Kandahar Poppies

I *think* this is final version of my 4th MOTU demo
- I will see what comments I get, if any.

Oz - I tried the shawm type instrument but it doesn't work correctly when in Sonar - the sound never shuts off. I need to call tech support after the holiday here in the States. It is not Ethno 2 because it works just fine as a stand alone.

This is a short, more or less middle eastern-ish piece using the Zurna tuning and Mark of the Unicorn Ethno 2 sample set in Sonar.

Download it here

http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=360

Well, it is a pity that there are is no zurna, sipsi, duduk, balaban,
let alone qanun, tanbur, cumbush, kemencha, rabab, tulum, and Turkish
cantillations samples in Ethno2! I feel Turkiye is being deliberately
left out in suchlike instrument packages.

The demo sounds good enough. Oriental as I said. Good work!

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On May 31, 2010, at 6:57 AM, christopherv wrote:

> I *think* this is final version of my 4th MOTU demo
> - I will see what comments I get, if any.
>
> Oz - I tried the shawm type instrument but it doesn't work correctly
> when in Sonar - the sound never shuts off. I need to call tech
> support after the holiday here in the States. It is not Ethno 2
> because it works just fine as a stand alone.
>
> This is a short, more or less middle eastern-ish piece using the
> Zurna tuning and Mark of the Unicorn Ethno 2 sample set in Sonar.
>
> Download it here
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=360
>

The samples of some (all?) of these instruments are there =- they do not
work correctly in Sonar though.

Chris

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> Well, it is a pity that there are is no zurna, sipsi, duduk, balaban,
> let alone qanun, tanbur, cumbush, kemencha, rabab, tulum, and Turkish
> cantillations samples in Ethno2! I feel Turkiye is being deliberately
> left out in suchlike instrument packages.
>
> The demo sounds good enough. Oriental as I said. Good work!
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> On May 31, 2010, at 6:57 AM, christopherv wrote:
>
> > I *think* this is final version of my 4th MOTU demo
> > - I will see what comments I get, if any.
> >
> > Oz - I tried the shawm type instrument but it doesn't work correctly
> > when in Sonar - the sound never shuts off. I need to call tech
> > support after the holiday here in the States. It is not Ethno 2
> > because it works just fine as a stand alone.
> >
> > This is a short, more or less middle eastern-ish piece using the
> > Zurna tuning and Mark of the Unicorn Ethno 2 sample set in Sonar.
> >
> > Download it here
> >
> > http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=360
> >
>
>
>

No they are not. Instead of the zurna, you have the Indian shenai.
Don't confuse the Indian tambura with the Turkish tanbur, the first is
a drone instrument that has little to do with the Turkish tanbur. And
then there is the bowed tanbur, to whose timbre comes dilruba the
closest. And the absence of tulum can be forgiven for the plentitude
of other bagpipes, but what of the sipsi, duduk, balaban? What of
qanun, kemencha and the rest? I haven't even mentioned the ney! Where
is it?

Sadly, they are not there. And so are the Turkish cantillation samples
most of which would have already lifted the size of Ethno2 package to
30 GB!

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 2, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

>
>
> The samples of some (all?) of these instruments are there =- they do
> not work correctly in Sonar though.
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Ozan Yarman
> <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Well, it is a pity that there are is no zurna, sipsi, duduk, balaban,
> let alone qanun, tanbur, cumbush, kemencha, rabab, tulum, and Turkish
> cantillations samples in Ethno2! I feel Turkiye is being deliberately
> left out in suchlike instrument packages.
>
> The demo sounds good enough. Oriental as I said. Good work!
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
>
> On May 31, 2010, at 6:57 AM, christopherv wrote:
>
> > I *think* this is final version of my 4th MOTU demo
> > - I will see what comments I get, if any.
> >
> > Oz - I tried the shawm type instrument but it doesn't work correctly
> > when in Sonar - the sound never shuts off. I need to call tech
> > support after the holiday here in the States. It is not Ethno 2
> > because it works just fine as a stand alone.
> >
> > This is a short, more or less middle eastern-ish piece using the
> > Zurna tuning and Mark of the Unicorn Ethno 2 sample set in Sonar.
> >
> > Download it here
> >
> > http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=360
> >
>
>
>
>
>

Perhaps someone can be convinced to put out a Turkish instrument package?

Some people are putting out free konakt compatible sample packages like this
gentleman.
http://0on3.wordpress.com/

So it must not be too hard.

Kontakt out of the box can do edo tuning and there is scala 2 kontakt for
other tunings

http://www.12equalboresme.com/Scala2Kontakt/index.html

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:55 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>wrote:

>
>
> No they are not. Instead of the zurna, you have the Indian shenai. Don't
> confuse the Indian tambura with the Turkish tanbur, the first is a drone
> instrument that has little to do with the Turkish tanbur. And then there is
> the bowed tanbur, to whose timbre comes dilruba the closest. And the absence
> of tulum can be forgiven for the plentitude of other bagpipes, but what of
> the sipsi, duduk, balaban? What of qanun, kemencha and the rest? I haven't
> even mentioned the ney! Where is it?
>
> Sadly, they are not there. And so are the Turkish cantillation samples most
> of which would have already lifted the size of Ethno2 package to 30 GB!
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
>
>
> The samples of some (all?) of these instruments are there =- they do not
> work correctly in Sonar though.
>
> Chris
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Well, it is a pity that there are is no zurna, sipsi, duduk, balaban,
>> let alone qanun, tanbur, cumbush, kemencha, rabab, tulum, and Turkish
>> cantillations samples in Ethno2! I feel Turkiye is being deliberately
>> left out in suchlike instrument packages.
>>
>> The demo sounds good enough. Oriental as I said. Good work!
>>
>> Oz.
>>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>>
>> On May 31, 2010, at 6:57 AM, christopherv wrote:
>>
>> > I *think* this is final version of my 4th MOTU demo
>> > - I will see what comments I get, if any.
>> >
>> > Oz - I tried the shawm type instrument but it doesn't work correctly
>> > when in Sonar - the sound never shuts off. I need to call tech
>> > support after the holiday here in the States. It is not Ethno 2
>> > because it works just fine as a stand alone.
>> >
>> > This is a short, more or less middle eastern-ish piece using the
>> > Zurna tuning and Mark of the Unicorn Ethno 2 sample set in Sonar.
>> >
>> > Download it here
>> >
>> > http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=360
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Perhaps someone can be convinced to put out a Turkish instrument package?
>
> Some people are putting out free konakt compatible sample packages like this
> gentleman.
> http://0on3.wordpress.com/
>
> So it must not be too hard.

sf2 soundfonts would be nice. There is a very limited supply of Turkish sf2 soundfonts available, or at least that I know of.

I'm considering making an SF2 when I have the time and patience for it.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 2, 2010, at 7:10 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps someone can be convinced to put out a Turkish instrument
>> package?
>>
>> Some people are putting out free konakt compatible sample packages
>> like this
>> gentleman.
>> http://0on3.wordpress.com/
>>
>> So it must not be too hard.
>
> sf2 soundfonts would be nice. There is a very limited supply of
> Turkish sf2 soundfonts available, or at least that I know of.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I'm considering making an SF2 when I have the time and patience for it.

That would be a real contribition, Dr Oz.

I was looking for your thesis on my computer and can't find it. All I really need are tunings for the principle maqams, with ranges for acceptable values as might be performed by expert performers. The vague handwaves which seem to suffice for a lot of people won't really work for me.

I have lots (gigs) of sf2 here
http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/sfbank

And Turkish?

http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/sfbank/neyflute.sf2

Sadly, only one I can see off hand.

Chris

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:10 AM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps someone can be convinced to put out a Turkish instrument package?
> >
> > Some people are putting out free konakt compatible sample packages like
> this
> > gentleman.
> > http://0on3.wordpress.com/
> >
> > So it must not be too hard.
>
> sf2 soundfonts would be nice. There is a very limited supply of Turkish sf2
> soundfonts available, or at least that I know of.
>
>
>

... I know, and it won't give you any consolation but Iranian
instruments are not better treated !
BTW I received some incredible demos by our friend Shaahin Mohajeri -
he picked up instruments from about any country (no other way) and
he's doing really well.
I just hope that when MOTU will hear your works and Shaahin's (and
Chris's and others !) they will realize there should invest in
completing the MiddleEast instrument collection...
Thanks for the list Ozan, actually I want to compile a list of most
important omissions that I will submit to the developpers for Ethno3...
I will add myself : ocarinas ! and a sawteeth waveform to test the
beats...

Also Ozan I want to remind you that the participants (and their
friends) are allowed to sing !
So please invite (real) singers in your studio... ;)

- - - - - - -
Jacques

Ozan wrote :
> No they are not. Instead of the zurna, you have the Indian shenai.
> Don't confuse the Indian tambura with the Turkish tanbur, the first is
> a drone instrument that has little to do with the Turkish tanbur. And
> then there is the bowed tanbur, to whose timbre comes dilruba the
> closest. And the absence of tulum can be forgiven for the plentitude
> of other bagpipes, but what of the sipsi, duduk, balaban? What of
> qanun, kemencha and the rest? I haven't even mentioned the ney! Where
> is it?
>
> Sadly, they are not there. And so are the Turkish cantillation samples
> most of which would have already lifted the size of Ethno2 package to
> 30 GB!
>
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Jun 2, 2010, at 1:47 AM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > The samples of some (all?) of these instruments are there =- they do
> > not work correctly in Sonar though.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 6:20 PM, Ozan Yarman
> > <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> > Well, it is a pity that there are is no zurna, sipsi, duduk,
> balaban,
> > let alone qanun, tanbur, cumbush, kemencha, rabab, tulum, and
> Turkish
> > cantillations samples in Ethno2! I feel Turkiye is being
> deliberately
> > left out in suchlike instrument packages.
> >
> > The demo sounds good enough. Oriental as I said. Good work!
> >
> > Oz.

Dear Gene, my thesis is downloadable at this link:

http://www.ozanyarman.com/files/doctorate_thesis.pdf

Some of the simplified JI tunings for famous maqams have been given to
Aaron Andrew Hunt upon his request which can be found here:

http://www.h-pi.com/downloads.html

(search the page for my name)

Surely, much improvement and theoretical elucidation is needed for specifics.

If you have any specific interest in any specific maqam, please ask,
so that we can delve into the minutiae... Otherwise, it would take an
enormous time and a herculean effort to disclose the applicable/
possible ranges of all perdes in every maqam given every performance
tradition/master for every sub-genre in the world of Maqam music.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 2, 2010, at 8:00 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> I'm considering making an SF2 when I have the time and patience for
>> it.
>
> That would be a real contribition, Dr Oz.
>
> I was looking for your thesis on my computer and can't find it. All
> I really need are tunings for the principle maqams, with ranges for
> acceptable values as might be performed by expert performers. The
> vague handwaves which seem to suffice for a lot of people won't
> really work for me.
>

A very resourceful site indeed, which I had had bookmarked previously.

The ney sf2 sounds good enough for an sf2. I also remember the ud.sf2,
which I benefitted from much earlier.

The sf2 pack that I have in mind might just suit there, inside a
subfolder of the same archive.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 2, 2010, at 3:19 PM, Chris Vaisvil wrote:

>
>
> I have lots (gigs) of sf2 here
> http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/sfbank
>
> And Turkish?
>
> http://clones.soonlabel.com/public/sfbank/neyflute.sf2
>
> Sadly, only one I can see off hand.
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 12:10 AM, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...t
> > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps someone can be convinced to put out a Turkish instrument
> package?
> >
> > Some people are putting out free konakt compatible sample packages
> like this
> > gentleman.
> > http://0on3.wordpress.com/
> >
> > So it must not be too hard.
>
> sf2 soundfonts would be nice. There is a very limited supply of
> Turkish sf2 soundfonts available, or at least that I know of.
>
>

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

> If you have any specific interest in any specific maqam, please ask,
> so that we can delve into the minutiae... Otherwise, it would take an
> enormous time and a herculean effort to disclose the applicable/
> possible ranges of all perdes in every maqam given every performance
> tradition/master for every sub-genre in the world of Maqam music.

Thanks, Ozan. I wsn't quite looking for that, more like a range of values that expert performers might be aiming for in the most common cases.

But Gene, you realize of course that your request would not yield any
answer other than a generalized response toward the specification of
loose ranges in "quarter-tones" and/or "commas" for any pitch of any
melodic phrase, which agrees with the proclivity towards 24 and/or 53-
EDO for the whole geography involved with the art of maqamat. You have
to be more specific in terms of the maqam, region, and cultural/
historical setting to get the answers you seek.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 7, 2010, at 3:55 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> If you have any specific interest in any specific maqam, please ask,
>> so that we can delve into the minutiae... Otherwise, it would take an
>> enormous time and a herculean effort to disclose the applicable/
>> possible ranges of all perdes in every maqam given every performance
>> tradition/master for every sub-genre in the world of Maqam music.
>
> Thanks, Ozan. I wsn't quite looking for that, more like a range of
> values that expert performers might be aiming for in the most common
> cases.
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> But Gene, you realize of course that your request would not yield any
> answer other than a generalized response toward the specification of
> loose ranges in "quarter-tones" and/or "commas" for any pitch of any
> melodic phrase, which agrees with the proclivity towards 24 and/or 53-
> EDO for the whole geography involved with the art of maqamat. You have
> to be more specific in terms of the maqam, region, and cultural/
> historical setting to get the answers you seek.

I've been looking at your thesis with interest, and it had results in there which seemed far more specific than that. Niyazi Sayin seemed to hit a note between 15/14 and 14/13 with consistency, and another around 13/12. Neqdet Yasar consistenty hits an interval between 13/12 and 12/11, and another between 14/13 and 13/12. If two intervals, one between 15/14 and 14/13 and another between 13/12 and 12/11 would do, we could temper out 196/195 and 144/143, and perhaps use hemithifths temperament, the 41&58 temperament, for which 99edo using the val <99 157 230 278 343 367| and the generator (a 16/13) of 29/99 would work nicely. <<2 25 13 5 -1 ...|| for the wedgie.

Dear Gene,

The measurements for Nejdet Yashar and Niyazi Sayin focus on specific
and characteristic dyads. You won't see the same intervallic results
between every perde-pair in their performance I'm sure. In fact, we
have sort of ascertained that in other papers. Historically, the
tanburs are fretted and the ney holes are drilled to yield some very
irregular and rather flexible tuning. 79 MOS 159-tET was one method of
salvaging the ambiguity of the situation while introducing decent
transpositions at every key. But 5 years back, you compared my 79-tone
attempt with Ben Johnston's notation, and disclosed the general
tendency on this list to equate fifth sizes in a tuning to avoid
awkward commatic inflexions at different tonalities to arrive at more
or less the same chords.

I understand the hemififths setting as involving exactly half the
perfect fifth, which, in the case of 41 or 58 notes is indeed a close
approximation of 16/13. This interval or its siblings 11/9, 27/22,
49/40 and 60/49, the latter two among which I like the best, could
indeed be taken as the generator of a 41-tone or 58-tone setting. In
fact, I have spent extensive time trying to settle the whole affair
into 41 pitches in the octave with special emphasis on 49/40 and
60/49. Simply taking 41-EDO seems a neat solution in itself. But then
again, there is the historical irregularity of Maqam music tuning(s)
which we dismiss altogether. Nevertheless, one can object by saying
that AEU or 24-EDO are also regular and taken with a grain of salt by
performers. In such a case, a 41-EDO theoretical model consigned
mostly to paper becomes viable.

The real problems emerge when you attempt to affix mandals on a qanun
or frets on a tanbur according to such regular tunings or their
hemififth siblings. They sound good and regular, but that feature is
not exactly sought. The neutral thirds, neutral seconds, even the
augmented seconds vary a lot from maqam to maqam given a specific
modulation. Hence, we return back to 79 MOS 159-tET, or the minimalist
Yarman-24, or yet again the moderate-resolution Yarman-36 based on a
bikechain of Modified Meantones.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 7, 2010, at 6:55 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> But Gene, you realize of course that your request would not yield any
>> answer other than a generalized response toward the specification of
>> loose ranges in "quarter-tones" and/or "commas" for any pitch of any
>> melodic phrase, which agrees with the proclivity towards 24 and/or
>> 53-
>> EDO for the whole geography involved with the art of maqamat. You
>> have
>> to be more specific in terms of the maqam, region, and cultural/
>> historical setting to get the answers you seek.
>
> I've been looking at your thesis with interest, and it had results
> in there which seemed far more specific than that. Niyazi Sayin
> seemed to hit a note between 15/14 and 14/13 with consistency, and
> another around 13/12. Neqdet Yasar consistenty hits an interval
> between 13/12 and 12/11, and another between 14/13 and 13/12. If two
> intervals, one between 15/14 and 14/13 and another between 13/12 and
> 12/11 would do, we could temper out 196/195 and 144/143, and
> perhaps use hemithifths temperament, the 41&58 temperament, for
> which 99edo using the val <99 157 230 278 343 367| and the
> generator (a 16/13) of 29/99 would work nicely. <<2 25 13 5 -1 ...||
> for the wedgie.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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

> The measurements for Nejdet Yashar and Niyazi Sayin focus on specific
> and characteristic dyads. You won't see the same intervallic results
> between every perde-pair in their performance I'm sure. In fact, we
> have sort of ascertained that in other papers.

Is it essentially a hopeless task to analyze the tuning of a maqam even as performed by a specific performer?

But 5 years back, you compared my 79-tone
> attempt with Ben Johnston's notation, and disclosed the general
> tendency on this list to equate fifth sizes in a tuning to avoid
> awkward commatic inflexions at different tonalities to arrive at more
> or less the same chords.

Transposibility of the same chords is how I manage to understand the giant scales I employ when composing my own music. It sounds like Dudon's approach, which builds irregularities in at the outset, would work better.

> I understand the hemififths setting as involving exactly half the
> perfect fifth, which, in the case of 41 or 58 notes is indeed a close
> approximation of 16/13.

Not terrifically close I would say, but that's what the regular mapping in this case is using. But if regularity is to be avoided, where does that leave that particular thought? Anyway, at least the fifths being divided as slightly sharp, not flat.

This interval or its siblings 11/9, 27/22,
> 49/40 and 60/49, the latter two among which I like the best, could
> indeed be taken as the generator of a 41-tone or 58-tone setting.

By "like" do you mean as a means of tuning maqams, or your own personal taste? Splitting a pure fifth in half with 49/40-60/49 brings to mind microtempering, but I don't think that would have much to do with the situation.

In
> fact, I have spent extensive time trying to settle the whole affair
> into 41 pitches in the octave with special emphasis on 49/40 and
> 60/49.

41 tempers out 2401/2400, which means it would certainly be possible to produce some highly accurate 7-limit scales of 41 notes with a lot of these neutral thirds about. But again, where does that leave the question of relating all of that to maqam music?

> Simply taking 41-EDO seems a neat solution in itself.

A more reasonable plan than 53 from what I can see.

But then
> again, there is the historical irregularity of Maqam music tuning(s)
> which we dismiss altogether.

The entire project of regularizing and systemizing is rather contrary to irregularities. You tend to be looking for ways to smooth those over and still produce acceptable results.

Nevertheless, one can object by saying
> that AEU or 24-EDO are also regular and taken with a grain of salt by
> performers. In such a case, a 41-EDO theoretical model consigned
> mostly to paper becomes viable.

And that strikes me as a damn fine argument. It seems like a more reasonable theoretical model at the outset, and far less likely to cause harm if someone tries to enforce it, or produces instruments with the tuning built into it.

> The real problems emerge when you attempt to affix mandals on a qanun
> or frets on a tanbur according to such regular tunings or their
> hemififth siblings. They sound good and regular, but that feature is
> not exactly sought.

Perhaps, but it strikes me that 24edo is even less sought. 41 equal, or a 41 note MOS, Hemififths[41], seems like it's more flexible and gets you closer to where you want to be, from what I can make of it.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 7, 2010, at 7:23 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> The measurements for Nejdet Yashar and Niyazi Sayin focus on specific
>> and characteristic dyads. You won't see the same intervallic results
>> between every perde-pair in their performance I'm sure. In fact, we
>> have sort of ascertained that in other papers.
>
> Is it essentially a hopeless task to analyze the tuning of a maqam
> even as performed by a specific performer?
>

One exact fixed-pitch tuning for the maqam in question in every case
by the same performer? Yes. A generalized blanket tuning with lots of
room for inflexions concerning the said maqam for all possible
"seyir" (melodic procedure) situations by the same performer? No.

If you wish to settle with an exact fixed-pitch solution that is
comprehensive enough to represent all performance traditions for allmaqams at every pitch without making anybody wince too much, say hello
once more to 79 MOS 159-tET.

If you wish to say "to hell with the damn cents and ratios, I'll play
the notes as I deem them fit", then say hello to Yarman-24.

If you rather you want to have a middle ground, welcome Yarman-36,
lest you can settle for the ultra-regular structure of 41 and 53-EDO.

> But 5 years back, you compared my 79-tone
>> attempt with Ben Johnston's notation, and disclosed the general
>> tendency on this list to equate fifth sizes in a tuning to avoid
>> awkward commatic inflexions at different tonalities to arrive at more
>> or less the same chords.
>
> Transposibility of the same chords is how I manage to understand the
> giant scales I employ when composing my own music. It sounds like
> Dudon's approach, which builds irregularities in at the outset,
> would work better.
>

The notion of transposition of scales in Maqam music practice is
analogous to the Modified Meantone setting. You have an ordinary type
of "Majorness-minorness" on the "tam (whole) perdes", and skewed
"Majorness-minorness" on the "nim (half) perdes". This is one of the
reasons why AEU and 24-EDO won't work as advertised.

>> I understand the hemififths setting as involving exactly half the
>> perfect fifth, which, in the case of 41 or 58 notes is indeed a close
>> approximation of 16/13.
>
> Not terrifically close I would say, but that's what the regular
> mapping in this case is using. But if regularity is to be avoided,
> where does that leave that particular thought? Anyway, at least the
> fifths being divided as slightly sharp, not flat.
>

Using any fifth larger than 700 cents means that you obtain perde
segah, which is crudely equivalent to 5:4, in the Pythagorean manner,
8 fifths down from the tone of origin. Wider than pure fifths mean you
are targetting the desirable perde segah (with maximum distance
between dugah-segah (D-E) at 11:10 in regular Turkish practice). That
is why I told Paul Erlich many years ago to his surprise that 29-EDO
yields a better Rast than 53-EDO.

> This interval or its siblings 11/9, 27/22,
>> 49/40 and 60/49, the latter two among which I like the best, could
>> indeed be taken as the generator of a 41-tone or 58-tone setting.
>
> By "like" do you mean as a means of tuning maqams, or your own
> personal taste? Splitting a pure fifth in half with 49/40-60/49
> brings to mind microtempering, but I don't think that would have
> much to do with the situation.
>

Actually, both. I find 40:49:60 a more consonant and organized chord
to work with compared to 18:22:27 or 22:27:33.

How does this have any bearing to tuning maqams? Note, that my
previous attempts to formulate scales with stretched octaves depend on
the "schismas" found between 11/9, 49/40, 60/49 and 27/22. What were
they? They were, 441:440, 540:539 and 2401:2400. This last remnant
brings to mind Uzdilek's attempt at creating a 2400-EDO unit as a
rival to the Ellis cent!

> In
>> fact, I have spent extensive time trying to settle the whole affair
>> into 41 pitches in the octave with special emphasis on 49/40 and
>> 60/49.
>
> 41 tempers out 2401/2400, which means it would certainly be possible
> to produce some highly accurate 7-limit scales of 41 notes with a
> lot of these neutral thirds about. But again, where does that leave
> the question of relating all of that to maqam music?
>

Why, here you mention that schisma (or centisma?) between 49/40 and
60/49 again!

The significance of such middle thirds for Maqam music cannot be
stressed enough. You need many of them spread around your tuning at
critical locations for such maqams as Ushshaq, Saba, Karjighar,
Huzzam, etc... Any modulation to any of these maqams in any "non-
problematic maqam" will require you to have situated them previously
in the appropriate spots.

But they are not enough by themselves. You need many varieties of such
middle thirds, middle seconds and augmented seconds to complete the
picture. Nevertheless, any tuning without these won't do at all for
Maqam music.

>> Simply taking 41-EDO seems a neat solution in itself.
>
> A more reasonable plan than 53 from what I can see.
>

Indeed!

> But then
>> again, there is the historical irregularity of Maqam music tuning(s)
>> which we dismiss altogether.
>
> The entire project of regularizing and systemizing is rather
> contrary to irregularities. You tend to be looking for ways to
> smooth those over and still produce acceptable results.
>

Such a project has become a necessity after the trend of Westernization brought with it the widespread application of Western
staff notation in traditionalist circles and ideological demands/
excuses for polyphony. The only way out of the mess is a synthesis
toward microtonal polyphony which preserves the irregularity of the
historical setting while co-habiting with the notational norms of the
West.

> Nevertheless, one can object by saying
>> that AEU or 24-EDO are also regular and taken with a grain of salt by
>> performers. In such a case, a 41-EDO theoretical model consigned
>> mostly to paper becomes viable.
>
> And that strikes me as a damn fine argument. It seems like a more
> reasonable theoretical model at the outset, and far less likely to
> cause harm if someone tries to enforce it, or produces instruments
> with the tuning built into it.
>

Well, I tend to approach that last statement with caution,
particularly since even 72-EDO is causing problems for qanun-players
educated according to the AEU model! We are reducing the pitch volume
by 7/4 by choosing 41-notes per octave. I suspect the results will not
satisfy the performers who demand minute pitch adjustments and
inflexions. But, 41-EDO will work nicely as as theoretical model for
educational purposes. I also defended that as an alternative years ago
and still do.

>> The real problems emerge when you attempt to affix mandals on a qanun
>> or frets on a tanbur according to such regular tunings or their
>> hemififth siblings. They sound good and regular, but that feature is
>> not exactly sought.
>
> Perhaps, but it strikes me that 24edo is even less sought. 41 equal,
> or a 41 note MOS, Hemififths[41], seems like it's more flexible and
> gets you closer to where you want to be, from what I can make of it.
>
>

Close, but not close enough! That is, if you want to find a fair
compromise between pitch detail, regularity/irregularity, and an
easier learning curve. One can easily sacrifice a few more pitches to
preserve the historical irregularity at a modest resolution that is
not too difficult to grasp by beginners. Yea, I'm talking about
Yarman-36.

Oz.

Specifying in SCALA a 41-tone linear tuning with the following values:

Octave: 2401/1200
Formal fifth: 2401/1600
Number of fifths down: 16 (up: 24)
Wolves: 1

yields the kind of hemififths temperament that contains the
regularized middle seconds, augmented seconds, middle thirds one wants
along with the correct Turkish segah.

41-tone cyclic tuning for Maqam music by Dr. Oz.
|
0: 1/1 C
1: 27.066 cents B#
2: 54.132 cents Ax# Ebbb
3: 163840000/155649627 Db
4: 115.849 cents C#
5: 142.915 cents Bx Fbbb
6: 177.565 cents Ebb
7: 7203/6400 D
8: 231.697 cents Cx
9: 266.348 cents Bx# Fbb
10: 25600/21609 Eb
11: 320.480 cents D#
12: 347.546 cents Cx# Gbbb
13: 382.196 cents Fb
14: 409.262 cents E
15: 436.328 cents Dx
16: 470.979 cents Gbb
17: 4/3 F perfect 4th
18: 525.111 cents E#
19: 552.177 cents Dx# Abbb
20: 586.828 cents Gb
21: 613.894 cents F#
22: 640.960 cents Ex
23: 675.610 cents Abb
24: 2401/1600 G
25: 729.742 cents Fx
26: 764.393 cents Ex# Bbbb
27: 102400/64827 Ab
28: 818.525 cents G#
29: 845.591 cents Fx# Cbbb
30: 880.241 cents Bbb
31: 17294403/10240000 A
32: 934.373 cents Gx
33: 969.024 cents Cbb
34: 16/9 Bb Pythagorean minor 7th
35: 1023.156 cents A#
36: 1050.222 cents Gx# Dbbb
37: 1084.873 cents Cb
38: 1111.939 cents B
39: 1139.005 cents Ax
40: 1173.655 cents Dbb
41: 2401/1200 C

Cycle of fifths:
|
0: 0.000 cents 0.000 0 0
commas C
24: 702.676 cents 0.721
22 G
7: 702.676 cents 1.442
44 D
31: 702.676 cents 2.164
66 A
14: 702.676 cents 2.885
89 E
38: 702.676 cents 3.606
111 B
21: 702.676 cents 4.327
133 F#
4: 702.676 cents 5.048
155 C#
28: 702.676 cents 5.770
177 G#
11: 702.676 cents 6.491
199 D#
35: 702.676 cents 7.212
221 A#
18: 702.676 cents 7.933
243 E#
1: 702.676 cents 8.654
266 B#
25: 702.676 cents 9.376
288 Fx
8: 702.676 cents 10.097
310 Cx
32: 702.676 cents 10.818
332 Gx
15: 702.676 cents 11.539
354 Dx
39: 702.676 cents 12.260
376 Ax
22: 702.676 cents 12.982
398 Ex
5: 702.676 cents 13.703
421 Bx
29: 702.676 cents 14.424
443 Fx#
12: 702.676 cents 15.145 465 Cx#
36: 702.676 cents 15.866
487 Gx#
19: 702.676 cents 16.588
509 Dx#
2: 702.676 cents 17.309
531 Ax#
26: 710.261 cents 25.615
786 Ex#
9: 702.676 cents 26.336
808 Fbb
33: 702.676 cents 27.057
830 Cbb
16: 702.676 cents 27.778
853 Gbb
40: 702.676 cents 28.499
875 Dbb
23: 702.676 cents 29.221
897 Abb
6: 702.676 cents 29.942
919 Ebb
30: 702.676 cents 30.663
941 Bbb
13: 702.676 cents 31.384
963 Fb
37: 702.676 cents 32.105
985 Cb
20: 702.676 cents 32.827
1007 Gb
3: 702.676 cents 33.548
1030 Db
27: 702.676 cents 34.269
1052 Ab
10: 702.676 cents 34.990
1074 Eb
34: 702.676 cents 35.711
1096 Bb
17: 702.676 cents 36.433
1118 F
41: 702.676 cents 37.154
1140 C
Average absolute difference: 18.2900 cents
Root mean square difference: 22.0823 cents
Maximum absolute difference: 37.1537 cents
Maximum formal fifth difference: 8.3058 cents

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 7, 2010, at 7:23 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> The measurements for Nejdet Yashar and Niyazi Sayin focus on specific
>> and characteristic dyads. You won't see the same intervallic results
>> between every perde-pair in their performance I'm sure. In fact, we
>> have sort of ascertained that in other papers.
>
> Is it essentially a hopeless task to analyze the tuning of a maqam
> even as performed by a specific performer?
>
> But 5 years back, you compared my 79-tone
>> attempt with Ben Johnston's notation, and disclosed the general
>> tendency on this list to equate fifth sizes in a tuning to avoid
>> awkward commatic inflexions at different tonalities to arrive at more
>> or less the same chords.
>
> Transposibility of the same chords is how I manage to understand the
> giant scales I employ when composing my own music. It sounds like
> Dudon's approach, which builds irregularities in at the outset,
> would work better.
>
>> I understand the hemififths setting as involving exactly half the
>> perfect fifth, which, in the case of 41 or 58 notes is indeed a close
>> approximation of 16/13.
>
> Not terrifically close I would say, but that's what the regular
> mapping in this case is using. But if regularity is to be avoided,
> where does that leave that particular thought? Anyway, at least the
> fifths being divided as slightly sharp, not flat.
>
> This interval or its siblings 11/9, 27/22,
>> 49/40 and 60/49, the latter two among which I like the best, could
>> indeed be taken as the generator of a 41-tone or 58-tone setting.
>
> By "like" do you mean as a means of tuning maqams, or your own
> personal taste? Splitting a pure fifth in half with 49/40-60/49
> brings to mind microtempering, but I don't think that would have
> much to do with the situation.
>
> In
>> fact, I have spent extensive time trying to settle the whole affair
>> into 41 pitches in the octave with special emphasis on 49/40 and
>> 60/49.
>
> 41 tempers out 2401/2400, which means it would certainly be possible
> to produce some highly accurate 7-limit scales of 41 notes with a
> lot of these neutral thirds about. But again, where does that leave
> the question of relating all of that to maqam music?
>
>> Simply taking 41-EDO seems a neat solution in itself.
>
> A more reasonable plan than 53 from what I can see.
>
> But then
>> again, there is the historical irregularity of Maqam music tuning(s)
>> which we dismiss altogether.
>
> The entire project of regularizing and systemizing is rather
> contrary to irregularities. You tend to be looking for ways to
> smooth those over and still produce acceptable results.
>
> Nevertheless, one can object by saying
>> that AEU or 24-EDO are also regular and taken with a grain of salt by
>> performers. In such a case, a 41-EDO theoretical model consigned
>> mostly to paper becomes viable.
>
> And that strikes me as a damn fine argument. It seems like a more
> reasonable theoretical model at the outset, and far less likely to
> cause harm if someone tries to enforce it, or produces instruments
> with the tuning built into it.
>
>> The real problems emerge when you attempt to affix mandals on a qanun
>> or frets on a tanbur according to such regular tunings or their
>> hemififth siblings. They sound good and regular, but that feature is
>> not exactly sought.
>
> Perhaps, but it strikes me that 24edo is even less sought. 41 equal,
> or a 41 note MOS, Hemififths[41], seems like it's more flexible and
> gets you closer to where you want to be, from what I can make of it.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

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

> If you wish to settle with an exact fixed-pitch solution that is
> comprehensive enough to represent all performance traditions for all
> maqams at every pitch without making anybody wince too much, say hello
> once more to 79 MOS 159-tET.

That's why I was originally looking for your thesis, but I'm at the section now where you give versions of some main maqam in 79 out of 159 or 80 out of 159, and I can't figure out what the notes mean, since I don't know where the starting note is located. I want to translate into 159 equal, but how do I do it?

Take for example Hicaz; this is 13 21 39 46 60 71 80 93 up and 93 80 68 60 47 39 21 13 down, but unless I have a table translating those into steps of 159, how do I know what it actually means? And please don't tell me to read Sagittal when I don't even know what the base notes the accidentals are modifying are!

> If you wish to say "to hell with the damn cents and ratios, I'll play
> the notes as I deem them fit", then say hello to Yarman-24.

I haven't gotten there yet. I did get to the Tore-Karadeniz, a 41 note MOS with generator 31/106, representing 11/9, which is a "hemigaribaldi" system with wedgie <<2 -16 -28 5 -30 -50 1 -20 67 111||. Should 41&106 temperament be known henceforth as Karadeniz?
Anyway, obviously there's a lot of similarity between this and using 41 notes for a 29/99 generator MOS of hemififths.

> Using any fifth larger than 700 cents means that you obtain perde
> segah, which is crudely equivalent to 5:4, in the Pythagorean manner,
> 8 fifths down from the tone of origin. Wider than pure fifths mean you
> are targetting the desirable perde segah (with maximum distance
> between dugah-segah (D-E) at 11:10 in regular Turkish practice). That
> is why I told Paul Erlich many years ago to his surprise that 29-EDO
> yields a better Rast than 53-EDO.

Ha, which means hemififths beats out karadeniz.

> How does this have any bearing to tuning maqams? Note, that my
> previous attempts to formulate scales with stretched octaves depend on
> the "schismas" found between 11/9, 49/40, 60/49 and 27/22. What were
> they? They were, 441:440, 540:539 and 2401:2400. This last remnant
> brings to mind Uzdilek's attempt at creating a 2400-EDO unit as a
> rival to the Ellis cent!

I like 3600-EDO better than 2400-EDO. This has nothing to do with maqam music, it's just that if you tune in 3600 everything can be expressed in 7-limit terms, as it is a terrific tuning for ennealimmal temperament, which doesn't actually need terrific tunings to work.

In any event, I note that (441/440)/(540/539) = 2401/2400 and 441/440 * 540/539 = 243/242, and tempering out any two of these gets you the rest. It also gets you one of the most important of the 11-limit planar temperaments, jove (formerly known as wonder.) Closely associated with miracle, hemififths and harry temperaments.

> Such a project has become a necessity after the trend of
> Westernization brought with it the widespread application of Western
> staff notation in traditionalist circles and ideological demands/
> excuses for polyphony.

I'm all for polyphony myself, and these tunings we are discussing are perfectly capable of it.

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

> > If you wish to say "to hell with the damn cents and ratios, I'll play
> > the notes as I deem them fit", then say hello to Yarman-24.
>
> I haven't gotten there yet.

And may never get there, as my pdf file seems defective and won't let me get to the second half of the thesis. Did you upload a complete version?

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

> And may never get there, as my pdf file seems defective and won't let me get to the second half of the thesis. Did you upload a complete version?

Sorry, it wasn't defective, my reader was hanging for some reason. But I still can't find Yarman24 or Yarman36.

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

> Well, I tend to approach that last statement with caution,
> particularly since even 72-EDO is causing problems for qanun-players
> educated according to the AEU model!

Here's an idea which, just incidentally, would give you tons of those neutral third chords half of a pure fifth to play with along with bunches of other stuff of no obviosu relevance to maqam music. But I think it might suit maqams quite a bit better than 72edo, at any rate.

First, take a chain of eight notes separated by 351 cent (exactly) neutral thirds, completing the circle of thirds with one of 343 cents exactly. Now stack this in a complete 9edo circle; that is, stack eight of these chains separated by 133 1/3 cents. You now have a scale of 72 notes, and you throw out all those old quanums and replace them with ones tuned like this. Since it's 72 not 79 notes, that ought to be easier to do than Ozzifying them.

Interval class 8 consists of nothing but 133 1/3 cent intervals. Since this is useful for maqam music, you don't mind (I'm hoping.) Interval class 9 contains 147 cent and 166 2/3 cent intervals. With both of these to use, you may already have made Necdet Yasar happy, except for the fact that there's no way to make these people happy, as the tuning is too variable. But...to continue...interval class 7 contains 111 2/3 and 119 2/3 cent intervals, not too bad. And so forth. As a bonus, there are a gazillion effectively justly tuned 7-limit intervals everywhere.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 8, 2010, at 1:15 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>> If you wish to settle with an exact fixed-pitch solution that is
>> comprehensive enough to represent all performance traditions for all
>> maqams at every pitch without making anybody wince too much, say
>> hello
>> once more to 79 MOS 159-tET.
>
> That's why I was originally looking for your thesis, but I'm at the
> section now where you give versions of some main maqam in 79 out of
> 159 or 80 out of 159, and I can't figure out what the notes mean,
> since I don't know where the starting note is located. I want to
> translate into 159 equal, but how do I do it?
>
> Take for example Hicaz; this is 13 21 39 46 60 71 80 93 up and 93 80
> 68 60 47 39 21 13 down, but unless I have a table translating those
> into steps of 159, how do I know what it actually means? And please
> don't tell me to read Sagittal when I don't even know what the base
> notes the accidentals are modifying are!
>

Dear Gene, if you have read the caption of Figure 5.13, you would see
that the scale degrees are those of 80 MOS 159-tET. It has been
explained a few pages earlier, that the sole difference between 80
from 79 MOS 159-tET is the inclusion of another G a 1/3 Holderian
comma lower than 3/2 (perde neva). I consider the 694.5 cent fifth
(perde neva again) as a nanotone, which is significant for minute
adjustments in maqam scale transpositions.

But see, I had written to Margo Schulter earlier that I made
calculation mistakes in the textual descriptions of the maqams for the
said figure, so here are the corrected numbers:

RAST
Scale: [196+181+121]+204+[196+181+121]
Tones: 0, 196, 377, 498, 702, 898, 1079, 1200
12tET deviations: 0, 200-4, 400-23, 500-2, 700+2, 900-2, 1100-21, 0

ACEMLI RAST
Scale: [196+181+121]+[204+181+106]+211
Tones: 0, 196, 377, 498, 702, 883, 989, 1200
12tET deviations: 0, 200-4, 400-23, 500-2, 700+2, 900-17, 1000-11, 0

MAHUR
Scale: [196+196+106]+204+[196+196+106]
Tones: 0, 196, 392, 498, 702, 898, 1094, 1200
12tET deviations: 0, 200-4, 400-8, 500-2, 700+2, 900-2, 1100-6, 0

PENCHGAH
Scale: [211+181+196+113]+[211+181+106]
Tones: 0, 211, 392, 589, 702, 913, 1094, 1200
12tET deviations: 0, 200+11, 400-8, 600-11, 700+2, 900+13, 1100-6, 0

NIHAVEND
Scale: [211+106+181+204]+[106+211+181]
Tones: 0, 211, 317, 498, 702, 808, 1019, 1200
12tET deviations: 0, 200+11, 300+17, 500-2, 700+2, 800+8, 1000+19, 0

HICAZ
Scale: [121+272+113]+196+[121+181+196]
Tones: 0, 121, 392, 506, 702, 823, 1004, 1200
12tET deviations: 0, 100+21, 400-8, 500+6, 700+2, 800+23, 1000+4, 0

HUSEYNI
Scale: [166+136+204+196]+[166+136+196]
Tones: 0, 166, 302, 506, 702, 868, 1004, 1200
12tET deviations: 0, 200-34, 300+2, 500+6, 700+2, 900-32, 1000+4, 0

SEGAH
Scale: [106+219+181]+196+[106+287+106]
Tones: 0, 106, 325, 506, 702, 808, 1094, 1200
12tET deviations: 0, 100+6, 300+25, 500+6, 700+2, 800+8, 1100-6, 0

HUZZAM
Scale: [121+219+166]+196+[121+272+106]
Tones: 0, 121, 340, 506, 702, 823, 1094, 1200
12tET deviations: 0, 100+21, 300+40, 500+6, 700+2, 800+23, 1100-6, 0

SABA
Scale: 151+151+[121+279+106]+196+[121+272+106]
Tones: 0, 151, 302, 423, 702, 808, 1004, 1125, 1396, 1502
12tET deviations: 0, 200-49, 300+2, 400+23, 700+2, 800+8, 1000+4,
1100+25, 1400-4, 1500+2

The usage of the Sagittal system adapted to 79/80 MOS 159-tET was
thoroughly explained on pages 107-8.

>> If you wish to say "to hell with the damn cents and ratios, I'll play
>> the notes as I deem them fit", then say hello to Yarman-24.
>
> I haven't gotten there yet.And may never get there, as my pdf file
> seems defective and won't let me get to the second half of the
> thesis. Did you upload a complete version? I did get to the Tore-
> Karadeniz, a 41 note MOS with generator 31/106, representing 11/9,
> which is a "hemigaribaldi" system with wedgie <<2 -16 -28 5 -30 -50
> 1 -20 67 111||. Should 41&106 temperament be known henceforth as
> Karadeniz?
> Anyway, obviously there's a lot of similarity between this and using
> 41 notes for a 29/99 generator MOS of hemififths.
>

The PFD file of my dissertation should work just fine. It works for me. Yes, it's a complete version.

Karadeniz indeed uses a subset of 106-EDO, and if there was a name
ascribed to the exact subset in this list, Karadeniz deserves the
credit over whatever name was proposed for the temperament, since
Karadeniz published his work in 1965 or formulated the tuning even
earlier.

>> Using any fifth larger than 700 cents means that you obtain perde
>> segah, which is crudely equivalent to 5:4, in the Pythagorean manner,
>> 8 fifths down from the tone of origin. Wider than pure fifths mean
>> you
>> are targetting the desirable perde segah (with maximum distance
>> between dugah-segah (D-E) at 11:10 in regular Turkish practice). That
>> is why I told Paul Erlich many years ago to his surprise that 29-EDO
>> yields a better Rast than 53-EDO.
>
> Ha, which means hemififths beats out karadeniz.
>

Our latest research published in JNMR, which you can reach through my
website, shows that Karadeniz scored the lowest in a comparison of
theoretical models with measured peaks in collated frequency histograms. This is due more to the poor selection of tones for given
maqams by Ekrem Karadeniz than the weakness of the 106-EDO 41-tone
subset however.

>> How does this have any bearing to tuning maqams? Note, that my
>> previous attempts to formulate scales with stretched octaves depend
>> on
>> the "schismas" found between 11/9, 49/40, 60/49 and 27/22. What were
>> they? They were, 441:440, 540:539 and 2401:2400. This last remnant
>> brings to mind Uzdilek's attempt at creating a 2400-EDO unit as a
>> rival to the Ellis cent!
>
> I like 3600-EDO better than 2400-EDO. This has nothing to do with
> maqam music, it's just that if you tune in 3600 everything can be
> expressed in 7-limit terms, as it is a terrific tuning for
> ennealimmal temperament, which doesn't actually need terrific
> tunings to work.
>

Well!

> In any event, I note that (441/440)/(540/539) = 2401/2400 and
> 441/440 * 540/539 = 243/242, and tempering out any two of these gets
> you the rest. It also gets you one of the most important of the 11-
> limit planar temperaments, jove (formerly known as wonder.) Closely
> associated with miracle, hemififths and harry temperaments.
>

My attempts at trying to find a 7-limit segah between 56/45 and 5/4
with a preference for 382 cents produced nothing tangible. However,
manipulating those pitches with the above-mentioned 11-limit schismas
and kleismas yielded these nice ratios:

96/77 at 381.8 cents (no prime 5 exponent)
550/441 at 382.4 cents (all primes up to 11)
343/275 at 382.5 cents (no prime 2 or 3 exponent)
539/432 at 383.1 cents (no prime 5 exponent)

I am undecided as to which of the latter two ratios suit perde segah
the best. The logical choice should lie with 539/432 due to lack of
prime 5, but somehow, 343/275 sounds more savoury.

There is at least one 7-limit segah that works better than 56/45,
which is 5103/4096. But it appears somewhat complicated.

A segah continuum SCALA snapshot is attached.

>> Such a project has become a necessity after the trend of
>> Westernization brought with it the widespread application of Western
>> staff notation in traditionalist circles and ideological demands/
>> excuses for polyphony.
>
> I'm all for polyphony myself, and these tunings we are discussing
> are perfectly capable of it.
>
>
>
>

Ditto, and I agree.

Ok, here is the scale that resulted:

0: 1/1 C
1: 21.667 cents C/
2: 35.333 cents C^
3: 57.000 cents C) Db(
4: 70.667 cents C#v Dbv
5: 84.333 cents C#\ Db\
6: 106.000 cents C# Db
7: 119.667 cents C#/ Db/
8: 133.333 cents C#^ Db^
9: 155.000 cents C#) D(
10: 168.667 cents Dv
11: 190.333 cents D\
12: 204.000 cents D
13: 217.667 cents D/
14: 239.333 cents D^
15: 253.000 cents D) Eb(
16: 266.667 cents D#v Ebv
17: 288.333 cents D#\ Eb\
18: 302.000 cents D# Eb
19: 323.667 cents D#/ Eb/
20: 337.333 cents D#^ Eb^
21: 351.000 cents D#) E(
22: 372.667 cents Ev
23: 386.333 cents E\
24: 400.000 cents E
25: 421.667 cents E/ Fb/
26: 435.333 cents E^ Fb^
27: 457.000 cents E) F(
28: 470.667 cents E#v Fv
29: 484.333 cents E#\ F\
30: 506.000 cents F
31: 519.667 cents F/
32: 533.333 cents F^
33: 555.000 cents F) Gb(
34: 568.667 cents F#v Gbv
35: 590.333 cents F#\ Gb\
36: 604.000 cents F# Gb
37: 617.667 cents F#/ Gb/
38: 639.333 cents F#^ Gb^
39: 653.000 cents F#) G(
40: 666.667 cents Gv
41: 688.333 cents G\
42: 702.000 cents G
43: 723.667 cents G/
44: 737.333 cents G^
45: 751.000 cents G) Ab(
46: 772.667 cents G#v Abv
47: 786.333 cents G#\ Ab\
48: 800.000 cents G# Ab
49: 821.667 cents G#/ Ab/
50: 835.333 cents G#^ Ab^
51: 857.000 cents G#) A(
52: 870.667 cents Av
53: 884.333 cents A\
54: 906.000 cents A
55: 919.667 cents A/
56: 933.333 cents A^
57: 955.000 cents A) Bb(
58: 968.667 cents A#v Bbv
59: 990.333 cents A#\ Bb\
60: 1004.000 cents A# Bb
61: 1017.667 cents A#/ Bb/
62: 1039.333 cents A#^ Bb^
63: 1053.000 cents A#) B(
64: 1066.667 cents Bv
65: 1088.333 cents B\
66: 1102.000 cents B
67: 1123.667 cents B/ Cb/
68: 1137.333 cents B^ Cb^
69: 1151.000 cents B) C(
70: 1172.667 cents B#v Cv
71: 1186.333 cents B#\ C\
72: 2/1 C 1 octave

Cycle of fifths:

0: 0.000 cents 0.000 0 0
commas C
42: 702.000 cents 0.045
1 G
12: 702.000 cents 0.090
3 D
54: 702.000 cents 0.135 4 A
24: 694.000 cents -7.820 -240 -1/3 Pyth.
commas E
66: 702.000 cents -7.775
-239 B
36: 702.000 cents -7.730
-237 F#
6: 702.000 cents -7.685
-236 C#
48: 694.000 cents -15.640 -480 -2/3 Pyth.
commas G#
18: 702.000 cents -15.595
-479 Eb
60: 702.000 cents -15.550
-477 Bb
30: 702.000 cents -15.505
-476 F
Incomplete cycle, going one forward
1: 702.000 cents -1.793
-55 C/
43: 702.000 cents -1.748
-54 G/
13: 694.000 cents -9.703
-298 D/
55: 702.000 cents -9.658
-296 A/
25: 702.000 cents -9.613
-295 E/
67: 702.000 cents -9.568
-294 B/
37: 694.000 cents -17.523 -538 -22/27 synt.
commas F#/
7: 702.000 cents -17.478
-536 C#/
49: 702.000 cents -17.433
-535 G#/
19: 702.000 cents -17.388
-534 D#/
61: 694.000 cents -25.343
-778 A#/
31: 702.000 cents -25.298
-776 F/
Incomplete cycle, going one forward
2: 702.000 cents -11.587
-356 C^
44: 702.000 cents -11.542
-354 G^
14: 702.000 cents -11.497
-353 D^
56: 694.000 cents -19.452
-597 A^
26: 702.000 cents -19.407
-596 E^
68: 702.000 cents -19.362 -594 B^
38: 702.000 cents -19.317
-593 F#^
8: 694.000 cents -27.272
-837 C#^
50: 702.000 cents -27.227
-836 G#^
20: 702.000 cents -27.182
-834 D#^
62: 702.000 cents -27.137
-833 A#^
32: 694.000 cents -35.092
-1077 F^
Incomplete cycle, going one forward
3: 702.000 cents -13.380
-411 C)
45: 694.000 cents -21.335
-655 G)
15: 702.000 cents -21.290
-653 D)
57: 702.000 cents -21.245
-652 A)
27: 702.000 cents -21.200 -651 F(
69: 694.000 cents -29.155
-895 C(
39: 702.000 cents -29.110
-893 G(
9: 702.000 cents -29.065
-892 D(
51: 702.000 cents -29.020
-891 A(
21: 694.000 cents -36.975
-1135 E(
63: 702.000 cents -36.930
-1133 B(
33: 702.000 cents -36.885
-1132 F)
Incomplete cycle, going one forward
4: 702.000 cents -23.173
-711 Dbv
46: 702.000 cents -23.128
-710 Abv
16: 694.000 cents -31.083
-954 Ebv
58: 702.000 cents -31.038
-953 Bbv
28: 702.000 cents -30.993 -951 Fv
70: 702.000 cents -30.948
-950 Cv
40: 694.000 cents -38.903
-1194 Gv
10: 702.000 cents -38.858
-1193 Dv
52: 702.000 cents -38.813
-1191 Av
22: 702.000 cents -38.768
-1190 Ev
64: 694.000 cents -46.723
-1434 Bv
34: 702.000 cents -46.678
-1433 Gbv
Incomplete cycle, going one forward
5: 694.000 cents -32.967
-1012 Db\
47: 702.000 cents -32.922
-1010 Ab\
17: 702.000 cents -32.877
-1009 Eb\
59: 702.000 cents -32.832
-1008 Bb\
29: 694.000 cents -40.787
-1252 F\
71: 702.000 cents -40.742
-1250 C\
41: 702.000 cents -40.697
-1249 G\
11: 702.000 cents -40.652
-1248 D\
53: 694.000 cents -48.607
-1492 A\
23: 702.000 cents -48.562
-1490 E\
65: 702.000 cents -48.517
-1489 B\
35: 702.000 cents -48.472
-1488 Gb\
5: 694.000 cents -56.427
-1732 Db\
Average absolute difference: 25.0271 cents
Root mean square difference: 28.7124 cents
Maximum absolute difference: 56.4267 cents
Maximum formal fifth difference: 21.7117 cents

______________

Nice try, but no cigar. 5/4 or 56/45 are the only options for the
nominal perde segah, the former too high, the latter too low. I like
to see 343/275 as perde segah everywhere. The cycle of fifths contain
694 cent tempered fifths no better than 79 MOS 159-tET. Granted, there
is a plethora of 7 and 11-limit intervals about, but this tuning is
practically the same as 72-EDO, and does not very much improve on it.
One can hardly see the benefits justifying the extra toil in affixing
mandals at precisely calculated suggested positions.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 8, 2010, at 2:57 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>> Well, I tend to approach that last statement with caution,
>> particularly since even 72-EDO is causing problems for qanun-players
>> educated according to the AEU model!
>
> Here's an idea which, just incidentally, would give you tons of
> those neutral third chords half of a pure fifth to play with along
> with bunches of other stuff of no obviosu relevance to maqam music.
> But I think it might suit maqams quite a bit better than 72edo, at
> any rate.
>
> First, take a chain of eight notes separated by 351 cent (exactly)
> neutral thirds, completing the circle of thirds with one of 343
> cents exactly. Now stack this in a complete 9edo circle; that is,
> stack eight of these chains separated by 133 1/3 cents. You now have
> a scale of 72 notes, and you throw out all those old quanums and
> replace them with ones tuned like this. Since it's 72 not 79 notes,
> that ought to be easier to do than Ozzifying them.
>
> Interval class 8 consists of nothing but 133 1/3 cent intervals.
> Since this is useful for maqam music, you don't mind (I'm hoping.)
> Interval class 9 contains 147 cent and 166 2/3 cent intervals. With
> both of these to use, you may already have made Necdet Yasar happy,
> except for the fact that there's no way to make these people happy,
> as the tuning is too variable. But...to continue...interval class 7
> contains 111 2/3 and 119 2/3 cent intervals, not too bad. And so
> forth. As a bonus, there are a gazillion effectively justly tuned 7-
> limit intervals everywhere.
>
>

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

> Nice try, but no cigar. 5/4 or 56/45 are the only options for the
> nominal perde segah, the former too high, the latter too low. I like
> to see 343/275 as perde segah everywhere.

There are temperaments with thirds about four cents flat, but in order to consider them I'd have needed to know they might be wanted. It sounds like you have tucked away somewhere just what I was asking for--certain key intervals, with a range of acceptable values for them. Can you not just list them? Aside from perde segah, what else should be in the mix? What is the range of acceptable values for perde segah, and so forth.

The cycle of fifths contain
> 694 cent tempered fifths no better than 79 MOS 159-tET. Granted, there
> is a plethora of 7 and 11-limit intervals about, but this tuning is
> practically the same as 72-EDO, and does not very much improve on it.
> One can hardly see the benefits justifying the extra toil in affixing
> mandals at precisely calculated suggested positions.

It would only become apparent, I suspect, if you needed a lot of just 7-limit intervals, which 72 tries to deliver but doesn't quite manage.

Please excuse my ignorance - what is a "hemififth" ?

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:33 PM, genewardsmith
<genewardsmith@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "genewardsmith"
> <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> > And may never get there, as my pdf file seems defective and won't let me
> get to the second half of the thesis. Did you upload a complete version?
>
> Sorry, it wasn't defective, my reader was hanging for some reason. But I
> still can't find Yarman24 or Yarman36.
>
>
>

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:37 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> Nice try, but no cigar. 5/4 or 56/45 are the only options for the
>> nominal perde segah, the former too high, the latter too low. I like
>> to see 343/275 as perde segah everywhere.
>
> There are temperaments with thirds about four cents flat, but in
> order to consider them I'd have needed to know they might be wanted.
> It sounds like you have tucked away somewhere just what I was asking
> for--certain key intervals, with a range of acceptable values for
> them. Can you not just list them? Aside from perde segah, what else
> should be in the mix? What is the range of acceptable values for
> perde segah, and so forth.
>

Dear Gene, 382 cents segah is just a simple instance of a simple scale
that works as a generalized theoretical value according to my whims,
or at best a fine enough compromise for fixed-pitch instruments like a
keyboard for certain circumstances. By no means do I say that maqams
such as Rast or Segah MUST depend on the 382 cent pitch. Ask me a
specific perde instance of a specific maqam in a given performance
tradition by some performer, and I can at best voice my opinion as to
the vague wide zone where that perde ought to be. My preference for
the 382 cent perde segah rests on my demands that:

1. segah must be lower than 5/4
2. segah must be higher than 56/45
3. segah must make a neat Major chord when coupled with rast and neva.
4. segah must not be 3-limit and at most 11-limit.

demands which have little or no bearing to the traditionalist views
and practices dominating Maqam music.

For the sake of avoiding the argument, let's just say that the 382
cent pitch is an acceptable segah instance for some (far from all)
occasions.

In a similar light, we can seek such cool 7-prime ratios as 128/105,
60/49, 49/40, 100/81, 315/256 OR 11-prime ratios as 11/9, 27/22,
121/98, 99/80 for perde segah. Notice, that I am not putting emphasison one over the other. You can break the prime barrier to go up to 19
and beyond if you like. I have my reasons not to do THAT.

Although you would expect the fifth complement of segah, which is
perde evdj, to be so broad also, this is not the case. Evdj seldom
goes so low. And with perde hisar, the perfect fourth complement of
segah, you will see that the given ranges are divided and skewed each
in opposite directions with an unfrequented maroon spot. You will also
notice that perde saba in Saba does not behave the same as perde segah
(or ushshaq) in Ushshaq. These are observations in one Ahenk/diapason
only. Carry that over to the possible 12 or practiced 4-5 diapasons
today, and the whole thing becomes very messy. I cannot give you all
the details in one e-mail message, details which take years of
learning, observation and practice.

> The cycle of fifths contain
>> 694 cent tempered fifths no better than 79 MOS 159-tET. Granted, >> there
>> is a plethora of 7 and 11-limit intervals about, but this tuning is
>> practically the same as 72-EDO, and does not very much improve on it.
>> One can hardly see the benefits justifying the extra toil in affixing
>> mandals at precisely calculated suggested positions.
>
> It would only become apparent, I suspect, if you needed a lot of
> just 7-limit intervals, which 72 tries to deliver but doesn't quite
> manage.
>
>

7-limit is ok, 7-limit is cool. But you don't hear 4:5:6:7 in Maqam
music circles. This is a novelty. The only 7-limit good for Maqam
music is in obtaining middle seconds, middle thirds and augmented
seconds. If you get minor sevenths and minor thirds in 7-limit, then
all the better!

Oz.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Please excuse my ignorance - what is a "hemififth" ?

It means a half of a fifth, in other words, a neutraal third. This is the generator for hemififths (a rank 2, linear temperament) where the fifths are a touch sharp, not flat like mohajira. It can be called 41&58, in which form you may feed it into the maw of Graham's temperament finder. As I remarked, 29/99 makes a good generator. It does 7-limit quite accurately, and 13-limit less accurately, but with low complexity and well enough for many purposes.

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

> Dear Gene, 382 cents segah is just a simple instance of a simple scale
> that works as a generalized theoretical value according to my whims,
> or at best a fine enough compromise for fixed-pitch instruments like a
> keyboard for certain circumstances. By no means do I say that maqams
> such as Rast or Segah MUST depend on the 382 cent pitch.

Great! I'll get the ball rolling by claiming that magic temperament is perfect for maqam music, since segah should be between 5 and 6 cents flat of 5/4. 104 equal, here we come!

While everything else looks OK with 104 equal, the fact that you can't
have the best approx. of 5:4 and 6:5 at the same time in a chord due
to that awfully large fifth ruins it all. 704 cents is too MUCH for a
major third of 382 cents. Remember, we don't want polyphony just as a
bonus, we want it decently and fairly.

Besides, 104 is too crowded a tuning. No way to employ it altogether
in a Maqam music instrument.

Nice try again, but no cigar.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 3:48 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>> Dear Gene, 382 cents segah is just a simple instance of a simple
>> scale
>> that works as a generalized theoretical value according to my whims,
>> or at best a fine enough compromise for fixed-pitch instruments
>> like a
>> keyboard for certain circumstances. By no means do I say that maqams
>> such as Rast or Segah MUST depend on the 382 cent pitch.
>
> Great! I'll get the ball rolling by claiming that magic temperament
> is perfect for maqam music, since segah should be between 5 and 6
> cents flat of 5/4. 104 equal, here we come!
>

Actually, 88-equal and 95-equal excel over 104, because you can have
the best Rast without breaking the chain of fifths. 95 for smoother
dugah-huseyni, the latter getting a comma-up, 88 with better perde
segah at 382 cents the way Charles Lucy would love.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 3:48 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>> Dear Gene, 382 cents segah is just a simple instance of a simple
>> scale
>> that works as a generalized theoretical value according to my whims,
>> or at best a fine enough compromise for fixed-pitch instruments
>> like a
>> keyboard for certain circumstances. By no means do I say that maqams
>> such as Rast or Segah MUST depend on the 382 cent pitch.
>
> Great! I'll get the ball rolling by claiming that magic temperament
> is perfect for maqam music, since segah should be between 5 and 6
> cents flat of 5/4. 104 equal, here we come!
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Actually, 88-equal and 95-equal excel over 104, because you can have
> the best Rast without breaking the chain of fifths. 95 for smoother
> dugah-huseyni, the latter getting a comma-up, 88 with better perde
> segah at 382 cents the way Charles Lucy would love.

I dunno--95 has a much sharper fifth than 104, and 88 a fifth that is flatter yet. But you interest me--about how large in cents should dugah-husenyi be?

On 8 June 2010 02:15, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> I haven't gotten there yet. I did get to the Tore-Karadeniz, a 41 note MOS with generator 31/106, representing 11/9, which is a "hemigaribaldi" system with wedgie <<2 -16 -28 5 -30 -50 1 -20 67 111||. Should 41&106 temperament be known henceforth as Karadeniz?

Can you collect any new names you want to give things into a single
message? I've missed some that were proposed in isolated messages
here or some other thread.

> Anyway, obviously there's a lot of similarity between this and using 41 notes for a 29/99 generator MOS of hemififths.

Hemififths is 41&58. I've currently only defined it up to the
7-limit, so I take it these are the correct mappings:

mapping by steps:
[<41, 65, 95, 115, 142, 152],
<58, 92, 135, 163, 201, 215]>

reduced mapping:
[<1, 1, -5, -1, 2, 4],
<0, 2, 25, 13, 5, -1]>

> In any event, I note that (441/440)/(540/539) = 2401/2400 and 441/440 * 540/539 = 243/242, and tempering out any two of these gets you the rest. It also gets you one of the most important of the 11-limit planar temperaments, jove (formerly known as wonder.) Closely associated with miracle, hemififths and harry temperaments.

I decided that Ozan's thesis was implying 72&87 (Tritikleismic) when I
first read it. The trouble is, I can't remember why I decided that.
Possibly no more than it gives both 72 and 159. 72 is mentioned but
dismissed with what I consider a fallacious argument. 159 is only
important because it's a multiple of 53, which isn't a very good
reason.

So, you look at temperament classes with similar error/complexity
trade-off to 72&87, and the best is Harry (58&72). And we all know
about Miracle.

Note that it's often stated that the fifth shouldn't divide into equal
neutral thirds in Middle Eastern music. Temper out either 243/242 or
2401/2400 and you guarantee that the neutral thirds are equal.

>> Such a project has become a necessity after the trend of
>> Westernization brought with it the widespread application of Western
>> staff notation in traditionalist circles and ideological demands/
>> excuses for polyphony.
>
> I'm all for polyphony myself, and these tunings we are discussing are perfectly capable of it.

Polyphony with traditional scales is a good target. Staff notation
brings in different baggage. With equal neutral thirds, the dread
number 72 rears its ugly head.

Graham

On 9 June 2010 01:45, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:

> 1. segah must be lower than 5/4
> 2. segah must be higher than 56/45

Equating those gives 225:224 as a unison vector. So, if we started
with Jove, we're now looking at Miracle.

Graham

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

> Can you collect any new names you want to give things into a single
> message? I've missed some that were proposed in isolated messages
> here or some other thread.

On the Xenwiki I put up an article on the temperaments which have arisen from attempts at creating a theoretical basis for the tuning of
Turkish maqam music, namely yarman temperament, 80&159, and karadeniz temperament, 41&106. That's here:

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Turkish+maqam+music+temperaments

> Hemififths is 41&58. I've currently only defined it up to the
> 7-limit, so I take it these are the correct mappings:
>
> mapping by steps:
> [<41, 65, 95, 115, 142, 152],
> <58, 92, 135, 163, 201, 215]>
>
> reduced mapping:
> [<1, 1, -5, -1, 2, 4],
> <0, 2, 25, 13, 5, -1]>

That's what I've been talking about.

> Note that it's often stated that the fifth shouldn't divide into equal
> neutral thirds in Middle Eastern music. Temper out either 243/242 or
> 2401/2400 and you guarantee that the neutral thirds are equal.

Ozan seems to like equal neutral thirds. But I can believe anything about tuning Middle Eastern music, except that you can do it with a small number of notes.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> On 9 June 2010 01:45, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> > 1. segah must be lower than 5/4
> > 2. segah must be higher than 56/45
>
> Equating those gives 225:224 as a unison vector. So, if we started
> with Jove, we're now looking at Miracle.

Of course, we could not start with jove. Spectacle temperament, which has both 225/224 and 243/242 in it, seems plausible, though I guess the thirds which you would naturally get that way are not flat enough to make Ozan happy. But I can't figure out if what he wants in the way of thirds for Rast is anything more than a personal preference.

On 9 June 2010 14:18, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
>> Can you collect any new names you want to give things into a single
>> message?  I've missed some that were proposed in isolated messages
>> here or some other thread.
>
> On the Xenwiki I put up an article on the temperaments which have arisen from attempts at creating a theoretical basis for the tuning of
> Turkish maqam music, namely yarman temperament, 80&159, and karadeniz temperament, 41&106. That's here:
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Turkish+maqam+music+temperaments

What happened to Casablanca, with the 19/42 generator, presumably
named after the Casablanca Declaration of 1943? Any others?

Graham

Graham,

>> SNIP
>
> I decided that Ozan's thesis was implying 72&87 (Tritikleismic) when I
> first read it. The trouble is, I can't remember why I decided that.
> Possibly no more than it gives both 72 and 159. 72 is mentioned but
> dismissed with what I consider a fallacious argument. 159 is only
> important because it's a multiple of 53, which isn't a very good
> reason.
>

There is nothing fallacious about the observation that 72-equal won't work as desired for Turkish Maqam music simply because the Arabic idiom of 24-equal is already observed not to satisfy. 72 being a triple of 24 signifies that one is consigned again to getting the naturals in the most unwanted 12-equal fashion. The flats and sharps cannot be seperated by a step in 72-equal. What's the use of so many tones if you cannot split the sharps and flats the way people are used to expect in AEU? in 79/80 MOS 159-tET, they can be so split. This was a desiratum mentioned in my thesis.

Note, that I never considered 159 as a whole tuning in my thesis. It is used to explain the 79/80-tone subset, which can be explained by many other ways as delineated. The master tuning is 79-tones, which happen to match a subset of 159-equal and is deemed thus a MOS.

> So, you look at temperament classes with similar error/complexity
> trade-off to 72&87, and the best is Harry (58&72). And we all know
> about Miracle.
>
> Note that it's often stated that the fifth shouldn't divide into equal
> neutral thirds in Middle Eastern music. Temper out either 243/242 or
> 2401/2400 and you guarantee that the neutral thirds are equal.
>

That means irregular pitch inflexions depending on the seyir of a particular maqam. If Arabs do well with 24-equal and Turks with AEU on paper, what prevents us from redefining the pitches in a little more detail again on paper with room for pitch inflexions?

>>> Such a project has become a necessity after the trend of
>>> Westernization brought with it the widespread application of Western
>>> staff notation in traditionalist circles and ideological demands/
>>> excuses for polyphony.
>>
>> I'm all for polyphony myself, and these tunings we are discussing >> are perfectly capable of it.
>
> Polyphony with traditional scales is a good target. Staff notation
> brings in different baggage. With equal neutral thirds, the dread
> number 72 rears its ugly head.
>
>
> Graham
>
>

I have always said that 72 is a solid solution, but alas, not particularly suitable for Maqam music due to being a Western contrivance with Western dodecaphony in mind.

Oz.

Dugah-Huseyni preferably at 702 cents, but at most 708 cents I assume.
Can't have it all in a meantone setting though. Did you look into 107-
EDO?

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 8:53 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> Actually, 88-equal and 95-equal excel over 104, because you can have
>> the best Rast without breaking the chain of fifths. 95 for smoother
>> dugah-huseyni, the latter getting a comma-up, 88 with better perde
>> segah at 382 cents the way Charles Lucy would love.
>
> I dunno--95 has a much sharper fifth than 104, and 88 a fifth that
> is flatter yet. But you interest me--about how large in cents should
> dugah-husenyi be?
>

382 cents is my liking for perde segah, a value that bodes well with
the intonation of a segah lower than 5/4 in such maqams as Rast,
Segah, Huzzam, Huseyni, Isfahan, etc... Its quality is evocative of a
region between 370-384 cents. Ordinarily, one could demand a segah on
the lower periphery for more conformity to tradition, but I insist on
segah to nominally make a decent 4:5:6 along with rast and neva. Of
course, segah can traditionally go as low as 340 cents or so. Since I
wish to have 382 cents as representing the aforesaid region, we can
then include in our tuning the whereabouts of a 350 cent perde
ushshaq. This split of the traditional segah into at least two parts
is not my innovation, it occured some decades ago, due likely to
bicentennial Western influences forcing segah up up up.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 1:25 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>>
>> On 9 June 2010 01:45, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. segah must be lower than 5/4
>>> 2. segah must be higher than 56/45
>>
>> Equating those gives 225:224 as a unison vector. So, if we started
>> with Jove, we're now looking at Miracle.
>
> Of course, we could not start with jove. Spectacle temperament,
> which has both 225/224 and 243/242 in it, seems plausible, though I
> guess the thirds which you would naturally get that way are not flat
> enough to make Ozan happy. But I can't figure out if what he wants
> in the way of thirds for Rast is anything more than a personal
> preference.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> Ozan seems to like equal neutral thirds. But I can believe
> anything about tuning Middle Eastern music, except that you can
> do it with a small number of notes.

Could you believe that fixed scales aren't the best way to
characterize its intonation?

-Carl

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

> On the Xenwiki I put up an article on the temperaments which
> have arisen from attempts at creating a theoretical basis for
> the tuning of Turkish maqam music, namely yarman temperament,
> 80&159, and karadeniz temperament, 41&106. That's here:
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Turkish+maqam+music+temperaments

A fellow named Mohamed Gharib used to have a page here

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/music.html

which argued for a 43-ET model for Persian music.

-Carl

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

> I have always said that 72 is a solid solution, but alas, not
> particularly suitable for Maqam music due to being a Western
> contrivance with Western dodecaphony in mind.

72 is a number. It has nothing in mind. Nor is there any close relationship between 72 and traditional Western music; 42/72 is the same as 7/12, and so its best fifth doesn't even form a complete circle, and 41/72 is far too flat; whereas 43/72 is much too sharp, and in any case you don't want sharp. Tunings related to traditional Western music are 12, 19, 31, 43, or 55, but not 72.

It is quite alien to Western music really, the most familiar thing about it being that at least it tempers out 225/224, which is a marginal consideration since the 7 limit holds a marginal place in Western music. Of course, along with 12 it tempers out the Pythagorean comma, but that is not a basis for Western music. You might almost as well make a big deal out of the fact that they both temper out the Landscape comma, which is about the only other thing they have in common.

If it works in the sense of providing the required physical tones, leaving aside all questions of notation and closeness to some other system of music, then it works. Any other consideration is an irrelevancy. Certainly a nonexistent closeness to Western practice must be an irrelevancy in any case, whatever philosophy you hold about that.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Dugah-Huseyni preferably at 702 cents, but at most 708 cents I assume.
> Can't have it all in a meantone setting though. Did you look into 107-
> EDO?

Its major third is five cents flat, which you seem to want. That would appear to do better with a fifth that wasn't 4.6 cents sharp.
If you are going to have a flat third, don't you want to avoid any very sharp fifth?

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

Of
> course, segah can traditionally go as low as 340 cents or so. Since I
> wish to have 382 cents as representing the aforesaid region, we can
> then include in our tuning the whereabouts of a 350 cent perde
> ushshaq.

You would make life a lot simpler if you just stuck with tradition and neutral thirds. Of course, you'd also make out a case for 24 equal, which evidently is more plausible than I realized if 350 cents will do as an all around utility third.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > Ozan seems to like equal neutral thirds. But I can believe
> > anything about tuning Middle Eastern music, except that you can
> > do it with a small number of notes.
>
> Could you believe that fixed scales aren't the best way to
> characterize its intonation?

Easily, but then I would also believe that the intonation cannot be effectively characterized at all.

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

> A fellow named Mohamed Gharib used to have a page here
>
> http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/music.html
>
> which argued for a 43-ET model for Persian music.

The Wayback Machine brought it up, but I'm not sure what, exactly, the proposal even is:

To achieve a well-tempered scale for all Iranian music, one may divide an octave into 43 equal "pelleh".

Every pelleh would be equal to 7 savars. ~ 27.9 cents.

That makes it sound as if 301et is lurking nearby, and 301 is a pretty strong 7-limit system. But why would this be especially appropriate to Iranian music? Who knows.

Some still vehemently believe that in Turkiye.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 9:37 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Ozan seems to like equal neutral thirds. But I can believe
>>> anything about tuning Middle Eastern music, except that you can
>>> do it with a small number of notes.
>>
>> Could you believe that fixed scales aren't the best way to
>> characterize its intonation?
>
> Easily, but then I would also believe that the intonation cannot be
> effectively characterized at all.
>

I meant 72-equal Gene. It is beyond argument that this innovation was
arrived at by taking multiples of 12-tET by Westerners.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 9:21 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> I have always said that 72 is a solid solution, but alas, not
>> particularly suitable for Maqam music due to being a Western
>> contrivance with Western dodecaphony in mind.
>
> 72 is a number. It has nothing in mind. Nor is there any close
> relationship between 72 and traditional Western music; 42/72 is the
> same as 7/12, and so its best fifth doesn't even form a complete
> circle, and 41/72 is far too flat; whereas 43/72 is much too sharp,
> and in any case you don't want sharp. Tunings related to traditional
> Western music are 12, 19, 31, 43, or 55, but not 72.
>
> It is quite alien to Western music really, the most familiar thing
> about it being that at least it tempers out 225/224, which is a
> marginal consideration since the 7 limit holds a marginal place in
> Western music. Of course, along with 12 it tempers out the
> Pythagorean comma, but that is not a basis for Western music. You
> might almost as well make a big deal out of the fact that they both
> temper out the Landscape comma, which is about the only other thing
> they have in common.
>
> If it works in the sense of providing the required physical tones,
> leaving aside all questions of notation and closeness to some other
> system of music, then it works. Any other consideration is an
> irrelevancy. Certainly a nonexistent closeness to Western practice
> must be an irrelevancy in any case, whatever philosophy you hold
> about that.
>
>

As I said, you can't have them all in a meantone basis, unless you
break the roof and go up and beyond in your tuning resolution.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 9:25 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> Dugah-Huseyni preferably at 702 cents, but at most 708 cents I
>> assume.
>> Can't have it all in a meantone setting though. Did you look into
>> 107-
>> EDO?
>
> Its major third is five cents flat, which you seem to want. That
> would appear to do better with a fifth that wasn't 4.6 cents sharp.
> If you are going to have a flat third, don't you want to avoid any
> very sharp fifth?

One should not be forced into picking either AEU or 24-equal in the
world of Maqamat, both of which comprise some desirables, but not all.
When I meant a lower segah, I didn't MEAN the Arabic segah at 350
cents today. Historically, the Turkish segah is indicatively at 370
cents or so.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 9:33 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Of
>> course, segah can traditionally go as low as 340 cents or so. Since I
>> wish to have 382 cents as representing the aforesaid region, we can
>> then include in our tuning the whereabouts of a 350 cent perde
>> ushshaq.
>
> You would make life a lot simpler if you just stuck with tradition
> and neutral thirds. Of course, you'd also make out a case for 24
> equal, which evidently is more plausible than I realized if 350
> cents will do as an all around utility third.
>
>
>

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

> The Wayback Machine brought it up, but I'm not sure what, exactly, the proposal even is:
>
> To achieve a well-tempered scale for all Iranian music, one may divide an octave into 43 equal "pelleh".
>
> Every pelleh would be equal to 7 savars. ~ 27.9 cents.
>
> That makes it sound as if 301et is lurking nearby, and 301 is a pretty strong 7-limit system. But why would this be especially appropriate to Iranian music? Who knows.

From Huygens-Fokker, which suggests to me that 301 has nothing specific to do with Persian music:

# savart: 1/301 part of an octave

This measure was defined by Joseph Sauveur (1653-1716) in 1696 as eptaméride, one seventh part of a méride. Later in the 20th century its name became savart, after the French physicist Félix Savart (1791-1841) who also advocated it. In French acoustical literature it's still used now and then. It is close to 100 times the base-10 logarithm of 2 and therefore almost as accurate as jots in calculations. So Sauveur proposed it because 301=7×43 and Savart because 301(.03) = 100×10log 2. Later the name savart was used in the book The Physics of Music by Alexander Wood to denote the slightly different value of 1/300 part of an octave. This would make it more practical for expressing 12-tET intervals. In some literature the savart is taken to be the 100/30103 part of an octave, making it exactly 100 jots.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> Of course, you'd also make out a case for 24 equal, which
> evidently is more plausible than I realized if 350 cents will
> do as an all around utility third.

I'm timing how long it's gonna take for you both to conclude I'm
right. ;) -Carl

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

> > Could you believe that fixed scales aren't the best way to
> > characterize its intonation?
>
> Easily, but then I would also believe that the intonation cannot
> be effectively characterized at all.

Nonsense. For instance:

* It may be that the intervals they hit are meaningless unless
you know the first interval they hit, which is random.

* It may be that the intervals they hit are meaningless altogether,
but the range and speed and direction with which intervals change
size as they are sustained is significant.

etc.

-Carl

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

> > A fellow named Mohamed Gharib used to have a page here
> >
> > http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/music.html
> >
> > which argued for a 43-ET model for Persian music.
>
> The Wayback Machine brought it up, but I'm not sure what,
> exactly, the proposal even is:

The proposal is 43-ET. Here, for the interested, is the
wayback link:

http://bit.ly/ce4TvF

And in case Ozan is interested, here's a link to a page where
they're discussing adding polyphony to Persian music:

http://bit.ly/cYE24W

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I meant 72-equal Gene. It is beyond argument that this innovation was
> arrived at by taking multiples of 12-tET by Westerners.

Ozan, when I first came across 72 and noticed what a good 11-limit system it was, it had nothing to do with 12-et. This was in 1969. Ezra Sims began composing in subsets of 72edo in 1972, and he undoubtedly had 12 on the brain, as did Haba and Wyschnegradsky earlier in the last century. But long before any of those was Aristoxenos, a pupil of Aristotle, who most certainly was not thinking about 12 equal, but who came up with something which sounds suspiciously like 72edo, and his ideas got into Byzantine musical theory. So you might even claim 72 is authentically Turkish. It seems to me there's at least as good an argument, historically, to claim it is Turkish as to claim it is Western.

So no, wrong on both counts. It's not only not beyond argument, it's not even true that 72 "undoubtedly" was arrived at by taking multiples of 12. The first to arrive at it, more or less, was Aristoxenos, and that arguably was due to the fact that it's such a good 11-limit system.

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

>Historically, the Turkish segah is indicatively at 370
> cents or so.

26/21, near as makes no nevermind. How would 16/13 do, I wonder?

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

> The proposal is 43-ET. Here, for the interested, is the
> wayback link:
>
> http://bit.ly/ce4TvF

Then why does he mention 86?

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

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>
> > The proposal is 43-ET. Here, for the interested, is the
> > wayback link:
> >
> > http://bit.ly/ce4TvF
>
> Then why does he mention 86?

86 dastgah going around the system; kind of like Bach's
24 major and minor keys.

-Carl

Well, these Persian brothers need to join the tuning list, download
SCALA, FTS, Nihavent, and the rest of the great microtonal programs
and hear how great Persian destgaha sound in polyphonic settings the
way I did.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:18 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
>
>>> A fellow named Mohamed Gharib used to have a page here
>>>
>>> http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/~moh/music/music.html
>>>
>>> which argued for a 43-ET model for Persian music.
>>
>> The Wayback Machine brought it up, but I'm not sure what,
>> exactly, the proposal even is:
>
> The proposal is 43-ET. Here, for the interested, is the
> wayback link:
>
> http://bit.ly/ce4TvF
>
> And in case Ozan is interested, here's a link to a page where
> they're discussing adding polyphony to Persian music:
>
> http://bit.ly/cYE24W
>
> -Carl

My dear great mathematician,

No need to delve into a battle of wits, especially since you realize
very well my intent: 72-EDO in its entirety as a tuning system was
first formulated by Haba in 1927, arrived at through seeking
compliance with 12-tone equal temperament ingrained in his brain while
expanding the pitch palette to comprise microtones not found in
Western idiom since, what? late 18th Century?

I never heard of Aritoxenus proposing 72-EDO in its entirety like Haba
and the rest. He has, as far as I know, sought tetrachordal divisions
to explain music-making along with the rest of his peers of his age,
or to illustrate examples of possible mathematical divisions that had
little or no relevance to music-making (as Rauf Yekta points out
concerning the enharmonic divisions). There is, I notice, still no
consensus as to 1/72 octave steps as being an innovation of
Aristoxenus. And even so, I suspect he wouldn't have recognized all
those 72 pitches if you chained him up and made him listen to them one
by one for a whole year.

The Turkish quarter, while acknowledging the existence of Aristides
Quintillianus in the matter of quarter-tones (to reject them for their
Greek connotations of course), never even heard of Aristoxenus and
even confused him with Aristotle in their quasi-mythical writings.
They would NEVER have consented to the application of 72-EDO on theirinstruments were it not for the fact that imported tuning devices
became indispensible tools for our luthiers in the past two or three
decades to overcome the squabbles over Ahenks (diapasons).

So, object as much as you want, declare my observations fallacious
along with Graham if that suits you too, but it is rather evident to
me that 72-EDO applied to qanuns today is a FLUKE. Nobody gave it a
lengthy consideration before affixing mandals at 16.7 cent steps. Even
the qanun-makers did not know what they were doing until someone
(myself) came along and explained to them exactly what they were doing
to their instruments. The qanun-players have been trying in vain to
extricate themselves from the situation unknowingly by attempting to
partition the 100 cent semitone to denser mandal arrays until a kind
and merciful spirit (myself) told them that that approach will yield
only multiples of 12-EDO for all intents and purposes.

And you'll notice, that while I admit 72-EDO is a very SOLID tuning,
it is FAR from being RIGHT for Maqam music due to intonational and
historical considerations. My argument, also underlined in me thesis
has not changed: No tuning with 12-equal as its basis WILL EVER BE
suitable for Maqam music unless you allow much room for pitch
inflexions. This is excusable perhaps in the case of 24-EDO, but 72?
All that pitch detail and still drastic inflexions? That won't do at
all.

And no, I do not claim 72-EDO a Turkish contrivance, but it SURE is a
Western contrivance. 79 MOS 159-tET was an original suggestion that
WAS APPLIED to a real instrument, the results for which you can still
hear in a corner of my website.

Cordially,
Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:28 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> I meant 72-equal Gene. It is beyond argument that this innovation was
>> arrived at by taking multiples of 12-tET by Westerners.
>
> Ozan, when I first came across 72 and noticed what a good 11-limit > system it was, it had nothing to do with 12-et. This was in 1969.
> Ezra Sims began composing in subsets of 72edo in 1972, and he
> undoubtedly had 12 on the brain, as did Haba and Wyschnegradsky
> earlier in the last century. But long before any of those was
> Aristoxenos, a pupil of Aristotle, who most certainly was not
> thinking about 12 equal, but who came up with something which sounds
> suspiciously like 72edo, and his ideas got into Byzantine musical
> theory. So you might even claim 72 is authentically Turkish. It
> seems to me there's at least as good an argument, historically, to
> claim it is Turkish as to claim it is Western.
>
> So no, wrong on both counts. It's not only not beyond argument, it's
> not even true that 72 "undoubtedly" was arrived at by taking
> multiples of 12. The first to arrive at it, more or less, was
> Aristoxenos, and that arguably was due to the fact that it's such a
> good 11-limit system.
>
>

Yarman-24 uses 16/13 as one kind of segah, applicable for Ushshaq and
the rest of the maqams requiring a low segah. 26/21 suits the desired
upper range better.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:33 PM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> Historically, the Turkish segah is indicatively at 370
>> cents or so.
>
> 26/21, near as makes no nevermind. How would 16/13 do, I wonder?
>
>

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

> I never heard of Aritoxenus proposing 72-EDO in its entirety like Haba
> and the rest. He has, as far as I know, sought tetrachordal divisions
> to explain music-making along with the rest of his peers of his age...

He used tetrachords, yes. However, he was not stuck inside them and unable to get out--he *defines* the tone as the difference between the fifth and the fourth. He knew a fifth and a fourth made up an octave, since everyone did. And if a fourth is 30 parts, a tone 12 parts, then a fifth is 30+12=42 parts, and so an octave is 30+42=72 parts. It's simply forced on us if we presume the man actually meant what he said.

> The Turkish quarter, while acknowledging the existence of Aristides
> Quintillianus in the matter of quarter-tones (to reject them for their
> Greek connotations of course), never even heard of Aristoxenus and
> even confused him with Aristotle in their quasi-mythical writings.

Didn't they get anything from the Byzantines? How could they avoid it?

> So, object as much as you want, declare my observations fallacious
> along with Graham if that suits you too, but it is rather evident to
> me that 72-EDO applied to qanuns today is a FLUKE.

It may be a fluke, but it's your fluke. It's not a system of Western music other than in very recent and marginalized practice, as exemplified by the people on this list. Presumably, if you've got it on some of your quanums it's a lot more common in Turkey.

> And you'll notice, that while I admit 72-EDO is a very SOLID tuning,
> it is FAR from being RIGHT for Maqam music due to intonational and
> historical considerations.

And what do such historical considerations have to do with music? As for intonational, what, actually and specifically, is it that 72 can't do? Where's the real problem with it?

My argument, also underlined in me thesis
> has not changed: No tuning with 12-equal as its basis WILL EVER BE
> suitable for Maqam music unless you allow much room for pitch
> inflexions.

12 equal is not the "basis" of 72 equal. Any argument based on that false presumption will be a fallacy. Would you similarly claim 12 is the basis of 612 equal, and say that didn't have enough pitch discrimination to do maqam music?

This is excusable perhaps in the case of 24-EDO, but 72?
> All that pitch detail and still drastic inflexions? That won't do at
> all.

Can you be specific? What, precisely and exactly stated, is the problem?
> And no, I do not claim 72-EDO a Turkish contrivance, but it SURE is a
> Western contrivance. 79 MOS 159-tET was an original suggestion that
> WAS APPLIED to a real instrument, the results for which you can still
> hear in a corner of my website.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
> On Jun 9, 2010, at 11:28 PM, genewardsmith wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> >>
> >> I meant 72-equal Gene. It is beyond argument that this innovation was
> >> arrived at by taking multiples of 12-tET by Westerners.
> >
> > Ozan, when I first came across 72 and noticed what a good 11-limit
> > system it was, it had nothing to do with 12-et. This was in 1969.
> > Ezra Sims began composing in subsets of 72edo in 1972, and he
> > undoubtedly had 12 on the brain, as did Haba and Wyschnegradsky
> > earlier in the last century. But long before any of those was
> > Aristoxenos, a pupil of Aristotle, who most certainly was not
> > thinking about 12 equal, but who came up with something which sounds
> > suspiciously like 72edo, and his ideas got into Byzantine musical
> > theory. So you might even claim 72 is authentically Turkish. It
> > seems to me there's at least as good an argument, historically, to
> > claim it is Turkish as to claim it is Western.
> >
> > So no, wrong on both counts. It's not only not beyond argument, it's
> > not even true that 72 "undoubtedly" was arrived at by taking
> > multiples of 12. The first to arrive at it, more or less, was
> > Aristoxenos, and that arguably was due to the fact that it's such a
> > good 11-limit system.
> >
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> 72-EDO in its entirety as a tuning system was
> first formulated by Haba in 1927,
[snip]
> I never heard of Aritoxenus proposing 72-EDO in its entirety
> like Haba and the rest.

Indeed. And as I said, 72-ET as we see it is a very recent
invention.

Gene wrote:

> It's simply forced on us if we presume the man
> actually meant what he said.

Did he ever mention octave periodicity? It's hard to imagine
its lack, but keep in mind, the common instruments at the time
would have worked within an octave or two compass at most.

-Carl

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

> Nonsense. For instance:
>
> * It may be that the intervals they hit are meaningless unless
> you know the first interval they hit, which is random.

...or some other Markov chain type business.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> >
> > 72-EDO in its entirety as a tuning system was
> > first formulated by Haba in 1927,
> [snip]
> > I never heard of Aritoxenus proposing 72-EDO in its entirety
> > like Haba and the rest.
>
> Indeed. And as I said, 72-ET as we see it is a very recent
> invention.
>
> Gene wrote:
>
> > It's simply forced on us if we presume the man
> > actually meant what he said.
>
> Did he ever mention octave periodicity?

That's completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant. What in the world makes you imagine the question is pertinent?

It's hard to imagine
> its lack, but keep in mind, the common instruments at the time
> would have worked within an octave or two compass at most.

And? What's your point?

Ouph, it's futile to carry on this argument... yet, in between the
lines once more:

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 3:09 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> I never heard of Aritoxenus proposing 72-EDO in its entirety like
>> Haba
>> and the rest. He has, as far as I know, sought tetrachordal divisions
>> to explain music-making along with the rest of his peers of his
>> age...
>
> He used tetrachords, yes. However, he was not stuck inside them and
> unable to get out--he *defines* the tone as the difference between
> the fifth and the fourth. He knew a fifth and a fourth made up an
> octave, since everyone did. And if a fourth is 30 parts, a tone 12
> parts, then a fifth is 30+12=42 parts, and so an octave is 30+42=72
> parts. It's simply forced on us if we presume the man actually meant
> what he said.
>

You assume too much Gene, you assume too much. Such as supposing that
people made music with octave equivalances 2400 years ago, or had
computers to add up 72 commatic intervals one on top of the other to
see if they made up an octave. But even supposing that Aristoxenus was
the discoverer of 72-EDO, he is STILL a Westerner to US.

>> The Turkish quarter, while acknowledging the existence of Aristides
>> Quintillianus in the matter of quarter-tones (to reject them for
>> their
>> Greek connotations of course), never even heard of Aristoxenus and
>> even confused him with Aristotle in their quasi-mythical writings.
>
> Didn't they get anything from the Byzantines? How could they avoid it?
>

The mainstream thesis is that everybody got their music from the
Turks, not vice versa, including the Byzantines. Ha!

>> So, object as much as you want, declare my observations fallacious
>> along with Graham if that suits you too, but it is rather evident to
>> me that 72-EDO applied to qanuns today is a FLUKE.
>
> It may be a fluke, but it's your fluke.

Not mine personally.

> It's not a system of Western music other than in very recent and
> marginalized practice, as exemplified by the people on this list.
> Presumably, if you've got it on some of your quanums it's a lot more
> common in Turkey.
>

Did I say 72-equal was a system of Western music? I said it was a
Western contrivance, since it was fully described by a Western
musician wanting to expand his pitch palette. It was contrived with 12-
equal as basis and microtonality as bonus. Simple as cake. The fact
that Turks found ways to implement it using tuning devices in 1980s OR
EVEN THAT the Orthodox Patriarchate of Istanbul assigned a Music
Commission in 1888 to reinterpret Chrysanthos's earlier theory on
echoi as 12 equal parts to the wholetone does not rob 72-equal from
its Western patrimony.

>> And you'll notice, that while I admit 72-EDO is a very SOLID tuning,
>> it is FAR from being RIGHT for Maqam music due to intonational and
>> historical considerations.
>
> And what do such historical considerations have to do with music?

Everything, if you surrender to ancient mathematical texts on music an
ounce of credibility. Turks and Arabs were not even AWARE of the
existence of 12 equal tones as a viable system until they HEARD it (or
something akin to it) by the start of the 19th Century on pianofortes.
How would you have us stage a historically accurate 17th Century
Ottoman Court music performance today then?

> As for intonational, what, actually and specifically, is it that 72
> can't do? Where's the real problem with it?
>

As I said, years of observation and familiarizing yourself with the
genre is a must to understanding what the problems are with 72-EDO in
Maqam music... Don't expect me to make you a master of the genre in
just 5 minutes when I am myself not a master. Why don't you try to
follow the desiderata behind 79 MOS 159-tET to see what 72-EDO cannot
do for Turkish Maqam music?

> My argument, also underlined in me thesis
>> has not changed: No tuning with 12-equal as its basis WILL EVER BE
>> suitable for Maqam music unless you allow much room for pitch
>> inflexions.
>
> 12 equal is not the "basis" of 72 equal. Any argument based on that
> false presumption will be a fallacy. Would you similarly claim 12 is> the basis of 612 equal, and say that didn't have enough pitch
> discrimination to do maqam music?
>

Of course 12-equal is the basis of 72-equal, since 72 is a subset of
12-equal and 72 a multiple thereof... It is that very 12-equal so
ingrained into the brain of the conceiver of 72-EDO as a wholesale
tone-system that he took 12 equal Western tones as basis when
expanding his pitch palette to acquire "micro-tones".

It is beyond argument that microtones were at first those very equal
things outside of 12-equal and arrived at by taking its multiples.

Do you wish to keep insisting that even 1200-EDO does not take 12-
equal as basis? Well! Yes of course 612 is a multiple of 12-equal and
is based on it for that very reason as well as on 17-EDO
simultaneously among other things, just as 1200 is also a multiple of
10, 15, 16, 50, etc... at the same time while being contrived by Ellis
with 12-EDO in mind.

Frankly, I find your claims ridiculous and off-track. You know
perfectly well that I am talking about tunings that can possible be
IMPLEMENTED on acoustical instruments as a WHOLE. No such viable
tuning that is a multiple of 12-equal will EVER do RIGHT by Maqam
music, especially Turkish and Persian varieties that leave the Arabic
"quarter-tones" in the dust from the perspective of subtle
microtonality.

> This is excusable perhaps in the case of 24-EDO, but 72?
>> All that pitch detail and still drastic inflexions? That won't do at
>> all.
>
> Can you be specific? What, precisely and exactly stated, is the
> problem?

Why don't you buy a 72-EDO qanun from Turkiye, tune it, play it,
imitate some maqams and see for yourself what the problems are with it?

Cordially,
Oz.

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

> > Did he ever mention octave periodicity?
>
> That's completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant. What in the
> world makes you imagine the question is pertinent?

It's completely, totally, and 100% relevant, and the fact that
you don't realize this makes me more certain than ever that your
efforts to shoehorn maqam music into the regular mapping paradigm
will end in disaster.

-Carl

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

> I'm timing how long it's gonna take for you both to conclude I'm
> right. ;) -Carl

By which, I mean, that because of the way maqam music works,
it would make more sense to use the lowest ET that can
differentiate the basic tetrachords, and then use inflections
to capture the precise intonation, including the ornaments...
after all, even in Western classical music, if you look at the
spectrogram, they are only 'on' the note a fraction of the time.
(However, Western classical music has polyphonic harmony, which
constrains pitch choice and makes the regular mapping paradigm
appropriate.)

-Carl

Graham Breed wrote:
> On 9 June 2010 14:18, genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>>
>>> Can you collect any new names you want to give things into a single
>>> message? I've missed some that were proposed in isolated messages
>>> here or some other thread.
>> On the Xenwiki I put up an article on the temperaments which have arisen from attempts at creating a theoretical basis for the tuning of
>> Turkish maqam music, namely yarman temperament, 80&159, and karadeniz temperament, 41&106. That's here:
>>
>> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Turkish+maqam+music+temperaments
> > What happened to Casablanca, with the 19/42 generator, presumably
> named after the Casablanca Declaration of 1943? Any others?

Named after the film, which premiered in 1942. That one came up in the 31-ET thread.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_%28film%29

I've added a page for proposed names of rank 2 temperaments, starting with a 7-limit list that I've been putting together.

http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Proposed+names+for+rank+2+temperaments

Disaster not for Maqam music certainly. Ha!

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 5:20 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
>
>>> Did he ever mention octave periodicity?
>>
>> That's completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant. What in the
>> world makes you imagine the question is pertinent?
>
> It's completely, totally, and 100% relevant, and the fact that
> you don't realize this makes me more certain than ever that your
> efforts to shoehorn maqam music into the regular mapping paradigm
> will end in disaster.
>
> -Carl
>

Yes, I concur. We should choose 12-ET! Why bother with anything more
complex? Leave pitch inflexions to the masters to interpret rightly.

You realize, of course, that I'm cynical. You cannot differentiate the
genera with anything less than 41-EDO if equal temperament is your
game. And even that is not enough pitch detail for those who wish to
make music without wincing or making it sound square. To crush is down
to pulp, you can try 34-EDO, a suggestion I still keep in my pocket,
but that is the LIMIT to how low you can go before the building comes
tumbling down - at the price of excessive warping of the historical
pitch-space that is!

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 5:34 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
>> I'm timing how long it's gonna take for you both to conclude I'm
>> right. ;) -Carl
>
> By which, I mean, that because of the way maqam music works,
> it would make more sense to use the lowest ET that can
> differentiate the basic tetrachords, and then use inflections
> to capture the precise intonation, including the ornaments...
> after all, even in Western classical music, if you look at the
> spectrogram, they are only 'on' the note a fraction of the time.
> (However, Western classical music has polyphonic harmony, which
> constrains pitch choice and makes the regular mapping paradigm
> appropriate.)
>
> -Carl
>

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

> You assume too much Gene, you assume too much. Such as supposing that
> people made music with octave equivalances 2400 years ago, or had
> computers to add up 72 commatic intervals one on top of the other to
> see if they made up an octave.

Aristoxenos didn't need a computer to add 30 and 42 and get 72. In fact, with the numerical notation system he used, addition was dead easy. He would have needed something better than the Greeks had available if he was going to very easily compute the size of 1/72 of an octave, or 1/30 of a fourth, or etc. But he didn't want to do that, in fact he was dead set against that sort of thing. What he DID have was a sophisticated mathematical language in which it was quite possible to conceptualize equally dividing intervals, even if computing them and making further use of the computation was not something the Greeks would have been good at.

But even supposing that Aristoxenus was
> the discoverer of 72-EDO, he is STILL a Westerner to US.

That seems rather narrow, considering the role the Greeks played in the East as well as the West. Does it fatally taint the idea, and if so, why?

> > Didn't they get anything from the Byzantines? How could they avoid it?

> The mainstream thesis is that everybody got their music from the
> Turks, not vice versa, including the Byzantines. Ha!

Ha indeed; that's hardly possible, and is contradicted by the historical evidence that it was in good measure derived
from ancient Greece.

> Did I say 72-equal was a system of Western music? I said it was a
> Western contrivance, since it was fully described by a Western
> musician wanting to expand his pitch palette.

It wasn't fully described in structural harmonic terms by Haba, I'm pretty sure. I'd be interested in data concerning what Haba did understand about it. But again, this seems 100% not relevant to the issue of how well it might work for maqam music.

The fact
> that Turks found ways to implement it using tuning devices in 1980s OR
> EVEN THAT the Orthodox Patriarchate of Istanbul assigned a Music
> Commission in 1888 to reinterpret Chrysanthos's earlier theory on
> echoi as 12 equal parts to the wholetone does not rob 72-equal from
> its Western patrimony.

Oh, but it does. Turks own it as much as anyone and more than most.

> Everything, if you surrender to ancient mathematical texts on music an
> ounce of credibility. Turks and Arabs were not even AWARE of the
> existence of 12 equal tones as a viable system until they HEARD it (or
> something akin to it) by the start of the 19th Century on pianofortes.

And Aristoxenos wouldn't have recognized such a thing either. It wasn't a tuning to him, but a theoretical construct with which to describe tuning. But so what?

> How would you have us stage a historically accurate 17th Century
> Ottoman Court music performance today then?

I don't know, but I imagine Byzantine influence would still be felt for starters.

> As I said, years of observation and familiarizing yourself with the
> genre is a must to understanding what the problems are with 72-EDO in
> Maqam music... Don't expect me to make you a master of the genre in
> just 5 minutes when I am myself not a master. Why don't you try to
> follow the desiderata behind 79 MOS 159-tET to see what 72-EDO cannot
> do for Turkish Maqam music?

Why do you think I keep pestering you with questions? I tried to see what you were up to with your system, and partly succeeded, but certainly not to the extent of seeing any special relevance to maqam music.

> Of course 12-equal is the basis of 72-equal, since 72 is a subset of
> 12-equal and 72 a multiple thereof...

By that reasoning, 6-equal is the "basis" of 12-equal, and 3-equal is the "basis" of 6-equal, despite how very different they are.

> It is that very 12-equal so
> ingrained into the brain of the conceiver of 72-EDO as a wholesale
> tone-system that he took 12 equal Western tones as basis when
> expanding his pitch palette to acquire "micro-tones".

Probably you are right. What do Haba's hypothetical limitations have to do with anything remotely relevant?

> Do you wish to keep insisting that even 1200-EDO does not take 12-
> equal as basis? Well! Yes of course 612 is a multiple of 12-equal and
> is based on it for that very reason as well as on 17-EDO

No, it's important more because it's quite accurate, only secondarily because of the 12 thing. I used it for years as a way of figuring things without grabbing for a calculator, and the reason I did was that it was accurate.

> Frankly, I find your claims ridiculous and off-track. You know
> perfectly well that I am talking about tunings that can possible be
> IMPLEMENTED on acoustical instruments as a WHOLE. No such viable
> tuning that is a multiple of 12-equal will EVER do RIGHT by Maqam
> music, especially Turkish and Persian varieties that leave the Arabic
> "quarter-tones" in the dust from the perspective of subtle
> microtonality.

If this is true, you can explain WHY it is true. This you have not done.

> > Can you be specific? What, precisely and exactly stated, is the
> > problem?
>
>
> Why don't you buy a 72-EDO qanun from Turkiye, tune it, play it,
> imitate some maqams and see for yourself what the problems are with it?

I'm physically incapable of playing anything well. I would probably injure myself if I tried. Why don't you tell me the problems? Or better yet, if someone would produce some Scala seq files of maqam music, that would be terrific.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
>
> > > Did he ever mention octave periodicity?
> >
> > That's completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant. What in the
> > world makes you imagine the question is pertinent?
>
> It's completely, totally, and 100% relevant, and the fact that
> you don't realize this makes me more certain than ever that your
> efforts to shoehorn maqam music into the regular mapping paradigm
> will end in disaster.

If you have an argument and not _ad hominem_ then please give it.
As for my attempts to construe maqqm music, they seem to be unlikely to end in anything.

The reason why your question is irrelevant is that whether or not something is a rank one tuning has nothing to do with octaves, let alone octave equivalence. In this case it simply raises the question of whether Aristoxenos meant for all of his parts to be theoretically equal as ratios of string lengths, which is certainly something he would have understood and could have intended.

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

> I've added a page for proposed names of rank 2 temperaments, starting
> with a 7-limit list that I've been putting together.
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Proposed+names+for+rank+2+temperaments
>

Great work, Herman. Of course 19/42 still stinks as a generator.

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

> You realize, of course, that I'm cynical. You cannot differentiate the
> genera with anything less than 41-EDO if equal temperament is your
> game. And even that is not enough pitch detail for those who wish to
> make music without wincing or making it sound square. To crush is down
> to pulp, you can try 34-EDO, a suggestion I still keep in my pocket,
> but that is the LIMIT to how low you can go before the building comes
> tumbling down - at the price of excessive warping of the historical
> pitch-space that is!

Ah ha! We come back to squares temperament again. Let's hear it for squares, which does have a sort of Middle Eastern flavor to it.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Yes, I concur. We should choose 12-ET! Why bother with anything
> more complex? Leave pitch inflexions to the masters to interpret
> rightly.
>
> You realize, of course, that I'm cynical.

Yes, but I don't think 12-ET will work to differentiate the
tetrachords. But I think 24-ET will. I'm more than happy to
be wrong here, and I'm speaking in the spirit of inquiry.

But how would we even know we've succeeded? Are they written
down anywhere? I think the answer is, they weren't prior to
the colonial period, aside from the fanciful work of theorists
like Ptolemy and al-Farabi. And the colonial attempts got us
24-ET, which you're disputing.

In the West, organ tuners wrote down the tunings they actually
used, so we know. Did the makers of fretted strings leave no
records? My understanding is no, their craft was regarded as
trade secret. Am I all wet?

> You cannot differentiate the
> genera with anything less than 41-EDO if equal temperament is
> your game.

Is this demonstrated in your thesis, and if so, can you direct
me to the relevant section?

> And even that is not enough pitch detail for those who wish to
> make music without wincing or making it sound square.

I don't doubt it's insufficient to capture performance
intonation, but I'm really having a hard time believing it
can't differentiate the tetrachords. By way of comparison,
12-ET certainly isn't capable of capturing the performance
intonation of, say, a good string quartet, but it is capable
of differentiating all the scales used in the music.

-Carl

You certainly know how to wear out a tired man Gene. :)

Let me close up this argument by my answers in between the lines.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 5:59 AM, genewardsmith wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> You assume too much Gene, you assume too much. Such as supposing that
>> people made music with octave equivalances 2400 years ago, or had
>> computers to add up 72 commatic intervals one on top of the other to
>> see if they made up an octave.
>
> Aristoxenos didn't need a computer to add 30 and 42 and get 72. In
> fact, with the numerical notation system he used, addition was dead
> easy. He would have needed something better than the Greeks had
> available if he was going to very easily compute the size of 1/72 of
> an octave, or 1/30 of a fourth, or etc. But he didn't want to do
> that, in fact he was dead set against that sort of thing. What he
> DID have was a sophisticated mathematical language in which it was
> quite possible to conceptualize equally dividing intervals, even if
> computing them and making further use of the computation was not
> something the Greeks would have been good at.
>

These are, of course, your suppositions in assuming that Aristoxenus
managed to utilize logarithmic functions to equally partition 2/1,
functions which were actually discovered in 1544 by Michael Stifel or
approximated by mesolabiums constructed during the time of Ptolemy.
Aristoxenus in fact did nothing other than take 12 parts to the whole
tone, misinterpreted (as John mentioned) by Eratosthenes, Cleonides
and Ptolemy as 30 to the fourth in string lengths. Ironic is your
taking for granted our quotidian conception of the octave. I hardly
think any theorist knew of such an interval as the "octave" in
Antiquity, when instead they would have considered an "octave" as "the
same pitch" and especially since they in fact took tetrachords and
pentachords as the periodicities of their scales!

Ironic also is your taking the number 72 to mean equal-temperament in
the case of Aristoxenus, a man renown for his opposition to
Pythagorean rationalization/quantification of pitches!

So, by a sleight of hand, let us suppose you tortured poor Aristoxenus
to add 30 to 42 to get out of him the number 72. Does this help you in
justifying your claim against me that 72-EDO is NOT a Western
contrivance?

Come now. 72-equal IS MOST CERTAINLY a 20th Century Western
contrivance that was conceived AS A MULTIPLE of 12-equal by Alois Haba
and his peers after him.

> But even supposing that Aristoxenus was
>> the discoverer of 72-EDO, he is STILL a Westerner to US.
>
> That seems rather narrow, considering the role the Greeks played in
> the East as well as the West. Does it fatally taint the idea, and if
> so, why?
>

My dear Gene, 72-EDO is an ALIEN contrivance from the perspective of
the Maqam World. It entered the scene in the late 20th Century the
same as 24-EDO. End of story.

>>> Didn't they get anything from the Byzantines? How could they avoid
>>> it?
>
>> The mainstream thesis is that everybody got their music from the
>> Turks, not vice versa, including the Byzantines. Ha!
>
> Ha indeed; that's hardly possible, and is contradicted by the
> historical evidence that it was in good measure derived
> from ancient Greece.
>

Whatever you say great mathematician witch-king! :)

One thing we DID NOT get from Greeks in music theory, if we got
anything from them at all in that respect, is 72-EDO. I stake my beard
on it. More so since Turkish nationalism by the late 19th Century
onward would have outwardly REFUSED anything remotely Byzantine,
particularly in the form of the Chrysanthine (12 equal parts to the tone) revision of the Patriarchate in 1888.

>> Did I say 72-equal was a system of Western music? I said it was a
>> Western contrivance, since it was fully described by a Western
>> musician wanting to expand his pitch palette.
>
> It wasn't fully described in structural harmonic terms by Haba, I'm
> pretty sure. I'd be interested in data concerning what Haba did
> understand about it. But again, this seems 100% not relevant to the
> issue of how well it might work for maqam music.
>

There you were just a moment ago praising Aristoxenus up above the
clouds for having hypothetically made him utter the number 72 (without
even bothering to corroborate its equalness), and here you are again,
pummeling Haba down to Earth's mantle because he FAILED to FULLY
explain his 72-EDO proposal in terms of harmonic structure?

That's low Gene, real low.

And irrelevant too. I say unto thee, that 72-EDO is STILL a Western
contrivance no matter what you say, and that it entered the Turkish
scene in LATE 20th Century and is NOT IN THE LEAST PROPER for Maqam
music.

And are we supposed to consider 72-equal seriously for Turkish Maqam
music after having ascertained the CRUEL FLUKE of its inception in
20th Century instrument design?

Come on. Nobody spent any time on its mathematical foundations and
suitability to representing maqams (something you expect of Haba) that
we should at this moment lay it on the table for serious consideration!

Verily! The best 72-EDO serves is to demonstrate the kind of pitch
resolution that is necessary to find the subtle intonations of maqamat.

> The fact
>> that Turks found ways to implement it using tuning devices in 1980s
>> OR
>> EVEN THAT the Orthodox Patriarchate of Istanbul assigned a Music
>> Commission in 1888 to reinterpret Chrysanthos's earlier theory on
>> echoi as 12 equal parts to the wholetone does not rob 72-equal from
>> its Western patrimony.
>
> Oh, but it does. Turks own it as much as anyone and more than most.
>

We own no such thing as 72-EDO. We own it no more than Chinese and
Hindus own potato or corn. 72-EDO is a FLUKE for us. A subset of 72-
EDO exists on our qanuns because of the influence of Westernism and
because of our luthiers employing 12-tone tuners imported from
overseas for the past decades.

>> Everything, if you surrender to ancient mathematical texts on music
>> an
>> ounce of credibility. Turks and Arabs were not even AWARE of the
>> existence of 12 equal tones as a viable system until they HEARD it
>> (or
>> something akin to it) by the start of the 19th Century on
>> pianofortes.
>
> And Aristoxenos wouldn't have recognized such a thing either. It> wasn't a tuning to him, but a theoretical construct with which to
> describe tuning. But so what?
>

My dear Gene, 72-EDO is NOT a well-deliberated theoretical construct
in Turkiye, it is a live beast on the Turkish qanun, which happens to
be there by an ironic FLUKE, not any particular mathematical
consideration as you wish to show in the case of Aristoxenus' 72 parts
to the octave arrangement.

>> How would you have us stage a historically accurate 17th Century
>> Ottoman Court music performance today then?
>
> I don't know, but I imagine Byzantine influence would still be felt
> for starters.
>

And you say this as an expert on Maqam music intonation?

Hats off to the great mathematician witch-king!

72-EDO has NO historical precedence in Classical Turkish music. There
is no BASIS in taking it in consideration now or ever.

>> As I said, years of observation and familiarizing yourself with the
>> genre is a must to understanding what the problems are with 72-EDO in
>> Maqam music... Don't expect me to make you a master of the genre in
>> just 5 minutes when I am myself not a master. Why don't you try to
>> follow the desiderata behind 79 MOS 159-tET to see what 72-EDO cannot
>> do for Turkish Maqam music?
>
> Why do you think I keep pestering you with questions?

For your amusement?

> I tried to see what you were up to with your system, and partly
> succeeded, but certainly not to the extent of seeing any special
> relevance to maqam music.
>

Welcome to the world of Maqam, where you will spend the next 15 years
of your life trying to make heads or tails out of it. :)

If you bother to read more of what I say instead of pestering me with
such off-the-track questions, you might IN FACT glean something about
the reasons behind my choosing 79 MOS 159-tET Gene.

>> Of course 12-equal is the basis of 72-equal, since 72 is a subset of
>> 12-equal and 72 a multiple thereof...
>
> By that reasoning, 6-equal is the "basis" of 12-equal, and 3-equal
> is the "basis" of 6-equal, despite how very different they are.
>

Poppycock and balderdash. You know exactly how 72-EDO was conceived by
Haba and 1200-EDO by Ellis. Off-track again.

>> It is that very 12-equal so
>> ingrained into the brain of the conceiver of 72-EDO as a wholesale
>> tone-system that he took 12 equal Western tones as basis when
>> expanding his pitch palette to acquire "micro-tones".
>
> Probably you are right. What do Haba's hypothetical limitations have
> to do with anything remotely relevant?
>

Let me remind you of my position since you lost track: 72-EDO is
INAPPROPRIATE for Maqam music BECAUSE it has 12-equal as its basis. IT
IS A MULTIPLE OF 12-EDO and has been THUS CONCEIVED by Haba with
common Western tonality at its centre. It has NO THEORETICAL PLACE in
Classical Turkish music because its application to qanuns today is a
FLUKE. End of Story.

>> Do you wish to keep insisting that even 1200-EDO does not take 12-
>> equal as basis? Well! Yes of course 612 is a multiple of 12-equal and
>> is based on it for that very reason as well as on 17-EDO
>
> No, it's important more because it's quite accurate, only
> secondarily because of the 12 thing. I used it for years as a way of
> figuring things without grabbing for a calculator, and the reason I
> did was that it was accurate.
>

Hah hah! Come on! A. J. Ellis had suggested the cent unit because of
the ease with which one can observe deviations from 12-equal pitches,
not because it is any the easier compared to 159 or 612. 12-equal was
the norm in the West when evaluating other (microtonal) scales and
NATURALLY the cent unit has MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal as its basis.

And I know you have lost track again, so let me remind you once more
my position: 72-equal HAS MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal at its core
historically. The only way one can apply it to Maqam music without
losing one's mind is again the same way the originators followed to
conceive it: A bikechain of 6 twelve-tone equal tunings. This is
INCOMPATIBLE with the historical and intonational spirit of Turkish
Maqam music.

>> Frankly, I find your claims ridiculous and off-track. You know
>> perfectly well that I am talking about tunings that can possible be
>> IMPLEMENTED on acoustical instruments as a WHOLE. No such viable
>> tuning that is a multiple of 12-equal will EVER do RIGHT by Maqam
>> music, especially Turkish and Persian varieties that leave the Arabic
>> "quarter-tones" in the dust from the perspective of subtle
>> microtonality.
>
> If this is true, you can explain WHY it is true. This you have not
> done.
>

Read my dear Gene, read...

>>> Can you be specific? What, precisely and exactly stated, is the
>>> problem?
>>
>>
>> Why don't you buy a 72-EDO qanun from Turkiye, tune it, play it,
>> imitate some maqams and see for yourself what the problems are with
>> it?
>
> I'm physically incapable of playing anything well. I would probably
> injure myself if I tried.

Hah hah!

> Why don't you tell me the problems? Or better yet, if someone would
> produce some Scala seq files of maqam music, that would be terrific.
>
>

You are too impatient, too much demanding, and too little reading!

Oz.

I said 41-EDO, or at worst 34-EDO (as a model consigned to paper
mostly)... Not just for Arabs, but Persians, Kurds, Azeris & Turks as
well. 24-equal might work more or less for Levantine Arabs, but
certainly not for the rest of the Maqam world, and most certainly not
for us in Turkiye. Persians will complain even more because they will
be wronged greatly in regards the middle seconds, thirds and augmented
seconds in either 41 or 34 while we benefit from their more-or-less-
correct representation in practice. If you are seeking to satisfy the
whole geography as far as Rajastan and Morocco, the pitch detail will
inevitably rise. The problem is not knowing where to draw the line
between "theory-mostly" and "intonation-friendly". The practical
approach might be to split the geography into "intonation regions" and
suggest a tuning scheme for each - as is the case today - or to
increase the pitch resolution as I did with my 79-tone qanun to make
everybody happy at the expense of a very steep learning curve.

One thing is certain, you cannot satisfy everybody even in theory with
41 or 34-equal. Only Western Turkiye may be absolutely pleased with
one of these.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> Yes, I concur. We should choose 12-ET! Why bother with anything
>> more complex? Leave pitch inflexions to the masters to interpret
>> rightly.
>>
>> You realize, of course, that I'm cynical.
>
> Yes, but I don't think 12-ET will work to differentiate the
> tetrachords. But I think 24-ET will. I'm more than happy to
> be wrong here, and I'm speaking in the spirit of inquiry.
>
> But how would we even know we've succeeded? Are they written
> down anywhere? I think the answer is, they weren't prior to
> the colonial period, aside from the fanciful work of theorists
> like Ptolemy and al-Farabi. And the colonial attempts got us
> 24-ET, which you're disputing.
>
> In the West, organ tuners wrote down the tunings they actually
> used, so we know. Did the makers of fretted strings leave no
> records? My understanding is no, their craft was regarded as
> trade secret. Am I all wet?
>
>> You cannot differentiate the
>> genera with anything less than 41-EDO if equal temperament is
>> your game.
>
> Is this demonstrated in your thesis, and if so, can you direct
> me to the relevant section?
>
>> And even that is not enough pitch detail for those who wish to
>> make music without wincing or making it sound square.
>
> I don't doubt it's insufficient to capture performance
> intonation, but I'm really having a hard time believing it
> can't differentiate the tetrachords. By way of comparison,
> 12-ET certainly isn't capable of capturing the performance
> intonation of, say, a good string quartet, but it is capable
> of differentiating all the scales used in the music.
>
> -Carl
>
>

Dear Ozan, Gene, and all,

Please let me possibly assist an intent Ozan, who
as I recall has an Ethno2 demo to produce, by offering
a few quick comments on maqam music from an alien
perspective.

First, I would regard the writings of al-Farabi,
Ibn Sina, Safi al-Din al-Urmawi, and Qutb al-Din
al-Shirazi as a good starting point, along with
recent studies of flexible-pitch maqam intonation
in practice.

Secondly, I would regard any equal temperament,
and also regular or semi-regular schemes such as
my own, as possible approximations of certain
aspects of that historical and recent practice --
as opposed to any kind of guide to that practice!

Third, since a fixed-pitch system of practical
size must make choices and set priorities as to
which sizes of intervals are most essential or
desirable and how they should be generated,
different people may prefer different choices.

For example, as a "neo-Systematist," I can easily
explain the logic of a 24-note system using a
generator around 704-704.6 cents, where rast to
buselik is four fifths up and rast to segah is
eight fifths down.

Also, I can quickly explain why this would _not_
be a good solution for Turkish maqam music as
implemented in Yarman-79, although it might give
tenable results for certain maqamat. It is simply
a way of exploring some aspects of the maqamat
or Persian dastgah-ha, and an attractive one from
a certain alien perspective by no means binding
on any Near Eastern musician.

With best wishes to Ozan on that Ethno2 demo,

Margo
mschulter@...

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

> And irrelevant too. I say unto thee, that 72-EDO is STILL a Western
> contrivance no matter what you say, and that it entered the Turkish
> scene in LATE 20th Century and is NOT IN THE LEAST PROPER for Maqam
> music.

But the West didn't put it there, nor did they get get it from Haba or anyone else in the West. On this point, my authority is you; you tell us it got put there because it was easier to tune.

> And are we supposed to consider 72-equal seriously for Turkish Maqam
> music after having ascertained the CRUEL FLUKE of its inception in
> 20th Century instrument design?

Its inception is completely irrelevant to the question of how well it works.

> Come on. Nobody spent any time on its mathematical foundations and
> suitability to representing maqams (something you expect of Haba) that
> we should at this moment lay it on the table for serious consideration!

It needs serious consideration for two reasons:

(1) It's already being used in certain respects
(2) It's a very obvious system to look at if 11-limit music has anything to do with the matter.

> We own no such thing as 72-EDO. We own it no more than Chinese and
> Hindus own potato or corn. 72-EDO is a FLUKE for us. A subset of 72-
> EDO exists on our qanuns because of the influence of Westernism and
> because of our luthiers employing 12-tone tuners imported from
> overseas for the past decades.

In other words, as I said, it is a Turkish system created by Turks because they found it easy to tune.

> Let me remind you of my position since you lost track: 72-EDO is
> INAPPROPRIATE for Maqam music BECAUSE it has 12-equal as its basis.

In the first place, and for the nth time, it does NOT have 12-equal as its basis. In the second place, why does it matter if it does or doesn't? The question should be, how well does it work.

IT
> IS A MULTIPLE OF 12-EDO and has been THUS CONCEIVED by Haba with
> common Western tonality at its centre. It has NO THEORETICAL PLACE in
> Classical Turkish music because its application to qanuns today is a
> FLUKE. End of Story.

Well, of course, it's been conceived by other people for other reasons. As I pointed out, I for one came across it entirely independently in 1969 for reasons having zero to do with 12-edo, and I imagine there are people around on this list (George Secor, perhaps?) with a similar story. It's an obvious thing to find because it's so strong. I find it when using the Riemann zeta function, and I doubt the Riemann zeta function has a cultural bias in favor of the West. But none of that is relevant to the actual question, which you keep avoiding, seemingly on ideological grounds: does it work?

> And I know you have lost track again, so let me remind you once more
> my position: 72-equal HAS MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal at its core
> historically. The only way one can apply it to Maqam music without
> losing one's mind is again the same way the originators followed to
> conceive it: A bikechain of 6 twelve-tone equal tunings.

I just got through pointing out to you what you can do with a bikechain of nine=tone equal tunings times eight-note tunings: you can take the nine bikechain with another chain of neutral thirds, and adjust the neutral thirds up to 351 cents and so the fifths up to 702 cents, with interesting consequences. Clearly, twelve is not the only useful way of looking at the thing; another approach focuses on the 7/72 generator, and so on and so on.

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

> These are, of course, your suppositions in assuming that Aristoxenus
> managed to utilize logarithmic functions to equally partition 2/1,
> functions which were actually discovered in 1544 by Michael Stifel or
> approximated by mesolabiums constructed during the time of Ptolemy.

I suggest you go look at the eighth book of Euclid's Elements. The Greeks were quite well aware of geometric sequences, which is what Aristoxenos would have been using if he was dividing equally.

> Aristoxenus in fact did nothing other than take 12 parts to the whole
> tone, misinterpreted (as John mentioned) by Eratosthenes, Cleonides
> and Ptolemy as 30 to the fourth in string lengths.

I don't think it's a misinterpretation at all, and I have seen no argument which actually suggests otherwise, just assertions. But even if it is true, it only means some other ancient Greek invented 72edo, and then where are you?

Ironic is your
> taking for granted our quotidian conception of the octave. I hardly
> think any theorist knew of such an interval as the "octave" in
> Antiquity, when instead they would have considered an "octave" as "the
> same pitch" and especially since they in fact took tetrachords and
> pentachords as the periodicities of their scales!

Oh, please. They had a name for it, "diapason". How did they manage to name it without knowing it existed? Besides, they were not idiots, and would have noticed that when you stuck a fourth and a fifth together you did not get a unison. And where is your cite that they used tetrachordal periodicity, rather than sticking two of them together? It would be interesting if true, so I suspect it must be false or someone would have made a big deal of it on this list by now.

In any case, as I've already pointed out to Carl, octaves are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether Aristoxenos intended parts of equal size.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> > > That's completely, totally, and 100% irrelevant. What in the
> > > world makes you imagine the question is pertinent?
> >
> > It's completely, totally, and 100% relevant, and the fact that
> > you don't realize this makes me more certain than ever that your
> > efforts to shoehorn maqam music into the regular mapping paradigm
> > will end in disaster.
>
> If you have an argument and not _ad hominem_ then please give it.

Please, there's nothing close to an ad hominem in there.

-Carl

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

> One thing is certain, you cannot satisfy everybody even in
> theory with 41 or 34-equal. Only Western Turkiye may be
> absolutely pleased with one of these.

What do you make of this performance?

http://lumma.org/stuff/improv.mp3

-Carl

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

> > If you have an argument and not _ad hominem_ then please give it.
>
> Please, there's nothing close to an ad hominem in there.

You gave an _argumentum ad hominem_, an argument "against the man", because you argued by saying there is something wrong with me and therefore my thinking will lead to catastophe. The correct way to argue the matter is to show why my conclusions are wrong by addressing the points at issue, and this you completely fail to do.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> > > If you have an argument and not _ad hominem_ then please give it.
> >
> > Please, there's nothing close to an ad hominem in there.
>
> You gave an _argumentum ad hominem_, an argument "against the
> man", because you argued by saying there is something wrong with
> me and therefore my thinking will lead to catastophe.

Sorry for my previous, which I just deleted lest it be
misconstrued. What I mean to say is, I don't see where you
think I said something was wrong with you, but anyway, let's
drop it.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I said 41-EDO, or at worst 34-EDO (as a model consigned to paper
> mostly)... Not just for Arabs, but Persians, Kurds, Azeris & Turks
> as well.

So I've been looking at your 2009 paper (Weighing Diverse...)
and I'm shocked at how far 12-ET can go to explain the results.
Here are my quick & dirty notes on the histograms:

rast 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 2/1
nihavend 9/8--7/6 4/3 3/2--8 10 2/1
kurdilihicazkar 1 2 7/6 4/3 3/2--8--10 2/1
ussak 1.5 7/6 4/3 3/2--7.75 7/4 2/1
huseyni 1.5 7/6 4/3 3/2--8.75 7/4 2/1
hicaz 1.25 5/4--4/3 3/2--8.75 7/4 2/1
saba 1.75 7/6 4.25 4/3 3/2--8 10 2/1
segah 1.25 6/5 4/3--3/2 8.25 10.5 2/1
huzzam 1.25 6/5 4.5 3/2--8.25 10.5

There's a possible tendency to use 1/1 7/6 4/3 for a trichord,
repeated at 3/2.

Several of the histograms are quite similar as to the locations
of major peaks, but differ on relative height of the peaks.
I'm guessing this reflects the presence of focal notes and
"avoid" notes in the scales, and that this is a principle
part of a maqam's flavor.

Remarkably, I see no evidence for a neutral third!

This is clearly the paper to reference on maqam intonation.
That said, I think you would have done better to let the data
tell you what model to use, rather than viewing it in light
of previously-proposed scales.

-Carl

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

> This is clearly the paper to reference on maqam intonation.

Where do we find it?

24-tET centered on B and F# A440 is what I make of it. Can't place the rhythmic feel, nice performance anyway! but I'd call the tuning "stiff, without roundness". That's opinion and personal taste of course.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
>
> > One thing is certain, you cannot satisfy everybody even in
> > theory with 41 or 34-equal. Only Western Turkiye may be
> > absolutely pleased with one of these.
>
> What do you make of this performance?
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/improv.mp3
>
> -Carl
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
> Let me remind you of my position since you lost track: 72-EDO is
> INAPPROPRIATE for Maqam music BECAUSE it has 12-equal as its basis.
> IT IS A MULTIPLE OF 12-EDO and has been THUS CONCEIVED by Haba
> with common Western tonality at its centre. It has NO THEORETICAL
> PLACE in Classical Turkish music because its application to qanuns
> today is a FLUKE. End of Story.
>

I have to agree with Gene insofar as who exactly invented or contrived 72-EDO or whether it was derived from 12-EDO or not should not be relevant, nor how well it is suited to play western music. The only thing that is relevant is how well it is suited to play maqam music. So what you essentially are saying is that 72-EDO is not well-suited to play maqam music?

> And I know you have lost track again, so let me remind you once
> more my position: 72-equal HAS MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal at its
> core historically. The only way one can apply it to Maqam music
> without losing one's mind is again the same way the originators
> followed to conceive it: A bikechain of 6 twelve-tone equal
> tunings. This is INCOMPATIBLE with the historical and intonational
> spirit of Turkish Maqam music.
>

So this is the reason? Could you explain a little more why, or give a reference where to read that.?

>
> >> Frankly, I find your claims ridiculous and off-track. You know
> >> perfectly well that I am talking about tunings that can possible
> >> be IMPLEMENTED on acoustical instruments as a WHOLE. No such
> >> viable tuning that is a multiple of 12-equal will EVER do RIGHT
> >> by Maqam music, especially Turkish and Persian varieties that
> >> leave the Arabic "quarter-tones" in the dust from the
> >> perspective of subtle microtonality.
> >
> > If this is true, you can explain WHY it is true. This you have
> > not done.
> >
>
> Read my dear Gene, read...
>

Where, please?

>
> > Why don't you tell me the problems? Or better yet, if someone
> > would produce some Scala seq files of maqam music, that would be
> > terrific.
> >
>
> You are too impatient, too much demanding, and too little reading!
>

Please tell us where to read.
--
Hans Straub

An immediately obvious problem with 72 (and 43 and other proposals) is a discrepancy with the real-life practice of tuning open strings by pure fourths and fifths, and tetrachordal structures in general: lack of the Pythagorean ditone. So many tones and still 8 cents off?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Let me remind you of my position since you lost track: 72-EDO is
> > INAPPROPRIATE for Maqam music BECAUSE it has 12-equal as its basis.
> > IT IS A MULTIPLE OF 12-EDO and has been THUS CONCEIVED by Haba
> > with common Western tonality at its centre. It has NO THEORETICAL
> > PLACE in Classical Turkish music because its application to qanuns
> > today is a FLUKE. End of Story.
> >
>
> I have to agree with Gene insofar as who exactly invented or contrived 72-EDO or whether it was derived from 12-EDO or not should not be relevant, nor how well it is suited to play western music. The only thing that is relevant is how well it is suited to play maqam music. So what you essentially are saying is that 72-EDO is not well-suited to play maqam music?
>
> > And I know you have lost track again, so let me remind you once
> > more my position: 72-equal HAS MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal at its
> > core historically. The only way one can apply it to Maqam music
> > without losing one's mind is again the same way the originators
> > followed to conceive it: A bikechain of 6 twelve-tone equal
> > tunings. This is INCOMPATIBLE with the historical and intonational
> > spirit of Turkish Maqam music.
> >
>
> So this is the reason? Could you explain a little more why, or give a reference where to read that.?
>
> >
> > >> Frankly, I find your claims ridiculous and off-track. You know
> > >> perfectly well that I am talking about tunings that can possible
> > >> be IMPLEMENTED on acoustical instruments as a WHOLE. No such
> > >> viable tuning that is a multiple of 12-equal will EVER do RIGHT
> > >> by Maqam music, especially Turkish and Persian varieties that
> > >> leave the Arabic "quarter-tones" in the dust from the
> > >> perspective of subtle microtonality.
> > >
> > > If this is true, you can explain WHY it is true. This you have
> > > not done.
> > >
> >
> > Read my dear Gene, read...
> >
>
> Where, please?
>
> >
> > > Why don't you tell me the problems? Or better yet, if someone
> > > would produce some Scala seq files of maqam music, that would be
> > > terrific.
> > >
> >
> > You are too impatient, too much demanding, and too little reading!
> >
>
> Please tell us where to read.
> --
> Hans Straub
>

I didn't word that well: the discrepancy is not between tetrachordal structures and tuning open strings by pure fourths and fifths (those are almost the "same thing"), but between 72, 43, etc. and pure Pythagorean intervals.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> An immediately obvious problem with 72 (and 43 and other proposals) is a discrepancy with the real-life practice of tuning open strings by pure fourths and fifths, and tetrachordal structures in general: lack of the Pythagorean ditone. So many tones and still 8 cents off?
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@...m, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Let me remind you of my position since you lost track: 72-EDO is
> > > INAPPROPRIATE for Maqam music BECAUSE it has 12-equal as its basis.
> > > IT IS A MULTIPLE OF 12-EDO and has been THUS CONCEIVED by Haba
> > > with common Western tonality at its centre. It has NO THEORETICAL
> > > PLACE in Classical Turkish music because its application to qanuns
> > > today is a FLUKE. End of Story.
> > >
> >
> > I have to agree with Gene insofar as who exactly invented or contrived 72-EDO or whether it was derived from 12-EDO or not should not be relevant, nor how well it is suited to play western music. The only thing that is relevant is how well it is suited to play maqam music. So what you essentially are saying is that 72-EDO is not well-suited to play maqam music?
> >
> > > And I know you have lost track again, so let me remind you once
> > > more my position: 72-equal HAS MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal at its
> > > core historically. The only way one can apply it to Maqam music
> > > without losing one's mind is again the same way the originators
> > > followed to conceive it: A bikechain of 6 twelve-tone equal
> > > tunings. This is INCOMPATIBLE with the historical and intonational
> > > spirit of Turkish Maqam music.
> > >
> >
> > So this is the reason? Could you explain a little more why, or give a reference where to read that.?
> >
> > >
> > > >> Frankly, I find your claims ridiculous and off-track. You know
> > > >> perfectly well that I am talking about tunings that can possible
> > > >> be IMPLEMENTED on acoustical instruments as a WHOLE. No such
> > > >> viable tuning that is a multiple of 12-equal will EVER do RIGHT
> > > >> by Maqam music, especially Turkish and Persian varieties that
> > > >> leave the Arabic "quarter-tones" in the dust from the
> > > >> perspective of subtle microtonality.
> > > >
> > > > If this is true, you can explain WHY it is true. This you have
> > > > not done.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Read my dear Gene, read...
> > >
> >
> > Where, please?
> >
> > >
> > > > Why don't you tell me the problems? Or better yet, if someone
> > > > would produce some Scala seq files of maqam music, that would be
> > > > terrific.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You are too impatient, too much demanding, and too little reading!
> > >
> >
> > Please tell us where to read.
> > --
> > Hans Straub
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> An immediately obvious problem with 72 (and 43 and other proposals) is a discrepancy with the real-life practice of tuning open strings by pure fourths and fifths, and tetrachordal structures in general: lack of the Pythagorean ditone. So many tones and still 8 cents off?

I supplied one possible cure for that with my suggestion of retuning a chain of eight notes with neutral thirds so that the fifths are pure, and then running that around a complete circle of nine notes.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > An immediately obvious problem with 72 (and 43 and other proposals) >is a discrepancy with the real-life practice of tuning open strings by >pure fourths and fifths, and tetrachordal structures in general: lack >of the Pythagorean ditone. So many tones and still 8 cents off?
>
> I supplied one possible cure for that with my suggestion of retuning >a chain of eight notes with neutral thirds so that the fifths are >pure, and then running that around a complete circle of nine notes.
>

So, chains of fifths but not linked on-end? If I understand your suggestion, you'd get both middle thirds and Pythagorean tones and ditones. This sounds like a good idea to me, and it's basically like an extended version of how I apply my tunings in real life, except that I use pure fourths and don't need a closed/circulating system. I think Ozan is going to bring up notation issues though, and this is a practical performance/composer's solution, not a grand design for vast stretches of maqam possiblity. However IMO and experience you're right that this a good kind of approach.

Thanks, Margo for this very delicate attention !

I am joining you to remind the Ethno2 candidates and nevertheless brilliant theoricians that the Ethno2 competition ends up the 21th of June ! :)
My best wishes as well to Dr. Yarman, and all participants !
- - - - - - -
Jacques

Margo wrote :

> Dear Ozan, Gene, and all,
>
> Please let me possibly assist an intent Ozan, who
> as I recall has an Ethno2 demo to produce, by offering
> a few quick comments on maqam music from an alien
> perspective.
>
> First, I would regard the writings of al-Farabi,
> Ibn Sina, Safi al-Din al-Urmawi, and Qutb al-Din
> al-Shirazi as a good starting point, along with
> recent studies of flexible-pitch maqam intonation
> in practice.
>
> Secondly, I would regard any equal temperament,
> and also regular or semi-regular schemes such as
> my own, as possible approximations of certain
> aspects of that historical and recent practice --
> as opposed to any kind of guide to that practice!
>
> Third, since a fixed-pitch system of practical
> size must make choices and set priorities as to
> which sizes of intervals are most essential or
> desirable and how they should be generated,
> different people may prefer different choices.
>
> For example, as a "neo-Systematist," I can easily
> explain the logic of a 24-note system using a
> generator around 704-704.6 cents, where rast to
> buselik is four fifths up and rast to segah is
> eight fifths down.
>
> Also, I can quickly explain why this would _not_
> be a good solution for Turkish maqam music as
> implemented in Yarman-79, although it might give
> tenable results for certain maqamat. It is simply
> a way of exploring some aspects of the maqamat
> or Persian dastgah-ha, and an attractive one from
> a certain alien perspective by no means binding
> on any Near Eastern musician.
>
> With best wishes to Ozan on that Ethno2 demo,
>
> Margo

Oh, I should mention that getting different kinds of middle seconds when using a system such as you describe is going to be problematic, for the seconds in a given tetrachord will be dependent on the middle thirds from which they're originally linked. For example, in my system using pure fourths, the middle second that goes with a 16/13 is 128/117. This makes for a very nice tetrachord, just beautiful, but so is 14/13 with 16/13. These are very different moods! But too tight to fret both on my saz...and tempering out the 64/63 here would bring us eventually to 17-equal.

The structure of mutable intervals within a Pythagorean framework, which is a basic structure of maqam and maqam-like musics, is such a combination of strictures and freedoms that pinning it down is not likely. Making good structures for composition and performance is fun and easy though.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > >
> > > An immediately obvious problem with 72 (and 43 and other proposals) >is a discrepancy with the real-life practice of tuning open strings by >pure fourths and fifths, and tetrachordal structures in general: lack >of the Pythagorean ditone. So many tones and still 8 cents off?
> >
> > I supplied one possible cure for that with my suggestion of retuning >a chain of eight notes with neutral thirds so that the fifths are >pure, and then running that around a complete circle of nine notes.
> >
>
> So, chains of fifths but not linked on-end? If I understand your suggestion, you'd get both middle thirds and Pythagorean tones and ditones. This sounds like a good idea to me, and it's basically like an extended version of how I apply my tunings in real life, except that I use pure fourths and don't need a closed/circulating system. I think Ozan is going to bring up notation issues though, and this is a practical performance/composer's solution, not a grand design for vast stretches of maqam possiblity. However IMO and experience you're right that this a good kind of approach.
>

Flexible usage of the basic tuning scheme - i.e. the inflections and
wide vibrato are what I am referring to.

Beyond the technical, quite enjoyable.

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> > One thing is certain, you cannot satisfy everybody even in
> > theory with 41 or 34-equal. Only Western Turkiye may be
> > absolutely pleased with one of these.
>
> What do you make of this performance?
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/improv.mp3
>
> -Carl
>

This is exactly correct. Anyone who reads my webpage
will see that i have addressed precisely this point.

At the time when Aristoxenos devised his theory
c.350 BC, Euclid's treatise on geometry had just
been formulated, and its axiomatic basis caused
many Greek philosophers to embrace it with enthusiasm.
Aristoxenos was one of those.

Perhaps his primary innovation, and the main point
of his work, was to state that rather than basing
the categorization of musical pitch structures on
ratios (as did the Pythagoreans), the aural perception
of pitch should instead be the basis, and continuously
variable pitch-space which could be divided geometrically
was invoked as the basis for categorizing different scales.

Gene, i was not arguing at all against the idea of
using 72-edo to describe _most_ of Aristoxenos's ideas.
I was simply pointing out that one of his genera
requires a note that it midway between the pitches
available in 72-edo - thus, if one wants to use
this interpretation it requires 144-edo.

But in fact, pinning down Aristoxenos's scales with
_any_ specific numerical quantization, whether rational
or logarithmic, is in a way going exactly against
the point of his teaching.

And as someone else pointed out, the mesolabium was
a device used in ancient times to physically calculate
geometric divisions of a space, long before logarithms
were invented. So while Aristoxenos could not do the
precise math calculations of an equal-temperament,
he certainly could conceptualize and manipulate one.

Those who know my work know that i argue that the
Sumerians were capable of devising equal-temperaments
millenia before Aristoxenos, c. 2500 BC.

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/sumerian/simplified-sumerian-tuning.aspx

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/sumerian/sumerian-tuning.aspx

PS -- Would someone _please_ put an External Link to
my page about Aristoxenos into the Wikipedia page
about him? It is by far a fuller treatment of his
music-theory than anything else i have found on the
internet, and IMO there should be a reference to it
in the Wiki. Thanks.

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/aristoxenus/aristoxenus.aspx

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
>
> > These are, of course, your suppositions in assuming that Aristoxenus
> > managed to utilize logarithmic functions to equally partition 2/1,
> > functions which were actually discovered in 1544 by Michael Stifel or
> > approximated by mesolabiums constructed during the time of Ptolemy.
>
> I suggest you go look at the eighth book of Euclid's Elements. The Greeks were quite well aware of geometric sequences, which is what Aristoxenos would have been using if he was dividing equally.
>
> > Aristoxenus in fact did nothing other than take 12 parts to the whole
> > tone, misinterpreted (as John mentioned) by Eratosthenes, Cleonides
> > and Ptolemy as 30 to the fourth in string lengths.
>
> I don't think it's a misinterpretation at all, and I have seen no argument which actually suggests otherwise, just assertions. But even if it is true, it only means some other ancient Greek invented 72edo, and then where are you?
>
> Ironic is your
> > taking for granted our quotidian conception of the octave. I hardly
> > think any theorist knew of such an interval as the "octave" in
> > Antiquity, when instead they would have considered an "octave" as "the
> > same pitch" and especially since they in fact took tetrachords and
> > pentachords as the periodicities of their scales!
>
> Oh, please. They had a name for it, "diapason". How did they manage to name it without knowing it existed? Besides, they were not idiots, and would have noticed that when you stuck a fourth and a fifth together you did not get a unison. And where is your cite that they used tetrachordal periodicity, rather than sticking two of them together? It would be interesting if true, so I suspect it must be false or someone would have made a big deal of it on this list by now.
>
> In any case, as I've already pointed out to Carl, octaves are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether Aristoxenos intended parts of equal size.
>

--- On Thu, 6/10/10, monz <joemonz@...> wrote:

From: monz <joemonz@...>
Subject: [tuning] Re: Aristoxenos and logarithms
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2010, 7:17 PM

This is exactly correct. Anyone who reads my webpage

will see that i have addressed precisely this point.

At the time when Aristoxenos devised his theory

c.350 BC, Euclid's treatise on geometry had just

been formulated, and its axiomatic basis caused

many Greek philosophers to embrace it with enthusiasm.

Aristoxenos was one of those.

Perhaps his primary innovation, and the main point

of his work, was to state that rather than basing

the categorization of musical pitch structures on

ratios (as did the Pythagoreans), the aural perception

of pitch should instead be the basis, and continuously

variable pitch-space which could be divided geometrically

was invoked as the basis for categorizing different scales.

Gene, i was not arguing at all against the idea of

using 72-edo to describe _most_ of Aristoxenos's ideas.

I was simply pointing out that one of his genera

requires a note that it midway between the pitches

available in 72-edo - thus, if one wants to use

this interpretation it requires 144-edo.

But in fact, pinning down Aristoxenos's scales with

_any_ specific numerical quantization, whether rational

or logarithmic, is in a way going exactly against

the point of his teaching.

And as someone else pointed out, the mesolabium was

a device used in ancient times to physically calculate

geometric divisions of a space, long before logarithms

were invented. So while Aristoxenos could not do the

precise math calculations of an equal-temperament,

he certainly could conceptualize and manipulate one.

Those who know my work know that i argue that the

Sumerians were capable of devising equal-temperaments

millenia before Aristoxenos, c. 2500 BC.

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/sumerian/simplified-sumerian-tuning.aspx

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/sumerian/sumerian-tuning.aspx

PS -- Would someone _please_ put an External Link to

my page about Aristoxenos into the Wikipedia page

about him? It is by far a fuller treatment of his

music-theory than anything else i have found on the

internet, and IMO there should be a reference to it

in the Wiki. Thanks.

I tried once to make a request for some sanity on the just intonation page which in fact had a tonal soft link see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Just_intonation#Just_major_and_Just_minor

Nothing...

And once I tried to put as external link to the emacswiki (not related to tuning) and was kicked out as a vandal.

http://tonalsoft.com/monzo/aristoxenus/aristoxenus.aspx

-monz

http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx

Tonescape microtonal music software

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

>

>

>

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

>

> > These are, of course, your suppositions in assuming that Aristoxenus

> > managed to utilize logarithmic functions to equally partition 2/1,

> > functions which were actually discovered in 1544 by Michael Stifel or

> > approximated by mesolabiums constructed during the time of Ptolemy.

>

> I suggest you go look at the eighth book of Euclid's Elements. The Greeks were quite well aware of geometric sequences, which is what Aristoxenos would have been using if he was dividing equally.

>

> > Aristoxenus in fact did nothing other than take 12 parts to the whole

> > tone, misinterpreted (as John mentioned) by Eratosthenes, Cleonides

> > and Ptolemy as 30 to the fourth in string lengths.

>

> I don't think it's a misinterpretation at all, and I have seen no argument which actually suggests otherwise, just assertions. But even if it is true, it only means some other ancient Greek invented 72edo, and then where are you?

>

> Ironic is your

> > taking for granted our quotidian conception of the octave. I hardly

> > think any theorist knew of such an interval as the "octave" in

> > Antiquity, when instead they would have considered an "octave" as "the

> > same pitch" and especially since they in fact took tetrachords and

> > pentachords as the periodicities of their scales!

>

> Oh, please. They had a name for it, "diapason". How did they manage to name it without knowing it existed? Besides, they were not idiots, and would have noticed that when you stuck a fourth and a fifth together you did not get a unison. And where is your cite that they used tetrachordal periodicity, rather than sticking two of them together? It would be interesting if true, so I suspect it must be false or someone would have made a big deal of it on this list by now.

>

> In any case, as I've already pointed out to Carl, octaves are utterly irrelevant to the question of whether Aristoxenos intended parts of equal size.

>

Personally I believe that if there is any kind of "fixed" structure to be found, it is in the only place it could reasonably be, the harmonic series. That is, if you tune with Pythagorean intervals, superparticular Just intervals, and various means, geometric for example, you will find the "ideal" intervals. Which ones? That's easy- the ones that are not only consistent with whatever style is in question (a scalar concern, with lots of regional and personal leeway) but also resonate and flow with each other on acoustic instruments. Assuming that the "real thing" is done with the ear as the final judge, to where ELSE are you going to scootch the frets on, for example, your saz?

Ozan's 79-MOS insists on extremely close approximations to exactly such intervals, and I believe that these are the only reasonable targets for a regular system. The prime limit (in general) I believe is 17. I believe this because, for example, on my saz 22/17 is richer and more resonant than 9/7, in addition to sounding authentically "maqam".

Oh, Margo- I've been using that 14/9 in descent, it's very very nice. Its darkness is dependent on surrounding intervals.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Margo for this very delicate attention !
>
> I am joining you to remind the Ethno2 candidates and nevertheless
> brilliant theoricians that the Ethno2 competition ends up the 21th of
> June ! :)
> My best wishes as well to Dr. Yarman, and all participants !
> - - - - - - -
> Jacques
>
>
> Margo wrote :
>
> > Dear Ozan, Gene, and all,
> >
> > Please let me possibly assist an intent Ozan, who
> > as I recall has an Ethno2 demo to produce, by offering
> > a few quick comments on maqam music from an alien
> > perspective.
> >
> > First, I would regard the writings of al-Farabi,
> > Ibn Sina, Safi al-Din al-Urmawi, and Qutb al-Din
> > al-Shirazi as a good starting point, along with
> > recent studies of flexible-pitch maqam intonation
> > in practice.
> >
> > Secondly, I would regard any equal temperament,
> > and also regular or semi-regular schemes such as
> > my own, as possible approximations of certain
> > aspects of that historical and recent practice --
> > as opposed to any kind of guide to that practice!
> >
> > Third, since a fixed-pitch system of practical
> > size must make choices and set priorities as to
> > which sizes of intervals are most essential or
> > desirable and how they should be generated,
> > different people may prefer different choices.
> >
> > For example, as a "neo-Systematist," I can easily
> > explain the logic of a 24-note system using a
> > generator around 704-704.6 cents, where rast to
> > buselik is four fifths up and rast to segah is
> > eight fifths down.
> >
> > Also, I can quickly explain why this would _not_
> > be a good solution for Turkish maqam music as
> > implemented in Yarman-79, although it might give
> > tenable results for certain maqamat. It is simply
> > a way of exploring some aspects of the maqamat
> > or Persian dastgah-ha, and an attractive one from
> > a certain alien perspective by no means binding
> > on any Near Eastern musician.
> >
> > With best wishes to Ozan on that Ethno2 demo,
> >
> > Margo
>

And, I think the exponential limit on the Pythagorean intervals is, in real life, based essentially on "open strings". Don't know how far that goes, not very far in actual practice I suspect, but taking it "all the way" gives you the Pythagorean modality of 53-equal. Which you then retrofit to superparticular intervals.

Say Ozan, what are your arguments against 53? I'll reread your thesis... hey I have to write to you about that other thing, arg! I've been kind of allergic to the computer recently... :-(

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Personally I believe that if there is any kind of "fixed" structure to be found, it is in the only place it could reasonably be, the harmonic series. That is, if you tune with Pythagorean intervals, superparticular Just intervals, and various means, geometric for example, you will find the "ideal" intervals. Which ones? That's easy- the ones that are not only consistent with whatever style is in question (a scalar concern, with lots of regional and personal leeway) but also resonate and flow with each other on acoustic instruments. Assuming that the "real thing" is done with the ear as the final judge, to where ELSE are you going to scootch the frets on, for example, your saz?
>
> Ozan's 79-MOS insists on extremely close approximations to exactly such intervals, and I believe that these are the only reasonable targets for a regular system. The prime limit (in general) I believe is 17. I believe this because, for example, on my saz 22/17 is richer and more resonant than 9/7, in addition to sounding authentically "maqam".
>
> Oh, Margo- I've been using that 14/9 in descent, it's very very nice. Its darkness is dependent on surrounding intervals.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Margo for this very delicate attention !
> >
> > I am joining you to remind the Ethno2 candidates and nevertheless
> > brilliant theoricians that the Ethno2 competition ends up the 21th of
> > June ! :)
> > My best wishes as well to Dr. Yarman, and all participants !
> > - - - - - - -
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> > Margo wrote :
> >
> > > Dear Ozan, Gene, and all,
> > >
> > > Please let me possibly assist an intent Ozan, who
> > > as I recall has an Ethno2 demo to produce, by offering
> > > a few quick comments on maqam music from an alien
> > > perspective.
> > >
> > > First, I would regard the writings of al-Farabi,
> > > Ibn Sina, Safi al-Din al-Urmawi, and Qutb al-Din
> > > al-Shirazi as a good starting point, along with
> > > recent studies of flexible-pitch maqam intonation
> > > in practice.
> > >
> > > Secondly, I would regard any equal temperament,
> > > and also regular or semi-regular schemes such as
> > > my own, as possible approximations of certain
> > > aspects of that historical and recent practice --
> > > as opposed to any kind of guide to that practice!
> > >
> > > Third, since a fixed-pitch system of practical
> > > size must make choices and set priorities as to
> > > which sizes of intervals are most essential or
> > > desirable and how they should be generated,
> > > different people may prefer different choices.
> > >
> > > For example, as a "neo-Systematist," I can easily
> > > explain the logic of a 24-note system using a
> > > generator around 704-704.6 cents, where rast to
> > > buselik is four fifths up and rast to segah is
> > > eight fifths down.
> > >
> > > Also, I can quickly explain why this would _not_
> > > be a good solution for Turkish maqam music as
> > > implemented in Yarman-79, although it might give
> > > tenable results for certain maqamat. It is simply
> > > a way of exploring some aspects of the maqamat
> > > or Persian dastgah-ha, and an attractive one from
> > > a certain alien perspective by no means binding
> > > on any Near Eastern musician.
> > >
> > > With best wishes to Ozan on that Ethno2 demo,
> > >
> > > Margo
> >
>

You will seldom see "neutral third" instances between two perdes in
Turkish Maqam music, but plenty "middle thirds", or even your "neutral
thirds" as a result of a tone plus a middle second in the melodic
progression.

I can't concentrate on what you did with the analyzed maqams there,
but let me tell you that the peaks yield over 60 pitches, close to 80
in one of my tries without any tempering or adjustment if I remember
correctly. That road is a dead end with no hope of concrete
theoretical meaning.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 12:24 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>> I said 41-EDO, or at worst 34-EDO (as a model consigned to paper
>> mostly)... Not just for Arabs, but Persians, Kurds, Azeris & Turks
>> as well.
>
> So I've been looking at your 2009 paper (Weighing Diverse...)
> and I'm shocked at how far 12-ET can go to explain the results.
> Here are my quick & dirty notes on the histograms:
>
> rast 9/8 5/4 4/3 3/2 2/1
> nihavend 9/8--7/6 4/3 3/2--8 10 2/1
> kurdilihicazkar 1 2 7/6 4/3 3/2--8--10 2/1
> ussak 1.5 7/6 4/3 3/2--7.75 7/4 2/1
> huseyni 1.5 7/6 4/3 3/2--8.75 7/4 2/1
> hicaz 1.25 5/4--4/3 3/2--8.75 7/4 2/1
> saba 1.75 7/6 4.25 4/3 3/2--8 10 2/1
> segah 1.25 6/5 4/3--3/2 8.25 10.5 2/1
> huzzam 1.25 6/5 4.5 3/2--8.25 10.5
>
> There's a possible tendency to use 1/1 7/6 4/3 for a trichord,
> repeated at 3/2.
>
> Several of the histograms are quite similar as to the locations
> of major peaks, but differ on relative height of the peaks.
> I'm guessing this reflects the presence of focal notes and
> "avoid" notes in the scales, and that this is a principle
> part of a maqam's flavor.
>
> Remarkably, I see no evidence for a neutral third!
>
> This is clearly the paper to reference on maqam intonation.
> That said, I think you would have done better to let the data
> tell you what model to use, rather than viewing it in light
> of previously-proposed scales.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

In Turkish we have a saying: Hairs have sprouted on my tongue trying
to deliver you the message. Why don't all of you try to read my
pertinent posts, my thesis and all the relevant material pointed at my
thesis as well as consider the desiderata behind 79 MOS 159-tET before
making any assumptions in the negative?

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 12:55 PM, hstraub64 wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Let me remind you of my position since you lost track: 72-EDO is
>> INAPPROPRIATE for Maqam music BECAUSE it has 12-equal as its basis.
>> IT IS A MULTIPLE OF 12-EDO and has been THUS CONCEIVED by Haba
>> with common Western tonality at its centre. It has NO THEORETICAL
>> PLACE in Classical Turkish music because its application to qanuns
>> today is a FLUKE. End of Story.
>>
>
> I have to agree with Gene insofar as who exactly invented or
> contrived 72-EDO or whether it was derived from 12-EDO or not should
> not be relevant, nor how well it is suited to play western music.
> The only thing that is relevant is how well it is suited to play
> maqam music. So what you essentially are saying is that 72-EDO is
> not well-suited to play maqam music?
>
>> And I know you have lost track again, so let me remind you once
>> more my position: 72-equal HAS MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal at its
>> core historically. The only way one can apply it to Maqam music
>> without losing one's mind is again the same way the originators
>> followed to conceive it: A bikechain of 6 twelve-tone equal
>> tunings. This is INCOMPATIBLE with the historical and intonational
>> spirit of Turkish Maqam music.
>>
>
> So this is the reason? Could you explain a little more why, or give
> a reference where to read that.?
>
>>
>>>> Frankly, I find your claims ridiculous and off-track. You know
>>>> perfectly well that I am talking about tunings that can possible
>>>> be IMPLEMENTED on acoustical instruments as a WHOLE. No such
>>>> viable tuning that is a multiple of 12-equal will EVER do RIGHT
>>>> by Maqam music, especially Turkish and Persian varieties that
>>>> leave the Arabic "quarter-tones" in the dust from the
>>>> perspective of subtle microtonality.
>>>
>>> If this is true, you can explain WHY it is true. This you have
>>> not done.
>>>
>>
>> Read my dear Gene, read...
>>
>
> Where, please?
>
>>
>>> Why don't you tell me the problems? Or better yet, if someone
>>> would produce some Scala seq files of maqam music, that would be
>>> terrific.
>>>
>>
>> You are too impatient, too much demanding, and too little reading!
>>
>
> Please tell us where to read.
> --
> Hans Straub
>

Dear Cameron,

Let me clarify once more that I consider 53 and 72-equal as very very
solid systems, the former especially suitable as a theoretical/
practical basis for Turkish Maqam music. But I rejected 53-EDO in my
dissertation due to:

1. Lack of middle second/middle third detail observed in pitch
measurements of masters,
2. Non-existence of this tuning on acoustic fixed-pitch Turkish
instruments as a whole,
3. Lingering presence of that abominable 72-EDO on qanuns despite the
merits of 53-EDO, signifying the need for a higher pitch resolution by
performers.

There are other reasons to reject it from the perspective of the
"dodecaphonic idiom" that still haunts me as a flourishing
microtonalist.

I also need to focus on this Ethno2 competition now! So, everybody,
please think twice before enticing me into discussions on maqams for
the remaining weeks!

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 6:49 PM, cameron wrote:

> And, I think the exponential limit on the Pythagorean intervals is,
> in real life, based essentially on "open strings". Don't know how
> far that goes, not very far in actual practice I suspect, but taking
> it "all the way" gives you the Pythagorean modality of 53-equal. > Which you then retrofit to superparticular intervals.
>
> Say Ozan, what are your arguments against 53? I'll reread your
> thesis... hey I have to write to you about that other thing, arg!
> I've been kind of allergic to the computer recently... :-(
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>>
>> Personally I believe that if there is any kind of "fixed" structure
>> to be found, it is in the only place it could reasonably be, the
>> harmonic series. That is, if you tune with Pythagorean intervals,
>> superparticular Just intervals, and various means, geometric for
>> example, you will find the "ideal" intervals. Which ones? That's
>> easy- the ones that are not only consistent with whatever style is
>> in question (a scalar concern, with lots of regional and personal>> leeway) but also resonate and flow with each other on acoustic
>> instruments. Assuming that the "real thing" is done with the ear as
>> the final judge, to where ELSE are you going to scootch the frets
>> on, for example, your saz?
>>
>> Ozan's 79-MOS insists on extremely close approximations to exactly
>> such intervals, and I believe that these are the only reasonable
>> targets for a regular system. The prime limit (in general) I
>> believe is 17. I believe this because, for example, on my saz
>> 22/17 is richer and more resonant than 9/7, in addition to sounding
>> authentically "maqam".
>>
>> Oh, Margo- I've been using that 14/9 in descent, it's very very
>> nice. Its darkness is dependent on surrounding intervals.
>>
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Margo for this very delicate attention !
>>>
>>> I am joining you to remind the Ethno2 candidates and nevertheless
>>> brilliant theoricians that the Ethno2 competition ends up the 21th
>>> of
>>> June ! :)
>>> My best wishes as well to Dr. Yarman, and all participants !
>>> - - - - - - -
>>> Jacques
>>>
>>>
>>> Margo wrote :
>>>
>>>> Dear Ozan, Gene, and all,
>>>>
>>>> Please let me possibly assist an intent Ozan, who
>>>> as I recall has an Ethno2 demo to produce, by offering
>>>> a few quick comments on maqam music from an alien
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>>> First, I would regard the writings of al-Farabi,
>>>> Ibn Sina, Safi al-Din al-Urmawi, and Qutb al-Din
>>>> al-Shirazi as a good starting point, along with
>>>> recent studies of flexible-pitch maqam intonation
>>>> in practice.
>>>>
>>>> Secondly, I would regard any equal temperament,
>>>> and also regular or semi-regular schemes such as
>>>> my own, as possible approximations of certain
>>>> aspects of that historical and recent practice --
>>>> as opposed to any kind of guide to that practice!
>>>>
>>>> Third, since a fixed-pitch system of practical
>>>> size must make choices and set priorities as to
>>>> which sizes of intervals are most essential or
>>>> desirable and how they should be generated,
>>>> different people may prefer different choices.
>>>>
>>>> For example, as a "neo-Systematist," I can easily
>>>> explain the logic of a 24-note system using a
>>>> generator around 704-704.6 cents, where rast to
>>>> buselik is four fifths up and rast to segah is
>>>> eight fifths down.
>>>>
>>>> Also, I can quickly explain why this would _not_
>>>> be a good solution for Turkish maqam music as
>>>> implemented in Yarman-79, although it might give
>>>> tenable results for certain maqamat. It is simply
>>>> a way of exploring some aspects of the maqamat
>>>> or Persian dastgah-ha, and an attractive one from
>>>> a certain alien perspective by no means binding
>>>> on any Near Eastern musician.
>>>>
>>>> With best wishes to Ozan on that Ethno2 demo,
>>>>
>>>> Margo
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> You can configure your subscription by sending an empty email to one
> of these addresses (from the address at which you receive the list):
> tuning-subscribe@yahoogroups.com - join the tuning group.
> tuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com - leave the group.
> tuning-nomail@yahoogroups.com - turn off mail from the group.
> tuning-digest@yahoogroups.com - set group to send daily digests.
> tuning-normal@yahoogroups.com - set group to send individual emails.
> tuning-help@yahoogroups.com - receive general help information.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Really, I'm waiting for you to smoke the rest of us in some uber
awesome Turkish jam.

You past productions have been flawless.

Chris

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I also need to focus on this Ethno2 competition now! So, everybody,
> please think twice before enticing me into discussions on maqams for
> the remaining weeks!
>
> Oz.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> So, chains of fifths but not linked on-end? If I understand your suggestion, you'd get both middle thirds and Pythagorean tones and ditones.

Exactly. If 5 and 7 limit JI intervals are any use, you get those in profusion as well.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "monz" <joemonz@...> wrote:

> But in fact, pinning down Aristoxenos's scales with
> _any_ specific numerical quantization, whether rational
> or logarithmic, is in a way going exactly against
> the point of his teaching.

As to the exact size of his parts, yes. He specifically rejects using ratios to define tunings, so dividing a major tone into 12 equal parts does not mean dividing 9/8 into 12 equal parts. Nor does it entail dividing 4/3 into 30 equal parts, 3/2 into 42 equal parts, or 2/1 into 72 equal parts. It means that the intervals of major tone, fourth and so forth can be divided, conceptually, into equal parts. But this does not mean the scheme was not to be applied literally and consistently. If it is, then the integer quantities 12, 30 and so forth are specific and intended.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > So, chains of fifths but not linked on-end? If I understand your suggestion, you'd get both middle thirds and Pythagorean tones and ditones.
>
> Exactly. If 5 and 7 limit JI intervals are any use, you get those in profusion as well.
>

Could you make a .scl example? I like 16/13s, 26/21s and their complements to 3/2, don't know if you're thinking the more even 60/49, 27/22 kinds.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
>
> > IT
> > IS A MULTIPLE OF 12-EDO and has been THUS CONCEIVED by Haba with
> > common Western tonality at its centre. It has NO THEORETICAL PLACE in
> > Classical Turkish music because its application to qanuns today is a
> > FLUKE. End of Story.
>
> Well, of course, it's been conceived by other people for other reasons. As I pointed out, I for one came across it entirely independently in 1969 for reasons having zero to do with 12-edo, and I imagine there are people around on this list (George Secor, perhaps?) with a similar story.

George Secor, definitely -- and independently. I found 72-equal in the fall of 1963, within the first few months that I started investigating microtonality (shortly after reading Partch's book), and I made special note of it because I observed that it approximates the 11-limit consonances better than any EDO of lower number. (My method was simply to look at each EDO through 125 or so to see how accurately simple ratios were approximated.) I thought it interesting (and potentially useful) that 72 is a multiple of 12, but that property was not a factor in my high estimation of 72, since I was looking for alternatives (rather than relatives) to 12.

> It's an obvious thing to find because it's so strong. I find it when using the Riemann zeta function, and I doubt the Riemann zeta function has a cultural bias in favor of the West. But none of that is relevant to the actual question, which you keep avoiding, seemingly on ideological grounds: does it work?
>
> > And I know you have lost track again, so let me remind you once more
> > my position: 72-equal HAS MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal at its core
> > historically. The only way one can apply it to Maqam music without
> > losing one's mind is again the same way the originators followed to
> > conceive it: A bikechain of 6 twelve-tone equal tunings.
>
> I just got through pointing out to you what you can do with a bikechain of nine=tone equal tunings times eight-note tunings: you can take the nine bikechain with another chain of neutral thirds, and adjust the neutral thirds up to 351 cents and so the fifths up to 702 cents, with interesting consequences. Clearly, twelve is not the only useful way of looking at the thing; another approach focuses on the 7/72 generator, and so on and so on.

Another significant event connecting me with 72-equal was my 1973 discovery of the Miracle temperament and decimal keyboard geometry, which links 72 with 31 and 41, but not 12. You can also link it to 19, 34, and 53 (but not 12) via Hanson. This provides some good evidence that 72 does *not* have 12-equal at its *core*. Instead, it points up the fact that 72-equal is multifaceted in its relationships with other divisions of the octave (12 being but *one facet* among many), so that there are multiple paths that could lead one to 72. The most you can say is that 72-equal has the potential of bringing together two different groups of microtonalists: those who seek new melodic & harmonic resources by accurately approximating ratios with prime limit >5, and those who seek these resources by subdividing the 12-tone division of the octave.

Oz, none of this has any relevance as to whether or not 72-equal is suitable for Maqam music, but if you're trying to make the point that it is not well suited for that purpose, then you need to focus on some better reasons.

--George

Thanks Cam. May I ask, do you have any excerpts of maqam music
that you wouldn't describe with 24-ET?

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> 24-tET centered on B and F# A440 is what I make of it. Can't
> place the rhythmic feel, nice performance anyway! but I'd call
> the tuning "stiff, without roundness". That's opinion and
> personal taste of course.
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> >
> > What do you make of this performance?
> >
> > http://lumma.org/stuff/improv.mp3
> >
> > -Carl
> >

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> I can't concentrate on what you did with the analyzed maqams
> there,

Tried fixed-width font? The integers and decimal numbers are
in units of 12-ET semitones, and the fractions are JI ratios.
If two pitches are connected with dashes, it means there was
significant filler on the 'spectrum' between them. I only
looked at the 1/1 - 2/1 region... it would be interesting had
I done the whole range. Alas, it was the wee hours. This
was done completely imprecisely by eye.

> but let me tell you that the peaks yield over 60 pitches,
> close to 80 in one of my tries without any tempering or
> adjustment if I remember correctly. That road is a dead end
> with no hope of concrete theoretical meaning.

Of that we can completely agree. With all due respect, nobody
looking at these data would represent it with a fixed scale of
60 or 80 pitches -- even for all the maqams together. That
should be obvious.

-Carl

No pressure! :)

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> Really, I'm waiting for you to smoke the rest of us in some uber
> awesome Turkish jam.
>
> You past productions have been flawless.
>
> Chris
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I also need to focus on this Ethno2 competition now!

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> ...
> > And I know you have lost track again, so let me remind you once more
> > my position: 72-equal HAS MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal at its core
> > historically. The only way one can apply it to Maqam music without
> > losing one's mind is again the same way the originators followed to
> > conceive it: A bikechain of 6 twelve-tone equal tunings.
>
> I just got through pointing out to you what you can do with a bikechain of nine=tone equal tunings times eight-note tunings: you can take the nine bikechain with another chain of neutral thirds, and adjust the neutral thirds up to 351 cents and so the fifths up to 702 cents, with interesting consequences. Clearly, twelve is not the only useful way of looking at the thing; another approach focuses on the 7/72 generator, and so on and so on.

After I sent my original reply to this, it occurred to me that Oz is saying that the reason he's objecting to 72-equal is that he *requires* that a chain of fifths should result in something other than a circle of 12. Thus 34, 41, and possibly 46 would be more suitable candidates.

--George

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
>
> > This is clearly the paper to reference on maqam intonation.
>
> Where do we find it?

He directed you to it at the start of this thread:

http://www.ozanyarman.com/files/theoryVSpractice.pdf

-Carl

George, what system do you get when you follow a chain of perfect
fifths in 72-EDO?

Wait, don't answer, the question was rhetorical and you fully understand what I mean.

I need not specify any more reasons for folks here on my discarding 72-
equal for makamlar unless they actually try to read the desiderata
behind 79 MOS 159-tET in my messages and dissertation as well as spend
some years analyzing makamlar to grasp how the 79-tone qanun is
asserted to work for Turkish Maqam music better than 72-EDO.
Interested parties have a plethora of materials to research and derive
their own conclusions before barging into mine. I'll leave it to you
intelligent tuning-minds to connect the dots thereforth.

Enough said. I'll retire from this needless argument if you don't mind.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 9:51 PM, gdsecor wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
>>
>>> IT
>>> IS A MULTIPLE OF 12-EDO and has been THUS CONCEIVED by Haba with
>>> common Western tonality at its centre. It has NO THEORETICAL PLACE
>>> in
>>> Classical Turkish music because its application to qanuns today is a
>>> FLUKE. End of Story.
>>
>> Well, of course, it's been conceived by other people for other
>> reasons. As I pointed out, I for one came across it entirely
>> independently in 1969 for reasons having zero to do with 12-edo,
>> and I imagine there are people around on this list (George Secor,
>> perhaps?) with a similar story.
>
> George Secor, definitely -- and independently. I found 72-equal in
> the fall of 1963, within the first few months that I started
> investigating microtonality (shortly after reading Partch's book),
> and I made special note of it because I observed that it
> approximates the 11-limit consonances better than any EDO of lower
> number. (My method was simply to look at each EDO through 125 or so
> to see how accurately simple ratios were approximated.) I thought
> it interesting (and potentially useful) that 72 is a multiple of 12, > but that property was not a factor in my high estimation of 72,
> since I was looking for alternatives (rather than relatives) to 12.
>
>> It's an obvious thing to find because it's so strong. I find it
>> when using the Riemann zeta function, and I doubt the Riemann zeta
>> function has a cultural bias in favor of the West. But none of that
>> is relevant to the actual question, which you keep avoiding,
>> seemingly on ideological grounds: does it work?
>>
>>> And I know you have lost track again, so let me remind you once more
>>> my position: 72-equal HAS MOST DEFINITELY 12-equal at its core
>>> historically. The only way one can apply it to Maqam music without
>>> losing one's mind is again the same way the originators followed to
>>> conceive it: A bikechain of 6 twelve-tone equal tunings.
>>
>> I just got through pointing out to you what you can do with a
>> bikechain of nine=tone equal tunings times eight-note tunings: you
>> can take the nine bikechain with another chain of neutral thirds,
>> and adjust the neutral thirds up to 351 cents and so the fifths up
>> to 702 cents, with interesting consequences. Clearly, twelve is not
>> the only useful way of looking at the thing; another approach
>> focuses on the 7/72 generator, and so on and so on.
>
> Another significant event connecting me with 72-equal was my 1973
> discovery of the Miracle temperament and decimal keyboard geometry,
> which links 72 with 31 and 41, but not 12. You can also link it to
> 19, 34, and 53 (but not 12) via Hanson. This provides some good
> evidence that 72 does *not* have 12-equal at its *core*. Instead,
> it points up the fact that 72-equal is multifaceted in its
> relationships with other divisions of the octave (12 being but *one
> facet* among many), so that there are multiple paths that could lead
> one to 72. The most you can say is that 72-equal has the potential
> of bringing together two different groups of microtonalists: those
> who seek new melodic & harmonic resources by accurately
> approximating ratios with prime limit >5, and those who seek these
> resources by subdividing the 12-tone division of the octave.
>
> Oz, none of this has any relevance as to whether or not 72-equal is
> suitable for Maqam music, but if you're trying to make the point
> that it is not well suited for that purpose, then you need to focus
> on some better reasons.
>
> --George
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> Could you make a .scl example? I like 16/13s, 26/21s and their complements to 3/2, don't know if you're thinking the more even 60/49, 27/22 kinds.
>

Here you go. Neutral thirds the 351 cent kind, I'm afraid:

! enn72.scl
Ennealimmal[72] in 3600 et
72
!
13.666666666666666667
35.333333333333333333
49.
70.666666666666666667
84.333333333333333333
98.
119.66666666666666667
133.33333333333333333
147.
168.66666666666666667
182.33333333333333333
204.
217.66666666666666667
231.33333333333333333
253.
266.66666666666666667
280.33333333333333333
302.
315.66666666666666667
337.33333333333333333
351.
364.66666666666666667
386.33333333333333333
400.
413.66666666666666667
435.33333333333333333
449.
470.66666666666666667
484.33333333333333333
498.
519.66666666666666667
533.33333333333333333
547.
568.66666666666666667
582.33333333333333333
604.
617.66666666666666667
631.33333333333333333
653.
666.66666666666666667
680.33333333333333333
702.
715.66666666666666667
737.33333333333333333
751.
764.66666666666666667
786.33333333333333333
800.
813.66666666666666667
835.33333333333333333
849.
870.66666666666666667
884.33333333333333333
898.
919.66666666666666667
933.33333333333333333
947.
968.66666666666666667
982.33333333333333333
1004.
1017.6666666666666667
1031.3333333333333333
1053.
1066.6666666666666667
1080.3333333333333333
1102.
1115.6666666666666667
1137.3333333333333333
1151.
1164.6666666666666667
1186.3333333333333333
1200.

:)

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 10:07 PM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> No pressure! :)
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>>
>> Really, I'm waiting for you to smoke the rest of us in some uber
>> awesome Turkish jam.
>>
>> You past productions have been flawless.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 1:30 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I also need to focus on this Ethno2 competition now!
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> George, what system do you get when you follow a chain of perfect
> fifths in 72-EDO?
>
> Wait, don't answer, the question was rhetorical and you fully
> understand what I mean.
>
> I need not specify any more reasons for folks here on my discarding 72-
> equal for makamlar

Yes you do; you need to give a reason which is not historical or ideological for why a cycle of 12 fifths is unacceptable. What people are looking for are responses rooted entirely in musical considerations.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> >
> > I can't concentrate on what you did with the analyzed maqams
> > there,
>
> Tried fixed-width font? The integers and decimal numbers are
> in units of 12-ET semitones, and the fractions are JI ratios.
> If two pitches are connected with dashes, it means there was
> significant filler on the 'spectrum' between them.

Now that I have the secret decoder ring, I want the original article back again, and Yahoo is flaking out on me and not giving it. Do you have a message number by any chance?

Say, is that you playing? I can't place the "ethnicity" of the rhythmic feel at all, which is cool. I'll try to find some stuff- I had to empty my computer to make room for the Ethno2 samples! And my quite nice vinyl collection was stolen years ago :-(

But real life examples, no problem- the calls to prayer in Bosnia and Istanbul aren't in 24, the gypsy music I hear all around me isn't in 24 even though the modern/pop stuff has a 12 skeleton (unbelievable pitchbending on cheesey GEM entertainer boards, LOL), Ferus "the King", renowned Macedonian gypsy reed player, took over my studio for a couple of days and he wasn't playing in 24, the recorded Azeri music a Turkish guy was playing for me as an example of the "most romantic" (and it was, very inspiring) certainly wasn't in 24, etc. etc.

Heck Adnan Senses is probably written out as 24 on paper but there's no way that's what's being performed. There's tons of his stuff on YouTube, famous Turkish singer. There may be a tremendous amount of 24-equal maqam music for all I know, but in my experience it is an exception to hear something that clearly sounds 24 to me. Now if I heard more of the Arabic world rather than the Balkan world, that might be a different story, I don't know.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Cam. May I ask, do you have any excerpts of maqam music
> that you wouldn't describe with 24-ET?
>
> -Carl
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > 24-tET centered on B and F# A440 is what I make of it. Can't
> > place the rhythmic feel, nice performance anyway! but I'd call
> > the tuning "stiff, without roundness". That's opinion and
> > personal taste of course.
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@> wrote:
> > >
> > > What do you make of this performance?
> > >
> > > http://lumma.org/stuff/improv.mp3
> > >
> > > -Carl
> > >
>

Whoa- huge! Okay I pictured something different so I'll have to take this onto my music computer tomorrow and check it out. It's further from 72-equal than it appears at first glance, that much I can tell at first glance.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > Could you make a .scl example? I like 16/13s, 26/21s and their complements to 3/2, don't know if you're thinking the more even 60/49, 27/22 kinds.
> >
>
> Here you go. Neutral thirds the 351 cent kind, I'm afraid:
>
> ! enn72.scl
> Ennealimmal[72] in 3600 et
> 72
> !
> 13.666666666666666667
> 35.333333333333333333
> 49.
> 70.666666666666666667
> 84.333333333333333333
> 98.
> 119.66666666666666667
> 133.33333333333333333
> 147.
> 168.66666666666666667
> 182.33333333333333333
> 204.
> 217.66666666666666667
> 231.33333333333333333
> 253.
> 266.66666666666666667
> 280.33333333333333333
> 302.
> 315.66666666666666667
> 337.33333333333333333
> 351.
> 364.66666666666666667
> 386.33333333333333333
> 400.
> 413.66666666666666667
> 435.33333333333333333
> 449.
> 470.66666666666666667
> 484.33333333333333333
> 498.
> 519.66666666666666667
> 533.33333333333333333
> 547.
> 568.66666666666666667
> 582.33333333333333333
> 604.
> 617.66666666666666667
> 631.33333333333333333
> 653.
> 666.66666666666666667
> 680.33333333333333333
> 702.
> 715.66666666666666667
> 737.33333333333333333
> 751.
> 764.66666666666666667
> 786.33333333333333333
> 800.
> 813.66666666666666667
> 835.33333333333333333
> 849.
> 870.66666666666666667
> 884.33333333333333333
> 898.
> 919.66666666666666667
> 933.33333333333333333
> 947.
> 968.66666666666666667
> 982.33333333333333333
> 1004.
> 1017.6666666666666667
> 1031.3333333333333333
> 1053.
> 1066.6666666666666667
> 1080.3333333333333333
> 1102.
> 1115.6666666666666667
> 1137.3333333333333333
> 1151.
> 1164.6666666666666667
> 1186.3333333333333333
> 1200.
>

Is that you playing Carl? Don't pull my leg. It sounds terrific.
Almost impossible to tell apart from a real Egyptian master, save some
awry pitches here and there. And see, it's hardly reducable to 24-
equal, even in theory I presume. But do tell, is it really you playing
the oud? What energy.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 10, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> One thing is certain, you cannot satisfy everybody even in
>> theory with 41 or 34-equal. Only Western Turkiye may be
>> absolutely pleased with one of these.
>
> What do you make of this performance?
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/improv.mp3
>
> -Carl
>

here is a jpeg of the beginning of the 2nd phrase graphically showing
the pitches.

http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=408&mode=view

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Is that you playing Carl? Don't pull my leg. It sounds terrific.
> Almost impossible to tell apart from a real Egyptian master, save some
> awry pitches here and there. And see, it's hardly reducable to 24-
> equal, even in theory I presume. But do tell, is it really you playing
> the oud? What energy.
>
> Oz.
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Say, is that you playing?

I was wondering when you'd ask. Yes, I've been working on my Ud
technique secretly for years now. :)

I wish. The performer (and guy who built the Ud) is a man by
the name of Adib Sha'ban. My son Dylan (just turned 1) really
seems to like this track.

> But real life examples, no problem- the calls to prayer in
> Bosnia and Istanbul aren't in 24, the gypsy music I hear all
> around me

Is gypsy music maqam music? Maybe. I'm worried then that all
folk music becomes maqam music. For purposes of this discussion,
let's restrict it to traditional music from the areas now called
Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq.

Can you point me to good audio examples of the Istanbul
prayer calls?

> Heck Adnan Senses is probably written out as 24 on paper but
> there's no way that's what's being performed. There's tons of
> his stuff on YouTube, famous Turkish singer. There may be a
> tremendous amount of 24-equal maqam music for all I know, but
> in my experience it is an exception to hear something that
> clearly sounds 24 to me. Now if I heard more of the Arabic
> world rather than the Balkan world, that might be a different
> story, I don't know.

Hmm...

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Is that you playing Carl? Don't pull my leg. It sounds terrific.
> Almost impossible to tell apart from a real Egyptian master,
> save some awry pitches here and there. And see, it's hardly
> reducable to 24-equal, even in theory I presume. But do tell,
> is it really you playing the oud? What energy.
>
> Oz.

Gladyoulikedit. As I replied to Cameron, it's a fellow named
Adib Sha'ban. He was featured on orientaltunes.com many years
ago, described as a rural and virtually unknown oudmaker who
impressed the editor with both his ouds and his playing.
I always saved it as an excellent example of the genre, even
though I don't know exactly what genre it is! :)

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> here is a jpeg of the beginning of the 2nd phrase graphically
> showing the pitches.
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=408&mode=view
>

Thanks Chris! I was looking at it in Transcribe! the other night,
but this is better for our purposes. I have a copy of Melodyne
laying around here... I should try that. But really, one needs
the sophisticated kinds of tools Ozan and his coauthors built for
their paper. It's a big job and it's very impressive they got
so far. Some of the best ethnomusicology I've seen, in fact,
yet they've only just scratched the surface...

-Carl

--- "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:

> > Tried fixed-width font? The integers and decimal numbers are
> > in units of 12-ET semitones, and the fractions are JI ratios.
> > If two pitches are connected with dashes, it means there was
> > significant filler on the 'spectrum' between them.
>
> Now that I have the secret decoder ring, I want the original
> article back again, and Yahoo is flaking out on me and not
> giving it. Do you have a message number by any chance?

Are you looking for this message

/tuning/topicId_89711.html#90119

or this paper

http://www.ozanyarman.com/files/theoryVSpractice.pdf

?

-Carl

If you wish / need I can do the entire piece. This seemed fairly
representative.

Chris

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > here is a jpeg of the beginning of the 2nd phrase graphically
> > showing the pitches.
> >
> > http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=408&mode=view
> >
>
> Thanks Chris! I was looking at it in Transcribe! the other night,
> but this is better for our purposes. I have a copy of Melodyne
> laying around here... I should try that. But really, one needs
> the sophisticated kinds of tools Ozan and his coauthors built for
> their paper. It's a big job and it's very impressive they got
> so far. Some of the best ethnomusicology I've seen, in fact,
> yet they've only just scratched the surface...
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> If you wish / need I can do the entire piece. This seemed fairly
> representative.
>
> Chris

Thanks, I don't think I'm ready for that yet. :)

Have you tried moving the pitch offset around to see how many
of those average lines you can get to hit the 12-ET grid?

-Carl

nope

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, Chris Vaisvil
> <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
> >
> > If you wish / need I can do the entire piece. This seemed fairly
> > representative.
> >
> > Chris
>
> Thanks, I don't think I'm ready for that yet. :)
>
> Have you tried moving the pitch offset around to see how many
> of those average lines you can get to hit the 12-ET grid?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

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

>
> Is gypsy music maqam music? Maybe. I'm worried then that all
> folk music becomes maqam music. For purposes of this discussion,
> let's restrict it to traditional music from the areas now called
> Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Iraq.

Well, the last two gypsy concerts I went to were by Romi from Macedonia and Rajastan. It probably is iffy to call the Macedonian music "maqam", it's bascially microtonal shredding over a drone :-) but the Rajastani group was most certainly playing "makam" music, and not in 24-tET. There's no slippery slope to "all folk music" from there. The "real thing" is Oriental. This isn't only my opinion, it was also (an unsolicited) remark by a Rom friend of mine.

How about we draw the line at musics which are specifically called "maqam" (makam, mugham, etc) by the practioners themselves? That is most fair.

>
> Can you point me to good audio examples of the Istanbul
> prayer calls?

Don't know if such a thing exists outside of brief moments in documentaries.

Just grabbing the kind of thing I'd usually be listening to when I'm on the internet-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdeWJJKH1U&feature=related

Would you say that's 24-tET?

-Cameron

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> Just grabbing the kind of thing I'd usually be listening to when I'm on the internet-
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdeWJJKH1U&feature=related

I don't usually think the visuals add much, but this guy's face as he performed was a study in pleasure.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Just grabbing the kind of thing I'd usually be listening to when
> I'm on the internet-
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdeWJJKH1U&feature=related

That's amazing.

> Would you say that's 24-tET?

Kinda, yeah. I'm no Paul Erlich though.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdeWJJKH1U&feature=related
>
> I don't usually think the visuals add much, but this guy's face
> as he performed was a study in pleasure.

This guy's in the zone too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnP1wKTwF8o

No wonder the music sounds so good!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > Just grabbing the kind of thing I'd usually be listening to when
> > I'm on the internet-
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfdeWJJKH1U&feature=related
>
> That's amazing.
>
> > Would you say that's 24-tET?
>
> Kinda, yeah. I'm no Paul Erlich though.
>
> -Carl
>

The problem with thinking of these things as 24-equal, regardless how roughly close they are is that I've found that it is precisely INEQUALITY of step sizes that creates that limpid and round sound.

Hi Chris,

What software are you using in this screenshot?

BTW, i see that lately you have been _very_ active
on the MusicByComputer group ... we have a real-life
meeting in San Diego on Saturday night - wish you
could be there.

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

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> here is a jpeg of the beginning of the 2nd phrase graphically showing
> the pitches.
>
> http://notonlymusic.com/board/download/file.php?id=408&mode=view
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > Is that you playing Carl? Don't pull my leg. It sounds terrific.
> > Almost impossible to tell apart from a real Egyptian master, save some
> > awry pitches here and there. And see, it's hardly reducable to 24-
> > equal, even in theory I presume. But do tell, is it really you playing
> > the oud? What energy.
> >
> > Oz.
> >
>

Hi monz,

The software is called Roland V-Vocal. It comes with Sonar 8.5
producer version. I don't know if it is sold separately or not.

I wish I could attend as well - unfortunately I am over 2,000 miles away.

Chris

On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:39 AM, monz <joemonz@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> What software are you using in this screenshot?
>
> BTW, i see that lately you have been _very_ active
> on the MusicByComputer group ... we have a real-life
> meeting in San Diego on Saturday night - wish you
> could be there.
>
> -monz
> http://tonalsoft.com/tonescape.aspx
> Tonescape microtonal music software

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> > > Would you say that's 24-tET?
> >
> > Kinda, yeah. I'm no Paul Erlich though.
> >
> > -Carl
>
> The problem with thinking of these things as 24-equal, regardless
> how roughly close they are is that I've found that it is precisely
> INEQUALITY of step sizes that creates that limpid and round sound.

Yes, it's expressive intonation. That doesn't mean 24-ET isn't
a good model. Though I'm not claiming 24-ET is the final
solution or anything. But we can't make progress without more
data. -C.

On 9 June 2010 16:27, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> Graham,
>
>>> SNIP
>>
>> I decided that Ozan's thesis was implying 72&87 (Tritikleismic) when I
>> first read it.  The trouble is, I can't remember why I decided that.
>> Possibly no more than it gives both 72 and 159.  72 is mentioned but
>> dismissed with what I consider a fallacious argument.  159 is only
>> important because it's a multiple of 53, which isn't a very good
>> reason.
>
> There is nothing fallacious about the observation that 72-equal won't
> work as desired for Turkish Maqam music simply because the Arabic
> idiom of 24-equal is already observed not to satisfy. 72 being a
> triple of 24 signifies that one is consigned again to getting the
> naturals in the most unwanted 12-equal fashion. The flats and sharps
> cannot be seperated by a step in 72-equal. What's the use of so many
> tones if you cannot split the sharps and flats the way people are used
> to expect in AEU? in 79/80 MOS 159-tET, they can be so split. This was
> a desiratum mentioned in my thesis.

But I thought AEU was wrong as well. AEU is only a theory applied to
the music. The notation system you're implying in only one (Western!)
way of writing maqam music. With 159-tET, those intervals won't be
separated by a step, they'll be separated by 3 steps, right? You can
get distinct intervals without multiplying 53 note equal temperament.
But that seems to be how you got to 159 in the thesis. How many
fifths do you actually need in a chain in a realistic musical context?

> Note, that I never considered 159 as a whole tuning in my thesis. It
> is used to explain the 79/80-tone subset, which can be explained by
> many other ways as delineated. The master tuning is 79-tones, which
> happen to match a subset of 159-equal and is deemed thus a MOS.

The natural conclusion would be that 79 or 80 notes from 159-equal
defines a temperament class. This is something Gene has given. But
he also says that the 7-limit isn't consistently mapped. So, in fact,
this MOS isn't defining a regular temperament. What I decided is that
the "tritikleismic" generator from 159-equal would work better. So
you'd tune the 159 notes according to it, and then take the 79 or 80
note subset. The advantage should be improved accuracy. The
disadvantage may be that no 159 note MOS would give a consistent 79
note subset with what you want. Is this something you've considered?

Even if this does work, maybe it's not the best way to do it. In your
thesis you jump straight to 159. What are the problems with Miracle,
Harry, Hemififths, Catakleismic, Cassandra, Orwell, Myna, Mystery, and
so on?

>> So, you look at temperament classes with similar error/complexity
>> trade-off to 72&87, and the best is Harry (58&72).  And we all know
>> about Miracle.
>>
>> Note that it's often stated that the fifth shouldn't divide into equal
>> neutral thirds in Middle Eastern music.  Temper out either 243/242 or
>> 2401/2400 and you guarantee that the neutral thirds are equal.
>
> That means irregular pitch inflexions depending on the seyir of a
> particular maqam. If Arabs do well with 24-equal and Turks with AEU on
> paper, what prevents us from redefining the pitches in a little more
> detail again on paper with room for pitch inflexions?

What's irregular about choosing equal neutral thirds? Is it an
acceptable tuning or not?

>> Polyphony with traditional scales is a good target.  Staff notation
>> brings in different baggage.  With equal neutral thirds, the dread
>> number 72 rears its ugly head.
>
> I have always said that 72 is a solid solution, but alas, not
> particularly suitable for Maqam music due to being a Western
> contrivance with Western dodecaphony in mind.

This is the fallacy. The tuning either works or doesn't regardless of
who thought of it first.

Graham

I think "24 equal with expressive intonation" is a fair assessment of the tuning of the the Egyptian ud player you posted, that's how it sounded to me right away. Ozan will probably disagree, on that one.

BUT I don't think "24 equal with expressive intonation" is a good assessment for maqam/makam/mugham etc. music in general, in fact I think it fundamentally off-base and detrimental to any future possible polyphonic descendents of maqam musics. If you play and sing along with the Azeri kamenche music we've been linking to, I'm sure you'll also find that it is tuned and structured via step sizes within simple Pythagorean structure, and those step sizes are consistent and vital to the identity of the piece. If you think, rather than "neutral third... hm, too low of 350 cents, maybe it's a high minor third", more along the lines of "let's try 18/17, followed by 8/7, then up about a 10/9 to a pure 4/3 from the starting tone..." you'll be able to match the tunings played extremely well, such that it's recognizably "the same".

Stepwise thinking within a simple Pythagorean structure, strong tendency toward superparticular steps

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > > > Would you say that's 24-tET?
> > >
> > > Kinda, yeah. I'm no Paul Erlich though.
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
> > The problem with thinking of these things as 24-equal, regardless
> > how roughly close they are is that I've found that it is precisely
> > INEQUALITY of step sizes that creates that limpid and round sound.
>
> Yes, it's expressive intonation. That doesn't mean 24-ET isn't
> a good model. Though I'm not claiming 24-ET is the final
> solution or anything. But we can't make progress without more
> data. -C.
>

> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> > > > Would you say that's 24-tET?
> > >
> > > Kinda, yeah. I'm no Paul Erlich though.

So I ran this

http://lumma.org/stuff/improv.mp3

Through Tartini

http://miracle.otago.ac.nz/tartini/

which is a phenomenal piece of (free) software (you'll have to
convert the mp3 to wav first).

And I found that by setting the diapason to A=409Hz, I could
get the performance to line up to 24-ET about as perfectly as
it could to any fixed-pitch scale. So it seems my ears were
right. Not saying this result applies to all maqam music, but
in this case 24-ET does seem to be the right model.

-Carl

There's quite a bit written about this of course. Here's a nice article:

The Interface between Theory and Practice: Intonation in Arab Music
Author(s): Scott Marcus
Source: Asian Music, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Spring - Summer, 1993), pp. 39-58
Published by: University of Texas Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/834466

You analized the Egyptian ud piece you'd posted earlier, right? That's the one I also described as 24-tET, and the intonation as stiff, without roundness. The Azeri kamanche pieces are a different story. In the unlikely case you get some time you can go in and match pitches and measure and check for yourself. Consistent intervals between minor and middle "third" (around 330-335 cents step size) just don't jibe with 24-tET. They do with the comma-altered paradigm, though, ("53-tET"), I would think.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Would you say that's 24-tET?
> > > >
> > > > Kinda, yeah. I'm no Paul Erlich though.
>
> So I ran this
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/improv.mp3
>
> Through Tartini
>
> http://miracle.otago.ac.nz/tartini/
>
> which is a phenomenal piece of (free) software (you'll have to
> convert the mp3 to wav first).
>
> And I found that by setting the diapason to A=409Hz, I could
> get the performance to line up to 24-ET about as perfectly as
> it could to any fixed-pitch scale. So it seems my ears were
> right. Not saying this result applies to all maqam music, but
> in this case 24-ET does seem to be the right model.
>
> -Carl
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> You analized the Egyptian ud piece you'd posted earlier, right?

Lebanese, yes.

> The Azeri kamanche pieces

URL?

-Carl

On 10 June 2010 08:52, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> I said 41-EDO, or at worst 34-EDO (as a model consigned to paper
> mostly)... Not just for Arabs, but Persians, Kurds, Azeris & Turks as
> well. 24-equal might work more or less for Levantine Arabs, but
> certainly not for the rest of the Maqam world, and most certainly not
> for us in Turkiye. Persians will complain even more because they will
> be wronged greatly in regards the middle seconds, thirds and augmented
> seconds in either 41 or 34 while we benefit from their more-or-less-
> correct representation in practice. If you are seeking to satisfy the
> whole geography as far as Rajastan and Morocco, the pitch detail will
> inevitably rise. The problem is not knowing where to draw the line
> between "theory-mostly" and "intonation-friendly". The practical
> approach might be to split the geography into "intonation regions" and
> suggest a tuning scheme for each - as is the case today - or to
> increase the pitch resolution as I did with my 79-tone qanun to make
> everybody happy at the expense of a very steep learning curve.

I don't see any need to cover the whole region. If your 79-tone qanun
succeeds in that, so much the better. What I'd like to know is what
tunings (or, following my own biases, what temperament classes)
musicians would find acceptable for different maqams. If they vary
across geography, so be it. Knowing how they vary would be
interesting.

The example I come back to is the neutral thirds, because they're the
clear pattern that breaks a 5-limit diatonic scale. There are systems
like Miracle (31&41) and Mohajira (24&31) that force the neutral third
to equally divide the fifth. These certainly support interesting
counterpoint, and sound Middle-Eastern to a Western ear. What I want
to know is to what extent Middle-Eastern musicians would hear them as
authentic.

There are systems, like Orwell (22&31) where the neutral thirds are
unequal, and more distant, so that they're sensitive to the tuning of
the generator. In another message, you give a 350 to 370 cent
variation for the neutral third. Orwell goes from 348 cents for
31-equal to 382 cents for 22-equal. Other intervals are varying at
the same time, so it may not be appropriate, but it's an example of a
formalization that can cover a variation in intonation with a harmonic
logic.

These things are difficult to guess. The 79 from 159 MOS gives an
inconsistent tuning to 9:8: the 9/8 above the root is not the same
interval as that between 4/3 and 3/2. I don't know why you chose a
set of notes with this property. The thesis presents this scale
largely as a fait accompli.

> One thing is certain, you cannot satisfy everybody even in theory with
> 41 or 34-equal. Only Western Turkiye may be absolutely pleased with
> one of these.

If Western Turkiye can be pleased with them, so much the better!

> On Jun 10, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

Note: Carl made some interesting points here that weren't addressed.
I hope they will be when the Ozan layer recovers.

Graham

On 10 June 2010 06:35, Herman Miller <hmiller@...> wrote:

> Named after the film, which premiered in 1942. That one came up in the
> 31-ET thread.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_%28film%29

That same page says it only went on general release in 1943.

> I've added a page for proposed names of rank 2 temperaments, starting
> with a 7-limit list that I've been putting together.
>
> http://xenharmonic.wikispaces.com/Proposed+names+for+rank+2+temperaments

Thanks! I can read that electronically, so any updates will be easy
to add to my database. Here's a list of the disagreements, some of
them trivial:

Schismatic in wiki as Cassandra 2
Cassandra in wiki as Cassandra 2
Alt. Cassandra in wiki as Cassandra 1
Cynder/Mothra in wiki as Cynder, mothra
Negripent in wiki as Negri
Negrisept in wiki as Negri
Sensipent in wiki as Sensi(pent)
Sensisept in wiki as Sensi(sept)
Wuerschmidt in wiki as Wurschmidt
Hemithirds in wiki as Luna
Octokeidecal in wiki as Octokaidecal
Hemischismic in wiki as Bischismic
Dimipent in wiki as Diminished
Dimisept in wiki as Diminished

Note: Wuerschmidt is converted from the proper German spelling with
the umlaut. But there's still a collision with a higher-limit mapping
you call Wurschmidt.

Graham

Certainly better software than v-vocal for this purpose.

Perhaps the bird song wavs should be re-visited with this software.

Chris

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com <tuning%40yahoogroups.com>, "cameron"
> <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > > > > Would you say that's 24-tET?
> > > >
> > > > Kinda, yeah. I'm no Paul Erlich though.
>
> So I ran this
>
> http://lumma.org/stuff/improv.mp3
>
> Through Tartini
>
> http://miracle.otago.ac.nz/tartini/
>
> which is a phenomenal piece of (free) software (you'll have to
> convert the mp3 to wav first).
>
> And I found that by setting the diapason to A=409Hz, I could
> get the performance to line up to 24-ET about as perfectly as
> it could to any fixed-pitch scale. So it seems my ears were
> right. Not saying this result applies to all maqam music, but
> in this case 24-ET does seem to be the right model.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:

> Hemithirds in wiki as Luna

Luna sounds nice, and it has been proposed, so why shouldn't it be listed?

> Octokeidecal in wiki as Octokaidecal

Isn't Octokaidecal a better spelling?

> Hemischismic in wiki as Bischismic

In my mind at least, and I think this was kicked around a few years back, "hemi" for halving the period has been depreciated in favor of "semi". There was no logic to it, but if "hemi" means half of a period, and "semi" half of a generator, then there is.

> Note: Wuerschmidt is converted from the proper German spelling with
> the umlaut. But there's still a collision with a higher-limit mapping
> you call Wurschmidt.

Which should tell you that Wurschmidt and Wuerschmidt are different but related tunings. There are various ways of extending Wuerschmidt to the 7-limit, none of which in any obvious way deserve to be called Wuerschmidt.

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

> > Hemischismic in wiki as Bischismic
>
> In my mind at least, and I think this was kicked around a few years back, "hemi" for halving the period has been depreciated in favor of "semi". There was no logic to it, but if "hemi" means half of a period, and "semi" half of a generator, then there is.

Sorry, that's backwards: "hemi" half of a generator, as in hemififths, hemiwuerschmidt, hemithird, hemikleismic. Semififths depreciated in favor of mohajira, semigamera depreciated in favor of hemigamera, semiaug in favor of hemiaug. "Semihemififths" should be what the page calls "semifourths-hemififths" (where did that come from?) and what it lists as semihemififths called something else. Whatever prefix goes with it (perhaps "quarti") goes with "semihemiwürschmidt" also.

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

"Semihemififths" should be what the page calls "semifourths-hemififths" (where did that come from?) and what it lists as semihemififths called something else. Whatever prefix goes with it (perhaps "quarti") goes with "semihemiwürschmidt" also.

Unless you go with "bi" as half a period, and get bihemififths.

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

> > Note: Wuerschmidt is converted from the proper German spelling with
> > the umlaut. But there's still a collision with a higher-limit
> > mapping you call Wurschmidt.
>
> Which should tell you that Wurschmidt and Wuerschmidt are different
> but related tunings.

That has got to be the worse idea somebody ever had. -C.

Well, I think Regular Meantones, Modified Meantones and even Well-
Temperaments work decently for Rast, Segah, Mustear, Iraq, Ferahnak,
Nihavend, Kurdi and some Westernized varieties of Hijaz-like maqams.
But then, one loses the colour distinction for specifically
Pythagorean-mix maqams such as Buselik, Mahur, Suz-i Dilara,
Nishabur... Then, there are those maqams that specifically require
middle-seconds, such as Ushshaq, Huseini, Karjighar, Saba, Huzzam,
Bestenigar, Chargah, Zirafkand, and some Hijazi classes. The ordeal of
representing all of these in a single master tuning in every possible
diapason in the market with as few tones as possible while adhering to
the established notation-habits is a real challenge! The priority in
79 MOS 159-tET was not the perfect representation of every JI interval, but decent enough approximations with a focus on getting all
of the above desiderata in the mix. The aim was, of course, to save
the qanun from conflicting with the established free-pitch traditions
when accompanying a Maqam ensemble. Perhaps I did not express my
intent as clearly as a native English speaker would desire in my
dissertation, but already the aforementioned essentials are more or
less indicated across the thesis under pertinent contexts.

The importance of the utilization of middle-seconds to Maqam music is
evident. Without these, just using maqams or flavours based on
rudimentary Meantone-like or Well-Temperament-like or Pythagorean-like
settings will hardly fill the picture. Characteristic usage of middle-
seconds is the indelible mark of Maqam music, so to speak.

Just the same, simply a focus on equally-spaced fixed-pitch neutral
seconds will certainly FAIL to capture the feel of real performance
traditions. The picture must be completed in a way that bides with the
historicity of the irregularity of perde distribution in one octave.
Observe the "Son Bir Kez" Huzzam song where perde hisar is so fickle
at the price of exact octaves sometimes!

So, what were the points made by Carl that I missed?

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

On Jun 16, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Graham Breed wrote:

> On 10 June 2010 08:52, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>> I said 41-EDO, or at worst 34-EDO (as a model consigned to paper
>> mostly)... Not just for Arabs, but Persians, Kurds, Azeris & Turks as
>> well. 24-equal might work more or less for Levantine Arabs, but
>> certainly not for the rest of the Maqam world, and most certainly not
>> for us in Turkiye. Persians will complain even more because they will
>> be wronged greatly in regards the middle seconds, thirds and
>> augmented
>> seconds in either 41 or 34 while we benefit from their more-or-less-
>> correct representation in practice. If you are seeking to satisfy the
>> whole geography as far as Rajastan and Morocco, the pitch detail will
>> inevitably rise. The problem is not knowing where to draw the line
>> between "theory-mostly" and "intonation-friendly". The practical
>> approach might be to split the geography into "intonation regions"
>> and
>> suggest a tuning scheme for each - as is the case today - or to
>> increase the pitch resolution as I did with my 79-tone qanun to make
>> everybody happy at the expense of a very steep learning curve.
>
> I don't see any need to cover the whole region. If your 79-tone qanun
> succeeds in that, so much the better. What I'd like to know is what
> tunings (or, following my own biases, what temperament classes)
> musicians would find acceptable for different maqams. If they vary
> across geography, so be it. Knowing how they vary would be
> interesting.
>
> The example I come back to is the neutral thirds, because they're the
> clear pattern that breaks a 5-limit diatonic scale. There are systems
> like Miracle (31&41) and Mohajira (24&31) that force the neutral third
> to equally divide the fifth. These certainly support interesting
> counterpoint, and sound Middle-Eastern to a Western ear. What I want
> to know is to what extent Middle-Eastern musicians would hear them as
> authentic.
>
> There are systems, like Orwell (22&31) where the neutral thirds are
> unequal, and more distant, so that they're sensitive to the tuning of
> the generator. In another message, you give a 350 to 370 cent
> variation for the neutral third. Orwell goes from 348 cents for
> 31-equal to 382 cents for 22-equal. Other intervals are varying at
> the same time, so it may not be appropriate, but it's an example of a
> formalization that can cover a variation in intonation with a harmonic
> logic.
>
> These things are difficult to guess. The 79 from 159 MOS gives an
> inconsistent tuning to 9:8: the 9/8 above the root is not the same
> interval as that between 4/3 and 3/2. I don't know why you chose a
> set of notes with this property. The thesis presents this scale
> largely as a fait accompli.
>
>> One thing is certain, you cannot satisfy everybody even in theory
>> with
>> 41 or 34-equal. Only Western Turkiye may be absolutely pleased with
>> one of these.
>
> If Western Turkiye can be pleased with them, so much the better!
>
>> On Jun 10, 2010, at 7:08 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> Note: Carl made some interesting points here that weren't addressed.
> I hope they will be when the Ozan layer recovers.
>
>
> Graham
>

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

> The importance of the utilization of middle-seconds to Maqam music is
> evident. Without these, just using maqams or flavours based on
> rudimentary Meantone-like or Well-Temperament-like or Pythagorean-like
> settings will hardly fill the picture. Characteristic usage of middle-
> seconds is the indelible mark of Maqam music, so to speak.

I started this thread by talking about middle seconds in hemififths temperament. Hemififths can do the Pythagorean thing, the neutral thirds thing, and the middle seconds thing and still looks good by your assessment of the requirements of maqam music.