Pinning down maqam intonation

While I've been mucking about with alternative tunings for about 30
years now (mostly in historical temperaments) I have resisted the
temptation to join this group because I don't want to get sucked into
the all the "angels on a pinhead" stuff, or as Mark Lindley once put
it, "having fun with numbers". From time to time, though, I do a
drive-by reading of this list just to see what's happenin'. The
current discussion about EDO and TET systems that can be used to
quantify Arabic intonation has prompted me to pop in and give my two
cents worth, 'cause it's an area I'm very interested in and concerned
about, if only from the point of view of someone who loves microtonal
music of all kinds and listens to a lot of Arabic recordings.

I have to say that I think the whole discussion is utterly pointless,
a symptom of an outmoded manner of thinking. Temperament of any kind
is a compromise required only when the musical instrument produces
tones from a fixed and limited gamut. This mostly means keyboards,
organs and fretted strings, since just about anything else either has
flexible intonation or can be retuned quickly to suit each piece
(including the qanun). The big mistake that so many people make is to
equate this limited gamut with the way musicians produce music in the
larger sense, which leads to attempts to pin things down to a certain
system. In regards to western classical music, I call this "keyboard
myopia", the idea that the compromise situation somehow represents
some basic underlying musical structure instead of a mere basnd-aid
solution. This manifests itself in the ideas that musicians in the
Baroque, left to their own devices (i.e. when not accompanied by an
inflexible tempered instrument), would play in this or that
temperament, much as some (though not all) musicians today will play
in equal temperament. This is putting the cart before the horse.

In regards to the current discussion (which I admittedly have not had
the patience to read through in its entirety, so pardon me if this
point has already been made), I see no use whatsoever in pinning down
any flavor of Arabic intonation with any fixed gamut, no matter how
clever the math behind its construction nor how numerous and fine the
steps. Why do it? Theoretically, its seems as though everyone agrees
such systems even at best are only approximations, and the discussion
seems to always end up in how close one can get with this or that
number of EDO steps. Practically speaking, many modern synthesizers
are capable of infinite retuning; why restrict ourselves to the
"approximations" of some intellectual construct? Pointless . . .
utterly pointless.

Here's the rub; with the advent of cheap musical synthesizers, the
MIDI system, and software synths, I really worry about the wonderful
variety of intonation being lost forever by the process of "musical
globalization", that is, the erosion of intonation variety as
musicians accept the functional (in)capabilities of electronic
instruments which can only produce tones according to compromise
systems thought up by those with such a fixed-gamut mentality. This
would not only be a great loss, but would also be completely
unnecessary, as there is no reason whatsoever to let it happen, other
than (bad) habit, ignorance, and laziness.

To this end, I have been mulling over an idea for a year or so, and I
thought I would toss it out for comment before I start getting serious
about realizing it. I have the idea of making a MIDI interactive
interface which would allow keyboard players to participate in the
making of Arabic music in such a manner that they would not
necessarily have to force intonation into any predefined intellectual
straightjecket. The idea is to have a large touch screen that would
assemble sets of tuning for the synthesizer which can be loaded
instantly during performance. Each tuning would be constructed by
assembling the maqam using its component ajnas in a manner which
reflects traditional theory as I understand it, which admittedly is
based only on reading the very good explanations on maqamworld.com.
Thus, you start building a maqam tuning table by selecting a jins and
specifying its starting note. Then you select the next jins and the
manner in which it is joined to the first, either conjunct on a
certain specified note of the first jins or disjunct by a
user-definable interval. Each jins could be tuned and stored in the
memory in as many forms as desired to reflect regional variations in
tuning. Tuning entry would be in frequency, cents, or tone-matching,
not as members of any predefined and limited EDO or TET set. The
ultimate arbiter would be the musicians ear. Jins/maqam names could be
displayed on the screen either in both English and Arabic.

Regarding transposition/mutation, when different maqams and/or ajnas
are used in one piece, they could be preselected and the pivotal
points of transposition/mutation defined. They could either be
propositioned on the screen and the musician could select them
manually as needed in real time, or the transposition/mutation
sequence could be preprogrammed and the musician need only push a
"next" button at each moment in the piece. There could also be a
completely flexible real-time mode where the musician could select a
tone from the current maqam merely by tapping it on screen, and then
select the new maqam or jins that would start on that note. This would
allow the keyboard musician real-time flexibility approaching that of
a flexible intonation instrument for improvisation.

I envision the system as a sort of virtual qanun. I'd really like to
know what the experienced Arabic musicians here think of such an idea?
Useful, or a waste of time?

Ultimately, in regards to microtonal music in general, I think we need
a complete reworking of the MIDI protocol, which is irreparably based
on a fixed-gamut mentality. In order to become truly flexible in
allowing the performance of microtonal music, we must abandon the
"note on/off" system in which the note identifier is a number
indicating a key, even if each key can be retuned or remapped to a
limited (and that's the problem) extent. This is stupid. A much better
system would be to simply give every note a temporal sequential
"event" code, followed by a couple of tuning bytes which specify the
exact frequency. For example, at the moment any key is played, it is
given the next available "event" identifier byte. The same identifier
is used for all subsequent information (aftertouch, pitch bend, etc.)
regarding that note until the "note off" is sent. This would allow
ultimate flexibility in creating and using any number of keyboard
interfaces, mapped to any manner of intonation system. Gone is the
need for such cumbersome monstrosities as high value double-digit EDO
or TET systems. This would remove the technological bottleneck and
bring the MIDI system into the 21st century, as well as remind
musicians that the ultimate purpose is making music and not
constructing intricate mathematical glass bead games.

Comments welcome.

Ciao,

Paul

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

> I have to say that I think the whole discussion is utterly
pointless,
> a symptom of an outmoded manner of thinking.

Possibly, but Ozan, who knows more about it than either of us, is
convinced it would be useful.

> Temperament of any kind
> is a compromise required only when the musical instrument produces
> tones from a fixed and limited gamut.

This just isn't true. If you temper out 81/80, it does have the
effect of squeezing more harmonic resources into a limited range.
Doing that, however, changes the nature of functional harmony. It is
key to common pratice music that ii is related harminically to both
IV and V. If you don't understand this, you don't understand
temperament.

> In regards to western classical music, I call this "keyboard
> myopia", the idea that the compromise situation somehow represents
> some basic underlying musical structure instead of a mere basnd-aid
> solution.

In common practice music, it *clearly* represents more than a band-
aid, and is an integral part of the musical structure itself.

> Here's the rub; with the advent of cheap musical synthesizers, the
> MIDI system, and software synths, I really worry about the wonderful
> variety of intonation being lost forever by the process of "musical
> globalization", that is, the erosion of intonation variety as
> musicians accept the functional (in)capabilities of electronic
> instruments which can only produce tones according to compromise
> systems thought up by those with such a fixed-gamut mentality.

That makes no sense. If you are using 12, 14 or even 32 bits to
subdivide a semitone, you are not being limited to any notable degree.

> Ultimately, in regards to microtonal music in general, I think we
need
> a complete reworking of the MIDI protocol, which is irreparably
based
> on a fixed-gamut mentality.

It's something of a mess, but it isn't really wedded to a fixed-gamut
mentality. It's just, as I keep complaining, that the tuning standard
isn't used much.

> A much better
> system would be to simply give every note a temporal sequential
> "event" code, followed by a couple of tuning bytes which specify the
> exact frequency.

That's sort of the MIDI standard system, though it stupidly doesn't
do exacly this, and has garbagy sysex dumps instead. However, the
tuning standard is three bytes--one the 0 to 127 note number, and the
next two give the exact pitch. Three bytes translates into a
precisely defined pitch, under the pitch standard that 69 is exactly
440 Hz.

> Temperament of any kind
> is a compromise required only when the musical instrument produces
> tones from a fixed and limited gamut. This mostly means keyboards,
> organs and fretted strings, since just about anything else either
> has flexible intonation or can be retuned quickly to suit each
> piece (including the qanun).

Would you call the following intonation scheme a temperament:
vertical (simultaneous) intervals in 5-limit just intonation
but melodic intervals tuned in 1/4-comma meantone temperament?

> The big mistake that so many people make is to
> equate this limited gamut with the way musicians produce music
> in the larger sense,

This mistake is most widespread with regards to 12-tone
equal temperament, both among conventional musicians and
microtonalists. (So, I agree.)

> the idea that the compromise situation somehow represents
> some basic underlying musical structure instead of a mere
> basnd-aid solution.

There are commas, and not all commas are created equal.
Whether you temper them out or not, they're important to
music, and a majority of proposed (and many observed)
scales seem to have a compact description in terms of
commas.

> I see no use whatsoever in pinning down
> any flavor of Arabic intonation with any fixed gamut, no matter
> how clever the math behind its construction nor how numerous and
> fine the steps. Why do it?

What if it tells us something deep about what music is?
Or what language is? Or how the mind works?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@...>
wrote:
>
> > Ultimately, in regards to microtonal music in general, I think we
> need
> > a complete reworking of the MIDI protocol, which is irreparably
> based
> > on a fixed-gamut mentality.
>
> It's something of a mess, but it isn't really wedded to a fixed-gamut
> mentality. It's just, as I keep complaining, that the tuning standard
> isn't used much.
>
> > A much better
> > system would be to simply give every note a temporal sequential
> > "event" code, followed by a couple of tuning bytes which specify the
> > exact frequency.
>
> That's sort of the MIDI standard system, though it stupidly doesn't
> do exacly this, and has garbagy sysex dumps instead. However, the
> tuning standard is three bytes--one the 0 to 127 note number, and the
> next two give the exact pitch. Three bytes translates into a
> precisely defined pitch, under the pitch standard that 69 is exactly
> 440 Hz.

Apple's Core Audio API for Audio Units is somewhat similar, in that
one byte is used for Note Number, and the other three bytes is used
for fractional pitch offset. Pitch is thus specified by a 32-bit
floating point value. Not all AU synths support fractional pitch
(many just round to the closest MIDI Note Number), but apparently all
the ones that come with Logic Pro do.

I have no idea if the plugin APIs for VST (Windows) or LADSPA (Linux)
have similar fractional pitch support.

> There are commas, and not all commas are created equal.

To clarify, I mean of equal musical importance. On the
tuning-math list there has been much discussion on how to
quantify this, and a good overall consensus has been
reached on the subject (despite bickering over the details).

-Carl

For an individual who probably did not even eye a qanun up close, let alone
tinker with its tuning system to reach so unsubstantiated a blitz of
conclusions, you sure do know how make a grandiloquent speech!

Seeing as all you know about the qanun is limited to Arabic recordings and
the infamous limitations of 24-tone equal temperament, it is no wonder your
message is littered with grave errors.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Poletti" <paul@polettipiano.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 09 �ubat 2007 Cuma 18:22
Subject: [tuning] Pinning down maqam intonation

> While I've been mucking about with alternative tunings for about 30
> years now (mostly in historical temperaments) I have resisted the
> temptation to join this group because I don't want to get sucked into
> the all the "angels on a pinhead" stuff, or as Mark Lindley once put
> it, "having fun with numbers". From time to time, though, I do a
> drive-by reading of this list just to see what's happenin'. The
> current discussion about EDO and TET systems that can be used to
> quantify Arabic intonation has prompted me to pop in and give my two
> cents worth, 'cause it's an area I'm very interested in and concerned
> about, if only from the point of view of someone who loves microtonal
> music of all kinds and listens to a lot of Arabic recordings.
>

Ahem. This general tendency towards Arabization and complete disregard for
kindred Maqam Music cultures is very much sickening. While it is a sure
thing that intonation for Arabs do not equal the intonation of Turks, or
Iranians for that matter, we still share a common history and theory, almost
the same perde names for Allah's sake, to the effect that we cannot alienate
ourselves to this genre no matter how much we may each do our best to
adulterate it via venerating inconsistencies such as 24-edo, or 53-tET, or
72-tET, etc...

> I have to say that I think the whole discussion is utterly pointless,
> a symptom of an outmoded manner of thinking. Temperament of any kind
> is a compromise required only when the musical instrument produces
> tones from a fixed and limited gamut. This mostly means keyboards,
> organs and fretted strings, since just about anything else either has
> flexible intonation or can be retuned quickly to suit each piece
> (including the qanun).

Have you corresponded with any qanun players to verify your preposterous
claims? The qanun circle in Istanbul is in general agreement, that they are
suffering from grave tuning issues when performing in ensembles
incorporating unfretted instruments. Which is why they have shown great
interest in my 79-tone qanun that I twice presented to their audience. For
one thing, I have behind me the support and appreciation of renowned Turkish
qanun players such as Ruhi Ayangil, Halil Karaduman, Erol Deran, and Nevzat
Sumer. These, among others, admire the fact that the 79-tone model can solve
many issues that pester them when performing Maqam Music on stage.

Retuned quickly to suit each piece? Nothing can be further from the truth.
There is neither time nor the occasion to re-calibrate qanuns extensively
during live performance.

The big mistake that so many people make is to
> equate this limited gamut with the way musicians produce music in the
> larger sense, which leads to attempts to pin things down to a certain
> system.

And what is wrong with that when so many benefits are reaped by that
approach?

In regards to western classical music, I call this "keyboard
> myopia", the idea that the compromise situation somehow represents
> some basic underlying musical structure instead of a mere basnd-aid
> solution. This manifests itself in the ideas that musicians in the
> Baroque, left to their own devices (i.e. when not accompanied by an
> inflexible tempered instrument), would play in this or that
> temperament, much as some (though not all) musicians today will play
> in equal temperament. This is putting the cart before the horse.
>

How is this relevant to the discussion which necessitates some kind of
theory conforming with the music practice in the Near East? The 79-tone
skeleton explains better than any of the systems thus far proposed the
traditional perdes and flavours of Maqam Music. And it is not some passing
fancy either, seeing as it IS implemented on an actual acoustic instrument.
What has Europe settling for 12 equal tones due to the prominence of
keyboard-based or influenced music got to do with the problems Maqam Music
suffers from?

> In regards to the current discussion (which I admittedly have not had
> the patience to read through in its entirety, so pardon me if this
> point has already been made), I see no use whatsoever in pinning down
> any flavor of Arabic intonation with any fixed gamut, no matter how
> clever the math behind its construction nor how numerous and fine the
> steps. Why do it? Theoretically, its seems as though everyone agrees
> such systems even at best are only approximations, and the discussion
> seems to always end up in how close one can get with this or that
> number of EDO steps. Practically speaking, many modern synthesizers
> are capable of infinite retuning; why restrict ourselves to the
> "approximations" of some intellectual construct? Pointless . . .
> utterly pointless.
>

So is the idea of notation then. Pointless! Why? So that people might employ
such devices to elevate music from crude monody to microtonal polyphony?

No skyscraper can be built from mud and bricks. Just as architecture is a
science which aids in the construction of megastructures that awe and dazzle
the mind, so is music theory, which can yield fantastic symphonies and
concertos as colossal artforms when put to good use.

So, what is at stake is more than "approximation", but proper "expression"
for accurate execution and consistent education of the tradition.

And surely, a few millimetres of miscalculation on the 79th floor will not
bring the whole building tumbling down.

> Here's the rub; with the advent of cheap musical synthesizers, the
> MIDI system, and software synths, I really worry about the wonderful
> variety of intonation being lost forever by the process of "musical
> globalization", that is, the erosion of intonation variety as
> musicians accept the functional (in)capabilities of electronic
> instruments which can only produce tones according to compromise
> systems thought up by those with such a fixed-gamut mentality. This
> would not only be a great loss, but would also be completely
> unnecessary, as there is no reason whatsoever to let it happen, other
> than (bad) habit, ignorance, and laziness.
>

'tis but the "keyboard myopia" talking. MIDI is not just about 12-tone
keyboards, but also, other controllers that, if you are able to master them,
can aid in the creation of wonders, as was the case with the youtube
demonstrations of the past month.

> To this end, I have been mulling over an idea for a year or so, and I
> thought I would toss it out for comment before I start getting serious
> about realizing it. I have the idea of making a MIDI interactive
> interface which would allow keyboard players to participate in the
> making of Arabic music in such a manner that they would not
> necessarily have to force intonation into any predefined intellectual
> straightjecket. The idea is to have a large touch screen that would
> assemble sets of tuning for the synthesizer which can be loaded
> instantly during performance. Each tuning would be constructed by
> assembling the maqam using its component ajnas in a manner which
> reflects traditional theory as I understand it, which admittedly is
> based only on reading the very good explanations on maqamworld.com.
> Thus, you start building a maqam tuning table by selecting a jins and
> specifying its starting note. Then you select the next jins and the
> manner in which it is joined to the first, either conjunct on a
> certain specified note of the first jins or disjunct by a
> user-definable interval. Each jins could be tuned and stored in the
> memory in as many forms as desired to reflect regional variations in
> tuning. Tuning entry would be in frequency, cents, or tone-matching,
> not as members of any predefined and limited EDO or TET set. The
> ultimate arbiter would be the musicians ear. Jins/maqam names could be
> displayed on the screen either in both English and Arabic.
>

And this compartmentalization is supposed to facilitate the understanding
and execution of Maqam Music? By evading altogether any solid temperament
solution, you have complicated matters to such an extent, that performing
the genre now becomes a drudgery.

And moreover, this constant Arabocentrism with no heed for Turks, Persians,
Azeris, Berbers, Indians, etc... is beginning to get tiresome.

> Regarding transposition/mutation, when different maqams and/or ajnas
> are used in one piece, they could be preselected and the pivotal
> points of transposition/mutation defined. They could either be
> propositioned on the screen and the musician could select them
> manually as needed in real time, or the transposition/mutation
> sequence could be preprogrammed and the musician need only push a
> "next" button at each moment in the piece. There could also be a
> completely flexible real-time mode where the musician could select a
> tone from the current maqam merely by tapping it on screen, and then
> select the new maqam or jins that would start on that note. This would
> allow the keyboard musician real-time flexibility approaching that of
> a flexible intonation instrument for improvisation.
>

I would like to see someone try and play that in realtime!

> I envision the system as a sort of virtual qanun. I'd really like to
> know what the experienced Arabic musicians here think of such an idea?
> Useful, or a waste of time?
>

as an unexperienced Turkish musician, I find it a hoot.

> Ultimately, in regards to microtonal music in general, I think we need
> a complete reworking of the MIDI protocol, which is irreparably based
> on a fixed-gamut mentality. In order to become truly flexible in
> allowing the performance of microtonal music, we must abandon the
> "note on/off" system in which the note identifier is a number
> indicating a key, even if each key can be retuned or remapped to a
> limited (and that's the problem) extent. This is stupid. A much better
> system would be to simply give every note a temporal sequential
> "event" code, followed by a couple of tuning bytes which specify the
> exact frequency. For example, at the moment any key is played, it is
> given the next available "event" identifier byte. The same identifier
> is used for all subsequent information (aftertouch, pitch bend, etc.)
> regarding that note until the "note off" is sent. This would allow
> ultimate flexibility in creating and using any number of keyboard
> interfaces, mapped to any manner of intonation system. Gone is the
> need for such cumbersome monstrosities as high value double-digit EDO
> or TET systems. This would remove the technological bottleneck and
> bring the MIDI system into the 21st century, as well as remind
> musicians that the ultimate purpose is making music and not
> constructing intricate mathematical glass bead games.
>

Not that I am religious about it, but what have you got against the utility
of fixed tones anyway? Have you tried performing some maqams on the 79-tone
skeletal model first?

> Comments welcome.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul
>
>

Oz.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "paolovalladolid" <phv40@...> wrote:

>
> I have no idea if the plugin APIs for VST (Windows) or LADSPA (Linux)
> have similar fractional pitch support.
>

A number of VSTi's support direct loading of Scala .scl files with
ratios, and calculate that out to something fierce... lessee...
some developers have different .tun formats... I see Hz to 4 and 6
decimal places in this Scala .tun file, and I believe that ZynAddSubFx
for example calculates the ratios in .scl files to "floating point",
however much that is.

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

>
> Seeing as all you know about the qanun is limited to Arabic
recordings and
> the infamous limitations of 24-tone equal temperament, it is no
wonder your
> message is littered with grave errors.

Well, you're absolutely right that I know very little about the
limitations and playing techniques of the qanun, though I was told
once by a Moroccan musician that it could be retuned as well as
flipping the tuning levers. I've also read it somewhere on the net,
but we all know how trustworthy net info is.

I don't know where you get the 24 TET bit, I don't subscirbe to it at
all. My hearing is not as refined as a practicing microtonal musician,
but even I can hear that lots of times it ain't 24 TET. I've done some
pitch extraction from Persian, Greek, Egyptian, and Arabic recordings,
and of course while the accuracy of such data is only good to within a
plus/minus a few cents, it is enough to tell me that 24 TET doesn't
cut the mustard.
>
>
> Ahem. This general tendency towards Arabization and complete
disregard for
> kindred Maqam Music cultures is very much sickening.

Sorry to imply that I only listen to Arabian peninsula stuff. In
addition to the list mentioned above, I also listen to Turkish,
Labanese, and other mid-eastern stuff - just about anything I can get
my hands on. I also listen to a lot of Indian classical, Chinese, just
about whatever I can get my hands on. So please don't paint me with a
brush you obviously like to wield. What shall we call it, then? Maqam
tradition music? That doesn't exactly allow for Greek stuff, does it?
You tell me. . .
>
> Have you corresponded with any qanun players to verify your preposterous
> claims?

Nope, I'm afraid I haven't. I've spoken with a few after concerts, but
none in the Turkish tradition.

> The qanun circle in Istanbul is in general agreement, that they are
> suffering from grave tuning issues when performing in ensembles
> incorporating unfretted instruments.

A common problem in all traditions, I think. That's why in western
tradition, keyboards and fretted instruments were called "imperfect".

> Which is why they have shown great
> interest in my 79-tone qanun that I twice presented to their
audience. For
> one thing, I have behind me the support and appreciation of renowned
Turkish
> qanun players such as Ruhi Ayangil, Halil Karaduman, Erol Deran, and
Nevzat
> Sumer. These, among others, admire the fact that the 79-tone model
can solve
> many issues that pester them when performing Maqam Music on stage.

Perhaps it does, in which case I stand corrected. I would honestly ask
you, is it REALLY neccessary to have all these tones available at all
times? Or, if we could conceive of an instrument with say, for the
sake of argument, half this number but which could be rapidly and
accurately retuned between numbers, would that suffice?
>
> Retuned quickly to suit each piece? Nothing can be further from the
truth.
> There is neither time nor the occasion to re-calibrate qanuns
extensively
> during live performance.

We have the same problem in the "early music" world. Modern concert
hall managers do not have the patience generally, though I found that
audiences are very understanding when I have tuned for a number of
concerts where I have changed all the Eb's to D#'s during pieces. And
some old treatises say to do this. Perhaps the situation is far more
complex with qanun. Which would raise an interesting question: what
exactly was the role of this instrument before the introduction of
your archi-qanun-ichord, if I may make a little word joke? I always
thought that it was "the law", as the name states, THE instrument
which defined the intonation. Is this just more internet nonsense?
Please elucidate.

> The big mistake that so many people make is to
> > equate this limited gamut with the way musicians produce music in the
> > larger sense, which leads to attempts to pin things down to a certain
> > system.

> And what is wrong with that when so many benefits are reaped by that
> approach?

What is wrong with it is IF it destroys some the refinements of some
REAL tradition in the process. I'm not saying this is the case, but
that is what I would offer as an argument against it. Your arguments
sound identical to those used to sell 12 TET to western musicians
during the 18th century, which causes me to doubt.
>
>
>
> In regards to western classical music, I call this "keyboard
> > myopia", the idea that the compromise situation somehow represents
> > some basic underlying musical structure instead of a mere basnd-aid
> > solution. This manifests itself in the ideas that musicians in the
> > Baroque, left to their own devices (i.e. when not accompanied by an
> > inflexible tempered instrument), would play in this or that
> > temperament, much as some (though not all) musicians today will play
> > in equal temperament. This is putting the cart before the horse.
> >
>
>
>
> How is this relevant to the discussion which necessitates some kind of
> theory conforming with the music practice in the Near East?

Merely a metaphor. Perhaps there is no relevance.

> The 79-tone
> skeleton explains better than any of the systems thus far proposed the
> traditional perdes and flavours of Maqam Music. And it is not some
passing
> fancy either, seeing as it IS implemented on an actual acoustic
instrument.

This argument sounds exactly like any number of microtonal keyboards
which have been presented to solve the western tuning problems, from
Mersenne's 19-tone keyboard to Harry Parch. The problem with all these
systems is that they rarely succeed precisely because they try to be
everything for everybody and thereby become too complex.

> What has Europe settling for 12 equal tones due to the prominence of
> keyboard-based or influenced music got to do with the problems Maqam
Music
> suffers from?

I'm really surprised you don't see the parallels. It has to do with
the problem of how to incorporate instruments of limited intonation by
nature of their small number of discrete dedicated sound producing
units in a musical environment which calls for a much larger number of
pitches. Same problem, different details, that's all.

>
> So is the idea of notation then. Pointless! Why? So that people
might employ
> such devices to elevate music from crude monody to microtonal polyphony?

I think you are mixing apples and oranges here. I would certainly
agree that a better notation system is needed to transmit and preserve
microtonal music, though using symbols on paper to do it is certainly
NOT cutting-edge.

>
> So, what is at stake is more than "approximation", but proper
"expression"
> for accurate execution and consistent education of the tradition.

Knowing how classical Indian musical training works, and how I learned
to play blues, I'd say ANY system of symbolizing music is second rate
to any aural tradition. We also now have recording technology which
vastly outstrips any system of symbolic notation in terms of
preserving and transmitting subtleties of intonation, rhythm,
articulation, inflection, and dynamics. The only thing symbolic
notation is really good at is polyphony/harmony.

>
> 'tis but the "keyboard myopia" talking. MIDI is not just about 12-tone
> keyboards, but also, other controllers that, if you are able to
master them,
> can aid in the creation of wonders, as was the case with the youtube
> demonstrations of the past month.

Yeah yeah, I know about this stuff, a lot of my colleagues are working
on alternative controllers. But I am interested more in controllers
that allow discrete production of accurate individual tones, like a
good violinist, but resembling a keyboard in terms of allowing
multiple tone production. MIDI is pretty bad at this because of the
way the note tuning commands are sent (you can't send a temporal
cluster of closely tuned pitches, for example, unless you remap the
note frequency table in the synthesizer) and the limitation to 128
notes. For example, it would even handle two octaves of your 79 note
system.

>
> And this compartmentalization is supposed to facilitate the
understanding
> and execution of Maqam Music? By evading altogether any solid
temperament
> solution, you have complicated matters to such an extent, that
performing
> the genre now becomes a drudgery.

I would really like to know to what extent and how many great
violinists, singers, or oud players in any of the maqam traditions
think that a "solid temperament solution" is essential to their
performance. I'm suspect we won't be able to get an objective answer
from you, though, as it is obvious which camp you are in. Not intended
as any sort of slight, just a statement of the situation. Any other
voices out there?
>
> And moreover, this constant Arabocentrism with no heed for Turks,
Persians,
> Azeris, Berbers, Indians, etc... is beginning to get tiresome.

Obviously your own axe to grind. Sorry if I pushed your button in that
respect. Totally unintentional.

>
> I would like to see someone try and play that in realtime!

Not half as complicated as changing organ registrations with one hand
while playing a Bach fugue. I managed just fine. Or doing some of the
on the fly scordatura I've seen some guitarists and violinists do.

>
> as an unexperienced Turkish musician, I find it a hoot.

Thanks for your opinion. Anyone else?

Now, how would YOU resolve the problem of young musicians of any of
the above cultures getting modern synthesizers and wanting to use them
to play their traditional music? Screw 'em? Or tell them to wait until
they can save up $8000 for a keyboard that will handle your 70 note
system. What are the chances of them doing that?

> Not that I am religious about it, but what have you got against the
utility
> of fixed tones anyway? Have you tried performing some maqams on the
79-tone
> skeletal model first?

Nope. I just want to come up with something that allows musicians to
use off-the-shelf MIDI controllers to play music microtonal accurately
intoned. I get sick when I hear "world music" warped and distorted to
12 TET. I'm much more in the flexible adaptive tuning camp than the
fixed gamut camp. Naturally, the nature of the problem suggests some
sort of predefined gamut. Whether or not this gamut need include ALL
possibilties for ALL imaginable circumstances is an arguable point. I
think it is only necessary when the musical performace truly requires
the production of all of these pitches. Just because someday sometime
I MIGHT need to use a certain pitch is no need to provide a button I
can push to make it. Technology offers the promise of chameleon
interfaces - why should we limit them to compromise tuning systems. If
we KNOW that a certain tradition uses certain pitches, just program
THOSE pitches into the thing and GO! Who cares if it all fits some
grand theory or not?

I also don't like the intellectualization of things that I feel are
primarily sensual aspects of music.

Thanks for your comments. I mean it.

Ciao,

Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gene Ward Smith" <genewardsmith@coolgoose.com>
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 09 �ubat 2007 Cuma 22:15
Subject: [tuning] Re: Pinning down maqam intonation

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Poletti" <paul@...> wrote:
>
> > I have to say that I think the whole discussion is utterly
> pointless,
> > a symptom of an outmoded manner of thinking.
>
> Possibly, but Ozan, who knows more about it than either of us, is
> convinced it would be useful.
>

And indeed so.

SNIP

Oz.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Cameron Bobro" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "paolovalladolid" <phv40@> wrote:
>
> >
> > I have no idea if the plugin APIs for VST (Windows) or LADSPA (Linux)
> > have similar fractional pitch support.
> >
>
> A number of VSTi's support direct loading of Scala .scl files with
> ratios, and calculate that out to something fierce... lessee...
> some developers have different .tun formats... I see Hz to 4 and 6
> decimal places in this Scala .tun file, and I believe that ZynAddSubFx
> for example calculates the ratios in .scl files to "floating point",
> however much that is.
>

Several AUs can also load Scala files (most of LinPlug's, Zebra, etc.).

But having more synth plugins that support an extended note API that
is built right into the OS (like OSX and its Core Audio) would add
more useful options. Say you're running 10 plugins, all from differet
makers, and you wanted to change their tunings - what would be easier
- having the plugin host load one tuning and use it on all 10 synths
at once, or load a tuning file 10 times - once into each plugin.

SNIP

> > Seeing as all you know about the qanun is limited to Arabic
> recordings and
> > the infamous limitations of 24-tone equal temperament, it is no
> wonder your
> > message is littered with grave errors.
>
> Well, you're absolutely right that I know very little about the
> limitations and playing techniques of the qanun, though I was told
> once by a Moroccan musician that it could be retuned as well as
> flipping the tuning levers. I've also read it somewhere on the net,
> but we all know how trustworthy net info is.
>

Retuned yes, instantaneously, no.

> I don't know where you get the 24 TET bit, I don't subscirbe to it at
> all. My hearing is not as refined as a practicing microtonal musician,
> but even I can hear that lots of times it ain't 24 TET. I've done some
> pitch extraction from Persian, Greek, Egyptian, and Arabic recordings,
> and of course while the accuracy of such data is only good to within a
> plus/minus a few cents, it is enough to tell me that 24 TET doesn't
> cut the mustard.

No matter what other play, the southern Levantine qanuns have mandals
positioned at quarter-tones. So much for "let everyone play what they like"
approach.

> >
> >
> > Ahem. This general tendency towards Arabization and complete
> disregard for
> > kindred Maqam Music cultures is very much sickening.
>
> Sorry to imply that I only listen to Arabian peninsula stuff. In
> addition to the list mentioned above, I also listen to Turkish,
> Labanese, and other mid-eastern stuff - just about anything I can get
> my hands on. I also listen to a lot of Indian classical, Chinese, just
> about whatever I can get my hands on.

Very well then.

So please don't paint me with a
> brush you obviously like to wield.

What mayhap is the brush you are alluding to?

What shall we call it, then? Maqam
> tradition music? That doesn't exactly allow for Greek stuff, does it?
> You tell me. . .

Some of us are pushing for the term "Maqam Music" at the expense of
nationalists. Since Greeks have all but surrendered to 12 Western tones, the
official culture cannot be included in the Maqam world. But prior to 19th
century, colonies of muslims in the Balkan peninsula practiced maqamat too.

When it is a matter of defining the region, we say Turkish Maqam Music,
Arabic Maqam Music, Azeri Maqam Music, etc...

> >
> > Have you corresponded with any qanun players to verify your preposterous
> > claims?
>
> Nope, I'm afraid I haven't. I've spoken with a few after concerts, but
> none in the Turkish tradition.
>
> > The qanun circle in Istanbul is in general agreement, that they are
> > suffering from grave tuning issues when performing in ensembles
> > incorporating unfretted instruments.
>
> A common problem in all traditions, I think. That's why in western
> tradition, keyboards and fretted instruments were called "imperfect".
>

"Na-kamil", indeed! Kanun is considered as such.

> > Which is why they have shown great
> > interest in my 79-tone qanun that I twice presented to their
> audience. For
> > one thing, I have behind me the support and appreciation of renowned
> Turkish
> > qanun players such as Ruhi Ayangil, Halil Karaduman, Erol Deran, and
> Nevzat
> > Sumer. These, among others, admire the fact that the 79-tone model
> can solve
> > many issues that pester them when performing Maqam Music on stage.
>
> Perhaps it does, in which case I stand corrected. I would honestly ask
> you, is it REALLY neccessary to have all these tones available at all
> times?

Is it necessary to have all the stops an organ has? or all the keys a piano
boasts?

Or, if we could conceive of an instrument with say, for the
> sake of argument, half this number but which could be rapidly and
> accurately retuned between numbers, would that suffice?

It would. But the keywords: "rapidly & accurately" do not apply to
instruments with more strings than you know what to do with. Hence my
predicament: I need them all, someone else who doesn't care for infinite
modulation might not.

> >
> > Retuned quickly to suit each piece? Nothing can be further from the
> truth.
> > There is neither time nor the occasion to re-calibrate qanuns
> extensively
> > during live performance.
>
> We have the same problem in the "early music" world. Modern concert
> hall managers do not have the patience generally, though I found that
> audiences are very understanding when I have tuned for a number of
> concerts where I have changed all the Eb's to D#'s during pieces. And
> some old treatises say to do this. Perhaps the situation is far more
> complex with qanun.

You betcha.

Which would raise an interesting question: what
> exactly was the role of this instrument before the introduction of
> your archi-qanun-ichord, if I may make a little word joke? I always
> thought that it was "the law", as the name states, THE instrument
> which defined the intonation. Is this just more internet nonsense?
> Please elucidate.
>

As I stated in my response to Carl, the instrument served and still serves
as flourish-maker in ensembles, its task merely to accompany and fill in the
void with beauteous taksims.

> > The big mistake that so many people make is to
> > > equate this limited gamut with the way musicians produce music in the
> > > larger sense, which leads to attempts to pin things down to a certain
> > > system.
>
> > And what is wrong with that when so many benefits are reaped by that
> > approach?
>
> What is wrong with it is IF it destroys some the refinements of some
> REAL tradition in the process. I'm not saying this is the case, but
> that is what I would offer as an argument against it. Your arguments
> sound identical to those used to sell 12 TET to western musicians
> during the 18th century, which causes me to doubt.

If neither 24-edo, nor 24-pyth managed to obliterate the refinements of our
maqam tradition, there is no risk - none at all - posed by the 79-tone
model. On the contrary, my proposition unearths the practiced refinements.

Your analogy with 12-tET applies to the Arelists and quarter-tonalists.

SNIP

>
> > The 79-tone
> > skeleton explains better than any of the systems thus far proposed the
> > traditional perdes and flavours of Maqam Music. And it is not some
> passing
> > fancy either, seeing as it IS implemented on an actual acoustic
> instrument.
>
> This argument sounds exactly like any number of microtonal keyboards
> which have been presented to solve the western tuning problems, from
> Mersenne's 19-tone keyboard to Harry Parch. The problem with all these
> systems is that they rarely succeed precisely because they try to be
> everything for everybody and thereby become too complex.
>

I hardly think Partch was promoting something for everybody with his
maverick designs and theories. Neither do I claim that 79-tone tuning is all
one could ever want. Nay, it is merely a skeleton, a framework if you will,
to reconcile practice with theory. Its applicability to the qanun and
correctness of tuning is sufficient grounds to prefer it above the existing
tone-systems wreaking havoc.

> > What has Europe settling for 12 equal tones due to the prominence of
> > keyboard-based or influenced music got to do with the problems Maqam
> Music
> > suffers from?
>
> I'm really surprised you don't see the parallels. It has to do with
> the problem of how to incorporate instruments of limited intonation by
> nature of their small number of discrete dedicated sound producing
> units in a musical environment which calls for a much larger number of
> pitches. Same problem, different details, that's all.
>

Well, we do not have that problem, because Maqam Music does not require
keyboard instruments.

Even if it did, I have a grand project where each course of a piano could be
automatically and instantaneously retuned on demand.

> >
> > So is the idea of notation then. Pointless! Why? So that people
> might employ
> > such devices to elevate music from crude monody to microtonal polyphony?
>
> I think you are mixing apples and oranges here. I would certainly
> agree that a better notation system is needed to transmit and preserve
> microtonal music, though using symbols on paper to do it is certainly
> NOT cutting-edge.
>

And what of the usage of quarter-tone or AEU accidentals? The sagittal
79-tone notation coupled with 79/80 MOS 159-tET is fine enough a system to
represent the subtleties of intonation in Maqam Music.

> >
> > So, what is at stake is more than "approximation", but proper
> "expression"
> > for accurate execution and consistent education of the tradition.
>
> Knowing how classical Indian musical training works, and how I learned
> to play blues, I'd say ANY system of symbolizing music is second rate
> to any aural tradition.

No objections there. But still, notation serves not only as a guide, but
also an instructor. How else could I learn how to play the marvelous
preludes and fugues of Bach otherwise?

We also now have recording technology which
> vastly outstrips any system of symbolic notation in terms of
> preserving and transmitting subtleties of intonation, rhythm,
> articulation, inflection, and dynamics. The only thing symbolic
> notation is really good at is polyphony/harmony.
>

I concur. That is why the general tendency of Maqam Music circles was toward
the acceptance of Western staff notation. Now is nigh time to move on to the
next step and adopt a theory that not only agrees with tradition, but also
paves the way for microtonal polyphony.

> >
> > 'tis but the "keyboard myopia" talking. MIDI is not just about 12-tone
> > keyboards, but also, other controllers that, if you are able to
> master them,
> > can aid in the creation of wonders, as was the case with the youtube
> > demonstrations of the past month.
>
> Yeah yeah, I know about this stuff, a lot of my colleagues are working
> on alternative controllers. But I am interested more in controllers
> that allow discrete production of accurate individual tones, like a
> good violinist, but resembling a keyboard in terms of allowing
> multiple tone production. MIDI is pretty bad at this because of the
> way the note tuning commands are sent (you can't send a temporal
> cluster of closely tuned pitches, for example, unless you remap the
> note frequency table in the synthesizer) and the limitation to 128
> notes. For example, it would even handle two octaves of your 79 note
> system.
>

MIDI is not my criterion for advancing the 79-tone model.

> >
> > And this compartmentalization is supposed to facilitate the
> understanding
> > and execution of Maqam Music? By evading altogether any solid
> temperament
> > solution, you have complicated matters to such an extent, that
> performing
> > the genre now becomes a drudgery.
>
> I would really like to know to what extent and how many great
> violinists, singers, or oud players in any of the maqam traditions
> think that a "solid temperament solution" is essential to their
> performance.

It is not. This temperament solution is essential for qanuns to
*faultlessly* accompany violinists, oudists, singers, etc... AND to
represent on paper the fine details of maqamat.

I'm suspect we won't be able to get an objective answer
> from you,

Tsk tsk. Such prejudice.

though, as it is obvious which camp you are in. Not intended
> as any sort of slight, just a statement of the situation. Any other
> voices out there?

Hopefully.

> >
> > And moreover, this constant Arabocentrism with no heed for Turks,
> Persians,
> > Azeris, Berbers, Indians, etc... is beginning to get tiresome.
>
> Obviously your own axe to grind. Sorry if I pushed your button in that
> respect. Totally unintentional.
>

Very well then.

> >
> > I would like to see someone try and play that in realtime!
>
> Not half as complicated as changing organ registrations with one hand
> while playing a Bach fugue. I managed just fine. Or doing some of the
> on the fly scordatura I've seen some guitarists and violinists do.
>

Scordatura. I like that concept.

> >
> > as an unexperienced Turkish musician, I find it a hoot.
>
> Thanks for your opinion. Anyone else?
>
> Now, how would YOU resolve the problem of young musicians of any of
> the above cultures getting modern synthesizers and wanting to use them
> to play their traditional music? Screw 'em?

I don't think so. That would be improper.

Or tell them to wait until
> they can save up $8000 for a keyboard that will handle your 70 note
> system. What are the chances of them doing that?
>

Such a pessimist. Do you suppose your solution is less costly?

> > Not that I am religious about it, but what have you got against the
> utility
> > of fixed tones anyway? Have you tried performing some maqams on the
> 79-tone
> > skeletal model first?
>
> Nope. I just want to come up with something that allows musicians to
> use off-the-shelf MIDI controllers to play music microtonal accurately
> intoned. I get sick when I hear "world music" warped and distorted to
> 12 TET.

Agreed.

I'm much more in the flexible adaptive tuning camp than the
> fixed gamut camp.

I don't reject flexible tuning at all. Nevertheless, a comprehensive layout
requires a fixed gamut.

Naturally, the nature of the problem suggests some
> sort of predefined gamut. Whether or not this gamut need include ALL
> possibilties for ALL imaginable circumstances is an arguable point.

Hence, the spectrum from 12 all to way to 612-equal.

I
> think it is only necessary when the musical performace truly requires
> the production of all of these pitches. Just because someday sometime
> I MIGHT need to use a certain pitch is no need to provide a button I
> can push to make it. Technology offers the promise of chameleon
> interfaces - why should we limit them to compromise tuning systems. If
> we KNOW that a certain tradition uses certain pitches, just program
> THOSE pitches into the thing and GO! Who cares if it all fits some
> grand theory or not?
>

Be my guest if you can implement THAT chameleon on an actual qanun.

> I also don't like the intellectualization of things that I feel are
> primarily sensual aspects of music.
>

Huh?

> Thanks for your comments. I mean it.
>
> Ciao,
>
> Paul
>
>

Cordially,
Oz.