turkish) satisfactorily represent the vagrant relative-frequencies of Maqam Music, and since a solid tuning shall undoubtedly facilitate the employment of traditional perdes, I present a 79 Moment of Symmetry out of 159-tone Equal Temperament that I implemented on my personal qanun (www.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanun_%28Instrument%29) for your scrutiny. Here are the methods used to derive the tuning:

1. METHOD

A) Equally partition the pure fourth into 33:

1/33 of [log10 (4:3)] x 1200 / [log10 2] = 498.045 / 33 = 15.0923 cents

B) Carry the resultant comma to the 79th step:

15.0923 x 1 = 15.0923 cents

15.0923 x 2 = 30.1845 cents

15.0923 x 3 = 45.2768 cents

etc...

15.0923 x 79 = 1192.29 cents

C) Complete the last step to the octave (1200 cents), which yields a larger comma:

(1200-1192.29) + 15.0923 = 7.71 + 15.0923 = 22.80273 cents

D) Move the larger comma between steps 45-46:

(15.0923 x 45) + 22.80273 = 679.1523 + 22.80273 = 701.955001 cents = [log10 (3:2)] x 1200 / [log10 2]

701.955001 + (15.0923 x 1) = 717.047 cents

701.955001 + (15.0923 x 2) = 732.140 cents
701.955001 + (15.0923 x 3) = 747.232 centsetc...
701.955001 + (15.0923 x 32) = 717.047 cents

79MOS159tET (33rd of pure fourth) with modified SA79 notation
0: 1/1 C
1: 15.092 cents C/| D\Y/
2: 30.185 cents C|\ DY/
3: 45.277 cents C/|\ D\Y
4: 60.369 cents C/|| D\!!!/
5: 75.461 cents C||\ D!!!/
6: 90.554 cents C/||\ D\!!!
7: 105.646 cents C/||| D\!!/
8: 120.738 cents C|||\ D!!/
9: 135.830 cents C/|||\ D\!!
10: 150.923 cents C/X D\!/
11: 166.015 cents CX\ D!/
12: 181.107 cents C/X\ D\!
13: 196.200 cents D
14: 211.292 cents D/| E\Y/
15: 226.384 cents D|\ EY/
16: 241.476 cents D/|\ E\Y
17: 256.569 cents D/|| E\!!!/
18: 271.661 cents D||\ E!!!/
19: 286.753 cents D/||\ E\!!!
20: 301.845 cents D/||| E\!!/
21: 316.938 cents D|||\ E!!/
22: 332.030 cents D/|||\ E\!!
23: 347.122 cents D/X E\!/
24: 362.215 cents DX\ E!/
25: 377.307 cents D/X\ E\!
26: 392.399 cents E
27: 407.491 cents E/| F\!!/
28: 422.584 cents E|\ F!!/
29: 437.676 cents E/|\ F\!!
30: 452.768 cents E/|| F\!/
31: 467.860 cents E||\ F!/
32: 482.953 cents E/||\ F\!
33: 505.755 cents F
34: 520.848 cents F/| G\Y/
35: 535.940 cents F|\ GY/
36: 551.032 cents F/|\ G\Y
37: 566.125 cents F/|| G\!!!/
38: 581.217 cents F||\ G!!!/
39: 596.309 cents F/||\ G\!!!
40: 611.401 cents F/||| G\!!/
41: 626.494 cents F|||\ G!!/
42: 641.586 cents F/|||\ G\!!
43: 656.678 cents F/X G\!/
44: 671.770 cents FX\ G!/
45: 686.863 cents F/X\ G\!
46: 701.955 cents G
47: 717.047 cents G/| A\Y/
48: 732.140 cents G|\ AY/
49: 747.232 cents G/|\ A\Y
50: 762.324 cents G/|| A\!!!/
51: 777.416 cents G||\ A!!!/
52: 792.509 cents G/||\ A\!!!
53: 807.601 cents G/||| A\!!/
54: 822.693 cents G|||\ A!!/
55: 837.785 cents G/|||\ A\!!
56: 852.878 cents G/X A\!/
57: 867.970 cents GX\ A!/
58: 883.062 cents G/X\ A\!
59: 898.155 cents A
60: 913.247 cents A/| B\Y/
61: 928.339 cents A|\ BY/
62: 943.431 cents A/|\ B\Y
63: 958.524 cents A/|| B\!!!/
64: 973.616 cents A||\ B!!!/
65: 988.708 cents A/||\ B\!!!
66: 1003.800 cents A/||| B\!!/
67: 1018.893 cents A|||\ B!!/
68: 1033.985 cents A/|||\ B\!!
69: 1049.077 cents A/X B\!/
70: 1064.170 cents AX\ B!/
71: 1079.262 cents A/X\ B\!
72: 1094.354 cents B
73: 1109.446 cents B/| C\!!/
74: 1124.539 cents B|\ C!!/
75: 1139.631 cents B/|\ C\!!
76: 1154.723 cents B/|| C\!/
77: 1169.815 cents B||\ C!/
78: 1184.908 cents B/||\ C\!
79: 1200.000 cents C

2. METHOD

Equally divide the octave into 159 parts and pick degrees 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 93 95 97 99 101 103 105 107 109 111 113 115 117 119 121 123 125 127 129 131 133 135 137 139 141 143 145 147 149 151 153 155 157 159:

(1200/159) x {0, 2, 4 …159} = cent values for 79 MOS 159-tET.

79MOS159tET (actual) with modified SA79 notation

0: 1/1 C
1: 15.092 cents C/| D\Y/
2: 30.185 cents C|\ DY/
3: 45.277 cents C/|\ D\Y
4: 60.369 cents C/|| D\!!!/
5: 75.461 cents C||\ D!!!/
6: 90.554 cents C/||\ D\!!!
7: 105.646 cents C/||| D\!!/
8: 120.738 cents C|||\ D!!/
9: 135.830 cents C/|||\ D\!!
10: 150.923 cents C/X D\!/
11: 166.015 cents CX\ D!/
12: 181.107 cents C/X\ D\!
13: 196.200 cents D
14: 211.292 cents D/| E\Y/
15: 226.384 cents D|\ EY/
16: 241.476 cents D/|\ E\Y
17: 256.569 cents D/|| E\!!!/
18: 271.661 cents D||\ E!!!/
19: 286.753 cents D/||\ E\!!!
20: 301.845 cents D/||| E\!!/
21: 316.938 cents D|||\ E!!/
22: 332.030 cents D/|||\ E\!!
23: 347.122 cents D/X E\!/
24: 362.215 cents DX\ E!/
25: 377.307 cents D/X\ E\!
26: 392.399 cents E
27: 407.491 cents E/| F\!!/
28: 422.584 cents E|\ F!!/
29: 437.676 cents E/|\ F\!!
30: 452.768 cents E/|| F\!/
31: 467.860 cents E||\ F!/
32: 482.953 cents E/||\ F\!
33: 505.755 cents F
34: 520.848 cents F/| G\Y/
35: 535.940 cents F|\ GY/
36: 551.032 cents F/|\ G\Y
37: 566.125 cents F/|| G\!!!/
38: 581.217 cents F||\ G!!!/
39: 596.309 cents F/||\ G\!!!
40: 611.401 cents F/||| G\!!/
41: 626.494 cents F|||\ G!!/
42: 641.586 cents F/|||\ G\!!
43: 656.678 cents F/X G\!/
44: 671.770 cents FX\ G!/
45: 686.863 cents F/X\ G\!
46: 701.955 cents G
47: 717.047 cents G/| A\Y/
48: 732.140 cents G|\ AY/
49: 747.232 cents G/|\ A\Y
50: 762.324 cents G/|| A\!!!/
51: 777.416 cents G||\ A!!!/
52: 792.509 cents G/||\ A\!!!
53: 807.601 cents G/||| A\!!/
54: 822.693 cents G|||\ A!!/
55: 837.785 cents G/|||\ A\!!
56: 852.878 cents G/X A\!/
57: 867.970 cents GX\ A!/
58: 883.062 cents G/X\ A\!
59: 898.155 cents A
60: 913.247 cents A/| B\Y/
61: 928.339 cents A|\ BY/
62: 943.431 cents A/|\ B\Y
63: 958.524 cents A/|| B\!!!/
64: 973.616 cents A||\ B!!!/
65: 988.708 cents A/||\ B\!!!
66: 1003.800 cents A/||| B\!!/
67: 1018.893 cents A|||\ B!!/
68: 1033.985 cents A/|||\ B\!!
69: 1049.077 cents A/X B\!/
70: 1064.170 cents AX\ B!/
71: 1079.262 cents A/X\ B\!
72: 1094.354 cents B
73: 1109.446 cents B/| C\!!/
74: 1124.539 cents B|\ C!!/
75: 1139.631 cents B/|\ C\!!
76: 1154.723 cents B/|| C\!/
77: 1169.815 cents B||\ C!/
78: 1184.908 cents B/||\ C\!
79: 1200.000 cents C

3. METHOD

Temper the fifth as much as 19/53 of a syntonic comma, and form a closed cycle composed of 46 pure and 33 thusly tempered fifths following this pattern:

AB AB AAB

AB AB AAB
AB AAB

AB AB AAB
AB A

{[log10 (3:2)] x 1200 / [log10 (2)]} – {(19:53) x [log10 (81/80)] x 1200 / log10 (2)} =

701.955001 – (0.3584906 x 21.5062896) =

701.955001 cents (A) – 7.709802 =

694.2451989 cents (B)

A*46 + B*33 =

32289.93004 + 22910.09156 =

1200.00047 cents x 46 =

55200.0216 cents (cycle is closed 46 octaves above the fundamental tone)

79MOS159tET (19/53 synt.) with modified SA79 notation

0: 1/1 C
1: 15.092 cents C/| D\Y/
2: 30.185 cents C|\ DY/
3: 45.277 cents C/|\ D\Y
4: 60.369 cents C/|| D\!!!/
5: 75.461 cents C||\ D!!!/
6: 90.554 cents C/||\ D\!!!
7: 105.646 cents C/||| D\!!/
8: 120.738 cents C|||\ D!!/
9: 135.831 cents C/|||\ D\!!
10: 150.923 cents C/X D\!/
11: 166.015 cents CX\ D!/
12: 181.107 cents C/X\ D\!
13: 196.200 cents D
14: 211.292 cents D/| E\Y/
15: 226.384 cents D|\ EY/
16: 241.477 cents D/|\ E\Y
17: 256.569 cents D/|| E\!!!/
18: 271.661 cents D||\ E!!!/
19: 286.753 cents D/||\ E\!!!
20: 301.846 cents D/||| E\!!/
21: 316.938 cents D|||\ E!!/
22: 332.030 cents D/|||\ E\!!
23: 347.123 cents D/X E\!/
24: 362.215 cents DX\ E!/
25: 377.307 cents D/X\ E\!
26: 392.399 cents E
27: 407.492 cents E/| F\!!/
28: 422.584 cents E|\ F!!/
29: 437.676 cents E/|\ F\!!
30: 452.769 cents E/|| F\!/
31: 467.861 cents E||\ F!/
32: 482.953 cents E/||\ F\!
33: 498.045 cents F
34: 513.138 cents F/| G\Y/
35: 528.230 cents F|\ GY/
36: 543.322 cents F/|\ G\Y
37: 558.415 cents F/|| G\!!!/
38: 573.507 cents F||\ G!!!/
39: 588.599 cents F/||\ G\!!!
40: 603.691 cents F/||| G\!!/
41: 618.784 cents F|||\ G!!/
42: 633.876 cents F/|||\ G\!!
43: 648.968 cents F/X G\!/
44: 664.061 cents FX\ G!/
45: 679.153 cents F/X\ G\!
46: 701.955 cents G
47: 717.047 cents G/| A\Y/
48: 732.140 cents G|\ AY/
49: 747.232 cents G/|\ A\Y
50: 762.324 cents G/|| A\!!!/
51: 777.416 cents G||\ A!!!/
52: 792.509 cents G/||\ A\!!!
53: 807.601 cents G/||| A\!!/
54: 822.693 cents G|||\ A!!/
55: 837.786 cents G/|||\ A\!!
56: 852.878 cents G/X A\!/
57: 867.970 cents GX\ A!/
58: 883.062 cents G/X\ A\!
59: 898.155 cents A
60: 913.247 cents A/| B\Y/
61: 928.339 cents A|\ BY/
62: 943.432 cents A/|\ B\Y
63: 958.524 cents A/|| B\!!!/
64: 973.616 cents A||\ B!!!/
65: 988.708 cents A/||\ B\!!!
66: 1003.801 cents A/||| B\!!/
67: 1018.893 cents A|||\ B!!/
68: 1033.985 cents A/|||\ B\!!
69: 1049.078 cents A/X B\!/
70: 1064.170 cents AX\ B!/
71: 1079.262 cents A/X\ B\!
72: 1094.354 cents B
73: 1109.447 cents B/| C\!!/
74: 1124.539 cents B|\ C!!/
75: 1139.631 cents B/|\ C\!!
76: 1154.724 cents B/|| C\!/
77: 1169.816 cents B||\ C!/
78: 1184.908 cents B/||\ C\!
79: 1200.000 cents C

4. METHOD

Choose the following subset of 1048-Arithmetic Divisions of the Octave, where notation is modified SA79:

79MOS159tET (1048-ADO) with modified SA79 notation
0: 1/1 C 0.000
1: 529/524 C/ Dbb 16.441
2: 1067/1048 Cy Dbb/ 31.106
3: 269/262 C^ Dbby 45.647
4: 1085/1048 C#k Dbv 60.068
5: 1095/1048 C#\ Dbk 75.951
6: 1105/1048 C# Db\ 91.689
7: 557/524 C#/ Db 105.733
8: 281/262 C#y Db/ 121.204
9: 567/524 C#^ Dby 136.538
10: 143/131 Cxk Dv 151.738
11: 577/524 Cx\ Dk 166.805
12: 291/262 Cx D\ 181.743
13: 587/524 D 196.552
14: 148/131 D/ Ebb 211.236
15: 1195/1048 Dy Ebb/ 227.246
16: 1205/1048 D^ Ebby 241.673
17: 152/131 D#k Ebv 257.405
18: 613/524 D#\ Ebk 271.584
19: 1237/1048 D# Eb\ 287.048
20: 156/131 D#/ Eb 302.375
21: 1259/1048 D#y Eb/ 317.567
22: 635/524 D#^ Eby 332.628
23: 1281/1048 Dxk Ev 347.558
24: 323/262 Dx\ Ek 362.361
25: 163/131 Dx E\ 378.366
26: 1315/1048 E 392.909
27: 1327/1048 E/ Fb 408.636
28: 669/524 Ey Fb/ 422.927
29: 675/524 E^ Fby 438.385
30: 681/524 E#k Fv 453.706
31: 687/524 E#\ Fk 468.892
32: 693/524 E# F\ 483.946
33: 4/3 F 498.045
34: 1411/1048 F/ Gbb 514.895
35: 1423/1048 Fy Gbb/ 529.556
36: 1435/1048 F^ Gbby 544.094
37: 1447/1048 F#k Gbv 558.511
38: 365/262 F#\ Gbk 573.996
39: 1473/1048 F# Gb\ 589.342
40: 1485/1048 F#/ Gb 603.389
41: 1499/1048 F#y Gb/ 619.634
42: 189/131 F#^ Gby 634.583
43: 1525/1048 Fxk Gv 649.405
44: 1539/1048 Fx\ Gk 665.225
45: 194/131 Fx G\ 679.788
46: 3/2 G 701.955
47: 793/524 G/ Abb 717.305
48: 200/131 Gy Abb/ 732.520
49: 807/524 G^ Abby 747.602
50: 407/262 G#k Abv 762.554
51: 821/524 G#\ Abk 777.378
52: 207/131 G# Ab\ 792.077
53: 1671/1048 G#/ Ab 807.688
54: 1685/1048 G#y Ab/ 822.132
55: 425/262 G#^ Aby 837.475
56: 1715/1048 Gxk Av 852.684
57: 865/524 Gx\ Ak 867.760
58: 1745/1048 Gx A\ 882.706
59: 220/131 A 897.524
60: 222/131 A/ Bbb 913.191
61: 1791/1048 Ay Bbb/ 927.752
62: 226/131 A^ Bbby 944.107
63: 228/131 A#k Bbv 959.360
64: 1839/1048 A#\ Bbk 973.539
65: 1855/1048 A# Bb\ 988.537
66: 2105/1179 (1871/1048) A#/ Bb 1003.508
67: 236/131 A#y Bb/ 1019.064
68: 238/131 A#^ Bby 1033.674
69: 1921/1048 Axk Bv 1049.063
70: 969/524 Ax\ Bk 1064.316
71: 1955/1048 Ax B\ 1079.436
72: 1971/1048 B 1093.547
73: 1989/1048 B/ Cb 1109.285
74: 1003/524 By Cb/ 1124.019
75: 253/131 B^ Cby 1139.485
76: 2041/1048 B#k Cv 1153.965
77: 2059/1048 B#\ Ck 1169.166
78: 2077/1048 B# C\ 1184.235
79: 2/1 C 1200.000

5. METHOD

Tune to simple frequencies at concert pitch with traditional perdes conforming to Supurde Ahenk:

0. 262.00000000000 Hz C RAST

1. 264.50000000000 Hz Dbb
2. 266.75000000000 Hz
3. 269.00000000000 Hz
4. 271.25000000000 Hz
5. 273.75000000000 Hz Shuri
6. 276.25000000000 Hz C# Nim Zengule
7. 278.50000000000 Hz Db
8. 281.00000000000 Hz
9. 283.50000000000 Hz (Zengule zone)
10. 286.00000000000 Hz
11. 288.50000000000 Hz
12. 291.00000000000 Hz Cx Zengule
13. 293.50000000000 Hz D DUGAH
14. 296.00000000000 Hz Ebb Dik Dugah
15. 298.75000000000 Hz
16. 301.25000000000 Hz
17. 304.00000000000 Hz
18. 306.50000000000 Hz Nerm Kurdi
19. 309.25000000000 Hz D# Kurdi
20. 312.00000000000 Hz Eb Nihavend
21. 314.75000000000 Hz Dik Nihavend
22. 317.50000000000 Hz Segah of Hijaz
23. 320.25000000000 Hz Segah of Ushshaq
24. 323.00000000000 Hz Segah of Saba
25. 326.00000000000 Hz Dx Nerm Segah (Segahche)
26. 328.75000000000 Hz E SEGAH / Nishabur
27. 331.75000000000 Hz Fb Buselik
28. 334.50000000000 Hz Dik Buselik
29. 337.50000000000 Hz
30. 340.50000000000 Hz
31. 343.50000000000 Hz
32. 346.50000000000 Hz E#
33. 349.33333333333 Hz F CHARGAH
34. 352.75000000000 Hz Gbb Dik Chargah
35. 355.75000000000 Hz
36. 358.75000000000 Hz
37. 361.75000000000 Hz
38. 365.00000000000 Hz Nerm Hijaz
39. 368.25000000000 Hz F# Hijaz
40. 371.25000000000 Hz Gb Uzzal/Saba
41. 374.75000000000 Hz
42. 378.00000000000 Hz
43. 381.25000000000 Hz (Saba zone)
44. 384.75000000000 Hz
45. 388.00000000000 Hz Fx
46. 393.00000000000 Hz G NEVA
47. 396.50000000000 Hz Abb
48. 400.00000000000 Hz
49. 403.50000000000 Hz
50. 407.00000000000 Hz
51. 410.50000000000 Hz
52. 414.00000000000 Hz G# Bayati
53. 417.75000000000 Hz Ab Nim Hisar
54. 421.25000000000 Hz
55. 425.00000000000 Hz
56. 428.75000000000 Hz (Hisar/Huzzam zone)
57. 432.50000000000 Hz
58. 436.25000000000 Hz Gx Hisar
59. 440.00000000000 Hz A HUSEYNI / Hisarek
60. 444.00000000000 Hz Bbb Dik Huseyni
61. 447.75000000000 Hz
62. 452.00000000000 Hz
63. 456.00000000000 Hz
64. 459.75000000000 Hz Nerm Ajem
65. 463.75000000000 Hz A# Ajem
66. 467.77777777777 Hz Bb (Ajnab)
67. 472.00000000000 Hz (Dik Ajnab)
68. 476.00000000000 Hz
69. 480.25000000000 Hz
70. 484.50000000000 Hz
71. 488.75000000000 Hz Ax Nerm Evdj
72. 492.75000000000 Hz B EVDJ
73. 497.25000000000 Hz cb Mahur
74. 501.50000000000 Hz Mahurek
75. 506.00000000000 Hz
76. 510.25000000000 Hz
77. 514.75000000000 Hz
78. 519.25000000000 Hz B#
79. 524.00000000000 Hz c GERDANIYE

(I made up perde ajnab in keeping with nihavend a fifth below)

yours,
sami abu shumays

Cordially,
Oz.

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>

2/7/2007 1:49:36 PM

You meant Dante and not me, right?

Anyway, I did figure out right off that 24-TET doesn't do the music much justice, even if al-Farabi's tetrachord notes can be forced into it. If you're insiste on an ET, 53 would be the safest bet because of the pure fourths and fifths, but if there are twelve notes between E-flat and E-natural, 53 won't cut it. He did say that the tuning of the third note of Rast is higher in Syria than in Egypt, and higher still in Turkey and Iraq, and I asked someone else--Johnny Farraj of Maqam World, in fact--and he told me the same thing.

That's where local tradition comes in.

~D.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ozan Yarman
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

----- Original Message -----
From: Dante Rosati
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 06 Şubat 2007 Salı 19:38
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

the vast majority of aural-tradition musicians on the planet learn by copying their teacher and learning by rote. Then (possibly) they innovate, and pass that on to their students in the same way.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/7/2007 7:08:02 PM

You meant Dante and not me, right?

OZ: Possibly. I lose my head often these days.

Anyway, I did figure out right off that 24-TET doesn't do the music much
justice, even if al-Farabi's tetrachord notes can be forced into it. If
you're insiste on an ET, 53 would be the safest bet because of the pure
fourths and fifths, but if there are twelve notes between E-flat and
E-natural, 53 won't cut it. He did say that the tuning of the third note of
Rast is higher in Syria than in Egypt, and higher still in Turkey and Iraq,
and I asked someone else--Johnny Farraj of Maqam World, in fact--and he told
me the same thing.

That's where local tradition comes in.

~D.

OZ: I await the day when 79/80 MOS 159-tET will be recognized as the
solution to the mess we find ourselves in.

🔗Dante Rosati <danterosati@gmail.com>

2/7/2007 7:26:53 PM

[ Attachment content not displayed ]

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/7/2007 8:41:57 PM

> my point was that, in aural traditions listening to other
> musicians, either live or on a recording, and copying and
> learning from them >is< studying with them, so its not
> exactly being "self taught". All the musicians you copy are
> your teachers. dats all i meant.

No argument here. -Carl

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

2/7/2007 10:30:27 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "sami_shumays" <abushumays@...> wrote:

> in fact, i don't see any ideas in music theory which really fit the
> maqam system as i understand it.

I see many ideas in music theories which do not fit any musics as I
hear them. :-)

>i think a more fruitful approach >to
> developing a theory could probably be found through linguistics,
> dialectology, or semiology.

Various studies that fall under cybernetics, in addition to
linguistics and semiotics, would be nice if you want to create from
understanding, seems to me.

Wouldn't the true test of understanding
be the creation of a new maqam the fits naturally in with the old
ones? Of course, there's a danger there, because a new maqam could
actually be created "by feel", with the author(s) mistakenly believing
that they are following a conscious understanding which is bogus in
reality.

The success of the new maqam would then serve as
"proof" of a specific theory, which would then be sanctified. And so,
what worked for one creator, because he didn't actually consciously
know what he was doing, would serve as a misdrawn map for future
travellers. Cf., Harry Partch, hahaha!

My own approach to tuning theory is based on the idea of intervals
which fall into regions of various sizes and belong to "character
families". What defines the character mathematically, I don't know,
and may never know. In other words, intervals are known by quality,
not just quantity. It's not the sheer size of an interval (within
reason) that determines whether it is "right", but its character.

Your example of phonemes is the first time I've seen something
that jibes precisely with this idea.

This means for example that rank proximity to a simple ratio isn't
enough to say "that's good." An interval 7 cents from 7/6 may sound
more "7/6" in character than an interval 4 cents away, for example.
All of this is also flexing because it is in the context of other
intervals before, during and after.

This also means that in the case of fixed-pitch and flexible-pitched
instruments, a unison doesn't have to be mechanically exact.
Two different pitches, within a region whose size varies on context,
which share character familiy traits, will be a "unison". And it
follows that an instrument may play several different intervals
which are both "the same" and "different", and are all "in tune".

This idea will never catch on, of course, because it implies that one
measure of beauty and skill are notes that are far "off", yet
feel "on", an unacceptable concept in a world of mass production
and standarization. :-)

In the case of Ozan's tuning, I look at it like this: tune up the
fixed-pitch instrument that way, and play it with the flexible-
pitched instrument. Are the fixed intervals appropriate in character,
and do they mark the regions in which the flexible instrument moves
well? If so, then it's not only a far sight better than 24, it would
then be a realistic foundation for new musics coming from a maqam
tradition.

The most important thing is: a fixed pitched instrument does not
provide the "right notes", if simply offers gracious points of
reference.

Excellent lecture and musicianship on your part, by the way, thanks!

-Cameron Bobro

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/7/2007 10:50:13 PM

> > i can tell you from personal experience: it is
> > impossible to learn to reproduce the variety
> > of microtones present in arabic music without
> > the aid of MELODY.
>
> What if I only want to describe them, not reproduce them?

being able to reproduce them is an almost equivalent skill to being
able to distinguish them, which is a pre-requisite skill before being
able to describe them accurately.

let me give as an example, the chinese tone system used in their
spoken language. some of the tones are not easily distinguishable by
non-chinese ears. (as linguists are aware, many phonemes which are
distinguishable by babies, cease to be distinguishable after a certain
age, if they are outside the language the child is beginning to
absorb). not to say that non-chinese ears cannot ever distinguish
them, but that to do so requires the input of at least a minimum
amount of effort to LEARN to distinguish them. that effort goes
necessarily in conjunction with an effort to be able to produce
them--as the ear learns very well by imitation, and learns to
distinguish sounds not simply through differences in absolute sound
quality (exact frequencies), but by PARSING that sound into relevent
units of meaning (in the case of language, phonemes--which in actual
sound wave patterns of actual speech almost never appear in the forms
they would apear if pronounced separately). the parsing and the
producing go to a certain extent hand-in-hand. though one is
definitely POSSIBLE without the other, in practice it is necessary to
develop both at once, because the development of one ability helps the
other.

which is to say, my assertion is that the analysis/explanation for the
different varieties of E in my examples lies in the meaningful
relationship of those notes to adjacent ones; that each different
phrase/melodic pattern has a different meaning, understood
SYNTACTICALLY within maqam melodic development as a whole.

you cannot even begin to analyze the validity of that claim of mine
(and i don't wish to assert that it is absolutely valid--i am posing
it here as a direction for theoretical enquiry), unless you can begin
to hear and feel the difference in melodic emphasis between, for
example, the third note of rast (e-half flat, conceptually--and its
relationship to the 2nd & fourth) and the third note of jiharkah (a
very low e-natural, conceptually--and its relationship to the
very-close-to-it lowered fourth note of the scale)--to give the two
examples i played in a more extended example at the end of my podcast.
or the difference in feel between the low E-flat of nahawand and the
high e-flat of hijaz. you need to feel the melodic context of those
notes, the energy those intonations give to phrases, the constant
modal pull back and forth between notes as embodied in typical
melodies--in order to grapple with my claim.

you can certainly describe them numerically, statistically, by putting
a machine up and measuring the frequency of the notes--without being
able to reproduce them. but you can't test my claim that this is a
less significant criterion for measurement than a phonemic one, if you
can't hear them as different phonemes.

much as, you couldn't talk adequately about the chinese tone system,
and the way that different patterns of tone affect the language,
unless you could to a certain extent distinguish them and/or reproduce
them adequately.

that's why the more relevant part of my podcast wasn't the sequence of
12 descending notes, but the 12 different maqam phrases.
each one of those phrases contains 3 or 4 melodic phonemes--and i am
using them to grasp the intonation of the single note in the middle.

much as, if i wanted to make a recording of 12 different o, u, and ou
vowel sounds used in english, and compare them adjacently, i'd
probably have to say the 12 different words in which they are used
(and maybe a few words for some of the vowels, to get the sounds &
differences more clearly in my ears). i couldn't get the clarity of
distinctions if i tried only saying the vowels without larger
phonemees or words.

.... the short answer: you need melody not only to be able to
reproduce these microtones, but also to be able to describe and
explain them. it should be obvious that if it is necessary for a
human ear to use melody to produce (and distinguish them), then melody
must also be a necessary element of any description or explanation of
them.

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/7/2007 10:51:52 PM

> > it seems to me that music theory has
> > stagnated philosophically--and in particular theoretical
> > approaches to arabic music have not developed much at all.
>
> That is regrettably true. However, are you familiar with
> the work of Can Akkoc?

no, i am not, but he put a comment on the blogpage for my podcast, at
<a
href="http://shumays.libsyn.com"target="_blank">http://shumays.libsyn.com</a>

but the link to his article was broken, and when i tried to email him
a response via the email he had used to post on my site, that didn't
go through. does anyone know how to contact him--or links to his
articles? i'd like to read them, as my knowledge of turkish music is
very deficient.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/7/2007 10:53:05 PM

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

> If you're insiste on an ET, 53 would be the safest bet because of the
pure
> fourths and fifths, but if there are twelve notes between E-flat and
> E-natural, 53 won't cut it.

If you really need discrimination down to a cent, even 612 won't cut it.

I think I'll propose 2460 as the universal maqam tuning.

(1) It is divisible by 12, with a 12-et semitone of 205 parts.

(2) It tempers out the Kernbergr atom, and supports atomic temperament.

(3) It is a standout et up through the 27 limit, so it approximates
rational intervals even more closely than you might think.

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/7/2007 11:08:33 PM

> One thing I noticed is that even your presentation talked
> about Es as absolute pitches, and scales as defining that
> pitch. But I would approach maqams from a relative pitch
> perspective, unless in fact they are never transposed (and
> you seemed to say, near the end of the podcast, that
> hijaz could be played on different tonics).

i didn't mean to give that impression. the Es are not absolute, but
relative pitches. i had to align them in an absolute sense in order
to compare them in the very artificial way I did (you'll notice i
compared the third note of some maqamat with the second note of
others, and the first note of yet another) for the sake of showing
that there are many different inflections of microtones in a way
literally undisputable--you can all hear the differences, since
they're right next to each other.

however, all of the maqamat (and here we are really talking about
ajnas--the units of four to five notes which define the basic elements
(both tonally and melodically) of maqam) are transposable--all of the
ajnas are transposable. not to any key, of course; we don't
traditionally use keyboard instruments--so the transpositions happen
to a limited set of alternate keys.

whether there is an absolute pitch standard also depends on the
country, time period, number of people in the ensemble, etc. nowadays
musicians all over the world are aware of the 440 standard, and so any
musician will have to measure pitch by that standard--especially if
they play with other musicians who may happen also to play in symphony
orchestras or with keyboard instruments.

so they, in egypt and syria for example, have tunings 1/2 step flat or
1 whole step flat (conceptual G happens at concert F# or F), in order
to accomodate singers. before the universal 440 standard, they tuned
down or up anywhere, depending on the singer's voice. yet in certain
large ensembles, they are always tuned at A=440.

all of these microtones are relative piches, relative to a certain
jins (a certain tetra- or penta-chord), relative, that is, to a
certain tonic, and certain adjacent notes.

> > my point is, however, that each of these different E's is
> > recognizable as a distinct KIND of note, even if the range
> > of acceptable intonation for that note overlaps with others.
>
> Which is why, it seems to me, we're not talking about Es
> but about degrees of maqamat.

exactly.
but more precisely, i'm talking about the proto-typical melodic phrase
units *surrounding* different degrees of different maqamat.

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/7/2007 11:35:43 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@> wrote:
>
> > If you're insiste on an ET, 53 would be the safest bet because of the
> pure
> > fourths and fifths, but if there are twelve notes between E-flat and
> > E-natural, 53 won't cut it.
>
> If you really need discrimination down to a cent, even 612 won't cut it.
>
> I think I'll propose 2460 as the universal maqam tuning.
>
> (1) It is divisible by 12, with a 12-et semitone of 205 parts.
>
> (2) It tempers out the Kernbergr atom, and supports atomic temperament.
>
> (3) It is a standout et up through the 27 limit, so it approximates
> rational intervals even more closely than you might think.
>

which would mean what?--that anyone wanting to tune a maqam precisely
would have to get a machine that can measure down to 2460 equal
divisions? what about the human ear--that can hear more precisely
than such a machine, and that, furthermore, arabs and other
middle-eastern people in the third world can actually afford?

again, think about the variety of different vowel sounds in spoken
english. they are easily recognizable and distinguishable by any
english-accustomed ear... each one has a precise tonal meaning. yes,
they must be learned by rote, from other speakers of the language--but
the ear is a very quick, very accurate recording device. the ear can
hold those precise differences without the slightest need, even, to be
able to tell, analytically, which vowel is higher than lower than another.

--and i should add, in this context, that i know some musicians who
have a perfect sense of microtonal intonation in the sense of being
able to precisely reproduce a number of different microtones--but they
don't EVEN UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT OF A NOTE, and have no idea what it
means to have one note "higher" or "lower" than another one.

the only use to fitting the frequencies of maqam intonations into a
rational system of intonation--and eliding the small differences from
the actual practice and the system--would be if that system gave some
added explanatory power (or, on top of that, pedagogical usefulness),
to the maqam system.

but just as measuring exact frequencies of vowels does not give any
added explanatory power to the study of linguistics--it's an
interesting, but ultimately tangential piece of data, which,
furthermore can be even sometimes misleading--since a vowel can have
slight distortions of its absolute frequencies in certain phonemes or
sequences of phonemes.

--just so, the measurement of exact frequencies is not the relevant
frame for understanding the syntax of maqam, and ultimately the
meaning of those different notes, intonations, and
melodic-phrases/scale degrees.

you miss the forest--which is to say, the shapes of the landcape--for
the trees--which is to say, the metrical measurements of absolute
distance.

another analogy: this approach, to finding even more accurately a
formal mathematical system to describe maqam intonations, is exactly like:

... analyzing the use of color in 17th century dutch painting by using
exact measurements of the frequencies of the light reflected by
different parts of the painting... and possibly even finding a system
relating those frequencies to the atomic spectra of different
elements... used within the pigment, or in the eye, or in the chemical
composition of the subject of the painting.

interesting, yes.
factual, yes.
provable, yes.
relevant to understanding the painting & the color choices of the
painter,
no.

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/7/2007 11:43:48 PM

i agree with everything you say here! this is almost exactly as i see
it... i think... the idea of **character** is what i meant by affect,
also what i mean, in all of these posts, when i use the word "meaning"
in referring to the content of melodic phonemes.

which studies that fall under "cybernetics," are you thinking of?
what specific approaches & how? please elaborate.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> My own approach to tuning theory is based on the idea of intervals
> which fall into regions of various sizes and belong to "character
> families". What defines the character mathematically, I don't know,
> and may never know. In other words, intervals are known by quality,
> not just quantity. It's not the sheer size of an interval (within
> reason) that determines whether it is "right", but its character.
>
> Your example of phonemes is the first time I've seen something
> that jibes precisely with this idea.
>
> This means for example that rank proximity to a simple ratio isn't
> enough to say "that's good." An interval 7 cents from 7/6 may sound
> more "7/6" in character than an interval 4 cents away, for example.
> All of this is also flexing because it is in the context of other
> intervals before, during and after.
>
> This also means that in the case of fixed-pitch and flexible-pitched
> instruments, a unison doesn't have to be mechanically exact.
> Two different pitches, within a region whose size varies on context,
> which share character familiy traits, will be a "unison". And it
> follows that an instrument may play several different intervals
> which are both "the same" and "different", and are all "in tune".
>
> This idea will never catch on, of course, because it implies that one
> measure of beauty and skill are notes that are far "off", yet
> feel "on", an unacceptable concept in a world of mass production
> and standarization. :-)
>
> In the case of Ozan's tuning, I look at it like this: tune up the
> fixed-pitch instrument that way, and play it with the flexible-
> pitched instrument. Are the fixed intervals appropriate in character,
> and do they mark the regions in which the flexible instrument moves
> well? If so, then it's not only a far sight better than 24, it would
> then be a realistic foundation for new musics coming from a maqam
> tradition.
>
> The most important thing is: a fixed pitched instrument does not
> provide the "right notes", if simply offers gracious points of
> reference.
>
> Excellent lecture and musicianship on your part, by the way, thanks!
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/8/2007 12:09:38 AM

there is much to respond to in your post, ozan, but i wanted to start
with this one point:

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

> While I appreciated your demonstration of the richness of intonation
in Maqam Music, my dissapointment was your Arabocentric explanation of
Maqams. Obviously, there are differences of understanding among the
prominent nations of the Middle East. Surely you will agree that a
great many of these so-called Arabic maqams are developed in Istanbul.
Therefore, Turks have as much, if not more, right to make claims of
ownership for Maqam Music, which, in my opinion, is verily a
cosmopolitan art.

i am making absolutely no claims of arab ownership over maqam music.
my admittedly "arabocentric" explanation is the result of my
specialization in arabic music (more specifically, the egyptian and
syrian repertories), and my lower degree of knowledge about the
details of some other maqam traditions, including the turkish.

i am well aware that many of the maqams i refer to were developed in
istanbul... as well as in iran, kurdistan, parts of central asia,
iraq, the arab gulf-states... there is much sharing of those
traditions. it is indeed a cosmopolitan art.

but i am not QUALIFIED to make a detailed explanation of the theory i
am proposing using examples from those other traditions, because i am
not an experienced practitioner of them. i cannot play for you,
cannot successfully demonstrate with my violin, the different
intonations used in turkish music. therefore, i shall refrain from
making claims about those intonations.

however, I can observe the regional differences--i have studied two
slightly different arab regions in depth, and i know little bits about
other maqam traditions outside of those two regions, and have listened
widely to all of this music (often with a special ear to
intonation--as collecting different ones is kind of a fetish of mine)

--and in those regional differences i see differences in intonation,
but similarities in treatment of intonations within melodic context--

hence my example of rast, the arabic version of which is recognizable
to a turk with a low third note, and vice-versa with a high third note.

--and therefore i am using the region in which i am experienced, to
expound a claim about the linguistic/phonemic identity of melodic units.

but in no wise do i mean to imply either that:
A. the maqam tradition is uniquely or originally or exclusively arab.
or
B. what i am claiming about the Arabic maqam applies unqualifiably to
other maqam traditions.

i leave that to experts in those other traditions to verify and refine.

instead of being disappointed by my arabocentric approach, you should
be grateful for it, as it is a demonstration of:

A. the diversity present within just one regional practice--in fact
just one performer's practice (my approach wasn't even arabocentric,
it was sami-abu-shumaysocentric).

and

B. my commitment to demonstrating intonations i am qualified as a
musician to execute.

there's nothing that bothers me more than a musician with much less
than full knowledge of a tradition attempting to make a demonstration
of one of the subtler aspects of that tradition (usually to people
even less qualified to judge if he is right or not), but completely
missing something huge.

like someone in japan teaching an english class to other japanese and
asserting that the written L & R, much like the written C & K, are
frequently pronounced the same.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 8:18:14 AM

What is the point of going that far? It may be used as a unit, but surely
159 works just as satisfactorily.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 08 ï¿½ubat 2007 Perï¿½embe 8:53
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> > If you're insiste on an ET, 53 would be the safest bet because of the
> pure
> > fourths and fifths, but if there are twelve notes between E-flat and
> > E-natural, 53 won't cut it.
>
> If you really need discrimination down to a cent, even 612 won't cut it.
>
> I think I'll propose 2460 as the universal maqam tuning.
>
> (1) It is divisible by 12, with a 12-et semitone of 205 parts.
>
> (2) It tempers out the Kernbergr atom, and supports atomic temperament.
>
> (3) It is a standout et up through the 27 limit, so it approximates
> rational intervals even more closely than you might think.
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 8:58:00 AM

----- Original Message -----
From: "sami_shumays" <abushumays@hotmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 08 ï¿½ubat 2007 Perï¿½embe 10:09
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> there is much to respond to in your post, ozan, but i wanted to start
> with this one point:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> > While I appreciated your demonstration of the richness of intonation
> in Maqam Music, my dissapointment was your Arabocentric explanation of
> Maqams. Obviously, there are differences of understanding among the
> prominent nations of the Middle East. Surely you will agree that a
> great many of these so-called Arabic maqams are developed in Istanbul.
> Therefore, Turks have as much, if not more, right to make claims of
> ownership for Maqam Music, which, in my opinion, is verily a
> cosmopolitan art.
>
> i am making absolutely no claims of arab ownership over maqam music.
> my admittedly "arabocentric" explanation is the result of my
> specialization in arabic music (more specifically, the egyptian and
> syrian repertories), and my lower degree of knowledge about the
> details of some other maqam traditions, including the turkish.
>

Well then, would not it have been better if you emphasized your focus on
Levantine Music to the exclusion of the maqam traditions of Iraqis, Bedouins
and Berberis? I, for one, was irked by the pan-Arabic emphasis of your
lecture. My sensitivity is triggered due to the fact that Azeris, Turkmens,
Kipchaks, Tatars, Uzbeks, Kirghiz, etc... are also thrown into a similar pot
of Turkishness, although we have not even begun to musicologically
investigate the diversity of these regions which may totally impair the
preconception of pan-Turkism.

> i am well aware that many of the maqams i refer to were developed in
> istanbul... as well as in iran, kurdistan, parts of central asia,
> iraq, the arab gulf-states... there is much sharing of those
> traditions. it is indeed a cosmopolitan art.
>

Thank you for pronouncing this fact.

> but i am not QUALIFIED to make a detailed explanation of the theory i
> am proposing using examples from those other traditions, because i am
> not an experienced practitioner of them. i cannot play for you,
> cannot successfully demonstrate with my violin, the different
> intonations used in turkish music. therefore, i shall refrain from
> making claims about those intonations.
>

Very well.

> however, I can observe the regional differences--i have studied two
> slightly different arab regions in depth, and i know little bits about
> other maqam traditions outside of those two regions, and have listened
> widely to all of this music (often with a special ear to
> intonation--as collecting different ones is kind of a fetish of mine)
>
> --and in those regional differences i see differences in intonation,
> but similarities in treatment of intonations within melodic context--
>
> hence my example of rast, the arabic version of which is recognizable
> to a turk with a low third note, and vice-versa with a high third note.
>

But in my example of Bayati, you cannot venture to guess which is which.
There are more at stake then simply intonation.

> --and therefore i am using the region in which i am experienced, to
> expound a claim about the linguistic/phonemic identity of melodic units.
>
> but in no wise do i mean to imply either that:
> A. the maqam tradition is uniquely or originally or exclusively arab.
> or
> B. what i am claiming about the Arabic maqam applies unqualifiably to
> other maqam traditions.
>
> i leave that to experts in those other traditions to verify and refine.
>

Very well.

> instead of being disappointed by my arabocentric approach, you should
> be grateful for it, as it is a demonstration of:
>
> A. the diversity present within just one regional practice--in fact
> just one performer's practice (my approach wasn't even arabocentric,
> it was sami-abu-shumaysocentric).
>
> and
>
> B. my commitment to demonstrating intonations i am qualified as a
> musician to execute.
>

I am not at all ungrateful for this worthwhile demonstration which partly
illustrates the immense haven of microtonality that is Maqam Music. But this
attire should not be construed as unique, for we Turks are questioning the
validity of the theories in effect just as much, if not more, around here.

> there's nothing that bothers me more than a musician with much less
> than full knowledge of a tradition attempting to make a demonstration
> of one of the subtler aspects of that tradition (usually to people
> even less qualified to judge if he is right or not), but completely
> missing something huge.
>

I perceive prejudicial frustration in your words. Have you considered
performing the same maqam examples with the pitches of 79 MOS 159-tET before
concluding that I do not qualify to rationalize traditional perdes of Maqam
Music in a way suitable to historical sources and prominent quotidian
practice?

I believe that you will discover much of the discrepancy between notation
(theory) and performance to melt away after putting the tuning I propose
into good use.

> like someone in japan teaching an english class to other japanese and
> asserting that the written L & R, much like the written C & K, are
> frequently pronounced the same.
>
>

I don't see the relevance. But perhaps you are happier with qanuns whose
mandals are fixed according to 24 equal divisions of the octave.

Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 8:30:50 AM

Thank you for your appreciation Cameron!

Oz.

SNIP

> In the case of Ozan's tuning, I look at it like this: tune up the
> fixed-pitch instrument that way, and play it with the flexible-
> pitched instrument. Are the fixed intervals appropriate in character,
> and do they mark the regions in which the flexible instrument moves
> well? If so, then it's not only a far sight better than 24, it would
> then be a realistic foundation for new musics coming from a maqam
> tradition.
>
> The most important thing is: a fixed pitched instrument does not
> provide the "right notes", if simply offers gracious points of
> reference.
>
> Excellent lecture and musicianship on your part, by the way, thanks!
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>
>
>

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>

2/8/2007 10:15:30 AM

From: "Ozan Yarman"

> What is the point of going that far? It may be used as a unit, but surely
> 159 works just as satisfactorily.
>
> Oz.

You'd probably have to be more precise than 159-EDO. Maybe not as much as 2460. (But that still would be a good high-precision EDO measurement for any kind of music.)

But you do raise a point: there already is a measurement system expressing parts of a 53-TET comma, the Tï¿½rk cent. I like to measure things in fractions of a comma; I've been using quarters of a comma to express 13-limit JI for a while now, and others have before me. You divide the comma into thirds.

212 (53 x 4), 217 and 224 are quarter-comma EDOs. 306 is sixth-comma and is the first ET to have better fifths than 53. 612, twice 306, divides the Pythagorean comma into twelve parts and 665 (with the extremely precise fifth) divides the syntonic comma into twelfths. And 12 is the least common multiple of 3 and 4. I guess you could also use 636 or 651 or something similar.

~D.

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Ward Smith"
> To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: 08 ï¿½ubat 2007 Perï¿½embe 8:53
> Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

>> If you really need discrimination down to a cent, even 612 won't cut it.
>>
>> I think I'll propose 2460 as the universal maqam tuning.
>>
>> (1) It is divisible by 12, with a 12-et semitone of 205 parts.
>>
>> (2) It tempers out the Kernbergr atom, and supports atomic temperament.
>>
>> (3) It is a standout et up through the 27 limit, so it approximates
>> rational intervals even more closely than you might think.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/8/2007 10:20:05 AM

> dialectology, or semiology

This is where I get off the boat.

> Wouldn't the true test of understanding
> be the creation of a new maqam the fits naturally in with the old
> ones?

Perhaps. That would involve an assumption on the acceptance
of maqams. I would prefer being able to get a synth to perform
a maqam realistically from a score alone.

> Of course, there's a danger there, because a new maqam could
> actually be created "by feel", with the author(s) mistakenly
> believing that they are following a conscious understanding
> which is bogus in reality.

If you have a computer that can spit them out on demand, that's
no problem.

> My own approach to tuning theory is based on the idea of intervals
> which fall into regions of various sizes and belong to "character
> families". What defines the character mathematically, I don't know,
> and may never know.

Do you have a list of all the character families you've discovered?

> An interval 7 cents from 7/6 may sound
> more "7/6" in character than an interval 4 cents away,

Is the character of a family always the character of a
simple ratio?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/8/2007 10:27:33 AM

> > > i can tell you from personal experience: it is
> > > impossible to learn to reproduce the variety
> > > of microtones present in arabic music without
> > > the aid of MELODY.
> >
> > What if I only want to describe them, not reproduce them?
>
> being able to reproduce them is an almost equivalent skill to
> being able to distinguish them, which is a pre-requisite skill
> before being able to describe them accurately.

What if I have experts listen for me?

> let me give as an example, the chinese tone system used in
> their spoken language. some of the tones are not easily
> distinguishable by non-chinese ears. (as linguists are aware,
> many phonemes which are distinguishable by babies, cease to
> be distinguishable after a certain age, if they are outside
> the language the child is beginning to absorb). not to say
> that non-chinese ears cannot ever distinguish them, but that
> to do so requires the input of at least a minimum amount of
> effort to LEARN to distinguish them.

Sure. But it's straightforward to study this sort of thing
without being able to speak either language. You can look
at spectra of the phonemes, for one.

> understood
> SYNTACTICALLY within maqam melodic development as a whole.
> you cannot even begin to analyze the validity of that claim
> of mine

I'm not arguing this point.

> you can certainly describe them numerically, statistically,
> by putting a machine up and measuring the frequency of the
> notes--without being able to reproduce them. but you can't
> test my claim that this is a less significant criterion for
> measurement than a phonemic one, if you can't hear them as
> different phonemes.

What claim is that, exactly?

> much as, you couldn't talk adequately about the chinese tone
> system, and the way that different patterns of tone affect the
> language, unless you could to a certain extent distinguish
> them and/or reproduce them adequately.

I dunno much about the study of Asian languages, but I'm sure
there are people studying them who don't speak them.

> that's why the more relevant part of my podcast wasn't the
> sequence of 12 descending notes, but the 12 different maqam
> phrases.

Right - got that.

> each one of those phrases contains 3 or 4 melodic phonemes--
> and i am using them to grasp the intonation of the single note
> in the middle.

How do I break up a phrase into "phonemes"?

> .... the short answer: you need melody not only to be able to
> reproduce these microtones, but also to be able to describe and
> explain them.

Did you even read the post to which you're apparently
replying?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/8/2007 10:39:21 AM

> however, all of the maqamat (and here we are really talking about
> ajnas--the units of four to five notes which define the basic
> elements (both tonally and melodically) of maqam) are
> transposable--all of the ajnas are transposable. not to any
> key, of course; we don't traditionally use keyboard instruments--
> so the transpositions happen to a limited set of alternate keys.

Ok. So this is what I would consider one of the initial, most
basic, pieces of information I would like to know to understand
maqam intonation. Which keys are ever used? Commonly used?
Are some keys used with some maqamat and not with others? Does
any of this vary by region? This is the kind of thing I (and
others) have been trying to pry out of Ozan for some time now.

> whether there is an absolute pitch standard also depends on the
> country, time period, number of people in the ensemble, etc.
> nowadays musicians all over the world are aware of the 440
> standard, and so any musician will have to measure pitch by
> that standard--especially if they play with other musicians
> who may happen also to play in symphony orchestras or with
> keyboard instruments.

Bleck!

> so they, in egypt and syria for example, have tunings 1/2 step
> flat or 1 whole step flat (conceptual G happens at concert F# or
> F), in order to accomodate singers. before the universal 440
> standard, they tuned down or up anywhere, depending on the
> singer's voice.

Ok, so I think it's safe to say that the pitch standard is
not an important part of maqam music. Another fundamental
thing to understand.

This still doesn't mean that absolute pitch isn't important.
That is something we'll have to continue to test as we go
along.

It's believed that the pitch standard is also relatively
new in Western music. Yet there's a bunch of stuff from
the baroque era about the importance of key color. And
there's debate over whether this had to do with:

. Difference in consonance between keys of the unequal
keyboard temperaments in use at the time (I personally
doubt this explanation, alas).

. Absolute pitch color, which most listeners can percieve,
albeit usually unconsciously (would these historical
comments on the mood of key centers then be a regional
thing, depending on the pitch standard in use in the region?).

. Just convention: the kind of tunes you'd typically
write in those keys.

. 'New age'-type nonsense of the baroque era.

. Some combination of the above?

But I digress.

> all of these microtones are relative piches, relative to a certain
> jins (a certain tetra- or penta-chord), relative, that is, to a
> certain tonic, and certain adjacent notes.

Thanks! Probably there is a tutorial somewhere on how
maqamat are constructed from jins (?)...

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/8/2007 10:43:46 AM

> which would mean what?--that anyone wanting to tune a maqam
> precisely would have to get a machine that can measure down
> to 2460 equal divisions? what about the human ear--that can
> hear more precisely than such a machine,

That depends on the listening conditions and the type of
information expected to be recovered by the listener.

> and that, furthermore, arabs and other
> middle-eastern people in the third world can actually afford?

Cheap synths can produce intervals this accurately.
Pennies for a synth chip to do it. Probably free software
for a PC, if one is available, that can do it.

Measurement down to 12000-ET can be had for a couple hundred
US dollars.

> again, think about the variety of different vowel sounds in spoken
> english. they are easily recognizable and distinguishable by any
> english-accustomed ear... each one has a precise tonal meaning.
> yes, they must be learned by rote, from other speakers of the
> language--but the ear is a very quick, very accurate recording
> device. the ear can hold those precise differences without the
> slightest need, even, to be able to tell, analytically, which
> vowel is higher than lower than another.

What the ear is good at is pattern recognition, especially
in noisy environments. It's very good at that.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/8/2007 10:47:23 AM

> > What is the point of going that far? It may be used as a unit,
> > but surely 159 works just as satisfactorily.
> >
> > Oz.
>
> You'd probably have to be more precise than 159-EDO.

How do you know?

-Carl

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>

2/8/2007 11:03:28 AM

From: "Carl Lumma":

>> > What is the point of going that far? It may be used as a unit,
>> > but surely 159 works just as satisfactorily.
>> >
>> > Oz.
>>
>> You'd probably have to be more precise than 159-EDO.
>
> How do you know?

I can't say for certain, but some of those pitches on the violin in the lecture sounded closer together than 7.5472 cents. Though I'm not exactly a human oscilloscope.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 12:30:57 PM

The rebellious pitches can very well be tempered down to the nearest degree
of 159-tET, without doing much harm to the general structure of melodies.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Wier" <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 08 ï¿½ubat 2007 Perï¿½embe 21:03
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> From: "Carl Lumma":
>
> >> > What is the point of going that far? It may be used as a unit,
> >> > but surely 159 works just as satisfactorily.
> >> >
> >> > Oz.
> >>
> >> You'd probably have to be more precise than 159-EDO.
> >
> > How do you know?
>
> I can't say for certain, but some of those pitches on the violin in the
> lecture sounded closer together than 7.5472 cents. Though I'm not exactly
a > human oscilloscope.
>
>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/8/2007 12:45:13 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> What is the point of going that far? It may be used as a unit, but
surely
> 159 works just as satisfactorily.

I wasn't being altogether serious, but if you really need twelve
intervals or so to a semitone then clearly 159 won't do as well.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 12:59:16 PM

I am almost convinced that you do not need so many microtones seperated by
one or two cents to make Maqam Music sound ok.

159 is a fine upper-limit resolution the way I see it.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 08 ï¿½ubat 2007 Perï¿½embe 22:45
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > What is the point of going that far? It may be used as a unit, but
> surely
> > 159 works just as satisfactorily.
>
> I wasn't being altogether serious, but if you really need twelve
> intervals or so to a semitone then clearly 159 won't do as well.
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 5:12:07 PM

SNIP

> > however, all of the maqamat (and here we are really talking about
> > ajnas--the units of four to five notes which define the basic
> > elements (both tonally and melodically) of maqam) are
> > transposable--all of the ajnas are transposable. not to any
> > key, of course; we don't traditionally use keyboard instruments--
> > so the transpositions happen to a limited set of alternate keys.
>
> Ok. So this is what I would consider one of the initial, most
> basic, pieces of information I would like to know to understand
> maqam intonation. Which keys are ever used? Commonly used?
> Are some keys used with some maqamat and not with others? Does
> any of this vary by region? This is the kind of thing I (and
> others) have been trying to pry out of Ozan for some time now.
>

SNIP

How can I be expected to bear the burden of elucidating hundreds of pages of
theory in one sitting? And even so, has not my presence here been of some
use to you? I already tried to explain to the best of my ability the
traditional Ahenks of maqam music, the way traditional perdes are mapped to
any Ahenk, how modulation means non-linear shifting of a jins (tetrachord,
or whatever) over to another perde (as opposed to the initial perde for that
particular jins) in a given Ahenk, and how transposition means a direct
shift in diapason without reassigning perdes.

For example, I can take the basic Rast scale, and without changing the
Ahenk, reassign it over to another perde where I can be assured that it more
or less remains Rast due to the preservation of consequent interval sizes.
You want a live demonstration? I have no idea how to broadcast myself on
youtube. At least not at this conjuncture.

An underappreciated Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 6:43:02 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Wier" <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 08 ï¿½ubat 2007 Perï¿½embe 20:15
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> From: "Ozan Yarman"
>
> > What is the point of going that far? It may be used as a unit, but
surely
> > 159 works just as satisfactorily.
> >
> > Oz.
>
> You'd probably have to be more precise than 159-EDO. Maybe not as much as
> 2460. (But that still would be a good high-precision EDO measurement for
any
> kind of music.)
>

What do you need that kind of high precision for? Maqam Music has never used
any temperaments other than 24 and 53/106 equal so far, both of which are
quite recent approaches having nothing to do with the meantone of Baroque
styles. After all, this is not a genre requiring the harmony-oriented
tunings like those of Western common-practice. At least this has been the
case up to now.

> But you do raise a point: there already is a measurement system expressing
> parts of a 53-TET comma, the Tï¿½rk cent. I like to measure things in
> fractions of a comma; I've been using quarters of a comma to express
> 13-limit JI for a while now, and others have before me. You divide the
comma
> into thirds.
>

Which yields enough resolution to express the myriad of pitch subleties
common to Maqam Music. In fact, even this is too much, and 79/80 MOS out of
it does quite nicely.

> 212 (53 x 4), 217 and 224 are quarter-comma EDOs. 306 is sixth-comma and
is
> the first ET to have better fifths than 53. 612, twice 306, divides the
> Pythagorean comma into twelve parts and 665 (with the extremely precise
> fifth) divides the syntonic comma into twelfths. And 12 is the least
common
> multiple of 3 and 4. I guess you could also use 636 or 651 or something
> similar.
>

These are no doubt very precise, but I repeat, no instrument of Maqam Music
can accurately represent a managable subset conforming to these systems.
Let's stay with 159, and allow deviations by a few cents. This flexibility
allows room for the tuning restrictions of instruments too. How about that?

> ~D.
>

Oz.

🔗Herman Miller <hmiller@IO.COM>

2/8/2007 7:13:25 PM

Gene Ward Smith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>> What is the point of going that far? It may be used as a unit, but > surely
>> 159 works just as satisfactorily.
> > I wasn't being altogether serious, but if you really need twelve > intervals or so to a semitone then clearly 159 won't do as well.

There were 12 different E's in the sample, but the extremes are more than a semitone apart. The difference between the first pitch (around 327 Hz as far as I can tell from generating tones and mix pasting in Cool Edit) and the last (around 299 Hz) is a little over a semitone and a half, or between 20 and 21 steps of 159-ET (if that means anything).

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/8/2007 7:44:58 PM

> Ok. So this is what I would consider one of the initial, most
> basic, pieces of information I would like to know to understand
> maqam intonation. Which keys are ever used? Commonly used?
> Are some keys used with some maqamat and not with others? Does
> any of this vary by region? This is the kind of thing I (and
> others) have been trying to pry out of Ozan for some time now.

really, which keys are used has a lot to do with the tuning of
stringed instruments. in arabic music, the oud is tuned (from low to
high): C or D, F, A, D, G, C. i tune my violin G-D-G-D, as do most
arab violinists.
the keys arabs used most frequently are C, G, D, F, e-half flat and b-
half-flat (for the sekah modes) Also A & E for some of the modes.
We hardly ever base any maqam on a # or flat key--although due to the
de-tunings down a half-or-whole step, maqams are based on those keys
relative to 440.

my understanding of turkish oud tuning is that it is roughly the same
as arabic, but a step higher. therefore there is much more use of
the keys of B & E & F# i have seen a few examples of this from
turkish oud players i've encountered.

the qanun, whether turkish or arabic, has 7 diatonic notes per octave
(C-D-E-F-G-A-B), with a number of microtonal tuning levers, depending
on the tradition. some as few as 3 levers (for sharp, flat, and half-
flat), going up to, in the older turkish tradition, as many as 12 or
17 per note (once again giving the lie to the comma system which
turkish musicians espouse much more than arabic). But as a result of
the diatonic basis, the choice of keys is limited, and when you
combine that with the other instruments playing...

> > so they, in egypt and syria for example, have tunings 1/2 step
> > flat or 1 whole step flat (conceptual G happens at concert F# or
> > F), in order to accomodate singers. before the universal 440
> > standard, they tuned down or up anywhere, depending on the
> > singer's voice.
>
> Ok, so I think it's safe to say that the pitch standard is
> not an important part of maqam music. Another fundamental
> thing to understand.

right. not an important part of the theoretical component, although
in current actual practice most musicians in at least egypt and syria
tune to A=440 when performing publicly. the other aspect to this, of
course, is the tuning of the nay--the cane flute. there is a certain
degree of pitch flexibility to this instrument, but not much. maybe
a little less than a quarter-tone on either side of the pitch. but
since the instrument's tuning is the result of its manufacture, nays
are generally made nowadays tuned (roughly) to A=440. like other
wind instruments, there are nays in each key--a D nay, a C nay, a G
nay, an F nay, an A nay, an E nay.

> This still doesn't mean that absolute pitch isn't important.
> That is something we'll have to continue to test as we go
> along.
>
> It's believed that the pitch standard is also relatively
> new in Western music. Yet there's a bunch of stuff from
> the baroque era about the importance of key color. And
> there's debate over whether this had to do with:
>
> . Difference in consonance between keys of the unequal
> keyboard temperaments in use at the time (I personally
> doubt this explanation, alas).

why do you doubt this explanation? i had my piano tuned to one of
the bach tunings (the non-equal tempered, but well-tempered ones used
for the well-tempered klavier), and have been playing through some of
the well-tempered klavier over the last few months. to me, the
quality of key differences is much more stark than on an equal-
tempered piano, and the different kinds of modulations bach uses in
different keys are more strikingly expressive in this tuning.

perhaps i'm imagining things, but i think there is at least some
substance to this idea.

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/8/2007 7:53:47 PM

> all of these microtones are relative piches, relative to a certain
> jins (a certain tetra- or penta-chord), relative, that is, to a
> certain tonic, and certain adjacent notes.

Thanks! Probably there is a tutorial somewhere on how
maqamat are constructed from jins (?)...

-Carl

there is.

www.maqamworld.com <http://www.maqamworld.com/>

<http://www.maqamworld.com>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/8/2007 8:19:28 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "sami_shumays" <abushumays@...> wrote:

> the qanun, whether turkish or arabic, has 7 diatonic notes per octave
> (C-D-E-F-G-A-B), with a number of microtonal tuning levers, depending
> on the tradition. some as few as 3 levers (for sharp, flat, and half-
> flat), going up to, in the older turkish tradition, as many as 12 or
> 17 per note (once again giving the lie to the comma system which
> turkish musicians espouse much more than arabic).

Wouldn't it be possible to take these instruments and extract a scale?
It seems to me that could clear up a lot of the confusion around here.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 8:37:10 PM

SNIP

>
> right. not an important part of the theoretical component, although
> in current actual practice most musicians in at least egypt and syria
> tune to A=440 when performing publicly. the other aspect to this, of
> course, is the tuning of the nay--the cane flute. there is a certain
> degree of pitch flexibility to this instrument, but not much. maybe
> a little less than a quarter-tone on either side of the pitch. but
> since the instrument's tuning is the result of its manufacture, nays
> are generally made nowadays tuned (roughly) to A=440. like other
> wind instruments, there are nays in each key--a D nay, a C nay, a G
> nay, an F nay, an A nay, an E nay.
>

I blow the Nay a little and can easily state that pitches can be bent as
much as a 17-tET semitone in each direction.

But I already had specified a year ago which nay was which. The main
diatonic ones in reference to the concert pitch are:

Bolahenk (rast on D5)
Supurde (rast on C5)
Mustahsen (rast on B4)
Kiz (rast on A4)
Mansur (rast on G4)
Shah (rast on F4)
Davud (rast on E4)

Due to the alignment of natural perdes at concert pitch in Supurde Ahenk,
this is the Nay which qualifies to be taken the frame of reference when
preparing a key transposing score.

SNIP

Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 8:39:22 PM

I fear it will only add more to the confusion, for see, they affix mandals
at equal semitones due to the usage of tuners imported from overseas, and
divide the remaining length to the nut into as many equal parts as the space
will allow.

Often, they arrive at 72-tET though.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 09 ï¿½ubat 2007 Cuma 6:19
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "sami_shumays" <abushumays@...> wrote:
>
> > the qanun, whether turkish or arabic, has 7 diatonic notes per octave
> > (C-D-E-F-G-A-B), with a number of microtonal tuning levers, depending
> > on the tradition. some as few as 3 levers (for sharp, flat, and half-
> > flat), going up to, in the older turkish tradition, as many as 12 or
> > 17 per note (once again giving the lie to the comma system which
> > turkish musicians espouse much more than arabic).
>
> Wouldn't it be possible to take these instruments and extract a scale?
> It seems to me that could clear up a lot of the confusion around here.
>
>
>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/8/2007 9:09:03 PM

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

> Often, they arrive at 72-tET though.

There's a lot to be said in favor of arriving at 72-et.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/8/2007 10:49:54 PM

That old thing?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 09 ï¿½ubat 2007 Cuma 7:09
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> > Often, they arrive at 72-tET though.
>
> There's a lot to be said in favor of arriving at 72-et.
>
>

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/8/2007 11:08:42 PM

> > > so the transpositions happen to a limited set of alternate keys.
> >
> > Ok. So this is what I would consider one of the initial, most
> > basic, pieces of information I would like to know to understand
> > maqam intonation. Which keys are ever used? Commonly used?
> > Are some keys used with some maqamat and not with others? Does
> > any of this vary by region? This is the kind of thing I (and
> > others) have been trying to pry out of Ozan for some time now.
> >
>
> SNIP
>
> How can I be expected to bear the burden of elucidating hundreds
> of pages of theory in one sitting?

I don't need hundreds of pages.

> And even so, has not my presence here been of some
> use to you?

Tremendous, of course.

> I already tried to explain to the best of my ability the
> traditional Ahenks of maqam music, the way traditional perdes
> are mapped to any Ahenk, how modulation means non-linear
> shifting of a jins (tetrachord, or whatever) over to another
> perde (as opposed to the initial perde for that particular
> jins) in a given Ahenk, and how transposition means a direct
> shift in diapason without reassigning perdes.

I don't remember ever having seen the term "Ahenks" in your
posts. I've seen "perdes", but I'm not aware of a definition.
I take it that "jins" means a division of the 3:2? Is it
always either a 4- or 5-way division?

> For example, I can take the basic Rast scale, and without
> changing the Ahenk, reassign it over to another perde where
> I can be assured that it more or less remains Rast due to
> the preservation of consequent interval sizes.
> You want a live demonstration? I have no idea how to
> broadcast myself on youtube. At least not at this
> conjuncture.

A demonstration isn't necessary. If I can understand the
quoted material here I'll be in much better shape.
But you could certainly provide an mp3 demonstration for
download on your web site. Video is hardly required.

> An underappreciated Oz.

Come now, Oz!

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/8/2007 11:16:33 PM

> Wouldn't it be possible to take these instruments and extract a
> scale? It seems to me that could clear up a lot of the confusion
> around here.

One still has to know what kinds of things are played on it,
and what part it plays in ensemble music (if any), etc. etc.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/8/2007 11:28:28 PM

Sami,

Thanks for the info. I'll try to keep the 1 or 2 remaining
free brain cells I have working on this over the next week
or so. Meanwhile,

> > . Difference in consonance between keys of the unequal
> > keyboard temperaments in use at the time (I personally
> > doubt this explanation, alas).
>
> why do you doubt this explanation? i had my piano tuned to
> one of the bach tunings (the non-equal tempered, but
> well-tempered ones used for the well-tempered klavier), and
> have been playing through some of the well-tempered klavier
> over the last few months. to me, the quality of key
> differences is much more stark than on an equal-tempered
> piano, and the different kinds of modulations bach uses in
> different keys are more strikingly expressive in this tuning.
>
> perhaps i'm imagining things, but i think there is at least
> some substance to this idea.

Absolutely these tunings have key contrast. And it may
have played a role in Bach's writing for the Well Tempered
Clavier. But overall (if I listen past the first two pieces
in Book I), I don't get the feeling that pieces in the
distant keys are more agrressive or meant to be played at
faster tempi, etc. And we know Bach often (and in the
case of the WTC) took pieces he wrote for one setting and
transcribed (and often transposed) them into new settings.

-Carl

🔗hstraub64 <hstraub64@telesonique.net>

2/9/2007 3:26:31 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I fear it will only add more to the confusion, for see, they affix
> mandals at equal semitones due to the usage of tuners imported from
> overseas, and divide the remaining length to the nut into as many
> equal parts as the space will allow.
>
> Often, they arrive at 72-tET though.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
>
> >
> > Wouldn't it be possible to take these instruments and extract a
> > scale?
> > It seems to me that could clear up a lot of the confusion around
> >here.
> >

Now *I* am starting to be confused. Taking instruments and extracting
scales would be a way to go if the scales are not known - but they
*are* known, aren't they?! I had really thought the intervals of each
maqam were quite exactly defined - not in absolute pitch and not in
EDO, but in JI terms. Some clarification please??!

One point in this discussion seems to be that there are two different
viewpoints - the one of the performing musician and the one of the
music theorist. For a performing musician, I would say learning by ear
is the good and normal way to go, be it maqams or western harmony. I
mean, for a western musician, too, it does not matter at all whether a
major triad is made of the proportionos 3:4:5 or what proportions the
wolf fifth has - what matters is the emotional impact, and how it is
used. But to the music theorist, it does matter - and both viewpoints
are right and necessary.
--
Hans Straub

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/9/2007 9:04:50 AM

> Now *I* am starting to be confused. Taking instruments and
> extracting scales would be a way to go if the scales are not
> known - but they *are* known, aren't they?! I had really
> thought the intervals of each maqam were quite exactly
> defined - not in absolute pitch and not in EDO, but in JI
> terms.

Do you also believe the diatonic scale in the West is precisely
defined as 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1? Or that Kathleen
Schlesinger's description of ancient Aulos scales have any basis
in reality?

-Carl

🔗Paul Poletti <paul@polettipiano.com>

2/9/2007 9:26:07 AM

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

>
> Do you also believe the diatonic scale in the West is precisely
> defined as 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1? Or that Kathleen
> Schlesinger's description of ancient Aulos scales have any basis
> in reality?

I don't understand the point of posing such a question. The "diatonic
scale in the west" has been "precisely defined" in a vast number of
different ways, depending upon context. Trying to pin it down to but
one definition in any broader sense is pointless, especially when you
want to consider historical origins.

Just like maqams . . .

Ciao,

Paul

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>

2/9/2007 11:43:08 AM

From: "Ozan Yarman":

>> You'd probably have to be more precise than 159-EDO. Maybe not as much as
>> 2460. (But that still would be a good high-precision EDO measurement for
> any
>> kind of music.)
>>
> What do you need that kind of high precision for? Maqam Music has never > used
> any temperaments other than 24 and 53/106 equal so far, both of which are
> quite recent approaches having nothing to do with the meantone of Baroque
> styles. After all, this is not a genre requiring the harmony-oriented
> tunings like those of Western common-practice. At least this has been the
> case up to now.

(Yes, I know I'm writing back late, sorry. Been busy.)

I was proposing a high-precision measurement, not so much a tuning. Of course cent and Tï¿½rk cents are already used; I was proposing fractions of a comma, or schismas (degrees of 612-EDO would be schismas), as an alternative unit.

To use the analogy of phones and phonemes in linguistics, I'm talking about phones, the individual sounds represented by IPA symbols. For the "phonemes" of a tuning, 79 or 72 or something of that sort would probably be plenty.

~D.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/9/2007 12:00:08 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Poletti" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@> wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you also believe the diatonic scale in the West is precisely
> > defined as 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1? Or that Kathleen
> > Schlesinger's description of ancient Aulos scales have any basis
> > in reality?
>
> I don't understand the point of posing such a question. The "diatonic
> scale in the west" has been "precisely defined" in a vast number of
> different ways, depending upon context. Trying to pin it down to but
> one definition in any broader sense is pointless, especially when you
> want to consider historical origins.

That's part of the point. The other part, I think, is that in common
practice the diatonic scale wasn't a scale of rational intervals anyway.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/9/2007 4:47:49 PM

> > Do you also believe the diatonic scale in the West is precisely
> > defined as 1/1 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 5/3 15/8 2/1? Or that Kathleen
> > Schlesinger's description of ancient Aulos scales have any basis
> > in reality?
>
> I don't understand the point of posing such a question. The
> "diatonic scale in the west" has been "precisely defined" in a
> vast number of different ways, depending upon context. Trying to
> pin it down to but one definition in any broader sense is
> pointless, especially when you want to consider historical
> origins.
>
> Just like maqams . . .
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

Gene's covered this already, but I'll try to say something.

Saying the diatonic scale has relied on meantone temperament
(that is, temperament in which 81/80 vanishes) is a *useful
abstraction* when describing Western music. Actual intonation
practice may vary, but if we take notes on scores to be
absolute pitches (a bit of an assumption, but nevertheless
a reasonable one), then many scores written since 1600 require
81/80 vanish.

Meanwhile, there's a long tradition of theorists in the East
and West describing scales with what I might call "fanciful
use of ratios". That is to say, I think the musings of
Al Farabi or Ptolemy are suspect abstractions.

The notion that the tempered diatonic scale is somehow an
imperfect version of the 5-limit JI scale I gave above is
widespread, but there's no evidence that the above scale
was ever widely used in the West. Rather, Pythagorean
intonation predated meantone temperament, and the notion
that temperament is unnatural is just a (suspect again)
value judgement.

-Carl

🔗Paul Poletti <paul@polettipiano.com>

2/9/2007 5:29:01 PM

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

> Actual intonation
> practice may vary, but if we take notes on scores to be
> absolute pitches (a bit of an assumption, but nevertheless
> a reasonable one), then many scores written since 1600 require
> 81/80 vanish.

That's where I part ways with "standard practice". Depends on the
insrument. Naturally, a keyboard music score assumes absolute pitches.
A vocal score a capella is another ball of wax. We have lots of
historical comments which imply that flexible intonation instruments,
from violin to flute to voice, used flexible just intonation, where
each note is adjusted as needed to fit the momentary harmonic
consideration: Roger North, Quantz, Rameau, Burney. It's not easy, and
there are problems to resolve to avoid drifting tonality, but it is
quite possible, contrary to what you may read elsewhere. Lots of
traditional folk styles use it with no problem. The mistake is to
think that there is one and only one pitch for a given note, or that a
tied note must be kept at the same frequency when the ambient harmony
changes in such a way to require another frequency. Quantz tells us
not to do this.
>
> The notion that the tempered diatonic scale is somehow an
> imperfect version of the 5-limit JI scale I gave above is
> widespread, but there's no evidence that the above scale
> was ever widely used in the West. Rather, Pythagorean
> intonation predated meantone temperament, and the notion
> that temperament is unnatural is just a (suspect again)
> value judgement.

Again, I (and others) have my doubts that Pythagorean was used
ubiquitously. Listen to Ensemble Organum singing major thirds
sometimes Pythagorean sometimes pure in Machaut, depending upon the
harmonic context.

I have quite a number of friends/colleagues doing "Harmonie" on period
instruments, from Mozart to Beethoven to Spohr and beyond, including
Alfredo Bernardini, Lorenzo Coppola, Eric Hoeprich, Pep Borras, etc,
and they all tell me flexible just intonation is their basic approach.
I suspect that the best music has always been done this way. Why would
you do anything else, unless you cursed with having to work with some
"imperfect" (keyboard or fretted) instrument, or some bluhdy minded
theorist has come along and done a bunch of number crunching?

I think a classical western score, from Machaut to Schubert (and
perhaps beyond) tells us just as little about exact intonation as a
jazz sheet.

Ciao,

Paul

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/9/2007 5:53:07 PM

> That's where I part ways with "standard practice". Depends on the
> insrument. Naturally, a keyboard music score assumes absolute
> pitches.
> A vocal score a capella is another ball of wax. We have lots of
> historical comments which imply that flexible intonation
> instruments, from violin to flute to voice, used flexible just
> intonation, where each note is adjusted as needed to fit the
> momentary harmonic consideration:

Absolutely.

> to avoid drifting tonality,

If you're doing this you're still making 81/80 vanish,
albeit in a less local way.

> but it is
> quite possible, contrary to what you may read elsewhere.

May suggest you read something herewhere before jumping
to conclusions? You're corresponding with one of the most
vocal (I hope) advocates of flexible intonation on this list.

> Lots of
> traditional folk styles use it with no problem.

...and an ex-barbershop singer.

> Why would
> you do anything else,

Simple: I don't.

> I think a classical western score, from Machaut to Schubert (and
> perhaps beyond) tells us just as little about exact intonation
> as a jazz sheet.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul

I suggest you familiar yourself with the topic before making
pronouncements.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/9/2007 6:41:57 PM

SNIP

> > >
> > > Wouldn't it be possible to take these instruments and extract a
> > > scale?
> > > It seems to me that could clear up a lot of the confusion around
> > >here.
> > >
>
> Now *I* am starting to be confused. Taking instruments and extracting
> scales would be a way to go if the scales are not known - but they
> *are* known, aren't they?! I had really thought the intervals of each
> maqam were quite exactly defined - not in absolute pitch and not in
> EDO, but in JI terms. Some clarification please??!
>

SNIP

They are not as clear-cut as you might think. Please refer to *Jon Akkoch*s
work for the great variance in pitch of perdeler.

Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/9/2007 6:39:44 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 09 ï¿½ubat 2007 Cuma 9:08
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> > > > so the transpositions happen to a limited set of alternate keys.
> > >
> > > Ok. So this is what I would consider one of the initial, most
> > > basic, pieces of information I would like to know to understand
> > > maqam intonation. Which keys are ever used? Commonly used?
> > > Are some keys used with some maqamat and not with others? Does
> > > any of this vary by region? This is the kind of thing I (and
> > > others) have been trying to pry out of Ozan for some time now.
> > >
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > How can I be expected to bear the burden of elucidating hundreds
> > of pages of theory in one sitting?
>
> I don't need hundreds of pages.
>

Which is as much as I have written on this topic thus far. So what do you
need? Say one at a time please.

> > And even so, has not my presence here been of some
> > use to you?
>
> Tremendous, of course.
>

Glad to hear that!

> > I already tried to explain to the best of my ability the
> > traditional Ahenks of maqam music, the way traditional perdes
> > are mapped to any Ahenk, how modulation means non-linear
> > shifting of a jins (tetrachord, or whatever) over to another
> > perde (as opposed to the initial perde for that particular
> > jins) in a given Ahenk, and how transposition means a direct
> > shift in diapason without reassigning perdes.
>
> I don't remember ever having seen the term "Ahenks" in your
> posts. I've seen "perdes", but I'm not aware of a definition.
> I take it that "jins" means a division of the 3:2? Is it
> always either a 4- or 5-way division?
>

"Ahenk" is, in the broadest sense, "key", as in the case of clarinets or
horns at different frequency levels in reference to a "C instrument".
Overall, Ahenk is a matter of making sure that the natural (diatonic) notes
on the stave are in alignment with the same natural scale at concert pitch.

It is my claim that only Supurde deserves to be the initial Ney/Ahenk,
because you can express the basic diatonic Rast scale as harmonic C major on
the staff at concert pitch.

"Djins" originally means a tetrachord. But for more than a century now, it
has come to mean pentachord, and even diminished pentachord too.

In Maqam Music, you always have a diatonic scale structure, and hardly
anything chromatic in the Western sense, unless of course, you are dealing
with Alla Franca influences and imitations.

> > For example, I can take the basic Rast scale, and without
> > changing the Ahenk, reassign it over to another perde where
> > I can be assured that it more or less remains Rast due to
> > the preservation of consequent interval sizes.
> > You want a live demonstration? I have no idea how to
> > broadcast myself on youtube. At least not at this
> > conjuncture.
>
> A demonstration isn't necessary. If I can understand the
> quoted material here I'll be in much better shape.
> But you could certainly provide an mp3 demonstration for
> download on your web site. Video is hardly required.
>

Well, how about if you loaded the 79 MOS 159-tET in Scala, opened the
Chromatic Clavier window, SHIFT swept the white keys from C4 to C5,
CTRL-clicked on degrees 25 and 71 too, copied this mode by right clicking on
C, and experimented by right clicking on other keys as well? See how you can
transpose Rast admirably everywhere in this fashion by effectively changing
the Ahenk (key).

On the other hand, if you wanted to modulate Rast without changing the
Ahenk, you would have to stick to the perdes of that particular Ahenk.

For example, say that you want to knock Rast away from its natural tonic on
rast to a tonic a semitone high. At first you would contend with the perdes:

Rast Dugah Segah Chargah Neva Huseyni Evdj Gerdaniye
0_____13____25____33____46____59____72___79

Modulated to nim zengule, it will become:

Nim-Zengule Kurdi Chargah Hijaz Nim-Hisar Ajem Gerdaniye Shehnaz
6___________19____33____39_____52_____65____79______85

And it will be transformed into the scale of Mahur (Pythagorean major).

Oz.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/10/2007 1:09:28 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Poletti" <paul@...> wrote:

> A vocal score a capella is another ball of wax. We have lots of
> historical comments which imply that flexible intonation
instruments,
> from violin to flute to voice, used flexible just intonation, where
> each note is adjusted as needed to fit the momentary harmonic
> consideration: Roger North, Quantz, Rameau, Burney.

Concluding from flexible intonation that they must have used an
adaptive tuning where the vertical sonorities are pure otonal or
utonal chords is a wild leap of faith.

> It's not easy, and
> there are problems to resolve to avoid drifting tonality, but it is
> quite possible, contrary to what you may read elsewhere. Lots of
> traditional folk styles use it with no problem.

Other than barbershop, what?

> I have quite a number of friends/colleagues doing "Harmonie" on
period
> instruments, from Mozart to Beethoven to Spohr and beyond, including
> Alfredo Bernardini, Lorenzo Coppola, Eric Hoeprich, Pep Borras, etc,
> and they all tell me flexible just intonation is their basic
approach.

Again, there is a huge difference between flexible intonation and
pure vertical JI chords, and you seem to be conflating the two.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/10/2007 6:49:49 AM

SNIP

> >>
> > What do you need that kind of high precision for? Maqam Music has never
> > used
> > any temperaments other than 24 and 53/106 equal so far, both of which
are
> > quite recent approaches having nothing to do with the meantone of
Baroque
> > styles. After all, this is not a genre requiring the harmony-oriented
> > tunings like those of Western common-practice. At least this has been
the
> > case up to now.
>
> (Yes, I know I'm writing back late, sorry. Been busy.)
>
> I was proposing a high-precision measurement, not so much a tuning. Of
> course cent and Tï¿½rk cents are already used; I was proposing fractions of
a
> comma, or schismas (degrees of 612-EDO would be schismas), as an
alternative
> unit.
>
> To use the analogy of phones and phonemes in linguistics, I'm talking
about
> phones, the individual sounds represented by IPA symbols. For the
"phonemes"
> of a tuning, 79 or 72 or something of that sort would probably be plenty.
>
> ~D.
>
>

Ok, let me see:

1st level of precision=The greatest sensitivity any musician would demand,
2nd level of precision=The totality of practicable tones for a particular
genre,
3rd level of precision=Any subset or combinations thereof from the above.

In the Western world, these correspond to cents, 12 tones, and
diatonic/chromatic scales, although obscurity of actual tones for unfretted
instruments is an ongoing issue.

In a revised Maqam world, these could be, 704-edo, 17 tones (perdes), and
maqam scales, even though you need more tones for exact transpositions and
Ahenk changes.

Here are the 17 traditional perdes:

0: RAST
1: Shuri
2: Zengule cluster
3: DUGAH
4: Kurdi/Nihavend cluster
5: SEGAH cluster
6: Buselik
7: CHARGAH
8: Hijaz
9: Uzzal/Saba cluster
10: NEVA
11: Bayati
12: Hisar cluster
13: HUSEYNI
14: Ajem cluster
15: EVDJ cluster
16: Mahur
17: GERDANIYE

Oz.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/10/2007 10:18:31 AM

> Here are the 17 traditional perdes:
>
> 0: RAST
> 1: Shuri
> 2: Zengule cluster
> 3: DUGAH
> 4: Kurdi/Nihavend cluster
> 5: SEGAH cluster
> 6: Buselik
> 7: CHARGAH
> 8: Hijaz
> 9: Uzzal/Saba cluster
> 10: NEVA
> 11: Bayati
> 12: Hisar cluster
> 13: HUSEYNI
> 14: Ajem cluster
> 15: EVDJ cluster
> 16: Mahur
> 17: GERDANIYE
>
> Oz.

Aha! Another useful tidbit.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/10/2007 10:47:19 AM

> "Ahenk" is, in the broadest sense, "key", as in the case of

Analogies to Western music I think will only cause problems.
Instead, I'm looking for a description of how maqam music
goes from a score to a bunch of pitches. So:

1. Are scores widely used? If yes, describe the
notation. If no, proceed to step 2.
2. What are the typical instrumentations? I've
got solo ud recordings, a buzuq and tombak recording,
recordings of ensumbles with violins and percussion...
Is the qanun usually played solo, or is it also used
in ensembles?
3. What are all the fixed-pitch instruments and how
are they tuned? That means qanun strings/levers,
buzuq fret placement, ney holes.
4. What does maqam theory tell us about the music?

> It is my claim that only Supurde deserves

Another term that needs to be defined before I have a
hope of understanding you.

> to be the initial Ney/Ahenk,

We just finished talking about Ahenk. What's Ney (other
than a flute)?

> "Djins" originally means a tetrachord. But for more than a
> century now, it has come to mean pentachord, and even
> diminished pentachord too.

Wikipedia says they can also be trichords.
Howabout this: a division of the 4:3. Is it always that?

> In Maqam Music, you always have a diatonic scale structure,

By this, do you mean upper and lower Djins separated by a
9:8? Is the separating interval ever something other than
a 9:8?

> > > For example, I can take the basic Rast scale, and without
> > > changing the Ahenk, reassign it over to another perde where
> > > I can be assured that it more or less remains Rast due to
> > > the preservation of consequent interval sizes.
> > > You want a live demonstration? I have no idea how to
> > > broadcast myself on youtube. At least not at this
> > > conjuncture.
//
> Well, how about if you loaded the 79 MOS 159-tET in Scala,
> opened the Chromatic Clavier window, SHIFT swept the white
> keys from C4 to C5, CTRL-clicked on degrees 25 and 71 too,
> copied this mode by right clicking on C, and experimented
> by right clicking on other keys as well? See how you can
> transpose Rast admirably everywhere in this fashion by
> effectively changing the Ahenk (key).
>
> On the other hand, if you wanted to modulate Rast without
> changing the Ahenk, you would have to stick to the perdes
> of that particular Ahenk.
>
> For example, say that you want to knock Rast away from its
> natural tonic on rast to a tonic a semitone high. At first
> you would contend with the perdes:
>
> Rast Dugah Segah Chargah Neva Huseyni Evdj Gerdaniye
> 0_____13____25____33____46____59____72___79
>
> Modulated to nim zengule, it will become:
>
> Nim-Zengule Kurdi Chargah Hijaz Nim-Hisar Ajem Gerdaniye Shehnaz
> 6___________19____33____39_____52_____65____79______85
>
> And it will be transformed into the scale of Mahur (Pythagorean
> major).
>
> Oz.

Ok, here is some meat. How many Ahenks are there?

What are perdes? I can't find this term on Wikipedia or
Maqamworld, though I now have a list of 17 of them.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/10/2007 12:10:55 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 10 ï¿½ubat 2007 Cumartesi 20:47
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> > "Ahenk" is, in the broadest sense, "key", as in the case of
>
> Analogies to Western music I think will only cause problems.
> Instead, I'm looking for a description of how maqam music
> goes from a score to a bunch of pitches.

A good teacher always employs analogies to facilitate the understanding of
an alien topic.

So:
>
> 1. Are scores widely used? If yes, describe the
> notation. If no, proceed to step 2.

Yes. Maqam Music societies have been using Western scores with AEU
accidentals for decades now.

The general conception in Turkish Maqam Music is the division of the pure
whole tone into 9 parts, hence the prominence of 53 Holdrian commas per
octave methodology, where only the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th steps are marked:

0: UT
1: UT "comma-up" / RE "bouyouk mujannab-down" (minor-tone flat)
2:
3: (sometimes referred to as "diminished bakiye" in passing)
4: UT "bakiye-up" (limma sharp) / RE "koutchouk mujannab-down" (apotome
flat)
5: UT "koutchouk mujannab-up" (apotome sharp) / RE "bakiye-down" (limma
flat)
6:
7:
8: RE "comma-down" / UT "bouyouk mujannab-up" (minor-tone sharp)
9: RE

The symbols can be seen here:
http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nazariyat/sistemler/huseyin_sadettin_arelde_aral
ik.htm

And more information on theory can be gleaned here:
http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nazariyat/default.asp

> 2. What are the typical instrumentations? I've
> got solo ud recordings, a buzuq and tombak recording,
> recordings of ensumbles with violins and percussion...
> Is the qanun usually played solo, or is it also used
> in ensembles?

The typical, though unscored concert ensemble comprises a ney or two,
at least one tanbur and one oud, a kemencha, a qanun or two, some violins,
violas and even a cello, sometimes a rabab, occasionally a G-clarinet, yet
almost never a santur or cheng (arp), with percussion in the form of
darbouka/tombak, deff, daire, or kudoum.

The qanun both serves as an accompaniment in the ensemble, and a taksim
(maqam improvisation) instrument. Never seen a solo qanun recording in my
life though. It always takes part in an ensemble and livens things up
through colourful ornamentations.

> 3. What are all the fixed-pitch instruments and how
> are they tuned? That means qanun strings/levers,
> buzuq fret placement, ney holes.

Ouch! This question alone is occasion enough to write a treatise on Maqam
Music instruments. A very very basic outline would be:

Fretted/Constrained instruments:

Tanbur (http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/tanbur/tanbur.htm)
Ney (http://www.ozanyarman.com/misc/Ney%20Perdes.jpg)
Kanun (I will not promote anything but the 79-tone model)
Santur (as problematic as kanuns of today)
Clarinet (need I say more?)

Free-pitched instruments:

Ud (c.f. "akort": http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/ud/ud.asp)
Kemencha (http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/kemence/kemence.htm)
Rebab (http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/rebab/rebab.htm)
Violin (tuned G-D-A-D instead)

Common tunings:

Tanbur (A2-D2-A3-D2-A3)
Ud (E2-A2-B2-E3-A3-D4)
Kemencha/Rabab (A3-D4-A4)
Kanun (diatonically A2 to E6)

> 4. What does maqam theory tell us about the music?
>

That it is microtonal, viz. unexpressable in entirety by 12 equal tones.

> > It is my claim that only Supurde deserves
>
> Another term that needs to be defined before I have a
> hope of understanding you.
>

It is just a name like Cammerton or Corton in your tradition.

> > to be the initial Ney/Ahenk,
>
> We just finished talking about Ahenk. What's Ney (other
> than a flute)?
>

The reference instrument with which a concert pitch is defined for Maqam
Music ensembles.

> > "Djins" originally means a tetrachord. But for more than a
> > century now, it has come to mean pentachord, and even
> > diminished pentachord too.
>
> Wikipedia says they can also be trichords.
> Howabout this: a division of the 4:3. Is it always that?
>

It was hundreds of years ago. It isn't now.

> > In Maqam Music, you always have a diatonic scale structure,
>
> By this, do you mean upper and lower Djins separated by a
> 9:8? Is the separating interval ever something other than
> a 9:8?
>

I mean, that no one note is respelled (repeated) during the ascent or
descent of a scale made up of 7 distinct tones in one octave for any
particular instant.

SNIP

>
> Ok, here is some meat. How many Ahenks are there?
>

Twelve. The Main Ahenks sound perde rast in alignment with the middle white
keys of a clavier between D3-D4, the Median Ahenks, the black keys.

One can count a few more in case commatic differences are emphasized by the
prefix "Dik" (steep), as in "Dik Shah" (steep F-Ney, where perde neva
produces perde buselik, not segah).

> What are perdes? I can't find this term on Wikipedia or
> Maqamworld, though I now have a list of 17 of them.
>

Perdeler are for Maqam Music what tones are for Western common-practice.

> -Carl
>
>

Oz.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/10/2007 1:09:11 PM

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

> In a revised Maqam world, these could be, 704-edo, 17 tones (perdes),
and
> maqam scales, even though you need more tones for exact
transpositions and
> Ahenk changes.

Why 704? It's mediocre from a JI standpoint, and its factorization as
2^6*11 doesn't suggest anything to me. It supports a lot of
temperaments well, but anything its size would.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/10/2007 1:57:26 PM

Well, is 1200 less mediocre? Or better asked, do you know an equal division
less mediocre at that size?

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 10 ï¿½ubat 2007 Cumartesi 23:09
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> > In a revised Maqam world, these could be, 704-edo, 17 tones (perdes),
> and
> > maqam scales, even though you need more tones for exact
> transpositions and
> > Ahenk changes.
>
> Why 704? It's mediocre from a JI standpoint, and its factorization as
> 2^6*11 doesn't suggest anything to me. It supports a lot of
> temperaments well, but anything its size would.
>
>
>

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/10/2007 2:33:50 PM

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

> Yes. Maqam Music societies have been using Western scores with AEU
> accidentals for decades now.

"Your search - "AEU accidentals" - did not match any documents."

> The general conception in Turkish Maqam Music is the division of the
pure
> whole tone into 9 parts, hence the prominence of 53 Holdrian commas
per
> octave methodology, where only the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th steps are
marked:

You know, if they would divide the whole tone into 55 parts instead,
we'd have a neat meeting of east and west going here.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/10/2007 2:45:13 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Well, is 1200 less mediocre? Or better asked, do you know an equal
division
> less mediocre at that size?

612 is smaller, and much better from my point opf view. It would be the
obvious choice, and includes the useful feature that it is divisible by
12, which 704 is not. Other things which come to mind which are closer
in size to 704 are 684, 742 and 764. 742 shares with 159 the feature of
being divisible by 53, in case that matters.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/10/2007 4:45:45 PM

> > > "Ahenk" is, in the broadest sense, "key", as in the case of
> >
> > Analogies to Western music I think will only cause problems.
> > Instead, I'm looking for a description of how maqam music
> > goes from a score to a bunch of pitches.
>
> A good teacher always employs analogies to facilitate the
> understanding of an alien topic.

Oh, lighten up. :)

> So:
> >
> > 1. Are scores widely used? If yes, describe the
> > notation. If no, proceed to step 2.
>
> Yes. Maqam Music societies have been using Western scores with AEU
> accidentals for decades now.
//
> 0: UT
> 1: UT "comma-up" / RE "bouyouk mujannab-down" (minor-tone flat)
> 2:
> 3: (sometimes referred to as "diminished bakiye" in passing)
> 4: UT "bakiye-up" (limma sharp) / RE "koutchouk mujannab-down"
> (apotome flat)
> 5: UT "koutchouk mujannab-up" (apotome sharp) / RE "bakiye-down"
> (limma flat)
> 6:
> 7:
> 8: RE "comma-down" / UT "bouyouk mujannab-up" (minor-tone sharp)
> 9: RE
>
> The symbols can be seen here:
> http://tinyurl.com/29dpqt

Wow -- this is in use? I thought maqam music, while still
being mostly an aural tradition, used quartertone accidentals.
Or is this a Turkish thing, while quartertone notation
prevails in Egypt and elsewhere?

> And more information on theory can be gleaned here:
> http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nazariyat/default.asp

This is giving me an error (I think).

> > 2. What are the typical instrumentations? I've
> > got solo ud recordings, a buzuq and tombak recording,
> > recordings of ensumbles with violins and percussion...
> > Is the qanun usually played solo, or is it also used
> > in ensembles?
>
> The typical, though unscored concert ensemble comprises a
> ney or two, at least one tanbur

Know anything about tanbur fret positions?

> and one oud, a kemencha,

What's a kemencha?

> or cheng (arp),

Did you mean "harp"?

> The qanun both serves as an accompaniment in the ensemble,
> and a taksim (maqam improvisation) instrument. Never seen
> a solo qanun recording in my life though.

Other than the one you made and posted here?

> > 3. What are all the fixed-pitch instruments and how
> > are they tuned? That means qanun strings/levers,
> > buzuq fret placement, ney holes.
>
> Ouch! This question alone is occasion enough to write a
> treatise on Maqam Music instruments. A very very basic
> outline would be:
>
> Fretted/Constrained instruments:
>
> Tanbur (http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/tanbur/tanbur.htm)
> Ney (http://www.ozanyarman.com/misc/Ney%20Perdes.jpg)
> Kanun (I will not promote anything but the 79-tone model)
> Santur (as problematic as kanuns of today)

Any idea how kanuns were tuned 50 or 100 years ago?

> Common tunings:
>
> Tanbur (A2-D2-A3-D2-A3)
> Ud (E2-A2-B2-E3-A3-D4)
> Kemencha/Rabab (A3-D4-A4)
> Kanun (diatonically A2 to E6)

It's fifths city.

> > > It is my claim that only Supurde deserves
> >
> > Another term that needs to be defined before I have a
> > hope of understanding you.
>
> It is just a name like Cammerton or Corton in your tradition.
>
> > > to be the initial Ney/Ahenk,
> >
> > We just finished talking about Ahenk. What's Ney (other
> > than a flute)?
>
> The reference instrument with which a concert pitch is
> defined for Maqam Music ensembles.

Aha.

> > > "Djins" originally means a tetrachord. But for more than a
> > > century now, it has come to mean pentachord, and even
> > > diminished pentachord too.
> >
> > Wikipedia says they can also be trichords.
> > Howabout this: a division of the 4:3. Is it always that?
>
> It was hundreds of years ago. It isn't now.

What else is it?

> > > In Maqam Music, you always have a diatonic scale structure,
> >
> > By this, do you mean upper and lower Djins separated by a
> > 9:8? Is the separating interval ever something other than
> > a 9:8?
>
> I mean, that no one note is respelled (repeated) during the
> ascent or descent of a scale made up of 7 distinct tones in
> one octave for any particular instant.

OK.

> > Ok, here is some meat. How many Ahenks are there?
>
> Twelve. The Main Ahenks sound perde rast in alignment with
> the middle white keys of a clavier between D3-D4, the Median
> Ahenks, the black keys.

Ok, so much as I have read, it sounds like there is some
justification that maqam music has its roots in Pythagorean
tuning, starting with 7, then 12, then 17 tones.

> > What are perdes? I can't find this term on Wikipedia or
> > Maqamworld, though I now have a list of 17 of them.
>
> Perdeler

Sorry, I saw the plural in an earlier thread but forgot it.

> are for Maqam Music what tones are for Western common-practice.

Pitch classes, I assume? So it sounds like we have a 17-tone
scale from which the tones of the maqamat are drawn, and these
may be rooted on any one of 12 keys (with some exceptions),
where these 12 keys are a subset of the 17 perdeler. No?
And then the maqamat additionally have some commatic
adjustments beyond the 17 perdeler (?).

Now, what is the minimum amount of information I need to
specify a maqam? The tones it contains, the preferred
starting tonic... what else?

Which maqam has the least number of tones? Which the greatest?

-Carl

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>

2/10/2007 6:23:35 PM

Gene Ward Smith wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> Well, is 1200 less mediocre? Or better asked, do you know an equal > division
>> less mediocre at that size?
> > 612 is smaller, and much better from my point opf view. It would be the > obvious choice, and includes the useful feature that it is divisible by > 12, which 704 is not. Other things which come to mind which are closer > in size to 704 are 684, 742 and 764. 742 shares with 159 the feature of > being divisible by 53, in case that matters.

Couldn't you also use 636, since it's 12 times 53?

🔗Danny Wier <dawiertx@sbcglobal.net>

2/10/2007 7:12:38 PM

Ozan Yarman wrote:

> Ok, let me see:
>
> 1st level of precision=The greatest sensitivity any musician would demand,
> 2nd level of precision=The totality of practicable tones for a particular
> genre,
> 3rd level of precision=Any subset or combinations thereof from the above.
>
> In the Western world, these correspond to cents, 12 tones, and
> diatonic/chromatic scales, although obscurity of actual tones for > unfretted
> instruments is an ongoing issue.
>
> In a revised Maqam world, these could be, 704-edo, 17 tones (perdes), and
> maqam scales, even though you need more tones for exact transpositions and
> Ahenk changes.

That's a good way of explaining it... but I was under the impression they used the (1200-edo) cent or the (10600-edo) Tï¿½rk senti as a measurement. Where do you get 704?

That I got. When you say cluster, you mean that segah, for example, can be 350, 384.91 or some similar cents value, right?

🔗sami_shumays <abushumays@hotmail.com>

2/10/2007 7:30:21 PM

> "Djins" originally means a tetrachord. But for more than a century
now, it
> has come to mean pentachord, and even diminished pentachord too.

jins in arabic does not originally mean "tetrachord." jins in arabic
is a derivation from the greek "genus" (arabs derived many words from
the greeks), and its basic meaning in arabic is similar to greek: it
means "type" or "kind." (the word is also used in arabic to refer to
the sex of a person--feminine or masculine--although not the gender of
a word.)

therefore, its use in music means, roughly, melody type. the ajnas
(pl. of jins) are the basic melody types in maqam, roughly
corresponding to the base trichords (yes there is one of those:
sekah), tetrachords & pentachords.

🔗Gene Ward Smith <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>

2/10/2007 8:17:32 PM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Danny Wier" <dawiertx@...> wrote:

> Other things which come to mind which are closer
> > in size to 704 are 684, 742 and 764. 742 shares with 159 the
feature of
> > being divisible by 53, in case that matters.
>
> Couldn't you also use 636, since it's 12 times 53?

You could, but I was requiring that there by some prime limit that rhe
division was notably good for, which is not the case for 636.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/10/2007 10:51:00 PM

Oh come, everyone here knows that genus originally equals a division of the
tetrachord (be it enharmonic, chromatic or diatonic), since the Greeks did
not use it for anything else.

Turkish theory has many more trichords and pentachords thrown in the mix in
the past two decades.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "sami_shumays" <abushumays@hotmail.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 11 ï¿½ubat 2007 Pazar 5:30
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

>
> > "Djins" originally means a tetrachord. But for more than a century
> now, it
> > has come to mean pentachord, and even diminished pentachord too.
>
> jins in arabic does not originally mean "tetrachord." jins in arabic
> is a derivation from the greek "genus" (arabs derived many words from
> the greeks), and its basic meaning in arabic is similar to greek: it
> means "type" or "kind." (the word is also used in arabic to refer to
> the sex of a person--feminine or masculine--although not the gender of
> a word.)
>
> therefore, its use in music means, roughly, melody type. the ajnas
> (pl. of jins) are the basic melody types in maqam, roughly
> corresponding to the base trichords (yes there is one of those:
> sekah), tetrachords & pentachords.
>
>
>

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/10/2007 11:02:34 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 11 ï¿½ubat 2007 Pazar 0:33
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> > Yes. Maqam Music societies have been using Western scores with AEU
> > accidentals for decades now.
>
> "Your search - "AEU accidentals" - did not match any documents."
>

Of course it won't bring up anything, no one refers to Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek in
its shorthand form AEU:

http://tinyurl.com/29dpqt

> > The general conception in Turkish Maqam Music is the division of the
> pure
> > whole tone into 9 parts, hence the prominence of 53 Holdrian commas
> per
> > octave methodology, where only the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th steps are
> marked:
>
> You know, if they would divide the whole tone into 55 parts instead,
> we'd have a neat meeting of east and west going here.
>
>

Good point! But, we are very far from the Baroque ideal today.
Pythagoreanism is still in effect.

Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/10/2007 11:24:13 PM

SNIP

> >
> > A good teacher always employs analogies to facilitate the
> > understanding of an alien topic.
>
> Oh, lighten up. :)
>

Why for?

SNIP

> //
> > 0: UT
> > 1: UT "comma-up" / RE "bouyouk mujannab-down" (minor-tone flat)
> > 2:
> > 3: (sometimes referred to as "diminished bakiye" in passing)
> > 4: UT "bakiye-up" (limma sharp) / RE "koutchouk mujannab-down"
> > (apotome flat)
> > 5: UT "koutchouk mujannab-up" (apotome sharp) / RE "bakiye-down"
> > (limma flat)
> > 6:
> > 7:
> > 8: RE "comma-down" / UT "bouyouk mujannab-up" (minor-tone sharp)
> > 9: RE
> >
> > The symbols can be seen here:
> > http://tinyurl.com/29dpqt
>
> Wow -- this is in use? I thought maqam music, while still
> being mostly an aural tradition, used quartertone accidentals.
> Or is this a Turkish thing, while quartertone notation
> prevails in Egypt and elsewhere?
>

You got it!

> > And more information on theory can be gleaned here:
> > http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nazariyat/default.asp
>
> This is giving me an error (I think).
>

I wouldn't know about that.

SNIP

> >
> > The typical, though unscored concert ensemble comprises a
> > ney or two, at least one tanbur
>
> Know anything about tanbur fret positions?
>

While it is not standardized, here is the official table:
http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/tanbur/tanbur.htm

> > and one oud, a kemencha,
>
> What's a kemencha?
>

A pear shaped viol played on the lap by touching fingernails to the strings
and bowing.

> > or cheng (arp),
>
> Did you mean "harp"?
>

That's right.

> > The qanun both serves as an accompaniment in the ensemble,
> > and a taksim (maqam improvisation) instrument. Never seen
> > a solo qanun recording in my life though.
>
> Other than the one you made and posted here?
>

Yep.

SNIP

> >
> > Fretted/Constrained instruments:
> >
> > Tanbur (http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/tanbur/tanbur.htm)
> > Ney (http://www.ozanyarman.com/misc/Ney%20Perdes.jpg)
> > Kanun (I will not promote anything but the 79-tone model)
> > Santur (as problematic as kanuns of today)
>
> Any idea how kanuns were tuned 50 or 100 years ago?
>

Haphazardly, I guess. And before that, diatonically without mandals.

SNIP

>
> > > > "Djins" originally means a tetrachord. But for more than a
> > > > century now, it has come to mean pentachord, and even
> > > > diminished pentachord too.
> > >
> > > Wikipedia says they can also be trichords.
> > > Howabout this: a division of the 4:3. Is it always that?
> >
> > It was hundreds of years ago. It isn't now.
>
> What else is it?
>

As sami says, trichords, tetrachords, pentachords. But I personally wouldn't
need anything other than tetrachords to define Maqam Music.

SNIP

>
> > > Ok, here is some meat. How many Ahenks are there?
> >
> > Twelve. The Main Ahenks sound perde rast in alignment with
> > the middle white keys of a clavier between D3-D4, the Median
> > Ahenks, the black keys.
>

A correction! The range should have been D4-D5. The most common Ahenks are
Bolahenk producing rast at D5, Kiz producing rast at A4 and Mansur producing
rast at G4.

SNIP

>
> > are for Maqam Music what tones are for Western common-practice.
>
> Pitch classes, I assume?

Depends how you define pitch-classes.

So it sounds like we have a 17-tone
> scale from which the tones of the maqamat are drawn, and these
> may be rooted on any one of 12 keys (with some exceptions),
> where these 12 keys are a subset of the 17 perdeler. No?

Possibly.

> And then the maqamat additionally have some commatic
> adjustments beyond the 17 perdeler (?).
>

Commatic AND quarter-tonal.

> Now, what is the minimum amount of information I need to
> specify a maqam?

You need a master tuning which neatly encapsulates perdeler at a given
Ahenk, or namely, 79/80 MOS 159-tET.

The tones it contains, the preferred
> starting tonic... what else?
>

Once you map the perdeler to the master tuning, all you have to do is
specify subsets for a particular maqam. These scales are always
diatonic/septatonic for any particular instant.

> Which maqam has the least number of tones? Which the greatest?
>
> -Carl
>
>

Rast/Mahur would have the least number, some composites like Evdjara, Hisar
Buselik, Muhayyer Sunbule, or Ashiran Zemzeme the greatest.

Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/10/2007 11:07:27 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 11 ï¿½ubat 2007 Pazar 0:45
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, is 1200 less mediocre? Or better asked, do you know an equal
> division
> > less mediocre at that size?
>
> 612 is smaller, and much better from my point opf view. It would be the
> obvious choice, and includes the useful feature that it is divisible by
> 12, which 704 is not. Other things which come to mind which are closer
> in size to 704 are 684, 742 and 764. 742 shares with 159 the feature of
> being divisible by 53, in case that matters.
>
>

I agree then, 612 is the best choice with its schismatic resolution. This
one approximates 79/80 MOS 159-tET with less than a cent error. It's the
most one can ask for.

Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/11/2007 12:08:53 AM

SNIP

> >
> > In a revised Maqam world, these could be, 704-edo, 17 tones (perdes),
and
> > maqam scales, even though you need more tones for exact transpositions
and
> > Ahenk changes.
>
> That's a good way of explaining it... but I was under the impression they
> used the (1200-edo) cent or the (10600-edo) Tï¿½rk senti as a measurement.
> Where do you get 704?
>

It's just something I came up with. I agree with Gene though, 612 is way
better.

> > Here are the 17 traditional perdes:
> >
> > 0: RAST
> > 1: Shuri
> > 2: Zengule cluster
> > 3: DUGAH
> > 4: Kurdi/Nihavend cluster
> > 5: SEGAH cluster
> > 6: Buselik
> > 7: CHARGAH
> > 8: Hijaz
> > 9: Uzzal/Saba cluster
> > 10: NEVA
> > 11: Bayati
> > 12: Hisar cluster
> > 13: HUSEYNI
> > 14: Ajem cluster
> > 15: EVDJ cluster
> > 16: Mahur
> > 17: GERDANIYE
>
> That I got. When you say cluster, you mean that segah, for example, can be
> 350, 384.91 or some similar cents value, right?
>
>
>

Exactly. Note, that I use cluster to signify those pitches that greatly
vary.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/11/2007 11:12:30 AM

> > > And more information on theory can be gleaned here:
> > > http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nazariyat/default.asp
> >
> > This is giving me an error (I think).
>
> I wouldn't know about that.

Since the error is in Turkish, I figured you might.

> > > The typical, though unscored concert ensemble comprises a
> > > ney or two, at least one tanbur
> >
> > Know anything about tanbur fret positions?
>
> While it is not standardized, here is the official table:
> http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/tanbur/tanbur.htm

This one isn't loading for me at the moment. I guess
I'll try again later.

> > > and one oud, a kemencha,
> >
> > What's a kemencha?
>
> A pear shaped viol played on the lap by touching fingernails
> to the strings and bowing.

Thanks. Unfretted I take it.

> > > Fretted/Constrained instruments:
> > >
> > > Tanbur (http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/tanbur/tanbur.htm)
> > > Ney (http://www.ozanyarman.com/misc/Ney%20Perdes.jpg)
> > > Kanun (I will not promote anything but the 79-tone model)
> > > Santur (as problematic as kanuns of today)
> >
> > Any idea how kanuns were tuned 50 or 100 years ago?
>
> Haphazardly, I guess. And before that, diatonically without mandals.

Excellent.

> > > > > "Djins" originally means a tetrachord. But for more than a
> > > > > century now, it has come to mean pentachord, and even
> > > > > diminished pentachord too.
> > > >
> > > > Wikipedia says they can also be trichords.
> > > > Howabout this: a division of the 4:3. Is it always that?
> > >
> > > It was hundreds of years ago. It isn't now.
> >
> > What else is it?
>
> As sami says, trichords, tetrachords, pentachords. But I
> personally wouldn't need anything other than tetrachords
> to define Maqam Music.

Well, these are all divisions of the 4:3, no? And what
of the interval separating the djins? Is it always 9:8?

> > > are for Maqam Music what tones are for Western common-practice.
> >
> > Pitch classes, I assume?
>
> Depends how you define pitch-classes.

A pitch class is the set of a pitch and all its octave
copies.

> > So it sounds like we have a 17-tone
> > scale from which the tones of the maqamat are drawn, and these
> > may be rooted on any one of 12 keys (with some exceptions),
> > where these 12 keys are a subset of the 17 perdeler. No?
>
> Possibly.

Well, this is really important to nail down.

> > And then the maqamat additionally have some commatic
> > adjustments beyond the 17 perdeler (?).
>
> Commatic AND quarter-tonal.

In this case I just meant anything smaller than a step of 17.

> > Now, what is the minimum amount of information I need to
> > specify a maqam?
>
> You need a master tuning which neatly encapsulates perdeler
> at a given Ahenk, or namely, 79/80 MOS 159-tET.

No, I mean *a* maqam. Like rast. What is rast? It's
a 7-tone pythagorean scale, which may be rooted on some
note of 12-tone a pythagorean, along with a preferred
root note and some preferred microtonal passing tones /
ornaments. Yes?

> > The tones it contains, the preferred
> > starting tonic... what else?
>
> Once you map the perdeler to the master tuning, all you
> have to do is specify subsets for a particular maqam. These
> scales are always diatonic/septatonic for any particular
> instant.

They're always septatonic despite that some of the djins
have 3 or 5 tones?

> > Which maqam has the least number of tones? Which the greatest?
>
> Rast/Mahur would have the least number, some composites like
> Evdjara, Hisar Buselik, Muhayyer Sunbule, or Ashiran Zemzeme
> the greatest.

How many we talkin'?

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/11/2007 3:59:03 PM

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 11 ï¿½ubat 2007 Pazar 21:12
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> > > > And more information on theory can be gleaned here:
> > > > http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nazariyat/default.asp
> > >
> > > This is giving me an error (I think).
> >
> > I wouldn't know about that.
>
> Since the error is in Turkish, I figured you might.
>

I don't receive any errors. Can you describe it?

> > > > The typical, though unscored concert ensemble comprises a
> > > > ney or two, at least one tanbur
> > >
> > > Know anything about tanbur fret positions?
> >
> > While it is not standardized, here is the official table:
> > http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/tanbur/tanbur.htm
>
> This one isn't loading for me at the moment. I guess
> I'll try again later.
>

Ditto.

> > > > and one oud, a kemencha,
> > >
> > > What's a kemencha?
> >
> > A pear shaped viol played on the lap by touching fingernails
> > to the strings and bowing.
>
> Thanks. Unfretted I take it.
>

Quite.

SNIP

>
> Well, these are all divisions of the 4:3, no? And what
> of the interval separating the djins? Is it always 9:8?
>

Taken as 4:3, sometimes they are made conjunct and either exceed an octave
by the conjuction of a yet another genus, or complete the octave by the
addition of 9:8. When disjunct, they are seperated by 9:8.

Mind you, it is me who refuses the usage of genus as anything other than the
division of a tetrachord.

> > > > are for Maqam Music what tones are for Western common-practice.
> > >
> > > Pitch classes, I assume?
> >
> > Depends how you define pitch-classes.
>
> A pitch class is the set of a pitch and all its octave
> copies.
>

Well, we have other names for the octave complements for the 17-perdes I
gave. "Tone" is probably the best translation.

> > > So it sounds like we have a 17-tone
> > > scale from which the tones of the maqamat are drawn, and these
> > > may be rooted on any one of 12 keys (with some exceptions),
> > > where these 12 keys are a subset of the 17 perdeler. No?
> >
> > Possibly.
>
> Well, this is really important to nail down.
>

The 12 keys (Ahenks) on which the traditional 17 perdes are based do not
necessarily form a subset of these 17. Think of them, rather, as a
circulating 12-tone temperament.

> > > And then the maqamat additionally have some commatic
> > > adjustments beyond the 17 perdeler (?).
> >
> > Commatic AND quarter-tonal.
>
> In this case I just meant anything smaller than a step of 17.
>

17-equal? Right. Minute subtleties, or characteristic alterations let's call
them.

> > > Now, what is the minimum amount of information I need to
> > > specify a maqam?
> >
> > You need a master tuning which neatly encapsulates perdeler
> > at a given Ahenk, or namely, 79/80 MOS 159-tET.
>
> No, I mean *a* maqam. Like rast. What is rast? It's
> a 7-tone pythagorean scale, which may be rooted on some
> note of 12-tone a pythagorean, along with a preferred
> root note and some preferred microtonal passing tones /
> ornaments. Yes?
>

It's not pythagorean, it's 5-limit to 11-limit harmonic major. Yes, it may
be sounded from any Ahenk/key pertaining to a circulating 12-tone
temperament. And yes, the third and seventh degrees of this principal
diatonic mode are flexible.

> > > The tones it contains, the preferred
> > > starting tonic... what else?
> >
> > Once you map the perdeler to the master tuning, all you
> > have to do is specify subsets for a particular maqam. These
> > scales are always diatonic/septatonic for any particular
> > instant.
>
> They're always septatonic despite that some of the djins
> have 3 or 5 tones?
>

They are always septatonic per octave per instance regardless of how you
conceive the genera.

> > > Which maqam has the least number of tones? Which the greatest?
> >
> > Rast/Mahur would have the least number, some composites like
> > Evdjara, Hisar Buselik, Muhayyer Sunbule, or Ashiran Zemzeme
> > the greatest.
>
> How many we talkin'?
>

About a dozen or so superlative maqams and a few hundred composites.

> -Carl
>
>

Oz.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/11/2007 7:26:31 PM

> > > > > And more information on theory can be gleaned here:
> > > > > http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nazariyat/default.asp
> > > >
> > > > This is giving me an error (I think).
> > >
> > > I wouldn't know about that.
> >
> > Since the error is in Turkish, I figured you might.
>
> I don't receive any errors. Can you describe it?

Hrm, now I just get a page cannot be loaded error.

> > A pitch class is the set of a pitch and all its octave
> > copies.
>
>
> Well, we have other names for the octave complements for the
> 17-perdes I gave. "Tone" is probably the best translation.

I see. Ok.

> > > > So it sounds like we have a 17-tone
> > > > scale from which the tones of the maqamat are drawn, and these
> > > > may be rooted on any one of 12 keys (with some exceptions),
> > > > where these 12 keys are a subset of the 17 perdeler. No?
> > >
> > > Possibly.
> >
> > Well, this is really important to nail down.
>
> The 12 keys (Ahenks) on which the traditional 17 perdes are
> based do not necessarily form a subset of these 17.

Ok, then we need to know what they are.

> > > > And then the maqamat additionally have some commatic
> > > > adjustments beyond the 17 perdeler (?).
> > >
> > > Commatic AND quarter-tonal.
> >
> > In this case I just meant anything smaller than a step of 17.
>
> 17-equal?

Or the 17-tone pythagorean half-step. Take your pick.

> Right. Minute subtleties, or characteristic alterations
> let's call them.

Ok.

> > > > Now, what is the minimum amount of information I need to
> > > > specify a maqam?
> > >
> > > You need a master tuning which neatly encapsulates perdeler
> > > at a given Ahenk, or namely, 79/80 MOS 159-tET.
> >
> > No, I mean *a* maqam. Like rast. What is rast? It's
> > a 7-tone pythagorean scale, which may be rooted on some
> > note of 12-tone a pythagorean, along with a preferred
> > root note and some preferred microtonal passing tones /
> > ornaments. Yes?
>
> It's not pythagorean, it's 5-limit to 11-limit harmonic major.

That's quite a range. Regional or ensemble-specific variation?
Maybe we should back up and use something like Rothenberg's
rank-order matrices.

> > > > The tones it contains, the preferred
> > > > starting tonic... what else?
> > >
> > > Once you map the perdeler to the master tuning, all you
> > > have to do is specify subsets for a particular maqam. These
> > > scales are always diatonic/septatonic for any particular
> > > instant.
> >
> > They're always septatonic despite that some of the djins
> > have 3 or 5 tones?
>
> They are always septatonic per octave per instance regardless
> of how you conceive the genera.

Sounds like you may have different pitch classes in different
octaves, if, as above, three tetrachords are used conjunctly.

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/11/2007 7:36:20 PM

SNIP

> > > Since the error is in Turkish, I figured you might.
> >
> > I don't receive any errors. Can you describe it?
>
> Hrm, now I just get a page cannot be loaded error.
>

Try to refresh a few times. That might work.

SNIP

> > The 12 keys (Ahenks) on which the traditional 17 perdes are
> > based do not necessarily form a subset of these 17.
>
> Ok, then we need to know what they are.
>

The 12 Ahenks? Have I not already provided them months ago?

> > > > > And then the maqamat additionally have some commatic
> > > > > adjustments beyond the 17 perdeler (?).
> > > >
> > > > Commatic AND quarter-tonal.
> > >
> > > In this case I just meant anything smaller than a step of 17.
> >
> > 17-equal?
>
> Or the 17-tone pythagorean half-step. Take your pick.
>

That is 40 cents, right?

SNIP

> > > No, I mean *a* maqam. Like rast. What is rast? It's
> > > a 7-tone pythagorean scale, which may be rooted on some
> > > note of 12-tone a pythagorean, along with a preferred
> > > root note and some preferred microtonal passing tones /
> > > ornaments. Yes?
> >
> > It's not pythagorean, it's 5-limit to 11-limit harmonic major.
>
> That's quite a range. Regional or ensemble-specific variation?
> Maybe we should back up and use something like Rothenberg's
> rank-order matrices.
>

Regional AND ensemble-specific depending on taste and oppurtunity.

> > > > > The tones it contains, the preferred
> > > > > starting tonic... what else?
> > > >
> > > > Once you map the perdeler to the master tuning, all you
> > > > have to do is specify subsets for a particular maqam. These
> > > > scales are always diatonic/septatonic for any particular
> > > > instant.
> > >
> > > They're always septatonic despite that some of the djins
> > > have 3 or 5 tones?
> >
> > They are always septatonic per octave per instance regardless
> > of how you conceive the genera.
>
> Sounds like you may have different pitch classes in different
> octaves, if, as above, three tetrachords are used conjunctly.
>

Octave equivalances always take precedence, no matter naming conventions

> -Carl
>
>

Oz.

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

2/12/2007 2:52:47 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@...> wrote:
>
> > dialectology, or semiology
>
> This is where I get off the boat.

Sure, it's sailing to an Island of Understanding, so I can see the
source of your trepidation, hahaha!

> > Wouldn't the true test of understanding
> > be the creation of a new maqam the fits naturally in with the old
> > ones?
>
> Perhaps. That would involve an assumption on the acceptance
> of maqams.

Obviously, but it's hardly going out on a limb to say "the proof of
the pudding..."

>I would prefer being able to get a synth to perform
> a maqam realistically from a score alone.

A score is algorithm(s), but a maqam audibley involves heuristic
processes (otherwise it would be bogus to speak of improvisation
in maqam music). Maybe you could say that improvisation could take
place offline, in the composer's head, or be performed by an
exceedingly subtle robot. Either way, you're still looking at
something that is defined by the work of many over time.
>
> > Of course, there's a danger there, because a new maqam could
> > actually be created "by feel", with the author(s) mistakenly
> > believing that they are following a conscious understanding
> > which is bogus in reality.
>
> If you have a computer that can spit them out on demand, that's
> no problem.

Even a functioning algorithm can actually be worse than a glaring
failure, if that algorithm is established as "the" when it's
actually only "one of many".

> Do you have a list of all the character families you've discovered?

Nope.

> Is the character of a family always the character of a
> simple ratio?

Nope.

-Cameron Bobro

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/12/2007 9:16:14 AM

> > > > Since the error is in Turkish, I figured you might.
> > >
> > > I don't receive any errors. Can you describe it?
> >
> > Hrm, now I just get a page cannot be loaded error.
>
> Try to refresh a few times. That might work.

I did. It's finally working now.

> > > The 12 keys (Ahenks) on which the traditional 17 perdes are
> > > based do not necessarily form a subset of these 17.
> >
> > Ok, then we need to know what they are.
>
> The 12 Ahenks? Have I not already provided them months ago?

I don't have them in my running maqam notes file.

> > > > > > And then the maqamat additionally have some commatic
> > > > > > adjustments beyond the 17 perdeler (?).
> > > > >
> > > > > Commatic AND quarter-tonal.
> > > >
> > > > In this case I just meant anything smaller than a step of 17.
> > >
> > > 17-equal?
> >
> > Or the 17-tone pythagorean half-step. Take your pick.
>
> That is 40 cents, right?

No time to check.

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/12/2007 9:21:44 AM

> > Do you have a list of all the character families you've discovered?
>
> Nope.

Do you have anything at all that would enable another person to
actually know what a character family is?

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/12/2007 9:17:47 AM

> > And more information on theory can be gleaned here:
> > http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nazariyat/default.asp
>
> This is giving me an error (I think).

Or maybe it's asking me to sign in? It says,

Sayýn Ziyâretçimiz,
Bu hizmetten faydalanmak için kullanýcý adýnýzý ve þifrenizi
girmelisiniz. Eðer daha önce kullanýcý adý ve þifrenizi
almamýþsanýz "Yeniden üye olmak istiyorum" linkine týklayýn.

-C.

🔗Carl Lumma <clumma@yahoo.com>

2/12/2007 10:21:24 AM

Ozan, the page on Tanbur frets

http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/tanbur/tanbur.htm

is in Turkish. Can you elucidate?

-Carl

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/12/2007 2:20:37 PM

SNIP

> >
> > The 12 Ahenks? Have I not already provided them months ago?
>
> I don't have them in my running maqam notes file.
>

Well, I already gave the seven principal Ahenks. The other 5 are mediants,
referred to as "mabeyn" (in between). So, Shah-Mansur Mabeyn, for instance,
would be an F#/Gb Ney.

SNIP

Oz.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/12/2007 2:25:07 PM

It says you have to be a member. Strange. You have to click the "Yeniden ï¿½ye
olmak istiyorum" link and follow the steps to become a member.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 12 ï¿½ubat 2007 Pazartesi 19:17
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> > And more information on theory can be gleaned here:
> > http://www.turkmusikisi.com/nazariyat/default.asp
>
> This is giving me an error (I think).

Or maybe it's asking me to sign in? It says,

Sayï¿½n Ziyï¿½retï¿½imiz,
Bu hizmetten faydalanmak iï¿½in kullanï¿½cï¿½ adï¿½nï¿½zï¿½ ve ï¿½ifrenizi
girmelisiniz. Eï¿½er daha ï¿½nce kullanï¿½cï¿½ adï¿½ ve ï¿½ifrenizi
almamï¿½ï¿½sanï¿½z "Yeniden ï¿½ye olmak istiyorum" linkine tï¿½klayï¿½n.

-C.

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>

2/12/2007 2:28:34 PM

It provides a load of information on tanbur's history, construction
materials, measurements, assembly instructions, acoustical parapharnalia,
the tuning of the strings, famour exponents of the instrument, and fret
positions in millimeters with perde/note names.

Oz.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Lumma" <clumma@yahoo.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 12 ï¿½ubat 2007 Pazartesi 20:21
Subject: [tuning] Re: Maqam podcast lecture

> Ozan, the page on Tanbur frets
>
> http://www.turkmusikisi.com/calgilar/tanbur/tanbur.htm
>
> is in Turkish. Can you elucidate?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

🔗Cameron Bobro <misterbobro@yahoo.com>

2/15/2007 2:31:48 AM

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "sami_shumays" <abushumays@...> wrote:

> which studies that fall under "cybernetics," are you thinking of?
> what specific approaches & how? please elaborate.

The study of complex systems, feedback, control systems in organisms,
I would think.

For example (from Stafford Beer), "if a viable system contains a
viable system, the organization must be recursive", which I believe is
demonstrated very well in modal music in practice.

-Cameron Bobro