Maqam music measurements

Hello Brofessor,

If you mean my doctorate dissertation, which is available at my webpage in PDF form, yes, I have utilized Dr. Can Akkoç's JNMR article as a major footing for debunking Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek 24-tone Pythagorean tone-system as the claimed actual master-tuning for Turkish Maqam music. Other measurements conducted elsewhere - also specified in my thesis (and still others that piled up since then) - corraborate these observations (p. 25):

---

Inconsistencies between theory in effect and practice in Turkish
Maqam Music have been irrefutably shown through groundbreaking research
carried out by mathematicians Can Akkoç [172] and Mustafa Kemal
Karaosmanoğlu [173,174].

This research confirmed suspicions that the ‘melodic intervals’ most
characteristic of the genre are expressible by such epimoric ratios i [175] as
12:11 ii, 13:12 iii, and 14:13 iv [176] – which appear in the earliest Islamic
sources on Maqam Music theory under the denomination “mujannab-i
sebbabe” (anterior finger position on the ud) [177-180].

*

[172] Akkoç, C. 2002. “Non-Deterministic Scales Used in Traditional Turkish Music”. In
Journal of New Music Research, vol. XXXI, nr. 4. pp. 285-293.
[173] Karaosmanoğlu, M. K. 2003. “İcra Örnekleri Üzerinde Ölçümler, Değişik Ses
Sistemleriyle İcralar ve Değerlendirme”. Presentation to Project for a Piano Capable
of Sounding the Traditional Perdes of Turkish Music (delivered 2 January). Faculty
of Art & Design, Yıldız Technical University [Türkiye].
[174] Karaosmanoğlu, M. K. 2004. “Türk Musıkisi Perdelerini Ölçüm, Analiz ve Test
Teknikleri” Presentation to ibid (delivered 6 May). On the Internet:
http://www.musiki.org/mkk_vekom_2004_sunum.htm.
[175] Terpstra, S. 1993. “An Arithmetical Rubric”. n.p. On the Internet:
http://daschour.club.fr/micromegas/terpstra.html.
[176] Helmholtz, H. L. F. 1877. On the Sensations of Tone. Transl. & ed. A. J. Ellis (1885).
New York: Dover Publications Inc., 2nd rev. ed. 1954. p. 454 (Additions by the
translator).
[177] Farmer, H. G. 1957. “The Music of Islam”. In E. Wellesz, ed. The New Oxford
History of Music. Vol. I (Ancient and Oriental Music). USA: Oxford University
Press. pp. 456-64.
[178] Kutluğ, Y. F. 2000. Türk Musikisinde Makamlar. Vol. I. İstanbul, Yapı Kredi
Yayınları. pp. 31-3.
[179] İbn Sina, ca.1030. Mûsikî. Transl. A. H. Turabi. İstanbul: Litera Yayıncılık, 2004.
pp. 110, 2.
[180] Forster, C. 2006. Musical Mathematics. n.p. Chapter 11: Section 54. On the
Internet: http://www.chrysalis-foundation.org/Al-Farabi's_'Uds.htm.

---

Thank you for your most fair and unbiased inquiry prompting this reply amidst such chaos.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Brofessor wrote:
> Ozan~
> Just so we are all clear here.
> Wasn't your work originally based on Can Akkoc research measurements of singers. So regardless of the results and methods we can safely say it is based on actual measurements of actual practitioners as a point of departure.
> I am sure there is more to this than what i outline here.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman<ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>> Dear Cameron,
>>
>> Kind, encouraging words from you below are much appreciated. However, as
>> I always say, I am far from being an "expert" in Turkish Maqam music,
>> let alone other neighbouring genres in the region. I merely think of
>> myself as having delved into the particulars of maqam theory in academic
>> curiosity and believe to have been instrumental in establishing some of
>> its hidden and cryptic intonation peculiars in my very own perception.
>> Also, I have been active in contributing here and there to the
>> development of maqam theory software. My myriad dialogues with Margo
>> almost frequently witness me admitting that so and so is my personal
>> take of the matter of maqam intonation.
>>
>> You have elucidated very well the reasons that apply to my refusal to
>> engage Carl at his level. But the problem for me is not his tone -
>> rather, what I believe to be his tendency to rely on his status as
>> moderator in lashing out against everyone unchecked.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>>
>> -- >>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>>
>> cameron wrote:
>>> Speaking for myself, I would prefer to have you, Carl, continue to be moderator. This is purely selfish on my part, but I think others could benefit from your moderatorship as I do, if they were to reevaluate how your views and your expression of them relates to making music.
>>>
>>> I find that you, for me, are a dynamite devil's advocate, for it seems obvious to me that you ruthlessly and in a highly entertaining manner try to implement your approach to understanding tuning as some kind of standard. Your reasoning is excellent and consistent, but the foundations upon which it is built are falsehoods and half-truths.
>>>
>>> This, in conjunction with your passionate advocacy of your position, I find in my personal experience to be a wonderful catalyst to music making, for the consistency of your reasoning allows the basic assumptions from which you proceed to be tested almost if they were genuine theories. The dry and almost algorithmic demonstration of the invalidity of the basic premises you advocate has been, for a couple of years now! a source of musical seeds for me: the few seconds it takes to demonstrate in musical practice the invalidity, or at best highly conditional validity, of, for example, harmonic entropy, has provided concrete sonic entities which explode in musical potentials and the beauty of truth.
>>>
>>> I must credit the methodical argument against the superb structure of your reasonings, based on your spectacular failure to grasp the ABC's of sound and the creation of music, with the some of the deepest musical advances I've made in my life.
>>>
>>> Let's take an example:
>>>
>>> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While all this is going on, I've been trying to make
>>>> productive posts. Actual analysis of maqam recordings?
>>>> Doesn't get a peep out of the maqam experts.
>>>>
>>>> -Carl
>>>>
>>> Wonderful, wonderful! First, the delighful dash of sneaky sophistry:
>>> "experts". What experts? Only Dr. Yarman has any claim to be an expert in this case. His claim here, in mainstream terms, is rock solid- a doctorate in the field, in a "maqam" culture no less. Vastly more important to me is the fact that I have met and spent a several hours with Ozan in real life, and would have to place him easily in "top ten f*cking intimidatingly good ears I've ever met". I don't wish to embarass Ozan here, but I did not tell him at that time that in the "headliner" group which performed after mine in Istanbul were two musicians who know Ozan- speaking to them afterward, I found that they shared the same opinion of his superb abilities.
>>>
>>> So, we have someone with a legitimate mainstream claim to being a genuine expert, and interested parties probably highly skilled and perhaps "expert" in other perhaps closely related, or not particularly closely related, areas. But obviously no "experts", plural, and not a soul- not even the one who could easily do so! saying such things as "as an expert in maqam music, I..." So why use such a patently false expression? Why, to create the delusion that those who speak on the topic are claiming to speak from inarguable authority. Sophistry of the slickest make- I'm always absolutely delighted to see you in action, Carl! You ROCK! (doing Il Cornico)
>>>
>>> To continue!
>>>
>>> Margo has posted, numerous times, data from analyses of maqam recordings, specifically, measurments of divisions of tetrachords given in cents. Didn't you notice this? She posted it in posts addressed to you, and gave sources! Cris also has presented data, Ozan's papers are full of analyses. I spent hours measuring, checking, rechecking, the measurments of the fretting on the baglama I bought in Istanbul and posted data here. Yet I have not seen one word from you acknowledging even the existence of ANY of these figures!
>>>
>>> Now, why would that be (laughing out loud)? Because looking at (and more importantly, listening to) the figures presented, it is obvious to any thoughtful and informed person that, while designation of the intervals in question may not be best described by means of rationals, it is nevertheless entirely reasonable to do so, and reasons have been given.
>>>
>>> You asked for historical bearing plans for rational maqam tunings, yet when Cris spoke of a specific historic bearing plan, you said not a word! Meanwhile everyone with a genuine basic understanding and even a brief acquaintance with maqam was already laughing, for the
>>> undeniable presence of historical Pythagorean tuning schemes ARE bearing plans.
>>>
>>> Hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!! Now why would it necessary to resort to rhetorical dishonesty to argue against a position? Why claim "not a peep" from "experts" when there is noone claiming expert, and have been plenty of peeps? That's easy to answer. The "peeps" came with sensible explanations as to why those peeping choose to use rationals in their descriptions. When the tactic is to discredit anyone who disagrees with you as a delusional, it is imperative not to draw attention to the instances of clues reasonably presented.
>>>
>>> Tell me, Carl: should I not call the 7/6 fretted deliberately, clearly and with remarkable precision, on my baglama a 7/6? Why on G-d's earth would I NOT call it a 7/6? Because it's not 24-tET? Because 7/6 doesn't "qualify" according to the pretty "harmonic entropy" graph? Give me a good reason.
>>>
>>> If you are unable to give me a good reason, intellectual honesty demands that you back off your position of categorical dismal of using rationals in the description of maqam tunings. It's a braying-jackass position anyway, as you won't find a sane person on earth who would deny the plethora of Pythagorean strucures in maqam tunings- and a moment's thought reveals these as rationaly constructed as well.
>>>
>>> I await with delight the witnessing of your weasling with aplomb out of answering me here, nevertheless ever hoping against hope for a straight answer.
>>>
>>> -Cameron Bobro
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>