The maqam manifesto of Dr. Oz.

Dear Margo,

I have been enjoying since a long time your deep insights into and clear-cut perception of the workings of "maqam theory" (a concept developed in this list, as I recall). It has been a positive pleasure to read your illuminating posts (each a proper research paper, in fact) that have rapidly grown in their level of high organization and penetration - featuring, but not constrained to, your adoption of such novelties of mine as the "79-tone tuning for Turkish qanuns", "capitalizing maqam names while leaving perde names in the lower case" and recognition of the importance of subtle shades of intonation such as the 340-380 cent perde segah region.

My heart also appreciates very much your peace initiative as a "tuning emissary". In all earnest, let me pronounce that the more I scrutinize how fair and modest you are and how far you have reached in delving with academic discipline and objectivity into the particulars of a music culture which you seem to have natural (but long-forgotten) ties to, the more I am convinced you will make an excellent moderator to the tuning list, if you will allow me to encourage you even thus, after Carl eventually steps down from his post.

Though it may be impossible for me to engage Carl in academic discourse at this juncture, allow me to benefit from a most civil and fulfilling dialogue with you once again.

Trusting that you shall permit me to do so, let me reproduce and expand some of the thoughts which I have sent to you in a private message while the crisis was at its peak (now that we seem to be swimming in gentler waters):

*

1. Simply put, I am a bit skeptical about the notion of the simplest Just Intonation fractions underlying the theoretical framework of Maqam music practice. Nevertheless, I wish to employ suchlike fractions - inclining more toward RI fetishism - to represent pitch zones "with heightened precision" that are elusive and vary greatly from region to region and even artist to artist.

2. Whereas, it may be a "polyphonic fault" in me to assume that there is some God-given standard to which maqam pitches snap to at all times, maqams generally find a path squirm out of such. Hence, pinpointing immobile dots on the two to three octave continuum and stating that such and such are the absolute localities for segah, hijaz, buselik, hisar, etc... is not viable perforce. However, we can endeavour to define convenient localities (sometimes quite a few for a single "perde") serving our selective purposes at hand. This is ultimately what I tried to accomplish with the handful of tuning models I have thus far proposed - each targetting a distinct level of intonation precision (also featuring ingrained harmonic capacities).

3. As for the limit concept... No matter how much I may swerve from the original Western context of the Partchian term, I believe I am justified to employ it in the case of categorizing a blend of "mujannabish intervals" (anterior finger position on the oud) such as 11/9, 12/11, 27/22, 88/81, 11/8, etc... when constructing maqam scales that employ these fractions as pitches AND/OR intervals. Here, by limit, I selectively mean to distinguish the highest prime number resulting from the factorization of either the numerators or denominators as a means of indicating a maqam scale in which such "mujannabish intervals" are crucially and characteristically placed. As it happens, the likes of such fractions are manifestly spread all over historical Islamic music theory treatises dealing with tetrachordal and pentachordal genera.

4. I may also over-generalize n-limit to signify the whole total of all "mujannabish intervals" within all maqams across regions, ages and cultures. This inclination, although arbitrary, assumes one hypothetical meta-scale of the "entire maqam history" from which any executant can extract on-the-fly his/her own subset during a maqam performance. Whether or not there is harmony (static vertical tone structures) involved in the process is a moot point so long as the solo melodic passage leaves its acoustical trace (naturally!) in the human psyche - which is assuredly capable of recognizing the temporal (and dynamic) pitch shifts that we dub once again "invervals".

5. As for the tuning precision... It is without an ounce of doubt that free-pitched instruments such as the oud, ney, kemencha VERILY execute ALL pitches across their entire acoustic range in performance. The hypothesis that 5 cents is the limit to accuracy when trying to hit the mark in a maqam performance falls short of reality, since a qualified musician will innately (not to mention instinctively) distinguish and OF COURSE execute the very subtle shadings of intonation depending on the seyir and passage, whether through vibratos, tremolandos, glissandos, portamentos or just simple "glide-locking". In other terms, every free-pitched instrument of Maqam music, including tanburs and neys in their own special contexts, can bend and twist the pitches across the frequency spectrum to realize minute inflexions greater than the claimed 5 cents precision. Quad erat demonstrandum: A simple instance of placing the finger on a tanbur's fret and moving the tip of that finger forward and backward ever so slightly - or shrivelling the lips on the ney embouchure - will demonstrate factually how precise intonations of perdeler can be achieved (I play the ney and bowed tanbur in Yarman-24, so I should know better than anyone else here). Also remember how Rauf Yekta stresses 8192/6561 as the sought ratio instead of 5/4 - although the difference in between is a minute schisma of 2 cents and JI theory dictates the latter as the target pitch due to its "lesser complexity".

6. Bear also in mind that, one person's flaw is another man's delight in Maqam music, and it is next to impossible to say who plays the wrong pitch where unless you rely on a particular school of tradition and taste. This does not mean, however, that we cannot find an underlying mathematical explanation or scientific footing of how and why that particular taste or tradition (e.g. Arabic, Turkish, Iranian, Kurdish, Hindustani...) is pursued.

________

To iterate my observations and opinions on the matter further, let me continue with the following articles:

7. While some Middle Eastern theorists (obviously drawing from long-standing interactions with Western music norms) have found merits in the "steely hardness" (as John Chalmers would put it) of 24-EDO as a viable way to "notate maqams on paper" or even as a "guideline for affixing pitches on instruments", it is obvious as Earth's moving tectonic plates that the minute you score Peshrevs/Bestes/Semais/Kars/Radeefs digitally in this temperament is the minute it shall patently collapse - for manifest reasons which you have delivered in meticulous detail regarding the necessity of specifying very fine pitch inflexions and deviations when intoning a plethora of maqams.

8. While Rauf Yekta & co. have denounced Ancient Greek theory as having engaged itself in play of numbers and nothing more and implying the same for Muslim theorists, I place no faith in such conjecture warped by ideological nationalistic agendas. I furthermore have no belief in or regard for the supposition that "Medieval" Muslim theorists were unable to divide a just interval into two or three or four equal parts and had to rely for that reason on fractional (arithmetical) divisions to represent equal divisions - when, on the contrary, mesolabiums were known since Archimedes and finding two geometric mean proportionals were achieved as early as by Nicomedes. It is practically inconceivable that early Islamic Civilization - with its insatiable hunger for translating Greek literature (among others) to Arabic - would not know of these. Insooth, we read that cubic and conical equations were described by Omar Hayyam in the 11th and advanced by Sharaf al-Din Tusi in the 12th Centuries, while the sinus/cosinus concepts were described as early as the 10th Century by the trigonometrist al-Bettani of Harran and tangent/cotangent by al-Biruni in the 11th Century. I am confident that logarithmic divisions could be approximated by such methods that were known to early Muslim polymaths. The plain reality is that, the ancients did not bother with trying to approximate equal divisions (least of all through the usage of epimoric ratios) when theorizing on the musical rudiments of their era in the Middle East.

9. If we are to slacken the concept of "approximation" as our good Igs would have it, we could go even so far as to boast that 7-EDO is an acceptable approximation of the diatonic Major scale of Classical Western music. The reality, however, collapses on such broad and meaningless viewpoints. Concept of approximation inexorably requires the foreknowledge of what is being strived for... In our case, an acoustical foundation, so to speak, of the "right savour" of a given maqam within the context of its own cultural/geographical idiom. As such, I deem - with so many years of scholarly pursuit in trying to understand the intonation of perdeler and structure of makamlar - that 24-tET and its multiples are "very rough", "very crude" solutions for "approximating maqam scales" when, in fact, much better options exist in the form of 41 or 53 equal, notwithstanding several other "irregular suggestions" by yours truly, whether voluminous or scarce in detail of nuance, targetting distinct pitch resolutions for satisfactorily intoning Turkish makamlar.

10. A final motive I strive for after all this theorizing, is to employ, as selfish as it may be, the theoretical groundwork on maqams I have laid down or have drawn from Early Treatises toward the pursuit and realization of my own brand of "maqam polyphony".

Cordially,
Dr. Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Margo Schulter wrote:
> [This doesn't attempt to keep up with the dialogues of the
> last day or so.]
>
> Carl wrote:
>
>> Hi Margo,
>
>>> Please let me express my regrets for any negative part I may
>>> have had in a "debate" which is clearly intruding on the
>>> positive purposes of the group and creating more heat than
>>> light.
>
>> Thanks for saying so, but I didn't feel you had any negative
>> part in it. On the contrary, I enjoyed the messages we
>> exchanged and thought they were a good example of how such
>> things can go. I hope this sense was mutual but if not, it
>> certainly wasn't my intention and please contact me offlist if
>> you would like to discuss it further.
>
> Great, and I'll confirm that the sense is mutual. In fact, this
> looks like a fascinating dialogue, and among other things a
> chance to clarify what some of my own positions are or aren't.
> Your remarks that follow are invaluable for presenting me an
> opportunity to do this, an opportunity which might be very
> helpful for the list. It's so easy for me to have "unspoken"
> understandings about the meaning of my own words not so obvious
> to anyone else.
>
> And I should briefly mention a couple of my technical
> limitations: I have no means to access or hear videos, or to do
> measurements of frequencies or intervals in cents for a maqam
> performance, say. But I'm immensely interested in what you, Ozan,
> Cameron, Jacques, or others might find.
>
>>> What are the real issues, not necessarily or solely factual,
>>> in question? Well, my own position could be summed up about
>>> like this:
>>> (1) Medieval Islamic theorists describe tetrachords and
>>> modes which are beautiful and can and should be applied to
>>> medieval and modern maqamat at least some of the time in some
>>> contexts;
>
>> ...Don't see how anyone could disagree with this.
>
> And actually this is about 70% of my point, with a helpful
> footnote that I do some rather un-medieval things in my maqam
> tunings, with temperament at the top of the list, and the
> 11:12:13 division (as far as I know) as another.
>
> What both Ozan and I do, in different ways, is to take some
> leaves from the medieval book and modify them a bit, or at least
> mix in some new ingredients. And for both of us, temperament is
> one of those ingredients. The different ways it's used in his
> 79/80-MOS or my much more modest O3 could be an interesting topic
> of comparison.
>
>>> (2) Some of these tunings are closely approximated by
>>> current tunings in practical use in various parts of
>>> the Near East;
>
>> Seems likely, though the word "closely" can be troublesome.
>> The central point I would stress is that we really don't have
>> much idea what tunings are currently in use, because of a
>> paucity of data. That ought to lead to some humility, which
>> would be good for all of us.
>
> What I would predict is that there are far too many variations to
> fall neatly into _any_ model, medieval or later, which
> recognition may be at least the beginning of humility. Looking at
> some measurements of Iranian tunings by Nelly Caron and Dariush
> Safvate, and others by Jean During, as well as Hormoz Farhat's
> book, I find this variety an inspiration for anyone contemplating
> the infinite shadings possible, and of course a daunting obstacle
> for anyone who wants a single "master tuning" of any practical
> size for a typical acoustical fixed-pitch instrument, as you
> suggest below and I agree.
>
> And I see integer ratios as signposts or street numbers, not as
> points of unique validity somehow devaluing the territory in
> between those signposts. This brings us to a vital point which I
> find it prudent to explain before posting summaries of measured
> flexible-pitch tunings or instrumental frettings, etc.
>
> An observation of more or less "close" resemblance could lend
> itself to any of at least three viewpoints:
>
> VIEWPOINT I: "Isn't it wonderful how medieval tunings
> describe interval sizes and shadings close to those of
> some tunings used on fixed-pitch instruments or by
> flexible-pitch performers today?" Here there's no claim
> that the rational values are uniquely salient or
> "attractant," only a focus on regions or "neighborhoods"
> of the spectrum, leaving open the question of possible
> further connections or their lack.
>
> VIEWPOINT 2: "The fact that one or more medieval
> theorists describes this rational tetrachord, and this
> modern instrument or performance uses or closely
> approximates it, indicates that the rational ratios
> themselves, not just the general neighborhood or shading,
> have some special salience or attractive power."
>
> VIEWPOINT 3: "The correspondence between the medieval
> ratios and the modern tuning on a fixed-pitch instrument
> shows some common tradition or acoustical logic of the
> process of building and playing instruments of the
> relevant type."
>
> My own position is to assert Viewpoint 1 and remain open to
> evidence one way or the other on Viewpoints 2 and 3, the kinds of
> issues raised by Ozan, Cris, and Cameron. Note that my practice
> of using certain superparticular or other rational ratios as
> intellectually attractive signposts or landmarks in itself
> neither affirms nor denies that they may additionally have an
> aurally attractive pull for musicians brought up in these
> traditions, or a special significance in the vocabulary and
> grammar of instrument building, if I may call it that, as a
> variation on Cris's etymology of numbers and ratios.
>
> And I must admit that the psychoacoustical theories I would find
> most plausible would be those either developed by dastgah and
> maqam musicians or at least based on culturally specific
> observations of talented performers or listeners brought up in
> these traditions who have a native phonology, so to speak.
> Objective tests of the ability of people practicing maqam or
> dastgah music as a first language to discriminate between shades
> of neutral intervals or degrees of contrast between smaller and
> larger neutral seconds, for example, might be very interesting.
>
> Further, I find in the Islamic theorists of the Mutazilah Era a
> logically attractive lore or discipline focusing on the
> gradations and relations of rational ratios, an outlook also
> reflected in some portions of _Divisions of the Tetrachord_ by
> John Chalmers, that can be embraced while affirming the value of
> irrational ratios and divisions also (which John addresses at
> length), and leaving open psychoacoustical issues that might not
> much affect my artistic outlook, although new knowledge can
> always enrich one's perspective.
>
> Having said that, I would emphasize that it's possible to see
> resemblances between a medieval rational tuning and a current
> intonational practice without necessarily saying that the
> specific medieval ratios are precisely represented in, or
> "explain," the modern performance.
>
> First, let's consider the oldest description known to me of the
> tetrachord that would later be called Rast, al-Farabi's mode of
> Zalzal:
>
> 1/1 9/8 27/22 4/3
> 0 204 355 498
> 9:8 12:11 88:81
> 204 151 143
>
> Now consider Amine Beyhom's estimate (thesis, Vol. I, at p. 52)
> of a typical Lebanese Rast in a "learned" (_savant_) style:
>
> 0 200 355 500
> 200 155 145
>
> When I say that either tuning is "closely approximated" by the
> other, I mean simply that they represent similar shades of what
> has come to be called Rast. What I'd note is not only the similar
> sizes of the neutral thirds, but the subtle difference (around
> 8-10 cents) between the larger and smaller neutral seconds.
>
> I do not mean to imply that the second tuning is intentionally or
> otherwise based on rational ratios, although we might asssociate
> 200 cents with 9:8. But it's the similar degree of subtle
> difference between the two neutral seconds, with the larger
> placed first, that catches my attention.
>
> To make my disclaimer more emphatic here, let's consider a
> tetrachord that Beyhom measured from a performance in Hijaz by
> the Turkish master Kudsi Erguner
>
> <http://www.beyhom.com/download/articles/Beyhom_2007_%20Des_criteres_d_authenticite_filigrane_n5.pdf>:
>
> 0 131 368 501
> 131 237 133
>
> Now I might excitedly, as a self-appointed referee, call "Buzurg"
> and cite two possible tetrachords using the ratios specified for
> this mode (or actually the lower tetrachord of their pentachordal
> schemes) by Safi al-Din al-Urmawi and Qutb al-Din al-Shirazi:
>
> 1/1 14/13 16/13 4/3
> 0 128 359 498
> 14:13 8:7 13:12
> 128 231 139
>
> or
>
> 1/1 13/12 26/21 4/3
> 0 139 370 498
> 13:12 8:7 14:13
> 128 231 139
>
> Indeed Erguner's tetrachord resembles these in having a small
> neutral second, a middle step close to 8:7 (actually a bit
> bigger), and another smallish neutral second. Noting this
> pleasant kinship, however, isn't to say that Erguner is following
> any rational scheme, or is making a distinction between 14:13 and
> 13:12.
>
> While I can and will celebrate this as an example of a
> "Buzurg-type Hijaz," in fact if we are seeking a "close fit,"
> 36-EDO or 46-EDO would be closer than either rational version of
> Buzurg above:
>
> Erguner: 0 131 368 501
> 131 237 133
>
> 36-EDO: 0 133 367 500
> 133 233 133
>
> 46-EDO 0 130 365 496
> 130 235 130
>
> And I would certainly not conclude from Erguner's performance
> that "a Turkish Hijaz of the Buzurg flavor is based on 36-EDO" --
> or 46-EDO, for that matter!
>
> Actually, modern Turkish or Syrian theory based on 53 commas
> might capture my general category of "Buzurg" as 6-10-6, or here,
> using a suggested refinement of Beyhom for models based on 17 or
> 24 positions per octave, "6- 10+ 6-" to show that each neutral
> second is a bit smaller than 6 commas (about 135 cents) while the
> middle step is a bit larger than 10 commas (about 226-228 cents)
> or even a full 8:7 at 231 cents.
>
> In some cases, we might be able to draw some kind of
> "etymological" connection, as Cris Forster has put it, or to draw
> some connection between a given fretting scheme and a medieval
> theoretical tradition, as Cameron has proposed. But noting
> and celebrating some interesting resemblances need not itself
> imply either type of connection.
>
> Generally my point in citing and comparing medieval rational
> tunings and more or less kindred modern intonations is to
> illustrate the variety of Near Eastern tetrachords and shadings,
> historical and current.
>
>> However we can say certain things are unlikely. For instance,
>> choose a rational number R at random, num(R)*den(R)< 10,000
>> and 1< R< 2. Let's say 55/27. What are the odds it is used
>> systematically in maqam music (that is, it is the target of
>> some bearing plan, fret placement instruction, vocal training
>> regimen, etc, used by more than one musician... that
>> musicians/craftsmen have some means of communicating about it,
>> not necessarily by name, but in *some* fashion)? Answer: the
>> odds are low and we wouldn't believe this unless evidence was
>> plainly extant, de novo, of such a bearing plan, fret placement
>> instruction, etc. etc.
>
> That's a curious illustration; we're talking about roughly 1232
> cents (55/27).
>
> What's likely, or relevant, may depend on the question and on
> one's viewpoint. To describe an interval around 370 cents, as on
> Cameron's baglama or in my tempered vrsion of a flavor of Turkish
> Rast, by association with the rational signpost of 26/21, or a
> 4/3 less a 14/13, is what some of us find an intuitively
> appealing mapping. And, likewise, an interval in this immediate
> neighborhood might be associated with 99/80, or 9/8 plus 11/10, a
> ratio of around 369 cents occurring in the "Medium Sundered"
> tetrachord of Safi al-Din (9:8-11:10-320:297 or 204-165-129
> cents).
>
> These conceptual landmarks are useful to some of us -- not
> necessarily all of us, as you've made clear! -- in themselves.
> Whether fretting schemes might favor these superparticular
> patterns more than nearby but distinguishable shadings, and
> whether flexible-pitch performers might be especially drawn to
> them, are open questions.
>
>>> (3) Just ratios both simple and complex, as well as values
>>> in cents, commas, savarts, etc., can be useful in describing
>>> and analyzing current Near Eastern practice; and
>
>> I would dispute this beyond the 7-limit. Within the 7-limit
>> it's unclear, but plausible, and Weighing Diverse seems to
>> support it.
>
> Note that my "useful" may have a minimalistic sense that
> rationals can provide an intuitively appealing grid (in the eye
> of the beholder!) for mapping and appreciating the continuum of
> neutral or Zalzalian seconds or thirds, for example. Such a grid
> may or may not itself mark points of salient aural attraction, as
> likewise with a grid such as 17-EDO, 24-EDO, or 53-EDO (all of
> which have been proposed or used by Near Eastern theorists).
>
>>> (4) Superparticular or other divisions of the medieval
>>> theorists, as well as some modern variations, can nicely evoke
>>> the state of _tarab_ ("enchantment" or "ecstasy") sought by
>>> performances and audiences as an aspect of the maqam
>>> tradition.
>
>> I'm not sure how to evaluate this. Beyond the 7-limit I know
>> of no property of superparticular intervals that makes them
>> special in a melodic context, and even within the 7-limit
>> harmonic context, intervals such as 5:3 and 7:4 are on par with
>> superparticulars in terms of their stand-out psychoacoustic
>> properties.
>
> An ambiguity of my quoted proposition (4), which I'll clarify
> now, is whether it means "superparticular and other medieval
> divisions alone or especially" or "medieval rational divisions,
> among many others." My intended reading is totally nonexclusive,
> and thanks for a chance to say so. In other words, "12:13:14 or
> 128-139 cents is beautiful, and 125-137.5 cents in 96-EDO, or
> 133.3-133.3 cents in 36-EDO or 63-EDO, might be comparably so."
>
> Whether superparticular divisions such as 12:13:14 or 14:13:12
> and 11:12:13 or 13:12:11 have additionally have a special aural
> attraction for expert or other performers growing up in a maqam
> or dastgah tradition is an empirical question. And I find Cris's
> instrumental etymology, which I'll need his book to study in more
> detail, quite credible. While Ozan and I have independently been
> drawn to the 13:12:11 or 11:12:13 division for certain maqamat or
> dastgah-ha, let me prudently note again that I'm not aware of any
> medieval sources citing this division.
>
> Also, I don't know if anyone is claiming that superparticulars
> and only superparticulars are aurally salient: those of us drawn
> to JI/RI have been citing ratios like 13/11, 14/11, and 26/21,
> and certainly would recognize 7/4 as well as 16/9 as significant
> landmarks. And likewise with 11/9, which Cameron found a clear
> aural attractant in certain instrumental timbres (his Spectral
> Harmonic Entropy or SHE).
>
>>> Carl, please correct me if I am wrong in seeing your main
>>> points as follows:
>
>>> (1) You observe that a 24-EDO model can nicely fit some maqam
>>> perforamnces.
>
>> Yes.
>
> And I'd add that Near Eastern theorists such as Vaziri in Iran
> have endorsed 24-EDO. I consider it as one point on a continuum.
>
>>> (2) You regard medieval Islamic theory, and likewise the
>>> theory of Ptolemy, insofar as it involves superparticular
>>> or other rational ratios of medium to high complexity, as
>>> having little reference to either the practice of those
>>> times or of today -- doubtless allowing an exception for
>>> those of us who deliberately study and then set out to
>>> implement these tunings.
>
>> I know of no evidence they're connected.
>
> This I see as an open question, which Cris and Cameron may
> address further, and the former addresses in detail in his new
> book. My own artistic program, which no one else is obliged to
> follow (and much less any or all Near Eastern musicians!),
> wouldn't depend on the answer.
>
>> I know of strong evidence these theorists would have had no
>> alternative but to use rational numbers to express their
>> scales.
>
> This is a point that Owen Wright also makes. Cris has commented
> that an "equable" division like Ibn Sina's 14;13:12 or 12:13:14
> is the way of indicating a 7:6 third derived from two near-equal
> steps. While I may like the subtle distinction between 14:13 and
> 13:12, this doesn't mean a geometric division as in 36-EDO or
> 63-EDO would be "wrong," or an unequal division like 130-143
> cents not necessarily having any clear rational interpretation
> (I'm just pulling numbers out of the air for my last example).
> One theorist around the 15th or 16th century, as I recall, found
> Ibn Sina's 12:13:14:16 (139-128-231 cents) or 28:26:24:21
> (128-139-231 cents) less than satisfactory because the two
> neutral second steps are too close to identical!
>
> Whether Near Eastern musicians are aurally drawn, or drawn by
> instrument designs, to superparticular divisions vis-a-vis
> comparably shaded geometric or unequal but not rationally
> conceived divisions is an open question, and I'm open to a range
> of results, interpretations, and answers.
>
> [On deliberate modern tuning according to medieval ratios]
>
>> Of course I allow that exception.
>
> And that exception is all I really need.
>
>>> (3) You associate concepts such as "11-limit" with a
>>> harmonic context where various prime factors are in
>>> operation (e.g. 2-3-5-7-11, or possibly 2-3-7-11),
>>> rather than simply a melodic system using ratios such
>>> as 12:11. If we change "JI" to "RI" (rational
>>> intonation), and speak of "ratios of 11," then you
>>> might be happier.
>
>> Generally the point is that ratios (dyads) of 11 are not
>> tunable by ear either harmonically or melodically. In triads
>> like 10:11:12, 4:7:11 and so on, available on dulcimers and the
>> like, more can be said of a tendency to gravitate to 11.
>> However I have never heard these relationships in recordings,
>> and Santoor tuning instructions I have seen have not mentioned
>> them. Now, maybe I should just get out more, which is why I
>> keep asking for examples. I get accused of insincerity, or
>> just ignored, when I do this.
>
> While remaining open to a range of results and conclusions on the
> pragmatic question of whether and to what degree melodic
> intervals, dyads, or more complex sonorities can be tuned by ear,
> I might make two points about intonational politics.
>
> First, tunability or recognizability or reproducibility by ear
> might depend a lot on the cultural background and training of the
> musicians involved. And the usefulness of a given arithmetic
> division or bearing plan for an instrument, as Cameron and Cris
> have discussed, might not depend on whether every interval,
> simple or complex, can be directly tuned by ear.
>
> Secondly, whether or not rational ratios with an intuitive or
> intellectual attraction are tunable by ear or have any special
> aural salience, using them as signposts and landmarks can be
> tokens of our esteem for the regions of the spectrum in which
> they appear. For me, this is true of the territory around 410-420
> cents, say, with landmarks such as 33/26 (413 cents) and 14/11
> (418 cents), as well as the territory around 360-370 cents cents
> with landmarks such as 16/13 (359 cents), 21/17 (366 cents), and
> 26/21 (370 cents). The ratios are a sign of familiarity and
> affection.
>
> And your search for examples, which I often cite to show the
> variety of shadings in medieval and modern Near Eastern practice
> and theory, and which may or may not point to additional
> connections, is laudible. If I had access to video or tools for
> analyzing pitch relationships in cents, I might be right in there
> with Amine Beyhom, Can Akkoc, Ozan Yarman, you, and others. And I
> think what we'll mainly find is variety, variety, variety.
>
>>> (4) You generally find complex integer ratios more
>>> confusing that illuminating, and would really prefer
>>> simply to see measurements in cents.
>
>> I find that rationals numbers are used in a quasi-religious
>> fashion by people purporting to do music theory. That goes far
>> outside the maqam realm. If somebody has a religious
>> fascination with rational numbers, that's fine by me! Just say
>> so from the start, and for heaven's sake don't make objective
>> claims about historical or contemporary musical tradition(s),
>> supposed health benefits, etc. That's dishonest, disrespectful
>> to the practitioners of said tradition(s), offtopic, and likely
>> to arouse those with allergies to such things, such as myself.
>
> If you're referring to the commercialization of traditional
> cultures and arts, complete with health and asserted other
> marketing claims, and sometimes with totally fictional accounts
> presented as actual ethnographic data, then we're in agreement
> with lots of people in those cultures.
>
> What I hope is that you're referring to a hypothetical case which
> happily has not arisen in the list's present colloquies on maqam
> and dastgah music and tuning, whatever our differences of view.
> Of course, it's possible for honest and respectful analyses to be
> theoretically overzealous or simply wrong, and respectful
> questioning or outright correction, always I would hope
> constructive and polite, is an appropriate response. This
> discussion I take to be in that spirit, whatever the merits of
> our respective positions.
>
> Similarly, when we were moderating MakeMicroMusic almost a decade
> ago, Jon and Jacky and I instituted a guideline that responses to
> posted music should always be courteous and constructive. And
> when young people share music, it's especially important that any
> critical response should honor the effort and share an
> encouraging word which may, of course, include friendly
> suggestions for improvement. One test: is this the kind of
> comment that a friendly coach or mentor might offer, and are we
> confident enough of our judgment to offer it in that spirit?
>
>>> (1) The AEU or mostly Pythagorean model (often featuring
>>> schismatic 5-limit approximations) for modern Turkish music
>>> actuals fits some flavors of perforance in maqamat such as
>>> Rast and Segah, but does not represent important flavors
>>> such as Rast with rast-segah at around 16 commas or in the
>>> neighborhood of 360 cents (e.g. 16/13), and fails radically
>>> to account for prevailing intonational style in maqamat such
>>> as Ushshaq and Huseyni.
>
>> While waiting for Ozan to confirm or deny these details, I can
>> say I will hardly be surprised if existing theoretical
>> proposals, of whatever vintage, are found wanting.
>
> And I wouldn't be surprised either!
>
>> I will add: there is no guarantee that a single master tuning
>> exists for all the maqamat. Of course tunings of arbitrary
>> precision, like 1200-ET or 12,000-ET would probably do the job.
>> But that would be too easy. Any such master tuning must
>> justify itself via some explanatory power, much like a
>> scientific theory. It must 'explain' or reveal common features
>> of the maqamat, much like Newton's laws of gravitation
>> explained a variety of different observations of motion made by
>> different people at different times. Otherwise we can be
>> perfectly happy knowing a tuning for each maqam, or even at a
>> finer level of detail (regional, tetrachordal, etc.) as
>> necessary.
>
> Personally I'd far prefer a case-by-case basis, and my very love
> of the diversity and many shadings tends to lean in the other
> direction from any unifying theory, much less a "master tuning."
> Even Ozan's 79/80-MOS of an approximate 159-EDO is meant as a
> practical and general solution, but not an all-encompassing one
> rendering other tuning systems superfluous.
>
> One virtue of my 24-note maqam temperaments is that no one is
> likely to offer one of these as a "master tuning"!
>
>> The master tuning of the West, 12-ET, does in fact have such
>> explanatory power over Western music, yet it doesn't go all the
>> way. We need the notion of adaptive JI, along with the idea of
>> disposing of only those commas assumed to vanish in the score,
>> to get the rest of the way. Prior to this list I'm not sure
>> this had ever been fully realized. Though people like
>> Bosanquet, Groven, Fokker, and Mathieu were definitely on the
>> right track.
>
> Certainly we agree that 12-ET/EDO can serve as either a
> modification of Pythagorean tuning (possibly its original
> application in 15th-century Italy, as suggested by Mark Lindley,
> permitting the same lute fret to be used as a diatonic or
> chromatic semitone) or as the upper limit of the meantone zone;
> and that adaptive JI is an attractive paradigm for 16th-century
> vocal music, for example, especially if one wants to avoid comma
> drift.
>
> A point worthy of quick mention is that problems involving the
> syntonic comma are specific to forms of Western music based on
> 5-limit consonances starting around the 15th century (and at
> least a couple of centuries earlier in some English styles), in
> contrast to medieval polyphony based on a Pythagorean outlook.
>
> Another point is that for many people on this list, the Western
> composers and styles presenting "the exception that proves the
> rule" would be main points of interest: for example Marchettus
> and his expressive variations on Pythagorean intonation which
> modern performers such as Christopher Page have seen as relevant
> to much 13th-14th century French and Italian music; and, of
> course, Vicentino, Colonna, and also Gesualdo in the later 16th
> and early 17th centuries.
>
> This isn't to miss your point that the "master tuning" concept
> can lead to some real insights: for example, my typical 24-note
> maqam tunings could be considered variations on a "master tuning"
> of 17-EDO. And we agree that maqam music as a whole simply can't
> be summed up in this kind of convenient way, using rational
> ratios or EDO divisions or anything else we have on hand!
>
>>> Carl, what I mean by "differences in musical orientation"
>>> might be illustrated by your response to a piece of
>>> Elizabethan music,> _Come, Sirrah Jack, Ho!_ by Thomas
>>> Weelkes. From your post,> I might guess that you are more
>>> oriented to 18th-19th century> tonality, and are experiencing
>>> this composition from around> 1600 from that perspective.
>
>> It's hard to say. My Dad was an early music geek so I grew up
>> with such things -- and sang them in high school and college.
>> But perhaps my tonal indoctrination runs deeper than I know.
>
> Maybe it's partly training, and partly the proportion of
> different influences to which one gravitates.
>
>>> The same music can, and should, evoke different experiences in
>>> different people.
>
>> Absolutely.
>
>>> When I heard the piece for the first time around 1976, I'd
>>> guess, on an album of the King's Singers, it sounded to me
>>> routinely pleasant, without anything standing out.
>
>> I wasn't alive yet in 1976 but I too first heard this
>> particular piece on probably that very same King's Singers
>> recording. It sounded completely normal until I tried to learn
>> the parts.
>
> That's interesting! I wonder how I might react approaching it at
> that level. And it's humorous how I envisioned you as being
> closer to my age, a healthy reminder for me that there are newer
> generations. Maybe my misconception that you were around my age
> came from the idea of you as "my fellow Berzerkleyan" -- when I
> lived in San Francisco, I often visited Berkeley.
>
>>> <[117]http://www.bestII.com/~mschulter/IntradaFLydian.mp3>
>>> <[118]http://www.bestII.com/~mschulter/IntradaFLydian.pdf>
>
>> Thanks for reminding about this piece. Loved it in 2005 as
>> much as now.
>
> Glad you like it. I'm not sure if it illustrates similar points
> to the ones you were discussing about tonality and modality.
>
>> -Carl
>
> Best,
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

> Dear Margo,

> I have been enjoying since a long time your deep insights into and
> clear-cut perception of the workings of "maqam theory" (a concept
> developed in this list, as I recall). It has been a positive
> pleasure to read your illuminating posts (each a proper research
> paper, in fact) that have rapidly grown in their level of high
> organization and penetration - featuring, but not constrained to,
> your adoption of such novelties of mine as the "79-tone tuning for
> Turkish qanuns", "capitalizing maqam names while leaving perde
> names in the lower case" and recognition of the importance of
> subtle shades of intonation such as the 340-380 cent perde segah
> region.

Dear Ozan,

Thank you for your kind words, and indeed for your most instructive
posts and offline dialogue, which have highlighted your role as an
able teacher as well as a masterful musician, theorist, and
performer.

And I apologize for not responding in a more timely manner to this
wonderful greeting. However, better late than never.

Certainly we agree that mapping the mujannab zone, the realm of middle
seconds and other middle intervals, is one of the most important
endeavors in maqam and dastgah music. And your 79/80-MOS, as I have
commented, surveys this territory in the manner so well set forth in
your thesis and related publications available on your web site.

Your remarks about perde segah -- _perde_, I might explain, meaning a
"pitch" or step of the gamut, and also sometimes a "fret," with segah
the step at some variety of neutral third, or sometimes a small major
third, above perde rast, the central reference for the whole gamut --
remind me that these ranges may depend on a given regional practice,
and also on the modal or melodic context.

Thus in a Persian setting, where Segah might typically be placed
somewhere between 330 and 345 cents above rast, I would consider a
segah around 334 cents as simply "a low segah." In a Turkish setting,
it might well be more of a high perde nihavend, especially if the
seyir (the "path" of melodic development) resembles that of Maqam
Nihavend -- that is, more like a very high large minor third than a
small neutral third, or, better yet, a small neutral third playing the
role of a "supraminor" third.

And I might add that one of the first things to impress any scholar
coming from outside the region of the Near East is the incredible
diversity of practices and opinions on intonational questions,
something now documented not only by the insights of the musicians,
but by scientific measurements of performances as offered by Amine
Beyhom, Karl Signell, and of course you and your esteemed colleagues
in your study of "Theory vs. Practice" (a pleasant allusion, if I am
not mistaken, to Signell's discussion under this head in his book).

> Trusting that you shall permit me to do so, let me reproduce and
> expand some of the thoughts which I have sent to you in a private
> message while the crisis was at its peak (now that we seem to be
> swimming in gentler waters):

This is a great delight, and I would add that responding to other
aspects of recent events, as well as writing a draft of a paper on
some aspects of Persian music, played a role in distracting me from a
more timely reply.

> 1. Simply put, I am a bit skeptical about the notion of the
> simplest Just Intonation fractions underlying the theoretical
> framework of Maqam music practice. Nevertheless, I wish to employ
> suchlike fractions - inclining more toward RI fetishism - to
> represent pitch zones "with heightened precision" that are elusive
> and vary greatly from region to region and even artist to artist.

Yes, I am a bit of an "RI fetishist" also, and I suspect for two
reasons which we may share in common.

The first is precisely the "heightened precision" which epimoric and
other ratios of medieval and later theory permit in thinking about and
mapping the "pitch zones" that fascinate us both. Of course, this does
not exclude other tools as well, such as commas, yarmans, third-commas
(or demi-yarmans?), and of course cents.

The second, which I also understand we share based on your thesis on
the design of the 79/80-MOS itself, is that fact that the
superparticular or epimoric middle seconds provide a beautiful
framework for the subtle variety of these steps that we seek. It is
aurally beautiful, and intellectually elegant and beautiful.

This does not mean, of course, that other divisions are excluded, but
rather that the traditional superparticular ratios make appealing
signposts or landmarks in exploring the mujannab zone.

Very quickly to show how such a mapping of these "pitch zones" might
operate, we might consider a scheme of regions based on
superparticular steps and also on the familiar comma system, which can
nicely complement each other. While I may be writing a great deal
about this, there is the rule that a good scheme should be capable of
a concise statement, so I will have a first try.

A mujannab step, in its simplest medieval or later definition, would
be a step somewhere between a regular limma at 256/243 or 90 cents,
and a usual tone at 9/8 or 204 cents. In medieval notation, the limma
is notated as B (_bakiye_) and the tone as T (_tanini_), with the
intermediate mujannab territory marked by the letter J (_mujannab_).

Using the intervening superparticular ratios, and also the 53-comma
system, we might propose regions like the following:

.............. (Jz 5.5 meantone) .......... ~8.5 commas, 185-190 cents

Jz5 10:9 (182 c) "5-based major"

........... [Jz4.5 equal heptatonic] ...... ~7.5 commas, 168-176 cents

Jz4 11:10 (165 c) "submajor"

........................................... ~7 commas, 158-160 cents

128:117 (156 c)
Jz3 12:11 (151 c) "upper central"

........... (Jz2.5 equal division) ....... ~6.5 commas, 147 cents

88:81 (143 c)
Jz2 13:12 (138 c) "lower central"
........................................... ~6 commas, 135 cents

Jz1 14:13 (128 c) "supraminor"

........................................... ~5.5 commas, 123-125 cents

Jz0 16:15 (112 c) "5-based minor"

........................................... ~4.5 commas, 100-105 cents

The idea is to divide the mujannab region into six flexible "zones,"
ranging from Jz0 (around 16:15), a "5-limit minor semitone"; through
the Zalzalian zones of Jz1 (around 14:13, a "supraminor" second); and
then into the "central neutral" region of Jz2 (around 13:12, a "lower
central neutral second") and Jz3 (around 12:11, an "upper central
neutral second"); then through Jz4 (around 11:10, a "submajor second");
and finally to Jz5 (around 10:9, a "5-limit major second").

Note that I have notated these zones as Jz0-Jz5, with the "z" standing
for "zone" and also reminding us of the auspicious name of Mansur
Zalzal. My practical concern was to leave a notation like "J5" free to
be used after the Turkish custom to designate a mujannab of 5 commas,
with "Jz5" signalling that we are dealing with mujannab zones or
regions rather than commas.

However, as you will see, while the superparticular ratios can nicely
exemplify each zone, commas or half-commas can well suggest some of
the approximate transitions between zones -- and we could use yarmans
as well, as I shall attempt in a more elaborate version of the above
table.

In addition to superparticular ratios, for the central neutral zones I
have quoted al-Farabi's step of 88:81 (143 cents) to call attention to
the higher portion of the lower region (Jz2), and to Ibn Sina's
128:117 (156 cents) likewise to highlight the higher portion of the
upper region (Jz3). Since Ibn Sina's 13:12 and al-Farabi's 12:11 are
situated rather low in their zones as here suggested, citing their
complementary ratios used in the division of a 32:27 minor third may
give a better sense of these central zones, as well as pleasantly
rendering honors where honors are more than due.

Of course, one the main uses of these intervals is to divide a minor
third, and a general rule is that for such a third around Pythagorean,
or not too far from it, the zone numbers of the two mujannab steps
should add up to 5. Thus we have:

AEU model for Huseyni or Ushshaq (for sake of illustration)

Jz5 + Jz0 + T
180 114 204
0 180 294 498

Turkish Huseyni (O3 temperament)

Jz4 + Jz1 + T
162 127 207
0 162 288 496

Turkish Ushshaq (79/80-MOS)

Jz3 + Jz2 + T
151 136 211
0 151 287 498

Arab Bayyati (Safi al-Din al-Urmawi 64:59:54:48)

Jz2 + Jz3 + T
140 154 204
0 140 294 498

Possible Persian Shur (O3 temperament)

Jz1 + Jz4 + T
127 162 207
0 127 288 496

Turkish Nihavend (79/80-MOS, Yarman thesis, p. 119)

T + Jz0 + Jz5
211 106 181
0 211 317 498
|-- 287 cents --|

In these examples the minor third formed by the sum of the two
mujannab steps is either at 32:27, or not far from it (e.g. in either
the 79/80-MOS or O3, around 287-289 cents, or 13:11).

However, it may happen that the sum of the two Jz numbers is 4, in
which case the minor third may be around 275-280 cents or a bit more,
as in some measured Persian tunings or in 17-EDO:

Measured Persian tuning for Shur (Caron and Safvate)

Jz2 Jz2 A10
136 140 224
0 136 276 500

Or we may have a division of a 7:6 minor third or the like
into 12:13:14 or 14:13:12, for example, where the sum of the Jz
numbers will be 3:

Ibn Sina diatonic, possible Persian Shur

Jz2 Jz1 A10
139 128 231
0 139 267 498

Measured performance in low Ushshaq (Yarman thesis, p. 29)

Jz1 Jz2 A10
123 137 228
0 123 261 489

Of course, such a scheme invites application also to the interval of a
tone plus mujannab or middle third, where similar zones may be mapped,
possibly from 3z0 (around 6:5 or 14 commas) to 3z5 (around 17 commas
or 5:4). Here example, we can derive some exemplary ratios for each
zone of middle third by adding a given mujannab ratio to a 9:8 tone or
subtracting it for a 4:3 fourth.

My basic idea would be to encompass the entire mujannab zone in its
classic sense of "around 5 to 8 commas," while emphasizing that the
transitions between zones are approximate and often contextual, and
that there will always be ambiguities -- should a meantone step around
190 cents (in a system with a just or near-just 9:8, e.g. 82-EDO) be
considered as T, or Jz5, or possibly Jz5.5, or something else such as
simply a "mean-tone" (best fitting a subset of 164-EDO, for example,
where it can be formed from two 695-cent fifths)? I've noticed that in
the 79/80-MOS, a near-25:22 at around 196 cents (1/3-comma narrow) is
often simply comsidered a variation on 9:8 -- or "T."

And to be successful, such a scheme must always help to clarify, but
never serve to constrain, the infinitely subtle possibilities of this
mujannab zone that has intrigued musicians and theorists for a
millennium and more.

> 2. Whereas, it may be a "polyphonic fault" in me to assume that
> there is some God-given standard to which maqam pitches snap to at
> all times, maqams generally find a path squirm out of such. Hence,
> pinpointing immobile dots on the two to three octave continuum and
> stating that such and such are the absolute localities for segah,
> hijaz, buselik, hisar, etc... is not viable perforce. However, we
> can endeavour to define convenient localities (sometimes quite a
> few for a single "perde") serving our selective purposes at
> hand. This is ultimately what I tried to accomplish with the
> handful of tuning models I have thus far proposed - each targetting
> a distinct level of intonation precision (also featuring ingrained
> harmonic capacities).

We are agreed. To say that there many choices, in composition or in
tuning, does not negate the right and in fact the responsibility of a
performer to make choices and make the most of them! Here Cris Forster
speaks very wisely when he says that when performaing, one confronts
not "infinite" possibilities but a particular seyir to follow, if I
may use that expression to sum up his thought, one shaped in part by
the instrument (I would say the voice being the most perfect), any
fixed-pitch scheme in use, the maqam or dastgah, and so forth.

And I believe showing some good choices, from which students (which
means all of us, but especially beginners such as myself) may learn
and possibly be inspired to devise others, is a very sound method.
The delicious Medium Sundered of Safi al-DIn (a fine Rast which may be
permuted for Huseyni and Segah also, as you have observed), and some
of the AEU tunings which seem pleasingly to match or approximate
actual practice, are good examples, as well as your delightful
suggestions for Maqam Saba.

> 3. As for the limit concept... No matter how much I may swerve from
> the original Western context of the Partchian term, I believe I am
> justified to employ it in the case of categorizing a blend of
> "mujannabish intervals" (anterior finger position on the oud) such
> as 11/9, 12/11, 27/22, 88/81, 11/8, etc... when constructing maqam
> scales that employ these fractions as pitches AND/OR
> intervals. Here, by limit, I selectively mean to distinguish the
> highest prime number resulting from the factorization of either the
> numerators or denominators as a means of indicating a maqam scale
> in which such "mujannabish intervals" are crucially and
> characteristically placed. As it happens, the likes of such
> fractions are manifestly spread all over historical Islamic music
> theory treatises dealing with tetrachordal and pentachordal genera.

I agree that this is a perfectly reasonable usage, and common enough
that it is unlikely to cause problems, at least once the context of
maqam music is established. Scala gives such prime limits for rational
tunings, for example.

And this can be of interest: for example, Safi al-Din's use of prime
59 in his arithmetic division of 32:27 as 64:59:54 which I have quoted
above. Of course, many of the classic ajnas will use ratios with a
prime limit of 11 or 13.

> 4. I may also over-generalize n-limit to signify the whole total of
> all "mujannabish intervals" within all maqams across regions, ages
> and cultures. This inclination, although arbitrary, assumes one
> hypothetical meta-scale of the "entire maqam history" from which
> any executant can extract on-the-fly his/her own subset during a
> maqam performance. Whether or not there is harmony (static
> vertical tone structures) involved in the process is a moot point
> so long as the solo melodic passage leaves its acoustical trace
> (naturally!) in the human psyche - which is assuredly capable of
> recognizing the temporal (and dynamic) pitch shifts that we dub
> once again "invervals".

This is an exciting concept, and maybe parallel to one meaning of the
Iranian classical _radif_: the complete repertory or set, one might
say, of all dastgah-s and gushe-s, and also of the different possible
variations, ornamentations, and other techniques which may be brought
together in an actual performance. Indeed "learning the radif" through
study with a master means, to borrow your words, knowing this
repertory so well that one can "extract on the fly his/her subset" for
a given performance.

So we might almost speak of an "intonational radif" for maqam music,
which would include the many traditional ajnas expressed in JI terms,
and also an infinitesimally shaded pitch continuum embracing these
ratios and also newer rational ratios and divisions as well as various
tempered ones.

Indeed your tables for the 79/80-MOS give some sense of such a
continuum or "intonational radif" (with a resolution of around 1/159
octave or 1/3 Holderian comma, about 7.5 cents), and also some of the
different "allusions" to rational ratios old or new that a given perde
may suggest.

> 5. As for the tuning precision... It is without an ounce of doubt
> that free-pitched instruments such as the oud, ney, kemencha VERILY
> execute ALL pitches across their entire acoustic range in
> performance. The hypothesis that 5 cents is the limit to accuracy
> when trying to hit the mark in a maqam performance falls short of
> reality, since a qualified musician will innately (not to mention
> instinctively) distinguish and OF COURSE execute the very subtle
> shadings of intonation depending on the seyir and passage, whether
> through vibratos, tremolandos, glissandos, portamentos or just
> simple "glide-locking". In other terms, every free-pitched
> instrument of Maqam music, including tanburs and neys in their own
> special contexts, can bend and twist the pitches across the
> frequency spectrum to realize minute inflexions greater than the
> claimed 5 cents precision. Quad erat demonstrandum: A simple
> instance of placing the finger on a tanbur's fret and moving the
> tip of that finger forward and backward ever so slightly - or
> shrivelling the lips on the ney embouchure - will demonstrate
> factually how precise intonations of perdeler can be achieved (I
> play the ney and bowed tanbur in Yarman-24, so I should know better
> than anyone else here).

Just today I looked at the charts in your article on Yarman 24: again,
an ingenious synthesis of wonderful Zalzalian maqam pitches and
Rameau's irregular meantone. And the fine shadings shown in that
"Weighing diverse..." article on "theory vs. practice" are really
intriguing, for example around 365 cents for the lower peak envelope
of Maqam Rast. We could call it an approximate "21/17," or "just a bit
larger than 16 commas," or even "about midway between 16/13 and
26/21," but this may tie in with your comment that superparticular
middle seconds can help map this interval space, but do not
necessarily explain all the fine nuances of intonation.

> Also remember how Rauf Yekta stresses 8192/6561 as the sought ratio
> instead of 5/4 - although the difference in between is a minute
> schisma of 2 cents and JI theory dictates the latter as the target
> pitch due to its "lesser complexity".

Yes, and in fact based on discussions here, I might gather than the
8192/6561 of YAEU (going back to Safi al-Din) is actually on the high
end of the really "sweet" zone, say from a schisma to about 1/3
Holderian comma below 5/4. The getting of this nuance "just right" may
be one of the advantages of 82-EDO (380.498 cents) as a simple EDO
solution, for those who seek it, although I'm not sure about fitting
82 notes per octave on a practical acoustical instrument. And it must
be added, of course, that the 79/80-MOS has a higher resolution of
1/159 octave or 1/3 Holderian comma, while the resolution of 82-EDO is
just less than that of a usual full yarman (14.634 cents versus about
15.094 cents, not allowing for small adjustments in 79/80.)

> 6. Bear also in mind that, one person's flaw is another man's
> delight in Maqam music, and it is next to impossible to say who
> plays the wrong pitch where unless you rely on a particular school
> of tradition and taste. This does not mean, however, that we cannot
> find an underlying mathematical explanation or scientific footing
> of how and why that particular taste or tradition (e.g. Arabic,
> Turkish, Iranian, Kurdish, Hindustani...) is pursued.

Here I would agree. Rather as in natural languages, one cannot
necessarily predict all the grammatical find points except by learning
the language and encountering them; but it is possible, based on such
knowledge (ideally that of a native speaker) to seek out and
understand some of these patterns.

And, also, a given taste or tradition may have certain overall
patterns which fit one tuning system better than another. Thus I might
guess that O3 can represent a 17-note tar tuning like that of Hormoz
Farhat fairly well, but would get into lots of complications quickly
if one tried to use it as a standard Turkish gamut, although I would
say that certain specific maqamat and flavors are represented as long
as one keeps a taksim or suite within a certain range where the tuning
can support the required perde-s. For one, while kurdi-segah at 22:21
may be quite logical in its own terms, both your remarks and Cameron's
baglama from Istanbul have shown that for Turkish music a spacing of a
full 4-comma limma or more is the norm.

This situation also occurs in natural languages, where a "logical"
rule in one language is not so idiomatic in another and equally
"logical" one.

> ________

> To iterate my observations and opinions on the matter further, let
> me continue with the following articles:

> 7. While some Middle Eastern theorists (obviously drawing from
> long-standing interactions with Western music norms) have found
> merits in the "steely hardness" (as John Chalmers would put it) of
> 24-EDO as a viable way to "notate maqams on paper" or even as a
> "guideline for affixing pitches on instruments", it is obvious as
> Earth's moving tectonic plates that the minute you score
> Peshrevs/Bestes/Semais/Kars/Radeefs digitally in this temperament
> is the minute it shall patently collapse - for manifest reasons
> which you have delivered in meticulous detail regarding the
> necessity of specifying very fine pitch inflexions and deviations
> when intoning a plethora of maqams.

Yes, the resolution of 7.5 cents or so in the 79/80-MOS may be one
practical compromise. And using 24 pitches per octave for a rough and
ready crude classification of ajnas and maqamat is, as people like
Amine Beyhom emphasize, merely a convenience, not an intonational
measurement!

In fact, it might in part be a kind of diplomacy. It appears that in
Eyypt (as noted by Scott Marcus), and very possibly also in Lebanon
(as suggested by some tunings Beyhom discusses), some people think of
Maqam Bayyati (which can correlate with Ushshaq or Beyati, the latter
especially if combined with Maqam Shuri, named after the perde a
128/81 or so above rast which in Turkey is called beyati, and
featuring a Hijaz tetrachord on neva using this step) as 7-6-9 commas,
and others more as 6-7-9 commas.

This means in practice that the "7-6-9" people simply play Bayyati
with segah at the same position as in Rast, perhaps around 355 cents
about perde rast (somewhere around al-Farabi's 27/22). The "6-7-9"
people, however, understand that segah must lower in Bayyati, and if
playing fixed-pitch instruments might actually retune to fit this
maqam.

Saying that Bayyati is simply "3-3-4 quarters" leaves the question
open -- or, likewise, "2-2-3 thirdtones" in a 17-step concept. Beyhom
suggests using + and - signs to show fine adjustments in either 17 or
24.

With 53, we not only may but _must_ specify 7-6-9 or 6-7-9; the choice
is a basic part of the notation, which does not permit a precisely
even division. And Yarmans would be yet more precise.

> 8. While Rauf Yekta & co. have denounced Ancient Greek theory as
> having engaged itself in play of numbers and nothing more and
> implying the same for Muslim theorists, I place no faith in such
> conjecture warped by ideological nationalistic agendas.

Yes, and there is that curious passage you quote in your thesis where
Yekta mentions intervals that occur in Turkish music such as 12:11,
7:6, and 22:21. You mention the Intense Chromatic of Ptolemy,
certainly an "Ancient Greek" scale if there ever was one, and I wonder
if Yekta could have gotten this from the Hijaz of Qutb al-Din
al-Shirazi.

Sadly, of course, both the specific nationalist episode we are
considering, and the more general tendency, for example, of people to
claim al-Farabi or Safi al-Din, or Qutb al-Din in nationalist terms,
can distract from appreciating this music as the fruit of Islamic
civilization transcending national borders. The same is true of the
theorists of medieval European music such as Petrus de Cruce, with
Latin playing a role smoewhat parallel to that of Arabic.

> I furthermore have no belief in or regard for the supposition that
> "Medieval" Muslim theorists were unable to divide a just interval
> into two or three or four equal parts and had to rely for that
> reason on fractional (arithmetical) divisions to represent equal
> divisions - when, on the contrary, mesolabiums were known since
> Archimedes and finding two geometric mean proportionals were
> achieved as early as by Nicomedes. It is practically inconceivable
> that early Islamic Civilization - with its insatiable hunger for
> translating Greek literature (among others) to Arabic - would not
> know of these. Insooth, we read that cubic and conical equations
> were described by Omar Hayyam in the 11th and advanced by Sharaf
> al-Din Tusi in the 12th Centuries, while the sinus/cosinus concepts
> were described as early as the 10th Century by the trigonometrist
> al-Bettani of Harran and tangent/cotangent by al-Biruni in the 11th
> Century. I am confident that logarithmic divisions could be
> approximated by such methods that were known to early Muslim
> polymaths. The plain reality is that, the ancients did not bother
> with trying to approximate equal divisions (least of all through
> the usage of epimoric ratios) when theorizing on the musical
> rudiments of their era in the Middle East.

Of course there are some repeated or equal steps in certain
theoretical tunings, for example 8:7-8:7-49:48 in Safi al-Din.
However, I would not be surprised if they simply considered subtle
inequality as more interesting. This kind of idea may be encounted in
the European theory of Zarlino in the 16th century, a writer who
thought that nature generally dislikes repeating itself in the same
way, but prefers variety, a rule he invokes in explaining some of the
guidelines of counterpoint, although, of course, he does use geometric
means to make possible a mathematical presentation of meantone
temperament (1558 and later).

> 9. If we are to slacken the concept of "approximation" as our good
> Igs would have it, we could go even so far as to boast that 7-EDO
> is an acceptable approximation of the diatonic Major scale of
> Classical Western music. The reality, however, collapses on such
> broad and meaningless viewpoints. Concept of approximation
> inexorably requires the foreknowledge of what is being strived
> for... In our case, an acoustical foundation, so to speak, of the
> "right savour" of a given maqam within the context of its own
> cultural/geographical idiom. As such, I deem - with so many years
> of scholarly pursuit in trying to understand the intonation of
> perdeler and structure of makamlar - that 24-tET and its multiples
> are "very rough", "very crude" solutions for "approximating maqam
> scales" when, in fact, much better options exist in the form of 41
> or 53 equal, notwithstanding several other "irregular suggestions"
> by yours truly, whether voluminous or scarce in detail of nuance,
> targetting distinct pitch resolutions for satisfactorily intoning
> Turkish makamlar.

Certainly I agree that one must first know what is being approximated,
and even in a Levantine style where the inequality of mujannab steps
may be quite subtle, on the order of 1/3-comma (e.g. al-Farabi's 12/11
and 88/81), the slight variation may be at least as important as
approximating one of the steps, e.g. 12/11 as 150 cents in 24-EDO.

Indeed 53-EDO gives a good overview, while I would say that 82-EDO has
the advantage of 41's precision for the ratios of 2-3-5-7, plus extra
steps for a superb Medium Sundered giving also an alternative to YAEU
for Rast/Huseyni/Segah, e.g. Rast at 205-366-498 or 205-161-132 cents.
We have mujannab seconds at 117 (a form of secor), 132, 146, 161, and
176 cents. Thus 366 cents is just about exactly at the autopeak
envelope for segah in Maqam Rast, while 380 cents is a "sweet spot"
for the "not-quite 5/4" flavor.

And on a smaller scale, something like O3 might be more of a "general
maqam/dastgah" system which does not really fit the needs of the
Turkish gamut as a _system_, but does have some flavors of specific
maqamat featuring the Medium Sundered.

> 10. A final motive I strive for after all this theorizing, is to
> employ, as selfish as it may be, the theoretical groundwork on
> maqams I have laid down or have drawn from Early Treatises toward
> the pursuit and realization of my own brand of "maqam polyphony".

Yes, and there is an interesting kind of interplay between flavors of
maqam intonation and nuances of polyphonic style. Thus a flavor of
Maqam Rast with rast-segah at 380 cents might invite a different style
of polyphony than one with rast-segah at 370 cents, although that we
be the topic for a longer discussion. And I agree, in any event, that
it makes sense to build on the foundations of the maqams as you
understand and have presented them.

> Cordially,
> Dr. Oz.

Best,

Margo

Margo Schulter <mschulter@...> wrote:

> The idea is to divide the mujannab region into six
> flexible "zones," ranging from Jz0 (around 16:15), a
> "5-limit minor semitone"; through the Zalzalian zones of
> Jz1 (around 14:13, a "supraminor" second); and then into
> the "central neutral" region of Jz2 (around 13:12, a
> "lower central neutral second") and Jz3 (around 12:11, an
> "upper central neutral second"); then through Jz4 (around
> 11:10, a "submajor second"); and finally to Jz5 (around
> 10:9, a "5-limit major second").

Jz0 is 16:15 and jz1 is 14:13, remember.

> Or we may have a division of a 7:6 minor third or the like
> into 12:13:14 or 14:13:12, for example, where the sum of
> the Jz numbers will be 3:
>
> Ibn Sina diatonic, possible Persian Shur
>
> Jz2 Jz1 A10
> 139 128 231
> 0 139 267 498
>
>
> Measured performance in low Ushshaq (Yarman thesis,
> p. 29)
>
> Jz1 Jz2 A10
> 123 137 228
> 0 123 261 489

The figures are calculated from those on p.27 of the
thesis. They're averages of a 35.3 cents wide band. What
does that mean? The histogram shows well defined peaks.
They look much sharper than Gaussian, in fact. So why not
take the peaks? I will, and I get this scale:

117 148 223
0 117 265 488

16:15, as you may happen to know, is 111.7 cents, while
14:13 is 128.3 cents. By measuring the peaks, instead of
this peculiar average, the first interval looks a lot more
like Jz0. So what is the analysis of seconds telling us?
It's a distinction the performer doesn't seem to be making.

Another interesting thing to notice about these figures:
I'll give intervals in cents relative to the Dugah, to two
decimal places.

117.00 264.99 487.98

What on earth are pitches, measured in Hertz, doing on a
cent grid, accurate to 1 part in 50? I have to assume an
electronic tuner was used. In which case, what is the
analysis supposed to tell us? That, given the width of the
peaks, the tuning of middle seconds doesn't matter much, I
suppose.

> Just today I looked at the charts in your article on
> Yarman 24: again, an ingenious synthesis of wonderful
> Zalzalian maqam pitches and Rameau's irregular meantone.
> And the fine shadings shown in that "Weighing diverse..."
> article on "theory vs. practice" are really intriguing,
> for example around 365 cents for the lower peak envelope
> of Maqam Rast. We could call it an approximate "21/17,"
> or "just a bit larger than 16 commas," or even "about
> midway between 16/13 and 26/21," but this may tie in with
> your comment that superparticular middle seconds can help
> map this interval space, but do not necessarily explain
> all the fine nuances of intonation.

Where did you get the Yarman 24 paper?

> Indeed 53-EDO gives a good overview, while I would say
> that 82-EDO has the advantage of 41's precision for the
> ratios of 2-3-5-7, plus extra steps for a superb Medium
> Sundered giving also an alternative to YAEU for
> Rast/Huseyni/Segah, e.g. Rast at 205-366-498 or
> 205-161-132 cents. We have mujannab seconds at 117 (a
> form of secor), 132, 146, 161, and 176 cents. Thus 366
> cents is just about exactly at the autopeak envelope for
> segah in Maqam Rast, while 380 cents is a "sweet spot"
> for the "not-quite 5/4" flavor.

Ozan's thesis mentions that both 72- and 84-EDO have been
used for tuning qanuns. He doesn't give good arguments
against them. Each has a better 9/8 than his 79 note MOS,
for example.

Graham

Graham,

It is rather easy to deliver judgmental words by inserting ruddy comments between the paragraphs of a wholesomely good-intentional text. An entire lifetime will not suffice to answer such kinds of complacent nitpickings geared to cast aspersions on a serious work instead of attempting to understand in earnest what is actually meant.

Let me nevertheless try to respond - in exasperation - to clarify the points.

You ask what does averages of a plus or minus 35.3 cent-wide band mean on p.27 of my doctorate dissertation?

Obviously enough, it signifies a 17-EDO step whose epicenter is any of the peak-points of the histogram in figure 3.1 as measured by the IcraAnalizi program of M. Kemal Karaosmanoglu utilizing Solo Explorer analysis of Niyazi Sayin's Ushshaq Ney taksim.

If you actually bothered to read the next pages, you would see this explanation made; and the pages before and after, or come to think of it, the entire work would have given you a good idea of what was aimed at.

Why did Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc chose 17-EDO steps as the berth from which to arrive at peak-base averages? That is because they think the traditional 17 perdes per octave can be made to correspond to three instances of 17-EDOs (51-tET). I have remained faithful to the data by Karasomanoglu below (a paper which I certainly have referenced in my thesis):

http://www.musiki.org/icra_teori_birligi.htm

Translation of article #4:

>...However, due to reasons such as that (histogram) "stalagmites" are not always symmetrical in reference to the axis crossing its maximum point, we have taken the frequencies at a bit lower and higher than the maximum as within the same frequency band when concluding calculations on measurement data. ... we have taken this (band) interval to be 1200/17=70.6, therefore, ±35.3 cents.

Even the presence of 148 cents between segah and chargah bespeaks of the insufficiency of AEU, and the representations for 8:7 and 7:6 for that of 24-EDO.

As for your question "What on earth are pitches, measured in Hertz, doing on a cent grid, accurate to 1 part in 50?", we can see that the x-axis of the histogram features cps values not cents. The values are those given by Karaosmanoglu himself.

But all this is beside the point. So is your brushing away, in a three sentence paragraph, solid basic reasons given by me against 72-EDO for Turkish Maqam music in place of obviously better alternatives.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Graham Breed wrote:
>
>> Measured performance in low Ushshaq (Yarman thesis,
>> p. 29)
>>
>> Jz1 Jz2 A10
>> 123 137 228
>> 0 123 261 489
>
> The figures are calculated from those on p.27 of the
> thesis. They're averages of a 35.3 cents wide band. What
> does that mean? The histogram shows well defined peaks.
> They look much sharper than Gaussian, in fact. So why not
> take the peaks? I will, and I get this scale:
>
> 117 148 223
> 0 117 265 488
>
> 16:15, as you may happen to know, is 111.7 cents, while
> 14:13 is 128.3 cents. By measuring the peaks, instead of
> this peculiar average, the first interval looks a lot more
> like Jz0. So what is the analysis of seconds telling us?
> It's a distinction the performer doesn't seem to be making.
>
> Another interesting thing to notice about these figures:
> I'll give intervals in cents relative to the Dugah, to two
> decimal places.
>
> 117.00 264.99 487.98
>
> What on earth are pitches, measured in Hertz, doing on a
> cent grid, accurate to 1 part in 50? I have to assume an
> electronic tuner was used. In which case, what is the
> analysis supposed to tell us? That, given the width of the
> peaks, the tuning of middle seconds doesn't matter much, I
> suppose.

SNIP

>
> Ozan's thesis mentions that both 72- and 84-EDO have been
> used for tuning qanuns. He doesn't give good arguments
> against them. Each has a better 9/8 than his 79 note MOS,
> for example.
>
> Graham
>
>

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

> But all this is beside the point. So is your brushing away, in a three
> sentence paragraph, solid basic reasons given by me against 72-EDO for
> Turkish Maqam music in place of obviously better alternatives.

The "solid basic reason" I recall is that 72 is divisible by 12, which makes no sense. I think this is what Graham objects to. Of course if you set your tuning requirements at a certain level, no equal temperament below a certain limit can satisfy them. But to demonstrate any kind of point on this basis, those requirements need to be spelled out very precisely. When they are, the smallest equal temperament satisfying them may be computed. We were never able to reach this point because the requirements seemed to be rather murky.

Gene, just read my thesis and then speak whatever arguments you wish against me.

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

genewardsmith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman<ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>
>> But all this is beside the point. So is your brushing away, in a three
>> sentence paragraph, solid basic reasons given by me against 72-EDO for
>> Turkish Maqam music in place of obviously better alternatives.
>
> The "solid basic reason" I recall is that 72 is divisible by 12, which makes no sense. I think this is what Graham objects to. Of course if you set your tuning requirements at a certain level, no equal temperament below a certain limit can satisfy them. But to demonstrate any kind of point on this basis, those requirements need to be spelled out very precisely. When they are, the smallest equal temperament satisfying them may be computed. We were never able to reach this point because the requirements seemed to be rather murky.
>
>
>

Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:

> You ask what does averages of a plus or minus 35.3
> cent-wide band mean on p.27 of my doctorate dissertation?
>
> Obviously enough, it signifies a 17-EDO step whose
> epicenter is any of the peak-points of the histogram in
> figure 3.1 as measured by the IcraAnalizi program of M.
> Kemal Karaosmanoglu utilizing Solo Explorer analysis of
> Niyazi Sayin's Ushshaq Ney taksim.

There's nothing obvious about that. What does "epicenter"
mean in this context?

> If you actually bothered to read the next pages, you
> would see this explanation made; and the pages before and
> after, or come to think of it, the entire work would have
> given you a good idea of what was aimed at.

I don't find that explanation. My copy is dated December
2007.

> Why did Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc chose 17-EDO steps as the
> berth from which to arrive at peak-base averages? That is
> because they think the traditional 17 perdes per octave
> can be made to correspond to three instances of 17-EDOs
> (51-tET). I have remained faithful to the data by
> Karasomanoglu below (a paper which I certainly have
> referenced in my thesis):

17-EDO steps isn't the issue. What I'm really asking
is: why did they take averages? These don't look like
Gaussian distributions. Without a Gaussian, what
justification do you have for taking a mean (assuming
that's the average we're talking about)? Why did you (not
Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc) choose to measure your intervals
from the averages and not the peaks?

> http://www.musiki.org/icra_teori_birligi.htm

That's all in Turkish, so you'll have to forgive me for not
studying it.

> Translation of article #4:
>
> >...However, due to reasons such as that (histogram)
> >"stalagmites" are
> not always symmetrical in reference to the axis crossing
> its maximum point, we have taken the frequencies at a bit
> lower and higher than the maximum as within the same
> frequency band when concluding calculations on
> measurement data. ... we have taken this (band) interval
> to be 1200/17=70.6, therefore, ±35.3 cents.

They say the distributions are not symmetrical! And yet
they take an average. What do they say it means?

> Even the presence of 148 cents between segah and chargah
> bespeaks of the insufficiency of AEU, and the
> representations for 8:7 and 7:6 for that of 24-EDO.

No. It doesn't say anything without error bars. Going by
the histogram, the most well defined pitches are Dugah and
Neva. Going by your pie chart, Dugah-Neva is the interval
in best agreement with the theory. It's about 10 cents
away from 4:3, which is the same interval your ratios
imply. The other pitches are not as well defined, so it
doesn't matter where the theory says they should be, does
it?

Of course, we have evidence of pitch clustering, which
speaks against *any* fixed tuning.

Note: the "Error" column in Table 3.2 has two, and only
two, values negative. Why is this? All intervals are flat
of the ratios you give. That means the error accumulates
to give that of the 4:3. This is the difference between
measurement and theory, not the uncertainty in the
measurement.

> As for your question "What on earth are pitches, measured
> in Hertz, doing on a cent grid, accurate to 1 part in
> 50?", we can see that the x-axis of the histogram
> features cps values not cents. The values are those given
> by Karaosmanoglu himself.

Yes, the axis is given in cps (which are the same as
Hertz). But the peaks are quantized in cents. That
demands an explanation. Either there's an intermediate
step involving cents that you haven't mentioned or the
performance includes electronically tuned instruments.

> But all this is beside the point.

It isn't at all beside the point. If your data contain an
artifact you haven't noticed, it casts doubt on any
conclusions you draw from those data.

I've also shown that the intervals don't fit the ratios you
match them up with. That's entirely the point as you claim
to have evidence for the use of epimoric ratios. On
page 25, "This research confirmed suspicions that the
‘melodic intervals’ most characteristic of the genre are
expressible by such epimoric ratios..." That's the same
section that these data appear in. Where are the epimores?

> So is your brushing
> away, in a three sentence paragraph, solid basic reasons
> given by me against 72-EDO for Turkish Maqam music in
> place of obviously better alternatives.

I'm not brushing away solid arguments. I'm brushing away
the sentence fragment "...dividing the octave into 72 parts
is none other than the sixfold enhancement of `twelve equal
steps per octave' methodology of Western Music..." That's
the only argument I can find in your thesis. If you have
more, please present them here.

Graham

Let me adopt also the "negativist attitude" as you seem to be fond of in nitpicking every single passage then Graham.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Graham Breed wrote:
> Ozan Yarman<ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> You ask what does averages of a plus or minus 35.3
>> cent-wide band mean on p.27 of my doctorate dissertation?
>>
>> Obviously enough, it signifies a 17-EDO step whose
>> epicenter is any of the peak-points of the histogram in
>> figure 3.1 as measured by the IcraAnalizi program of M.
>> Kemal Karaosmanoglu utilizing Solo Explorer analysis of
>> Niyazi Sayin's Ushshaq Ney taksim.
>
> There's nothing obvious about that. What does "epicenter"
> mean in this context?
>

Still more obviously, the 35.3 cent midpoint of the 1200/17 cents interval. It is not hard to see this at all.

>> If you actually bothered to read the next pages, you
>> would see this explanation made; and the pages before and
>> after, or come to think of it, the entire work would have
>> given you a good idea of what was aimed at.
>
> I don't find that explanation. My copy is dated December
> 2007.
>

You can visit my website and download the final authoritative version then. But I do remember that the explanation is on page 28 and the first footnote there for even the December 2007 version (the final was naturally subjected to jury overview and a few changes was made as is the regular procedure for the doctorate).

>> Why did Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc chose 17-EDO steps as the
>> berth from which to arrive at peak-base averages? That is
>> because they think the traditional 17 perdes per octave
>> can be made to correspond to three instances of 17-EDOs
>> (51-tET). I have remained faithful to the data by
>> Karasomanoglu below (a paper which I certainly have
>> referenced in my thesis):
>
> 17-EDO steps isn't the issue. What I'm really asking
> is: why did they take averages?

This is not a question to me I suppose, but for Karasomanoglu and Akkoc. But I understand the concern has been one of equalizing the symmetry of the slopes left and right of the peaks. It was a method that has justifications in the referenced Turkish article. I only copy their approach in the thesis.

> These don't look like
> Gaussian distributions. Without a Gaussian, what
> justification do you have for taking a mean (assuming
> that's the average we're talking about)? Why did you (not
> Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc) choose to measure your intervals
> from the averages and not the peaks?
>

I am not justifying the application of one method over another. It was the original approach used by Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc. And either way it makes little difference in light of debunking AEU and 24-EDO for Turkish Maqam music. I haven't been concealing any data, it's there for discerning eyes to plainly see.

>> http://www.musiki.org/icra_teori_birligi.htm
>
> That's all in Turkish, so you'll have to forgive me for not
> studying it.
>

As is evident. But why forgive for continuing to shower negativity without even researching or possessing the required skills to investigate the matter thoroughly?

>> Translation of article #4:
>>
>> >...However, due to reasons such as that (histogram)
>> >"stalagmites" are
>> not always symmetrical in reference to the axis crossing
>> its maximum point, we have taken the frequencies at a bit
>> lower and higher than the maximum as within the same
>> frequency band when concluding calculations on
>> measurement data. ... we have taken this (band) interval
>> to be 1200/17=70.6, therefore, ±35.3 cents.
>
> They say the distributions are not symmetrical! And yet
> they take an average. What do they say it means?
>

It's only a method they chose to make more sense of the pile of measurement data that was being analyzed at Yildiz Technical University. Why don't you ask Kemal Karaosmanoglu and Can Akkoc for better answers from them?

>> Even the presence of 148 cents between segah and chargah
>> bespeaks of the insufficiency of AEU, and the
>> representations for 8:7 and 7:6 for that of 24-EDO.
>
> No. It doesn't say anything without error bars.

What?

> Going by
> the histogram, the most well defined pitches are Dugah and
> Neva. Going by your pie chart, Dugah-Neva is the interval
> in best agreement with the theory. It's about 10 cents
> away from 4:3, which is the same interval your ratios
> imply. The other pitches are not as well defined, so it
> doesn't matter where the theory says they should be, does
> it?

Huh?

> Of course, we have evidence of pitch clustering, which
> speaks against *any* fixed tuning.
>

Certainly not.

> Note: the "Error" column in Table 3.2 has two, and only
> two, values negative. Why is this?

Is it not apparent? 14:13 is picked (not by me) to represent the 123.47 cent averaged measured interval with 4.8 cents error. 123.47-128.3 = -4.8 cents. Again, we have 227.87-231.17 = -3.3 cents. You could replace the picked ratios with a hundred other fractions, but the point is still moot. This is only a method of evaluating the data. It is a sensible one as far as I can scrutinize.

> All intervals are flat
> of the ratios you give. That means the error accumulates
> to give that of the 4:3. This is the difference between
> measurement and theory, not the uncertainty in the
> measurement.
>

So?

>> As for your question "What on earth are pitches, measured
>> in Hertz, doing on a cent grid, accurate to 1 part in
>> 50?", we can see that the x-axis of the histogram
>> features cps values not cents. The values are those given
>> by Karaosmanoglu himself.
>
> Yes, the axis is given in cps (which are the same as
> Hertz). But the peaks are quantized in cents. That
> demands an explanation.

No it does not.

> Either there's an intermediate
> step involving cents that you haven't mentioned or the
> performance includes electronically tuned instruments.
>

It does not. It is a simple procedure to filter selected peak-points and convert them to cents. Why don't you follow the references and ask the people there (Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc in this case) instead of nitpicking my thesis to shreds?

>> But all this is beside the point.
>
> It isn't at all beside the point. If your data contain an
> artifact you haven't noticed, it casts doubt on any
> conclusions you draw from those data.
>

Your imagining are not classifiable as artifacts. What makes you think I didn't notice something you think is important but is definitely not?

> I've also shown that the intervals don't fit the ratios you
> match them up with.

No you haven't. And it is not I who matches the intervals with those ratios. I comply with the method picked by Karaosmanoglu & Akkoc. Either way, it makes little or no difference toward debunking AEU and 24-EDO. The presented example is just a sample of hundreds of recordings analyzed by the Yildiz Technical University team.

> That's entirely the point as you claim
> to have evidence for the use of epimoric ratios. On
> page 25, "This research confirmed suspicions that the
> ‘melodic intervals’ most characteristic of the genre are
> expressible by such epimoric ratios..." That's the same
> section that these data appear in. Where are the epimores?
>

I said "expressible", not "must be expressed". I have always and still consider the use of high prime limit epimoric fractions as a solid approach of identifying characteristic divisions of a melodic interval into two, three or four parts in the case of maqam theory.

>> So is your brushing
>> away, in a three sentence paragraph, solid basic reasons
>> given by me against 72-EDO for Turkish Maqam music in
>> place of obviously better alternatives.
>
> I'm not brushing away solid arguments. I'm brushing away
> the sentence fragment "...dividing the octave into 72 parts
> is none other than the sixfold enhancement of `twelve equal
> steps per octave' methodology of Western Music..." That's
> the only argument I can find in your thesis.

Just because it's the only argument you think you can find, doesn't make it the only argument there is.

> If you have
> more, please present them here.
>

The confusion seems to arise due to the miscomprehension of what my doctorate study encompasses. An understandable shortcoming for the non-academician. The work comprises not only the thesis, but also the reports to the jury (in Turkish), defense presentation (in Turkish) and the doctoral article (in Turkish and available at my webpage).

I have time and again pointed out therein comprehensively that:

1. metallic levers on qanuns called “mandals” – which are manipulated by the executant on the fly to alter the lengths of the courses – are affixed by qanun-makers on these instruments in such a way as to yield 72 equal divisions of the octave due to the common usage of standard electronic tuners imported from overseas. The application of 72-EDO happens to be a haphazard fluke rather than a conscious calculation as evidenced by the 7-EDO division of the equal semitone for the lower registers (with the pretext of finding more room to affix additional mandals) compared to the 6-EDO division of the equal semitone for the tenor registers at the expense of "just" octaves.

2. the affixture on qanuns of mandals at “equal semitones” (due to the qanun-makers’ usage of conventional tuners imported from overseas) followed by the apportionment of the remaining length to the nut into 6, or even 7 equally spaced mandals (for the lower courses in particular – to the detriment of octave equivalances, i.e. "just octaves") which yields 72 or 84 equal divisions of the octave, are further evidence that theory dictates one thing, while practice, wholly another.

3. since 53-tone equal temperament does not appear to be applied to qanuns, and dividing the octave into 72 parts is none other than the sixfold elaboration of “twelve equal steps per octave” methodology of Western Music, i.e. an "imported fluke" for Maqam music, it henceforth becomes a necessity to devise a tuning which is more compatible with Turkish Maqam Music tradition.

4. the tuning mesh resulting from the fusion of instruments based on incompatible pitch configurations – to say nothing of eclectic quotidian arrangements accomodating guitars and fortepianos – have caused naught but a blurring of intonation and loss of timbre clarity in ensembles of Turkish Maqam Music. Meanwhile, arbitrariness exacerbated by the merger of spontaneous triadic harmonies with melody-oriented native settings uncompliant to the international diapason promotes stagnation and hampers endeavours toward serious microtonal polyphony.

5. the main purpose of my doctoral work is to pinpoint the relative positions and
inflection ranges of problematic perdes (tones) in conformance with electroacoustic pitch measurements, and seek out a tuning more compatible with the ubiquitous practice of Turkish Maqam Music, since the 24-tone Pythagorean theory in effect is proven herein to fall short of accomodating characteristic middle seconds observed in recordings of master performers. The 79-tone tuning, which has been derived from a subset of 159 equal divisions of the octave, is minutely explained in this work and defended as a solution to overcome persisting issues regarding the accurate representation and consistent understanding of maqamat.

6. still, 53 and 72 equal divisions of the octave are two models that require further attention. “53 Holderian commas per octave” methodology is famous in Türkiye as a template comprising the 24-tone Pythagorean tuning by which perde inflections are explained today. On the other hand, 72-tone equal temperament instead is applied to qanuns as described above. These temperaments embody almost all the intervals that are required of maqamat, and would surely alleviate the conflict between written music and actual performance should they be utilized as a whole. However, 53-EDO seems confined to the paper while 72-EDO remains a fluke whose potential is neither recognized nor applied wholesomely. There is no evidence toward its conscious widespread adoption in Maqam music circles as both a theoretical and practical device to explain maqams. Besides, it is no wonder 72-EDO instruments wreak havoc with a performance tradition orally founded on the “comma system”.

7. furthermore, my experience with the tuning of my first qanun proved to be as disappointing as the personal discomfort I felt when I first crosschecked what I had thus far been hearing in Turkish Maqam Music with the 24-tone Pythagorean tuning on my computer. Later on, I observed with relief that my discomfort was also felt by others, and that, the theory in effect had grave shortcomings. Not much later, I found out that empirical measurements clearly and quantitatively justified said discomfort. Search in different directions to overcome non-conformance issues in Turkish Maqam Music ensued, which particularly lead me, by exhaustive trial and error, to the discovery of the 79-tone tuning. This trial and error method consisted of partitioning the octave into a minimal number of correctly placed pitches optimized for transposition and polyphony, so that, the outcome encompassed all of the known maqams at every step.

The criteria for justifying 79 MOS 159-tET has been exlicitly given by me in the aforesaid complementary doctoral article and also several times in this list:

A. Rast should be the principal maqam and its principal scale should be possible to notate as natural notes on the scale.

B. Supurde Ahenk should be established as the main diapason in order to roughly correspond the white keys of a contemporary piano tuned to concert pitch with the principal Rast scale.

C. Rast maqam's 3rd and 7th degrees should be (initially) derived without breaking the chain of generator fifths.

D. Again, said 3rd and 7th degrees should be possible to alterate to "buselik" and "mahur" without breaking the fifths chain in order to allow modulating to the Mahur scale.

e.g.
Rast, F-(702¢)-C-(702¢)-G-(694¢)-D-(702¢)-A-(694¢)-E-(702¢)-B.
Mahur, F-(702¢)-C-(702¢)-G-(710¢)-D-(702¢)-A-(694¢)-E-(702¢)-B.

E. The myriad "middle seconds" discovered in performance measurements should be placed strategically between "dugah-segah", "chargah-saba", "neva-hisar", etc...

F. It ought to be viable to repeat all the described procedures at sharp and flat tonalities as much as the natural keys to achieve transpositions over every significant degree.

G. For chromaticism (an ever-increasing popular feature of quotidian Maqam styles), a closed 12-tone cyclic system (temperament) must be present and available at all times.

H. Notation system must not be inconsistent (also backwards compatible, in the case of 79 MOS 159-tET, with 72 and 65-equal) and should be feasible for microtonal polyphony.

> Graham
>
>
>

Cordially,
Oz.

Dear Margo,

I would have liked very much to thank you for this immensely valuable input firsthand, but as you can see, I have a terrible case of tuning colleagues nitpicking at my work once again. :)

Barring a few typos and inconsequential miscalculations (wherever they may be), your article has been yet another most illuminating study into elucidating the reality of what makes Maqam music the cherished tradition it is.

Let me notice, that I also once considered 82-EDO as doing a very good job at a master-tuning for makamlar. Of course, with such high resolution options, the world is your oyster. No amount of iteration is sufficient, though, when I say that 41, 53, 72, 82 equals are all VERY solid tunings - for Maqam music as well. But dare I say, 79 MOS 159-tET excels in light of criteria which I have exhaustively underlined so many times.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Margo Schulter wrote:
>> Dear Margo,
>
>> I have been enjoying since a long time your deep insights into and
>> clear-cut perception of the workings of "maqam theory" (a concept
>> developed in this list, as I recall). It has been a positive
>> pleasure to read your illuminating posts (each a proper research
>> paper, in fact) that have rapidly grown in their level of high
>> organization and penetration - featuring, but not constrained to,
>> your adoption of such novelties of mine as the "79-tone tuning for
>> Turkish qanuns", "capitalizing maqam names while leaving perde
>> names in the lower case" and recognition of the importance of
>> subtle shades of intonation such as the 340-380 cent perde segah
>> region.
>
> Dear Ozan,
>
> Thank you for your kind words, and indeed for your most instructive
> posts and offline dialogue, which have highlighted your role as an
> able teacher as well as a masterful musician, theorist, and
> performer.
>
> And I apologize for not responding in a more timely manner to this
> wonderful greeting. However, better late than never.
>
> Certainly we agree that mapping the mujannab zone, the realm of middle
> seconds and other middle intervals, is one of the most important
> endeavors in maqam and dastgah music. And your 79/80-MOS, as I have
> commented, surveys this territory in the manner so well set forth in
> your thesis and related publications available on your web site.
>
> Your remarks about perde segah -- _perde_, I might explain, meaning a
> "pitch" or step of the gamut, and also sometimes a "fret," with segah
> the step at some variety of neutral third, or sometimes a small major
> third, above perde rast, the central reference for the whole gamut --
> remind me that these ranges may depend on a given regional practice,
> and also on the modal or melodic context.
>
> Thus in a Persian setting, where Segah might typically be placed
> somewhere between 330 and 345 cents above rast, I would consider a
> segah around 334 cents as simply "a low segah." In a Turkish setting,
> it might well be more of a high perde nihavend, especially if the
> seyir (the "path" of melodic development) resembles that of Maqam
> Nihavend -- that is, more like a very high large minor third than a
> small neutral third, or, better yet, a small neutral third playing the
> role of a "supraminor" third.
>
> And I might add that one of the first things to impress any scholar
> coming from outside the region of the Near East is the incredible
> diversity of practices and opinions on intonational questions,
> something now documented not only by the insights of the musicians,
> but by scientific measurements of performances as offered by Amine
> Beyhom, Karl Signell, and of course you and your esteemed colleagues
> in your study of "Theory vs. Practice" (a pleasant allusion, if I am
> not mistaken, to Signell's discussion under this head in his book).
>
>> Trusting that you shall permit me to do so, let me reproduce and
>> expand some of the thoughts which I have sent to you in a private
>> message while the crisis was at its peak (now that we seem to be
>> swimming in gentler waters):
>
> This is a great delight, and I would add that responding to other
> aspects of recent events, as well as writing a draft of a paper on
> some aspects of Persian music, played a role in distracting me from a
> more timely reply.
>
>> 1. Simply put, I am a bit skeptical about the notion of the
>> simplest Just Intonation fractions underlying the theoretical
>> framework of Maqam music practice. Nevertheless, I wish to employ
>> suchlike fractions - inclining more toward RI fetishism - to
>> represent pitch zones "with heightened precision" that are elusive
>> and vary greatly from region to region and even artist to artist.
>
> Yes, I am a bit of an "RI fetishist" also, and I suspect for two
> reasons which we may share in common.
>
> The first is precisely the "heightened precision" which epimoric and
> other ratios of medieval and later theory permit in thinking about and
> mapping the "pitch zones" that fascinate us both. Of course, this does
> not exclude other tools as well, such as commas, yarmans, third-commas
> (or demi-yarmans?), and of course cents.
>
> The second, which I also understand we share based on your thesis on
> the design of the 79/80-MOS itself, is that fact that the
> superparticular or epimoric middle seconds provide a beautiful
> framework for the subtle variety of these steps that we seek. It is
> aurally beautiful, and intellectually elegant and beautiful.
>
> This does not mean, of course, that other divisions are excluded, but
> rather that the traditional superparticular ratios make appealing
> signposts or landmarks in exploring the mujannab zone.
>
> Very quickly to show how such a mapping of these "pitch zones" might
> operate, we might consider a scheme of regions based on
> superparticular steps and also on the familiar comma system, which can
> nicely complement each other. While I may be writing a great deal
> about this, there is the rule that a good scheme should be capable of
> a concise statement, so I will have a first try.
>
> A mujannab step, in its simplest medieval or later definition, would
> be a step somewhere between a regular limma at 256/243 or 90 cents,
> and a usual tone at 9/8 or 204 cents. In medieval notation, the limma
> is notated as B (_bakiye_) and the tone as T (_tanini_), with the
> intermediate mujannab territory marked by the letter J (_mujannab_).
>
> Using the intervening superparticular ratios, and also the 53-comma
> system, we might propose regions like the following:
>
>
> .............. (Jz 5.5 meantone) .......... ~8.5 commas, 185-190 cents
>
> Jz5 10:9 (182 c) "5-based major"
>
> ........... [Jz4.5 equal heptatonic] ...... ~7.5 commas, 168-176 cents
>
> Jz4 11:10 (165 c) "submajor"
>
> ........................................... ~7 commas, 158-160 cents
>
> 128:117 (156 c)
> Jz3 12:11 (151 c) "upper central"
>
> ........... (Jz2.5 equal division) ....... ~6.5 commas, 147 cents
>
> 88:81 (143 c)
> Jz2 13:12 (138 c) "lower central"
> ........................................... ~6 commas, 135 cents
>
> Jz1 14:13 (128 c) "supraminor"
>
> ........................................... ~5.5 commas, 123-125 cents
>
> Jz0 16:15 (112 c) "5-based minor"
>
> ........................................... ~4.5 commas, 100-105 cents
>
>
> The idea is to divide the mujannab region into six flexible "zones,"
> ranging from Jz0 (around 16:15), a "5-limit minor semitone"; through
> the Zalzalian zones of Jz1 (around 14:13, a "supraminor" second); and
> then into the "central neutral" region of Jz2 (around 13:12, a "lower
> central neutral second") and Jz3 (around 12:11, an "upper central
> neutral second"); then through Jz4 (around 11:10, a "submajor second");
> and finally to Jz5 (around 10:9, a "5-limit major second").
>
> Note that I have notated these zones as Jz0-Jz5, with the "z" standing
> for "zone" and also reminding us of the auspicious name of Mansur
> Zalzal. My practical concern was to leave a notation like "J5" free to
> be used after the Turkish custom to designate a mujannab of 5 commas,
> with "Jz5" signalling that we are dealing with mujannab zones or
> regions rather than commas.
>
> However, as you will see, while the superparticular ratios can nicely
> exemplify each zone, commas or half-commas can well suggest some of
> the approximate transitions between zones -- and we could use yarmans
> as well, as I shall attempt in a more elaborate version of the above
> table.
>
> In addition to superparticular ratios, for the central neutral zones I
> have quoted al-Farabi's step of 88:81 (143 cents) to call attention to
> the higher portion of the lower region (Jz2), and to Ibn Sina's
> 128:117 (156 cents) likewise to highlight the higher portion of the
> upper region (Jz3). Since Ibn Sina's 13:12 and al-Farabi's 12:11 are
> situated rather low in their zones as here suggested, citing their
> complementary ratios used in the division of a 32:27 minor third may
> give a better sense of these central zones, as well as pleasantly
> rendering honors where honors are more than due.
>
> Of course, one the main uses of these intervals is to divide a minor
> third, and a general rule is that for such a third around Pythagorean,
> or not too far from it, the zone numbers of the two mujannab steps
> should add up to 5. Thus we have:
>
> AEU model for Huseyni or Ushshaq (for sake of illustration)
>
> Jz5 + Jz0 + T
> 180 114 204
> 0 180 294 498
>
>
> Turkish Huseyni (O3 temperament)
>
> Jz4 + Jz1 + T
> 162 127 207
> 0 162 288 496
>
>
> Turkish Ushshaq (79/80-MOS)
>
> Jz3 + Jz2 + T
> 151 136 211
> 0 151 287 498
>
>
> Arab Bayyati (Safi al-Din al-Urmawi 64:59:54:48)
>
> Jz2 + Jz3 + T
> 140 154 204
> 0 140 294 498
>
>
> Possible Persian Shur (O3 temperament)
>
> Jz1 + Jz4 + T
> 127 162 207
> 0 127 288 496
>
>
> Turkish Nihavend (79/80-MOS, Yarman thesis, p. 119)
>
> T + Jz0 + Jz5
> 211 106 181
> 0 211 317 498
> |-- 287 cents --|
>
> In these examples the minor third formed by the sum of the two
> mujannab steps is either at 32:27, or not far from it (e.g. in either
> the 79/80-MOS or O3, around 287-289 cents, or 13:11).
>
> However, it may happen that the sum of the two Jz numbers is 4, in
> which case the minor third may be around 275-280 cents or a bit more,
> as in some measured Persian tunings or in 17-EDO:
>
> Measured Persian tuning for Shur (Caron and Safvate)
>
> Jz2 Jz2 A10
> 136 140 224
> 0 136 276 500
>
> Or we may have a division of a 7:6 minor third or the like
> into 12:13:14 or 14:13:12, for example, where the sum of the Jz
> numbers will be 3:
>
> Ibn Sina diatonic, possible Persian Shur
>
> Jz2 Jz1 A10
> 139 128 231
> 0 139 267 498
>
>
> Measured performance in low Ushshaq (Yarman thesis, p. 29)
>
> Jz1 Jz2 A10
> 123 137 228
> 0 123 261 489
>
> Of course, such a scheme invites application also to the interval of a
> tone plus mujannab or middle third, where similar zones may be mapped,
> possibly from 3z0 (around 6:5 or 14 commas) to 3z5 (around 17 commas
> or 5:4). Here example, we can derive some exemplary ratios for each
> zone of middle third by adding a given mujannab ratio to a 9:8 tone or
> subtracting it for a 4:3 fourth.
>
> My basic idea would be to encompass the entire mujannab zone in its
> classic sense of "around 5 to 8 commas," while emphasizing that the
> transitions between zones are approximate and often contextual, and
> that there will always be ambiguities -- should a meantone step around
> 190 cents (in a system with a just or near-just 9:8, e.g. 82-EDO) be
> considered as T, or Jz5, or possibly Jz5.5, or something else such as
> simply a "mean-tone" (best fitting a subset of 164-EDO, for example,
> where it can be formed from two 695-cent fifths)? I've noticed that in
> the 79/80-MOS, a near-25:22 at around 196 cents (1/3-comma narrow) is
> often simply comsidered a variation on 9:8 -- or "T."
>
> And to be successful, such a scheme must always help to clarify, but
> never serve to constrain, the infinitely subtle possibilities of this
> mujannab zone that has intrigued musicians and theorists for a
> millennium and more.
>
>> 2. Whereas, it may be a "polyphonic fault" in me to assume that
>> there is some God-given standard to which maqam pitches snap to at
>> all times, maqams generally find a path squirm out of such. Hence,
>> pinpointing immobile dots on the two to three octave continuum and
>> stating that such and such are the absolute localities for segah,
>> hijaz, buselik, hisar, etc... is not viable perforce. However, we
>> can endeavour to define convenient localities (sometimes quite a
>> few for a single "perde") serving our selective purposes at
>> hand. This is ultimately what I tried to accomplish with the
>> handful of tuning models I have thus far proposed - each targetting
>> a distinct level of intonation precision (also featuring ingrained
>> harmonic capacities).
>
> We are agreed. To say that there many choices, in composition or in
> tuning, does not negate the right and in fact the responsibility of a
> performer to make choices and make the most of them! Here Cris Forster
> speaks very wisely when he says that when performaing, one confronts
> not "infinite" possibilities but a particular seyir to follow, if I
> may use that expression to sum up his thought, one shaped in part by
> the instrument (I would say the voice being the most perfect), any
> fixed-pitch scheme in use, the maqam or dastgah, and so forth.
>
> And I believe showing some good choices, from which students (which
> means all of us, but especially beginners such as myself) may learn
> and possibly be inspired to devise others, is a very sound method.
> The delicious Medium Sundered of Safi al-DIn (a fine Rast which may be
> permuted for Huseyni and Segah also, as you have observed), and some
> of the AEU tunings which seem pleasingly to match or approximate
> actual practice, are good examples, as well as your delightful
> suggestions for Maqam Saba.
>
>> 3. As for the limit concept... No matter how much I may swerve from
>> the original Western context of the Partchian term, I believe I am
>> justified to employ it in the case of categorizing a blend of
>> "mujannabish intervals" (anterior finger position on the oud) such
>> as 11/9, 12/11, 27/22, 88/81, 11/8, etc... when constructing maqam
>> scales that employ these fractions as pitches AND/OR
>> intervals. Here, by limit, I selectively mean to distinguish the
>> highest prime number resulting from the factorization of either the
>> numerators or denominators as a means of indicating a maqam scale
>> in which such "mujannabish intervals" are crucially and
>> characteristically placed. As it happens, the likes of such
>> fractions are manifestly spread all over historical Islamic music
>> theory treatises dealing with tetrachordal and pentachordal genera.
>
> I agree that this is a perfectly reasonable usage, and common enough
> that it is unlikely to cause problems, at least once the context of
> maqam music is established. Scala gives such prime limits for rational
> tunings, for example.
>
> And this can be of interest: for example, Safi al-Din's use of prime
> 59 in his arithmetic division of 32:27 as 64:59:54 which I have quoted
> above. Of course, many of the classic ajnas will use ratios with a
> prime limit of 11 or 13.
>
>> 4. I may also over-generalize n-limit to signify the whole total of
>> all "mujannabish intervals" within all maqams across regions, ages
>> and cultures. This inclination, although arbitrary, assumes one
>> hypothetical meta-scale of the "entire maqam history" from which
>> any executant can extract on-the-fly his/her own subset during a
>> maqam performance. Whether or not there is harmony (static
>> vertical tone structures) involved in the process is a moot point
>> so long as the solo melodic passage leaves its acoustical trace
>> (naturally!) in the human psyche - which is assuredly capable of
>> recognizing the temporal (and dynamic) pitch shifts that we dub
>> once again "invervals".
>
> This is an exciting concept, and maybe parallel to one meaning of the
> Iranian classical _radif_: the complete repertory or set, one might
> say, of all dastgah-s and gushe-s, and also of the different possible
> variations, ornamentations, and other techniques which may be brought
> together in an actual performance. Indeed "learning the radif" through
> study with a master means, to borrow your words, knowing this
> repertory so well that one can "extract on the fly his/her subset" for
> a given performance.
>
> So we might almost speak of an "intonational radif" for maqam music,
> which would include the many traditional ajnas expressed in JI terms,
> and also an infinitesimally shaded pitch continuum embracing these
> ratios and also newer rational ratios and divisions as well as various
> tempered ones.
>
> Indeed your tables for the 79/80-MOS give some sense of such a
> continuum or "intonational radif" (with a resolution of around 1/159
> octave or 1/3 Holderian comma, about 7.5 cents), and also some of the
> different "allusions" to rational ratios old or new that a given perde
> may suggest.
>
>> 5. As for the tuning precision... It is without an ounce of doubt
>> that free-pitched instruments such as the oud, ney, kemencha VERILY
>> execute ALL pitches across their entire acoustic range in
>> performance. The hypothesis that 5 cents is the limit to accuracy
>> when trying to hit the mark in a maqam performance falls short of
>> reality, since a qualified musician will innately (not to mention
>> instinctively) distinguish and OF COURSE execute the very subtle
>> shadings of intonation depending on the seyir and passage, whether
>> through vibratos, tremolandos, glissandos, portamentos or just
>> simple "glide-locking". In other terms, every free-pitched
>> instrument of Maqam music, including tanburs and neys in their own
>> special contexts, can bend and twist the pitches across the
>> frequency spectrum to realize minute inflexions greater than the
>> claimed 5 cents precision. Quad erat demonstrandum: A simple
>> instance of placing the finger on a tanbur's fret and moving the
>> tip of that finger forward and backward ever so slightly - or
>> shrivelling the lips on the ney embouchure - will demonstrate
>> factually how precise intonations of perdeler can be achieved (I
>> play the ney and bowed tanbur in Yarman-24, so I should know better
>> than anyone else here).
>
> Just today I looked at the charts in your article on Yarman 24: again,
> an ingenious synthesis of wonderful Zalzalian maqam pitches and
> Rameau's irregular meantone. And the fine shadings shown in that
> "Weighing diverse..." article on "theory vs. practice" are really
> intriguing, for example around 365 cents for the lower peak envelope
> of Maqam Rast. We could call it an approximate "21/17," or "just a bit
> larger than 16 commas," or even "about midway between 16/13 and
> 26/21," but this may tie in with your comment that superparticular
> middle seconds can help map this interval space, but do not
> necessarily explain all the fine nuances of intonation.
>
>
>> Also remember how Rauf Yekta stresses 8192/6561 as the sought ratio
>> instead of 5/4 - although the difference in between is a minute
>> schisma of 2 cents and JI theory dictates the latter as the target
>> pitch due to its "lesser complexity".
>
> Yes, and in fact based on discussions here, I might gather than the
> 8192/6561 of YAEU (going back to Safi al-Din) is actually on the high
> end of the really "sweet" zone, say from a schisma to about 1/3
> Holderian comma below 5/4. The getting of this nuance "just right" may
> be one of the advantages of 82-EDO (380.498 cents) as a simple EDO
> solution, for those who seek it, although I'm not sure about fitting
> 82 notes per octave on a practical acoustical instrument. And it must
> be added, of course, that the 79/80-MOS has a higher resolution of
> 1/159 octave or 1/3 Holderian comma, while the resolution of 82-EDO is
> just less than that of a usual full yarman (14.634 cents versus about
> 15.094 cents, not allowing for small adjustments in 79/80.)
>
>> 6. Bear also in mind that, one person's flaw is another man's
>> delight in Maqam music, and it is next to impossible to say who
>> plays the wrong pitch where unless you rely on a particular school
>> of tradition and taste. This does not mean, however, that we cannot
>> find an underlying mathematical explanation or scientific footing
>> of how and why that particular taste or tradition (e.g. Arabic,
>> Turkish, Iranian, Kurdish, Hindustani...) is pursued.
>
> Here I would agree. Rather as in natural languages, one cannot
> necessarily predict all the grammatical find points except by learning
> the language and encountering them; but it is possible, based on such
> knowledge (ideally that of a native speaker) to seek out and
> understand some of these patterns.
>
> And, also, a given taste or tradition may have certain overall
> patterns which fit one tuning system better than another. Thus I might
> guess that O3 can represent a 17-note tar tuning like that of Hormoz
> Farhat fairly well, but would get into lots of complications quickly
> if one tried to use it as a standard Turkish gamut, although I would
> say that certain specific maqamat and flavors are represented as long
> as one keeps a taksim or suite within a certain range where the tuning
> can support the required perde-s. For one, while kurdi-segah at 22:21
> may be quite logical in its own terms, both your remarks and Cameron's
> baglama from Istanbul have shown that for Turkish music a spacing of a
> full 4-comma limma or more is the norm.
>
> This situation also occurs in natural languages, where a "logical"
> rule in one language is not so idiomatic in another and equally
> "logical" one.
>
>> ________
>
>> To iterate my observations and opinions on the matter further, let
>> me continue with the following articles:
>
>> 7. While some Middle Eastern theorists (obviously drawing from
>> long-standing interactions with Western music norms) have found
>> merits in the "steely hardness" (as John Chalmers would put it) of
>> 24-EDO as a viable way to "notate maqams on paper" or even as a
>> "guideline for affixing pitches on instruments", it is obvious as
>> Earth's moving tectonic plates that the minute you score
>> Peshrevs/Bestes/Semais/Kars/Radeefs digitally in this temperament
>> is the minute it shall patently collapse - for manifest reasons
>> which you have delivered in meticulous detail regarding the
>> necessity of specifying very fine pitch inflexions and deviations
>> when intoning a plethora of maqams.
>
> Yes, the resolution of 7.5 cents or so in the 79/80-MOS may be one
> practical compromise. And using 24 pitches per octave for a rough and
> ready crude classification of ajnas and maqamat is, as people like
> Amine Beyhom emphasize, merely a convenience, not an intonational
> measurement!
>
> In fact, it might in part be a kind of diplomacy. It appears that in
> Eyypt (as noted by Scott Marcus), and very possibly also in Lebanon
> (as suggested by some tunings Beyhom discusses), some people think of
> Maqam Bayyati (which can correlate with Ushshaq or Beyati, the latter
> especially if combined with Maqam Shuri, named after the perde a
> 128/81 or so above rast which in Turkey is called beyati, and
> featuring a Hijaz tetrachord on neva using this step) as 7-6-9 commas,
> and others more as 6-7-9 commas.
>
> This means in practice that the "7-6-9" people simply play Bayyati
> with segah at the same position as in Rast, perhaps around 355 cents
> about perde rast (somewhere around al-Farabi's 27/22). The "6-7-9"
> people, however, understand that segah must lower in Bayyati, and if
> playing fixed-pitch instruments might actually retune to fit this
> maqam.
>
> Saying that Bayyati is simply "3-3-4 quarters" leaves the question
> open -- or, likewise, "2-2-3 thirdtones" in a 17-step concept. Beyhom
> suggests using + and - signs to show fine adjustments in either 17 or
> 24.
>
> With 53, we not only may but _must_ specify 7-6-9 or 6-7-9; the choice
> is a basic part of the notation, which does not permit a precisely
> even division. And Yarmans would be yet more precise.
>
>
>> 8. While Rauf Yekta& co. have denounced Ancient Greek theory as
>> having engaged itself in play of numbers and nothing more and
>> implying the same for Muslim theorists, I place no faith in such
>> conjecture warped by ideological nationalistic agendas.
>
> Yes, and there is that curious passage you quote in your thesis where
> Yekta mentions intervals that occur in Turkish music such as 12:11,
> 7:6, and 22:21. You mention the Intense Chromatic of Ptolemy,
> certainly an "Ancient Greek" scale if there ever was one, and I wonder
> if Yekta could have gotten this from the Hijaz of Qutb al-Din
> al-Shirazi.
>
> Sadly, of course, both the specific nationalist episode we are
> considering, and the more general tendency, for example, of people to
> claim al-Farabi or Safi al-Din, or Qutb al-Din in nationalist terms,
> can distract from appreciating this music as the fruit of Islamic
> civilization transcending national borders. The same is true of the
> theorists of medieval European music such as Petrus de Cruce, with
> Latin playing a role smoewhat parallel to that of Arabic.
>
>> I furthermore have no belief in or regard for the supposition that
>> "Medieval" Muslim theorists were unable to divide a just interval
>> into two or three or four equal parts and had to rely for that
>> reason on fractional (arithmetical) divisions to represent equal
>> divisions - when, on the contrary, mesolabiums were known since
>> Archimedes and finding two geometric mean proportionals were
>> achieved as early as by Nicomedes. It is practically inconceivable
>> that early Islamic Civilization - with its insatiable hunger for
>> translating Greek literature (among others) to Arabic - would not
>> know of these. Insooth, we read that cubic and conical equations
>> were described by Omar Hayyam in the 11th and advanced by Sharaf
>> al-Din Tusi in the 12th Centuries, while the sinus/cosinus concepts
>> were described as early as the 10th Century by the trigonometrist
>> al-Bettani of Harran and tangent/cotangent by al-Biruni in the 11th
>> Century. I am confident that logarithmic divisions could be
>> approximated by such methods that were known to early Muslim
>> polymaths. The plain reality is that, the ancients did not bother
>> with trying to approximate equal divisions (least of all through
>> the usage of epimoric ratios) when theorizing on the musical
>> rudiments of their era in the Middle East.
>
> Of course there are some repeated or equal steps in certain
> theoretical tunings, for example 8:7-8:7-49:48 in Safi al-Din.
> However, I would not be surprised if they simply considered subtle
> inequality as more interesting. This kind of idea may be encounted in
> the European theory of Zarlino in the 16th century, a writer who
> thought that nature generally dislikes repeating itself in the same
> way, but prefers variety, a rule he invokes in explaining some of the
> guidelines of counterpoint, although, of course, he does use geometric
> means to make possible a mathematical presentation of meantone
> temperament (1558 and later).
>
>> 9. If we are to slacken the concept of "approximation" as our good
>> Igs would have it, we could go even so far as to boast that 7-EDO
>> is an acceptable approximation of the diatonic Major scale of
>> Classical Western music. The reality, however, collapses on such
>> broad and meaningless viewpoints. Concept of approximation
>> inexorably requires the foreknowledge of what is being strived
>> for... In our case, an acoustical foundation, so to speak, of the
>> "right savour" of a given maqam within the context of its own
>> cultural/geographical idiom. As such, I deem - with so many years
>> of scholarly pursuit in trying to understand the intonation of
>> perdeler and structure of makamlar - that 24-tET and its multiples
>> are "very rough", "very crude" solutions for "approximating maqam
>> scales" when, in fact, much better options exist in the form of 41
>> or 53 equal, notwithstanding several other "irregular suggestions"
>> by yours truly, whether voluminous or scarce in detail of nuance,
>> targetting distinct pitch resolutions for satisfactorily intoning
>> Turkish makamlar.
>
> Certainly I agree that one must first know what is being approximated,
> and even in a Levantine style where the inequality of mujannab steps
> may be quite subtle, on the order of 1/3-comma (e.g. al-Farabi's 12/11
> and 88/81), the slight variation may be at least as important as
> approximating one of the steps, e.g. 12/11 as 150 cents in 24-EDO.
>
> Indeed 53-EDO gives a good overview, while I would say that 82-EDO has
> the advantage of 41's precision for the ratios of 2-3-5-7, plus extra
> steps for a superb Medium Sundered giving also an alternative to YAEU
> for Rast/Huseyni/Segah, e.g. Rast at 205-366-498 or 205-161-132 cents.
> We have mujannab seconds at 117 (a form of secor), 132, 146, 161, and
> 176 cents. Thus 366 cents is just about exactly at the autopeak
> envelope for segah in Maqam Rast, while 380 cents is a "sweet spot"
> for the "not-quite 5/4" flavor.
>
> And on a smaller scale, something like O3 might be more of a "general
> maqam/dastgah" system which does not really fit the needs of the
> Turkish gamut as a _system_, but does have some flavors of specific
> maqamat featuring the Medium Sundered.
>
>> 10. A final motive I strive for after all this theorizing, is to
>> employ, as selfish as it may be, the theoretical groundwork on
>> maqams I have laid down or have drawn from Early Treatises toward
>> the pursuit and realization of my own brand of "maqam polyphony".
>
> Yes, and there is an interesting kind of interplay between flavors of
> maqam intonation and nuances of polyphonic style. Thus a flavor of
> Maqam Rast with rast-segah at 380 cents might invite a different style
> of polyphony than one with rast-segah at 370 cents, although that we
> be the topic for a longer discussion. And I agree, in any event, that
> it makes sense to build on the foundations of the maqams as you
> understand and have presented them.
>
>> Cordially,
>> Dr. Oz.
>
> Best,
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

Ozan wrote:

> As is evident. But why forgive for continuing to shower negativity
> without even researching or possessing the required skills to
> investigate the matter thoroughly?

Instead of Graham forgiving something, why not just thank him
for his willingnesss to apply his considerable skill to a field
in which you share a common interest?

> The confusion seems to arise due to the miscomprehension of what
> my doctorate study encompasses. An understandable shortcoming for
> the non-academician.

I believe Graham has a masters degree in a technical field.
I'm sure yours is not the first thesis he's read.

> I have time and again pointed out therein comprehensively that:
>
> 1. metallic levers on qanuns called “mandals” â€" which are
> manipulated by the executant on the fly to alter the lengths of
> the courses â€" are affixed by qanun-makers on these instruments
> in such a way as to yield 72 equal divisions of the octave due
> to the common usage of standard electronic tuners imported from
> overseas.

Which imported tuners have a 72-EDO setting?

> The application of 72-EDO happens to be a haphazard
> fluke rather than a conscious calculation as evidenced by the
> 7-EDO division

...or a 7-EDO setting?

-Carl

Earth to Carl, hello. We seem to be experiencing communication difficulties with you being over the moon.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Carl Lumma wrote:
> Ozan wrote:
>
>> As is evident. But why forgive for continuing to shower negativity
>> without even researching or possessing the required skills to
>> investigate the matter thoroughly?
>
> Instead of Graham forgiving something, why not just thank him
> for his willingnesss to apply his considerable skill to a field
> in which you share a common interest?
>
>> The confusion seems to arise due to the miscomprehension of what
>> my doctorate study encompasses. An understandable shortcoming for
>> the non-academician.
>
> I believe Graham has a masters degree in a technical field.
> I'm sure yours is not the first thesis he's read.
>
>> I have time and again pointed out therein comprehensively that:
>>
>> 1. metallic levers on qanuns called “mandals” â€" which are
>> manipulated by the executant on the fly to alter the lengths of
>> the courses â€" are affixed by qanun-makers on these instruments
>> in such a way as to yield 72 equal divisions of the octave due
>> to the common usage of standard electronic tuners imported from
>> overseas.
>
> Which imported tuners have a 72-EDO setting?
>
>> The application of 72-EDO happens to be a haphazard
>> fluke rather than a conscious calculation as evidenced by the
>> 7-EDO division
>
> ...or a 7-EDO setting?
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

The list of people you've mistreated now includes Mike,
Graham, Gene, myself... pretty much everyone with the ability
to help you out of the intellectual quagmire you've dug for
yourself. It's now safe for you to unsubscribe. Not to
worry, we'll still see your vitriolic missives about making
children cry on the bus on facebook. Let the hate flow!

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> Earth to Carl, hello. We seem to be experiencing communication
> difficulties with you being over the moon.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> The list of people you've mistreated now includes Mike,
> Graham, Gene, myself...

I don't feel I've been mistreated. I do wonder if getting a degree has gone to Dr. Oz's head. Since he's chosen to lecture Graham on the nature of academia, I think it's only fair to point out that peer review is the name of the game. Yes, you really do need to be able to defend your conclusions if challenged with something sharper than argumentum ad philosophiae doctor.

The difficulty, it seems to me, with Ozan's approach leading to his 79 MOS is that it was based on a sort of trial and error procedure. From that you can conclude that it works, but you can't conclude it satisfies any optimality condition, and that, in part, seems to be what Graham wants and isn't getting. It's what I was angling for when Ozan was working on it, but the problem remained too murky in terms of the required conditions.

As for the rest of your comments, as Jon Stewart said at the Rally to Restore Sanity, could we take it down a notch?

Gene wrote:
> > The list of people you've mistreated now includes Mike,
> > Graham, Gene, myself...
>
> I don't feel I've been mistreated.

I stand corrected. I guess I was thrown by this delight

/tuning/topicId_94229.html#94559

> As for the rest of your comments, as Jon Stewart said at
> the Rally to Restore Sanity, could we take it down a notch?

I was just told I'm living on the moon. Howabout you
take that down a notch for us.

-Carl

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

> > I don't feel I've been mistreated.
>
> I stand corrected. I guess I was thrown by this delight
>
> /tuning/topicId_94229.html#94559

That's more in the nature of Ozan mistreating himself.

Dear Gene,

Peer review? How very facetious, since I was many times at the point of being rebuked for upholding academic standards for the tuning list. Now I see we have an editorial board ready to inspect any section of a given text with their ever so highly impartial wisdom.

Forgive my cynicism, for I wasn't aware I was publishing at the Tuning List Periodical. This must be cause for joyous celebration!

Really, the joke is on me this time. If you, Carl and Graham desire to peer review me, I shall perhaps humbly post a reminder for proper conduct towards objectively evaluating musicological research material?

Goodness, it must have indeed gone over my head to imagine I am entitled to do so. :)

Else, we can play this game of "I'm right, you're wrong" day and night for the next 365 days.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

genewardsmith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@...> wrote:
>> The list of people you've mistreated now includes Mike,
>> Graham, Gene, myself...
>
> I don't feel I've been mistreated. I do wonder if getting a degree has gone to Dr. Oz's head. Since he's chosen to lecture Graham on the nature of academia, I think it's only fair to point out that peer review is the name of the game. Yes, you really do need to be able to defend your conclusions if challenged with something sharper than argumentum ad philosophiae doctor.
>
> The difficulty, it seems to me, with Ozan's approach leading to his 79 MOS is that it was based on a sort of trial and error procedure. From that you can conclude that it works, but you can't conclude it satisfies any optimality condition, and that, in part, seems to be what Graham wants and isn't getting. It's what I was angling for when Ozan was working on it, but the problem remained too murky in terms of the required conditions.
>
> As for the rest of your comments, as Jon Stewart said at the Rally to Restore Sanity, could we take it down a notch?
>
>

Our most generous ex-mod is once again kindly showing me the door. And he talks of me mistreating people. :)

Why take it (and my facebook blather that is no one's business here) personal my dear Carl? My cynicism is a midged compared to yours. I am subjected to criticism for my "poor scholarship" and I answer to all points raised the way I know best how being the "intellectual dwarf that I am" and standing at the mercy of "tuning lords" like you, without albeit ever making any one of you happy. What can be grander than the kind of merry-go-round discussions that the list has been enjoying for the past year under your and your apprentice's patronage?

Let the nitpicking, (ahem) sorry, "tuning discussions" continue.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Carl Lumma wrote:
> The list of people you've mistreated now includes Mike,
> Graham, Gene, myself... pretty much everyone with the ability
> to help you out of the intellectual quagmire you've dug for
> yourself. It's now safe for you to unsubscribe. Not to
> worry, we'll still see your vitriolic missives about making
> children cry on the bus on facebook. Let the hate flow!
>
> -Carl
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman<ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>> Earth to Carl, hello. We seem to be experiencing communication
>> difficulties with you being over the moon.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>
>

It will be me mistreating myself if you tell me Gene that you have actually read the material presented entirely. :)

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

genewardsmith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@...> wrote:
>
>>> I don't feel I've been mistreated.
>> I stand corrected. I guess I was thrown by this delight
>>
>> /tuning/topicId_94229.html#94559
>
> That's more in the nature of Ozan mistreating himself.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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
>
>
>
>

Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
> Let me adopt also the "negativist attitude" as you seem
> to be fond of in nitpicking every single passage then
> Graham.

That's your code for "conversation" is it? It's an old
Internet/Usenet tradition to have conversations by quotes.
But please, don't put your response under a line with a
double hyphen. It's an instruction to my mail reader not
to include that material. But I worked around it, don't
worry.

> Graham Breed wrote:
> > Ozan Yarman<ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Obviously enough, it signifies a 17-EDO step whose
> >> epicenter is any of the peak-points of the histogram in
> >> figure 3.1 as measured by the IcraAnalizi program of M.
> >> Kemal Karaosmanoglu utilizing Solo Explorer analysis of
> >> Niyazi Sayin's Ushshaq Ney taksim.
> >
> > There's nothing obvious about that. What does
> > "epicenter" mean in this context?
>
> Still more obviously, the 35.3 cent midpoint of the
> 1200/17 cents interval. It is not hard to see this at all.

It isn't hard to see, but it isn't obvious until you tell
me. I can guess, of course, but science doesn't work on
guesswork.

It still looks like a strange kind of analysis, but if it
wasn't your idea let's not dwell on it.

> You can visit my website and download the final
> authoritative version then. But I do remember that the
> explanation is on page 28 and the first footnote there for
> even the December 2007 version (the final was naturally
> subjected to jury overview and a few changes was made as
> is the regular procedure for the doctorate).

I have the authoritative version now -- thank you. I still
see no explanation of why you (or they) take the averages.
I also don't see where you say that the averages are taken
from a range of points either side of the peaks. They
could have been from a partition of the whole region into
17-equal, for example. So you didn't really have to get
hyper-defensive when I asked for clarification.

> > 17-EDO steps isn't the issue. What I'm really asking
> > is: why did they take averages?
>
> This is not a question to me I suppose, but for
> Karasomanoglu and Akkoc. But I understand the concern has
> been one of equalizing the symmetry of the slopes left and
> right of the peaks. It was a method that has
> justifications in the referenced Turkish article. I only
> copy their approach in the thesis.

Yes, it's a question for you, because you chose to include
these data in your thesis. And the way you measure the
intervals does affect their closeness to epimoric ratios.
It does matter.

> > These don't look like
> > Gaussian distributions. Without a Gaussian, what
> > justification do you have for taking a mean (assuming
> > that's the average we're talking about)? Why did you
> > (not Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc) choose to measure your
> > intervals from the averages and not the peaks?
> >
>
> I am not justifying the application of one method over
> another. It was the original approach used by
> Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc. And either way it makes little
> difference in light of debunking AEU and 24-EDO for
> Turkish Maqam music. I haven't been concealing any data,
> it's there for discerning eyes to plainly see.

Then why didn't you at least compare the two methods
(peak-to peak and averages)?

> >> http://www.musiki.org/icra_teori_birligi.htm
> >
> > That's all in Turkish, so you'll have to forgive me for
> > not studying it.
>
> As is evident. But why forgive for continuing to shower
> negativity without even researching or possessing the
> required skills to investigate the matter thoroughly?

If you want English speakers to take your ideas seriously,
you have to present evidence in English. Otherwise we have
to say that the matter's unproven.

> >> Even the presence of 148 cents between segah and
> >> chargah bespeaks of the insufficiency of AEU, and the
> >> representations for 8:7 and 7:6 for that of 24-EDO.
> >
> > No. It doesn't say anything without error bars.
>
> What?

I think what I said is clear. AEU is only insufficient if
the AEU intervals lie outside the error bars of the
measured intervals. Your graph has no error bars. So
there's no way of knowing if it's significant.

> > Going by
> > the histogram, the most well defined pitches are Dugah
> > and Neva. Going by your pie chart, Dugah-Neva is the
> > interval in best agreement with the theory. It's about
> > 10 cents away from 4:3, which is the same interval your
> > ratios imply. The other pitches are not as well
> > defined, so it doesn't matter where the theory says
> > they should be, does it?
>
> Huh?

Is anything I said wrong? Does Dugah-Neva agree with the
theory? Are the other intervals well defined in the
performance?

> > Of course, we have evidence of pitch clustering, which
> > speaks against *any* fixed tuning.
>
> Certainly not.

Of course a wide cluster of pitches suggests a set of
discrete pitches is invalid. If you think otherwise,
you'll have to explain yourself.

> > Note: the "Error" column in Table 3.2 has two, and only
> > two, values negative. Why is this?
>
> Is it not apparent? 14:13 is picked (not by me) to
> represent the 123.47 cent averaged measured interval with
> 4.8 cents error. 123.47-128.3 = -4.8 cents. Again, we have
> 227.87-231.17 = -3.3 cents. You could replace the picked
> ratios with a hundred other fractions, but the point is
> still moot. This is only a method of evaluating the data.
> It is a sensible one as far as I can scrutinize.

It isn't apparent. 137.13-138.57 = -1.44. What happened
to the minus sign?

> > All intervals are flat
> > of the ratios you give. That means the error
> > accumulates to give that of the 4:3. This is the
> > difference between measurement and theory, not the
> > uncertainty in the measurement.
> >
>
> So?

Right under the table, you say "Crucial here is the
affirmation that none of these intervals are properly
represented in the current model . . ."

The figure you refer to shows pitches, or at least
intervals relative to Dugah, not middle seconds. So are
you saying Neva doesn't fit the theory? As all theories
seem to agree that Dugah-Neva should be 4:3 I'll assume
not, so 10 cents must be within the uncertainty in the
measurement, but you don't say so.

> It does not. It is a simple procedure to filter selected
> peak-points and convert them to cents. Why don't you
> follow the references and ask the people there
> (Karaosmanoglu and Akkoc in this case) instead of
> nitpicking my thesis to shreds?

It's a simple procedure, but it's not explained. The data
you show are in cps, with a level of precision that exceeds
1 cent, and no error bars.

> Your imagining are not classifiable as artifacts. What
> makes you think I didn't notice something you think is
> important but is definitely not?

I thought you didn't notice it because you told me the
artifact wasn't there when I pointed it out. I didn't
imagine it. It is an artifact because it's a feature of
the data set that was introduced by the analysis. We're
assuming (or I am, you still haven't specified) that the
instruments in the performance were not tuned to the
nearest cent with extreme accuracy.

If the performance used electronic instruments, that would
certainly be important.

> > I've also shown that the intervals don't fit the ratios
> > you match them up with.
>
> No you haven't. And it is not I who matches the intervals
> with those ratios. I comply with the method picked by
> Karaosmanoglu & Akkoc. Either way, it makes little or no
> difference toward debunking AEU and 24-EDO. The presented
> example is just a sample of hundreds of recordings
> analyzed by the Yildiz Technical University team.

Actually, I compared to the wrong ratio. Flat of 14:13 is
15:14. The interval between 15:14 and 14:13 is 8.9 cents.
Your table merrily declares an interval to be 4.8 cents
flat of 14:13. That makes it closer to 15:14 than 14:13.
What sense does it make to label it as 14:13? I can
understand superparticular ratios being signposts, but you
should at last take the nearest one.

If you measure the interval peak-peak, it comes out as
117 cents. 15:14 is 119.4 cents. Not only is the interval
nearer to 15:14 than 14:13, but it's an extremely good
approximation to 15:14, and the other side of 14:13. And
yet for some reason it's labeled as 14:13, and you quoted it
without comment, and Margo quoted you without comment.

This doesn't matter for AEU or 24-EDO, but it does matter
for matching intervals to superparticulars. It has been
stated on this list that maqam music is based on
superparticulars (epimoric ratios). The data you've
presented don't support that. So do you, or anybody, have
evidence for superparticulars in modern performance?

> I said "expressible", not "must be expressed". I have
> always and still consider the use of high prime limit
> epimoric fractions as a solid approach of identifying
> characteristic divisions of a melodic interval into two,
> three or four parts in the case of maqam theory.

What's solid about an approach where an interval isn't even
identified with the nearest signpost?

> Just because it's the only argument you think you can
> find, doesn't make it the only argument there is.

I searched the thesis for "72" which of course gave a lot
of false positives. So I did put work into this on my side.

> The confusion seems to arise due to the miscomprehension
> of what my doctorate study encompasses. An understandable
> shortcoming for the non-academician. The work comprises
> not only the thesis, but also the reports to the jury (in
> Turkish), defense presentation (in Turkish) and the
> doctoral article (in Turkish and available at my webpage).

In that case the confusion arises because you've claimed on
this list that the thesis contains you arguments and
evidence for them. If the arguments aren't set out in
English, you should explain that. It's not reasonable for
us to learn Turkish to understand why you chose these 79
notes.

> I have time and again pointed out therein comprehensively
> that:
>
> 1. metallic levers on qanuns called “mandals” – which are
> manipulated by the executant on the fly to alter the
> lengths of the courses – are affixed by qanun-makers on
> these instruments in such a way as to yield 72 equal
> divisions of the octave due to the common usage of
> standard electronic tuners imported from overseas. The
> application of 72-EDO happens to be a haphazard fluke
> rather than a conscious calculation as evidenced by the
> 7-EDO division of the equal semitone for the lower
> registers (with the pretext of finding more room to affix
> additional mandals) compared to the 6-EDO division of the
> equal semitone for the tenor registers at the expense of
> "just" octaves.

Where's your evidence for this assertion about imported
tuners? It's one I know you keep making.

I searched your thesis for 7-EDO and all I get is
references to 17-EDO.

> 2. the affixture on qanuns of mandals at “equal
> semitones” (due to the qanun-makers’ usage of conventional
> tuners imported from overseas) followed by the
> apportionment of the remaining length to the nut into 6,
> or even 7 equally spaced mandals (for the lower courses in
> particular – to the detriment of octave equivalances, i.e.
> "just octaves") which yields 72 or 84 equal divisions of
> the octave, are further evidence that theory dictates one
> thing, while practice, wholly another.

Practice, in this case, dictating 72, right?

Equally spaced mandals would give 6 or 7 ADO, not EDO. ADO
would make a lot more sense.

> 3. since 53-tone equal temperament does not appear to be
> applied to qanuns, and dividing the octave into 72 parts
> is none other than the sixfold elaboration of “twelve
> equal steps per octave” methodology of Western Music,
> i.e. an "imported fluke" for Maqam music, it henceforth
> becomes a necessity to devise a tuning which is more
> compatible with Turkish Maqam Music tradition.

It doesn't matter where it comes from. It can be right for
the wrong reasons.

Now: who says a 72 part division is imported? I know of a
72 note notation for Greek Orthodox music. If that's
correct, and old, it would place the 72 parts in the very
city you wrote this thesis.

> 4. the tuning mesh resulting from the fusion of
> instruments based on incompatible pitch configurations –
> to say nothing of eclectic quotidian arrangements
> accomodating guitars and fortepianos – have caused naught
> but a blurring of intonation and loss of timbre clarity
> in ensembles of Turkish Maqam Music. Meanwhile,
> arbitrariness exacerbated by the merger of spontaneous
> triadic harmonies with melody-oriented native settings
> uncompliant to the international diapason promotes
> stagnation and hampers endeavours toward serious
> microtonal polyphony.

What does this have to do with 72-EDO?

> 5. the main purpose of my doctoral work is to pinpoint the
> relative positions and
> inflection ranges of problematic perdes (tones) in
> conformance with electroacoustic pitch measurements, and
> seek out a tuning more compatible with the ubiquitous
> practice of Turkish Maqam Music, since the 24-tone
> Pythagorean theory in effect is proven herein to fall
> short of accomodating characteristic middle seconds
> observed in recordings of master performers. The 79-tone
> tuning, which has been derived from a subset of 159 equal
> divisions of the octave, is minutely explained in this
> work and defended as a solution to overcome persisting
> issues regarding the accurate representation and
> consistent understanding of maqamat.

Again, I'm looking for arguments against 72.

> 6. still, 53 and 72 equal divisions of the octave are two
> models that require further attention. “53 Holderian
> commas per octave” methodology is famous in Türkiye as a
> template comprising the 24-tone Pythagorean tuning by
> which perde inflections are explained today. On the other
> hand, 72-tone equal temperament instead is applied to
> qanuns as described above. These temperaments embody
> almost all the intervals that are required of maqamat,
> and would surely alleviate the conflict between written
> music and actual performance should they be utilized as a
> whole. However, 53-EDO seems confined to the paper while
> 72-EDO remains a fluke whose potential is neither
> recognized nor applied wholesomely. There is no evidence
> toward its conscious widespread adoption in Maqam music
> circles as both a theoretical and practical device to
> explain maqams. Besides, it is no wonder 72-EDO
> instruments wreak havoc with a performance tradition
> orally founded on the “comma system”.

Maybe 72-EDO is a fluke, and maybe it works anyway.
Where's your evidence? Why are mixes ensembles including
72-EDO more of a problem than those including your 79 note
MOS? Your tuning guarantees 2 out of 3 intervals disagree
with the comma system, right?

> 7. furthermore, my experience with the tuning of my first
> qanun proved to be as disappointing as the personal
> discomfort I felt when I first crosschecked what I had
> thus far been hearing in Turkish Maqam Music with the
> 24-tone Pythagorean tuning on my computer. Later on, I
> observed with relief that my discomfort was also felt by
> others, and that, the theory in effect had grave
> shortcomings. Not much later, I found out that empirical
> measurements clearly and quantitatively justified said
> discomfort. Search in different directions to overcome
> non-conformance issues in Turkish Maqam Music ensued,
> which particularly lead me, by exhaustive trial and
> error, to the discovery of the 79-tone tuning. This trial
> and error method consisted of partitioning the octave
> into a minimal number of correctly placed pitches
> optimized for transposition and polyphony, so that, the
> outcome encompassed all of the known maqams at every step.

This is what it comes down to. It's about your subjective
opinion. So what can the rest of us say about it? It's
simply one more tuning to add to the pile that musicians
have proposed over the centuries.

> The criteria for justifying 79 MOS 159-tET has been
> exlicitly given by me in the aforesaid complementary
> doctoral article and also several times in this list:
>
> A. Rast should be the principal maqam and its principal
> scale should be possible to notate as natural notes on the
> scale.

What's Rast then? Figure 5.12, p. 118, gives the first
interval as 9:8, or 13 steps of something -- the 79 note
MOS? Table 5.4, p.103, gives degree 13 as 196.226 cents.
That's 26 degrees of 159-tET. But 9:8 is very well
approximated by 27 degrees of 159-tET (and better by 28
than 26). It looks like you can't notate Rast with this
choice of 79 from 159 pitches. So I'm really mystified as
to what this criterion means, or why you think a tuning
without a 9:8 is valid for maqam music, despite all the
historical references to a Pythagorean spine.

Really, I don't know why you chose this tuning. If you
have a superb ear, and have solved the problems of maqam
intonation in an intuitive way that you can't explain,
it'll have to remain a mystery to the rest of us.

> B. Supurde Ahenk should be established as the main
> diapason in order to roughly correspond the white keys of
> a contemporary piano tuned to concert pitch with the
> principal Rast scale.

I don't know what Supurde Ahenk is and I can't find it in
your thesis.

> C. Rast maqam's 3rd and 7th degrees should be (initially)
> derived without breaking the chain of generator fifths.

Is this a meantone or schismatic criterion? Why does it
matter?

> D. Again, said 3rd and 7th degrees should be possible to
> alterate to "buselik" and "mahur" without breaking the
> fifths chain in order to allow modulating to the Mahur
> scale.
>
> e.g.
> Rast,
> F-(702¢)-C-(702¢)-G-(694¢)-D-(702¢)-A-(694¢)-E-(702¢)-B.
> Mahur,
> F-(702¢)-C-(702¢)-G-(710¢)-D-(702¢)-A-(694¢)-E-(702¢)-B.

Any equal temperament will do this.

> E. The myriad "middle seconds" discovered in performance
> measurements should be placed strategically between
> "dugah-segah", "chargah-saba", "neva-hisar", etc...

Any equal temperament will do this. Some unequal tunings
will give you more choices because you can start the scale
on different your degrees.

> F. It ought to be viable to repeat all the described
> procedures at sharp and flat tonalities as much as the
> natural keys to achieve transpositions over every
> significant degree.

What's a "significant degree"? An equal temperament would
allow for more transposition. Go to far in your MOS and
you break the tetrachordal structure.

> G. For chromaticism (an ever-increasing popular feature of
> quotidian Maqam styles), a closed 12-tone cyclic system
> (temperament) must be present and available at all times.

Really? That's something 72-tET would trivially satisfy,
anyway.

> H. Notation system must not be inconsistent (also
> backwards compatible, in the case of 79 MOS 159-tET, with
> 72 and 65-equal) and should be feasible for microtonal
> polyphony.

How do existing players of 72-tET qanuns deal with notation?

Graham

This conversation has passed from insulting to ludicrious.

Peer review does more than imply review by other doctorates of music - it requires it. Otherwise the reviewer would not be a peer.
But this whole conversation has long passed. Reasonable.

*

-----Original Message-----
From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
Sender: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:11:08
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: The maqam manifesto of Dr. Oz.

Dear Gene,

Peer review? How very facetious, since I was many times at the point of
being rebuked for upholding academic standards for the tuning list. Now
I see we have an editorial board ready to inspect any section of a given
text with their ever so highly impartial wisdom.

Forgive my cynicism, for I wasn't aware I was publishing at the Tuning
List Periodical. This must be cause for joyous celebration!

Really, the joke is on me this time. If you, Carl and Graham desire to
peer review me, I shall perhaps humbly post a reminder for proper
conduct towards objectively evaluating musicological research material?

Goodness, it must have indeed gone over my head to imagine I am entitled
to do so. :)

Else, we can play this game of "I'm right, you're wrong" day and night
for the next 365 days.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

genewardsmith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@...> wrote:
>> The list of people you've mistreated now includes Mike,
>> Graham, Gene, myself...
>
> I don't feel I've been mistreated. I do wonder if getting a degree has gone to Dr. Oz's head. Since he's chosen to lecture Graham on the nature of academia, I think it's only fair to point out that peer review is the name of the game. Yes, you really do need to be able to defend your conclusions if challenged with something sharper than argumentum ad philosophiae doctor.
>
> The difficulty, it seems to me, with Ozan's approach leading to his 79 MOS is that it was based on a sort of trial and error procedure. From that you can conclude that it works, but you can't conclude it satisfies any optimality condition, and that, in part, seems to be what Graham wants and isn't getting. It's what I was angling for when Ozan was working on it, but the problem remained too murky in terms of the required conditions.
>
> As for the rest of your comments, as Jon Stewart said at the Rally to Restore Sanity, could we take it down a notch?
>
>

On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 9:02 AM, <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> This conversation has passed from insulting to ludicrious.
>
> Peer review does more than imply review by other doctorates of music - it requires it. Otherwise the reviewer would not be a peer.
> But this whole conversation has long passed. Reasonable.

There are no doctorates of tuning anywhere in the world, for the
moment. Maybe in 10 years, something will get set up and people here
will get granted honorary doctorates in retrospect. For now, we're
stuck with things the way they are, and this means discussing ideas
based on their merits, not the qualifications of those behind them.

Gene and Graham are certainly qualified to weigh in about maqam tuning
regardless of what degree they have.

-Mike

Dear Chris,

It escaped my attention that the tuning list was a medium for disseminating "peer-review" of the work I authored. In which case, perhaps we should waste no more time and elect an editorial board of peers to judge how crooked the material I publish really is.

I nominate Carl Lumma, Mike Battaglia, Igliashon Jones, Graham Breed, Joe Stanzo, Daniel Stearns and Dante Rosati for the editorial board to kick Dr. Oz. in the sheens every time he doesn't satisfy. What say?

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
>
> This conversation has passed from insulting to ludicrious.
>
> Peer review does more than imply review by other doctorates of music - > it requires it. Otherwise the reviewer would not be a peer.
> But this whole conversation has long passed. Reasonable.
>
> *
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> *Sender: * tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Date: *Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:11:08 +0200
> *To: *<tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> *ReplyTo: * tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject: *Re: [tuning] Re: The maqam manifesto of Dr. Oz.
>
> Dear Gene,
>
> Peer review? How very facetious, since I was many times at the point > of being rebuked for upholding academic standards for the tuning list. > Now I see we have an editorial board ready to inspect any section of a > given text with their ever so highly impartial wisdom.
>
> Forgive my cynicism, for I wasn't aware I was publishing at the Tuning > List Periodical. This must be cause for joyous celebration!
>
> Really, the joke is on me this time. If you, Carl and Graham desire to > peer review me, I shall perhaps humbly post a reminder for proper > conduct towards objectively evaluating musicological research material?
>
> Goodness, it must have indeed gone over my head to imagine I am > entitled to do so. :)
>
> Else, we can play this game of "I'm right, you're wrong" day and night > for the next 365 days.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> -- >
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> genewardsmith wrote:
>> --- Intuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@...> wrote:
>>> The list of people you've mistreated now includes Mike,
>>> Graham, Gene, myself...
>>
>> I don't feel I've been mistreated. I do wonder if getting a degree has gone to Dr. Oz's head. Since he's chosen to lecture Graham on the nature of academia, I think it's only fair to point out that peer review is the name of the game. Yes, you really do need to be able to defend your conclusions if challenged with something sharper than argumentum ad philosophiae doctor.
>>
>> The difficulty, it seems to me, with Ozan's approach leading to his 79 MOS is that it was based on a sort of trial and error procedure. From that you can conclude that it works, but you can't conclude it satisfies any optimality condition, and that, in part, seems to be what Graham wants and isn't getting. It's what I was angling for when Ozan was working on it, but the problem remained too murky in terms of the required conditions.
>>
>> As for the rest of your comments, as Jon Stewart said at the Rally to Restore Sanity, could we take it down a notch?
>>
>>
>
>
>

I am sorry. I think I was misunderstood. As a fellow list member I am requesting that this thread be allowed to die by the method of no one responding to it ever again.

My 2 cents

Chris
*

-----Original Message-----
From: Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
Sender: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:20:08
To: <tuning@yahoogroups.com>
Reply-To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: The maqam manifesto of Dr. Oz.

Dear Chris,

It escaped my attention that the tuning list was a medium for
disseminating "peer-review" of the work I authored. In which case,
perhaps we should waste no more time and elect an editorial board of
peers to judge how crooked the material I publish really is.

I nominate Carl Lumma, Mike Battaglia, Igliashon Jones, Graham Breed,
Joe Stanzo, Daniel Stearns and Dante Rosati for the editorial board to
kick Dr. Oz. in the sheens every time he doesn't satisfy. What say?

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

chrisvaisvil@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> This conversation has passed from insulting to ludicrious.
>
> Peer review does more than imply review by other doctorates of music -
> it requires it. Otherwise the reviewer would not be a peer.
> But this whole conversation has long passed. Reasonable.
>
> *
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com>
> *Sender: * tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Date: *Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:11:08 +0200
> *To: *<tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> *ReplyTo: * tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject: *Re: [tuning] Re: The maqam manifesto of Dr. Oz.
>
> Dear Gene,
>
> Peer review? How very facetious, since I was many times at the point
> of being rebuked for upholding academic standards for the tuning list.
> Now I see we have an editorial board ready to inspect any section of a
> given text with their ever so highly impartial wisdom.
>
> Forgive my cynicism, for I wasn't aware I was publishing at the Tuning
> List Periodical. This must be cause for joyous celebration!
>
> Really, the joke is on me this time. If you, Carl and Graham desire to
> peer review me, I shall perhaps humbly post a reminder for proper
> conduct towards objectively evaluating musicological research material?
>
> Goodness, it must have indeed gone over my head to imagine I am
> entitled to do so. :)
>
> Else, we can play this game of "I'm right, you're wrong" day and night
> for the next 365 days.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> --
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> genewardsmith wrote:
>> --- Intuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@...> wrote:
>>> The list of people you've mistreated now includes Mike,
>>> Graham, Gene, myself...
>>
>> I don't feel I've been mistreated. I do wonder if getting a degree has gone to Dr. Oz's head. Since he's chosen to lecture Graham on the nature of academia, I think it's only fair to point out that peer review is the name of the game. Yes, you really do need to be able to defend your conclusions if challenged with something sharper than argumentum ad philosophiae doctor.
>>
>> The difficulty, it seems to me, with Ozan's approach leading to his 79 MOS is that it was based on a sort of trial and error procedure. From that you can conclude that it works, but you can't conclude it satisfies any optimality condition, and that, in part, seems to be what Graham wants and isn't getting. It's what I was angling for when Ozan was working on it, but the problem remained too murky in terms of the required conditions.
>>
>> As for the rest of your comments, as Jon Stewart said at the Rally to Restore Sanity, could we take it down a notch?
>>
>>
>
>
>

While I concur wholeheartedly that the thread should have been closed with the authoritative manifesto I summed up and the agreements by Margo (for we can all agree to disagree in the end), we seem to be cursed at forevermore returning to the loop of my "poor scholarship" and "dubious methods".

Let me inform you in earnest Chris, that peer-review implies, according to my knowledge, objective and thorough evaluation of a research paper or material presented to the scrutiny of a publisher possessing an academic pedigree and standards. Ordinarily, doctors of musicology don't get to have tuning list members of unforseen rank and status judging said material with the purpose of lampooning the author. Therefore, I hope you understand my sacrasm if I do not comply with their manner of arguing.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
>
> I am sorry. I think I was misunderstood. As a fellow list member I am > requesting that this thread be allowed to die by the method of no one > responding to it ever again.
>
> My 2 cents
>
> Chris
>
> *
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: * Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
> *Sender: * tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Date: *Tue, 16 Nov 2010 17:20:08 +0200
> *To: *<tuning@yahoogroups.com>
> *ReplyTo: * tuning@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject: *Re: [tuning] Re: The maqam manifesto of Dr. Oz.
>
> Dear Chris,
>
> It escaped my attention that the tuning list was a medium for > disseminating "peer-review" of the work I authored. In which case, > perhaps we should waste no more time and elect an editorial board of > peers to judge how crooked the material I publish really is.
>
> I nominate Carl Lumma, Mike Battaglia, Igliashon Jones, Graham Breed, > Joe Stanzo, Daniel Stearns and Dante Rosati for the editorial board to > kick Dr. Oz. in the sheens every time he doesn't satisfy. What say?
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.
>
> -- >
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>> This conversation has passed from insulting to ludicrious.
>>
>> Peer review does more than imply review by other doctorates of music >> - it requires it. Otherwise the reviewer would not be a peer.
>> But this whole conversation has long passed. Reasonable.
>>
>> *
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From: * Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>
>> *Sender: * tuning@yahoogroups.com
>> *Date: *Tue, 16 Nov 2010 09:11:08 +0200
>> *To: *<tuning@yahoogroups.com>
>> *ReplyTo: * tuning@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject: *Re: [tuning] Re: The maqam manifesto of Dr. Oz.
>>
>> Dear Gene,
>>
>> Peer review? How very facetious, since I was many times at the point >> of being rebuked for upholding academic standards for the tuning >> list. Now I see we have an editorial board ready to inspect any >> section of a given text with their ever so highly impartial wisdom.
>>
>> Forgive my cynicism, for I wasn't aware I was publishing at the >> Tuning List Periodical. This must be cause for joyous celebration!
>>
>> Really, the joke is on me this time. If you, Carl and Graham desire >> to peer review me, I shall perhaps humbly post a reminder for proper >> conduct towards objectively evaluating musicological research material?
>>
>> Goodness, it must have indeed gone over my head to imagine I am >> entitled to do so. :)
>>
>> Else, we can play this game of "I'm right, you're wrong" day and >> night for the next 365 days.
>>
>> Cordially,
>> Oz.
>>
>> -- >>
>> ✩ ✩ ✩
>> www.ozanyarman.com
>>
>>
>> genewardsmith wrote:
>>> --- Intuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma"<carl@...> wrote:
>>>> The list of people you've mistreated now includes Mike,
>>>> Graham, Gene, myself...
>>>
>>> I don't feel I've been mistreated. I do wonder if getting a degree has gone to Dr. Oz's head. Since he's chosen to lecture Graham on the nature of academia, I think it's only fair to point out that peer review is the name of the game. Yes, you really do need to be able to defend your conclusions if challenged with something sharper than argumentum ad philosophiae doctor.
>>>
>>> The difficulty, it seems to me, with Ozan's approach leading to his 79 MOS is that it was based on a sort of trial and error procedure. From that you can conclude that it works, but you can't conclude it satisfies any optimality condition, and that, in part, seems to be what Graham wants and isn't getting. It's what I was angling for when Ozan was working on it, but the problem remained too murky in terms of the required conditions.
>>>
>>> As for the rest of your comments, as Jon Stewart said at the Rally to Restore Sanity, could we take it down a notch?
>>>
>>>
>
>
>

Ozan>"Let me notice, that I also once considered 82-EDO as doing a very
good job at a master-tuning for makamlar. Of course, with such high
resolution options, the world is your oyster. No amount of iteration is
sufficient, though, when I say that 41, 53, 72, 82 equals are all VERY
solid tunings - for Maqam music as well. But dare I say, 79 MOS 159-tET
excels in light of criteria which I have exhaustively underlined so many
times."

I wish, instead of going in circles, we could all agree to sum this up. I
get the feeling the main point is that Ozan's 79-tone MOS is built on the idea
of allowing chord structures from a vast variety of Maqam scales within a couple
of cents within the scope of Rational (and not "Just") Intonation. Meanwhile
many other historical alternatives, like 79TET, may give good approximations of
such modes and be easily applicable to instruments, but still are not as
accurate as Ozan's tuning IE you'd need to get some odd tuning of 159TET+ to get
as accurate an estimate as Ozan's tuning. And then we get the issue of does
that extra bit of accuracy really matter...which makes it all the harder to
prove as something more different or valid regardless of how much skillful
research is behind it.

Far as the "who's the best scholar" issue, I agree with Margo's apparent past
statement that it should not be important who "wins" in that argument but,
instead, that those who know certain things take a mental stance that it's much
their duty to teach patiently rather than call their pupils "dumb" or "wrong" or
"of lesser academic quality".

The sad thing is, some people are always not going to want to learn your
views, no matter how well researched and, come to think of it, other people who
have done much work into alternative theories (including those without
doctorates) likely have similar frustrations.

A productive avenue for this debate, IMVHO, would be some sound/music examples
showing Ozan's 79-MOS in real-world musical applications (particularly in odd
types of Maqam scales) vs. modes in TET and other "rival" scales. The end
result would likely be that each scale does fairly well but musicians, after
hearing both, decide one or the other fits their desired moods better.
Personally, I have a Ptolemy/quarter-comma meantone/Persian hybrid tuning that
is built to allow functionallities in modes of all of the above scale systems I
am using for the Untwelve competition...and while no one seems to care about
said system, I am betting it will turn at least a few heads/ears when people
hear it's "hyper-modulating" capability in my Untwelve entry. And, even then,
there will be people who think it's theoretically complete BS despite my taking
almost a year and a half of research to optimize the scale...and that's just how
art is.

Indeed, that's the thing about music: there's never one answer that's
always right (and often not even a clear answer that's "mostly" right)...if you
expect to come across such a thing in music (and that's even with expert
studying), perhaps you're in the wrong field to demand that level of
appreciation. There no degree or even patent (think Charles Lucy) that will
hide you from harsh subjective criticism of being either "unoriginal" or
"unproven" in music.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> This conversation has passed from insulting to ludicrious.
>
> Peer review does more than imply review by other doctorates of
> music - it requires it. Otherwise the reviewer would not be a peer.
> But this whole conversation has long passed. Reasonable.

We're all peers here. That's the point of this list.
Nothing in the scientific method requires the same degree
to be held by reviewers and authors, and it is often not
the case in the real world.

-Carl

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

> I nominate Carl Lumma, Mike Battaglia, Igliashon Jones,
> Graham Breed, Joe Stanzo, Daniel Stearns and Dante Rosati for
> the editorial board to kick Dr. Oz. in the sheens every time
> he doesn't satisfy. What say?

I have a better idea. Cut the crap, engage in friendly
and productive discussion as has been extended to you time
and time again, or unsubscribe from the list.

Thanks,

-Carl

My dear Carl, who are you to demand that I unsubscribe from the list? Do you own the place? If you find a fault with me worth kicking me out, go tell your apprentice to ban me. Or else, endure my cynicism against your acrimony.

Cordially,
Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Carl Lumma wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman<ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
>> I nominate Carl Lumma, Mike Battaglia, Igliashon Jones,
>> Graham Breed, Joe Stanzo, Daniel Stearns and Dante Rosati for
>> the editorial board to kick Dr. Oz. in the sheens every time
>> he doesn't satisfy. What say?
>
> I have a better idea. Cut the crap, engage in friendly
> and productive discussion as has been extended to you time
> and time again, or unsubscribe from the list.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> 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, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>
> This conversation has passed from insulting to ludicrious.
>
> Peer review does more than imply review by other doctorates of music - it requires it.

I suggest you look the phrase up--it is used in various contexts with a much broader definition than you seem to realize. But even in academia "you have the wrong kind of PhD so I can ignore your apparently valid criticisms" won't fly.

Valid for you maybe. :)

Oz.

--

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

genewardsmith wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, chrisvaisvil@... wrote:
>> This conversation has passed from insulting to ludicrious.
>>
>> Peer review does more than imply review by other doctorates of music - it requires it.
>
> I suggest you look the phrase up--it is used in various contexts with a much broader definition than you seem to realize. But even in academia "you have the wrong kind of PhD so I can ignore your apparently valid criticisms" won't fly.
>
>
>

Nah, I'll just do it myself. Come back when you've come
off your high horse. -Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> My dear Carl, who are you to demand that I unsubscribe from
> the list? Do you own the place? If you find a fault with me
> worth kicking me out, go tell your apprentice to ban me.
> Or else, endure my cynicism against your acrimony.
>
> Cordially,
> Oz.

Michael, the problem is that the historical alternatives simply fail to
give approximations to intervals in use. For example, you can hear, and
measure, something right about 7:6 in various maqam musics, a great
deal. Clearly 24-tET fails to represent this interval, as 270 cents or
so is right about smack in the middle of two degrees of 24-tET.

The other historical equal division is 53, at least for Turkish music.
53 equal has properties of being both one of the lowest number of places
a pure fifth will almost perfectly cycle within the octave, and having
a step size that is only about 1 cent different from the syntonic comma.
Plus lots of other nice properties like a quite accurate 7;6 and so on.
This is the koma (comma) system, in which 9 commas are a whole tone, and
you notate by showing comma alterations, for example, without an
accidental it is a whole tone (9 commas), with this accidental it is 2
commas flat, with this other accidentel 1 comma sharp, etc.

This koma system, in effect a modality of 53 equal, is a very nice
system, but then you hear these kinds of things from the musicians:
"well, we call it eight commas, but it's really more like 7 and a half
commas..." Whoops. 9 commas plus 8 commas gives you an almost pure 5/4,
very nice. 9 commas plus 7 commas gives you about 362 cents, a good
approximation of another historical maqam interval, 16/13. But a common
"Turkish third" is about 370 or 375 cents. My baglama came fretted at
this interval in its historical form of 26/21, 370 cents, right on the
money. Or, a 9 comma step followed by about a 7-and-a-half comma step,
just like the guys say. 53 tones is a whole lot of tones to be failing
to represent one of the most common and characteristic intervals of
Turkish makamlar.

So why not 106, that is, split the koma in two? There are proposed
systems like this, they're mentioned in Ozan's paper, and in effect 106
is already somewhat in use, conceptually.

How about 72? 19 more tones than 53, for a system that's inferior in
almost every way. A heavy price to pay for a "Turkish third" only 4
cents better than 53's, for you lose the near-perfect (and
circulating!) Pythagorean system of 53. With 72 you lose the limma as
well. That's just plain "wrong" for a system attempting to be as
suitable as possibe for as much maqam music as possible, I'm suprised
that anyone would even look twice at 72. But as Ozan says in his paper,
it's easy to tune as 6x 12-tET with an electronic tuner.

What about 41? Beautiful way to get the essential Pythagorean
structure, but like any division that is not quite large, it is missing
a key feature as far as attempting to cover different maqam variations,
which is various sizes of the "middle" intervals. In Istanbul alone,
the Romi play the large semitone smaller than the... Anatolians? (I
don't know the right word) do. (This has been measured electronically
by the way.)

And so it goes, on and on... and this is without even looking closely at
the goal of incorporating polyphony/harmonic chords yet.

Ozan uses 3x 53, which is 159 equal divisions. It's backwards-compatible
with the current best thing going of 53. His 79-MOS is a practical
subset arranged to give as much as possible in the most common places.
If you study it a bit you'll quickly see how ingenious it is.

The whole affair is fraught with difficulties. It's absurd- obscene- to
think of Ozan as being in an "intellectual quaqmire", when he has
attempted to tackle what may very well be insurmountable problems and
come up with an admirable, and implementable, system.

-Cameron Bobro

I can't help but wonder why all this did not come out until now.
didn't he propose his scale sometimes back?

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

>
> The whole affair is fraught with difficulties. It's absurd- obscene- to
> think of Ozan as being in an "intellectual quaqmire", when he has
> attempted to tackle what may very well be insurmountable problems and
> come up with an admirable, and implementable, system.
>
> -Cameron Bobro
>

Yes, he did propose the system several years ago.

I think the problem is that Carl made some absurd claims about the tuning of maqam music being explainable by 24-tET, and in the process of falling back from that position has been throwing up smokescreens by trying to paint those who disagreed with him on that as idiots, maniacs or dopes. I find this humorous and entertaining, except that it is hurtful to Ozan, which I don't find funny or entertaining one bit.

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brofessor" <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> I can't help but wonder why all this did not come out until now.
> didn't he propose his scale sometimes back?
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> >
> > The whole affair is fraught with difficulties. It's absurd- obscene- to
> > think of Ozan as being in an "intellectual quaqmire", when he has
> > attempted to tackle what may very well be insurmountable problems and
> > come up with an admirable, and implementable, system.
> >
> > -Cameron Bobro
> >
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> I think the problem is that Carl made some absurd claims about the
> tuning of maqam music being explainable by 24-tET, and in the
> process of falling back from that position has been throwing up
> smokescreens by trying to paint those who disagreed with him on
> that as idiots, maniacs or dopes. I find this humorous and
> entertaining, except that it is hurtful to Ozan, which I don't find
> funny or entertaining one bit.
>

I agree about Carl - but in any case, Ozan is not bad at hurting back...
And in the later course of the discussion, it appeared to me (from my unscholarly perspective at least) that Gene and Graham did have some arguments. I see no need to get hyper-defensive.
--
Hans Straub

Cameron,

First of all congratulations on the great summary of many of the scale ideas
in Ozan's thesis. I read the thesis, but had a tough time digging out exactly
which intervals his scale "ironed out" that didn't work perfectly in historical
attempts to tune all Maqams in one scale system. You might even want to repost
this under a different topic, possibly with Ozan's approval IE to make sure you
have everything as he intended...I think it would un-confuse a whole lot of
people on this list.

>"Ozan uses 3x 53, which is 159 equal divisions. It's backwards-compatible with
>the current best thing going of 53. His 79-MOS is a practical subset arranged to
>give as much as possible in the most common places. If you study it a bit you'll
>quickly see how ingenious it is."

So 53TET covers the Pythagorean part of Maqam scales, the 7/6 ratio NOT
covered well in 24TET, but not the "very important and common to a similar
extent a traditional major third in Western theory is common" Turkish third of
Makamlar (which, supposedly, is why Ozan keeps bringing up this scale to explain
why 53TET falls short). His tuning, meanwhile, is "3-times-53-TET", and his
scale as a 79-tone MOS subset of that which takes all the good things about
53TET and adds support for the few missing intervals like the Turkish third
within a couple of cents instead of a half-comma-ish 8+ cents like that which
occurs in 53 times 2 = 106TET, correct?

Indeed, it seems there are obvious increased accuracies in Ozan's system vs.
24TET, 53TET, etc...and in many cases commatic levels of increase in accuracy
toward intervals VERY prominent in Maqams and tradition which have nothing to do
with the Pythagorean system Carl seems to be implying the whole of Turkish music
theory can be "squeezed" into.

>"The whole affair is fraught with difficulties. It's absurd- obscene- to think
>of Ozan as being in an "intellectual quaqmire", when he has attempted to tackle
>what may very well be insurmountable problems and come up with an admirable,
>and implementable, system."

Indeed. It seems like Ozan tried to tackle a whole lot of problematic
intervals suggesting the need for many different "historically correct" tunings
to be used at once...and created a system which enables any instrument playing
it to play any type of Maqam with any other instrument. Also, a personal
note...while being off by 7 cents or so may sound OK in polyphonic or
chord-based music...in more traditional Middle-Eastern monophonic music I've
found my ears are MUCH more sensitive to tonal color because there's nothing to
provide any triadic context to "lock in" those notes. So, in that case, those
few cents really can change the color of tones to an instrument.

Thanks for the kind word. I think my observations on the various tunings mostly agree with Ozans but I'll stand by my observations from my own position, because I think the specific problems I face in my own work are very closely related on a deep level, sometimes even coinciding exactly in certain details.

It must be clear that my own solutions are very different than Ozan's and Margo's, probably because we have very different concepts of "harmony".

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Cameron,
>
> First of all congratulations on the great summary of many of the >scale ideas
> in Ozan's thesis. I read the thesis, but had a tough time digging >out exactly
> which intervals his scale "ironed out" that didn't work perfectly >in historical
> attempts to tune all Maqams in one scale system. You might even >want to repost
> this under a different topic, possibly with Ozan's approval IE to >make sure you
> have everything as he intended...I think it would un-confuse a >whole lot of
> people on this list.
>

>
> >"Ozan uses 3x 53, which is 159 equal divisions. It's >backwards->compatible with
> >the current best thing going of 53. His 79-MOS is a practical >subset arranged to
> >give as much as possible in the most common places. If you study >it a bit you'll
> >quickly see how ingenious it is."
>
> So 53TET covers the Pythagorean part of Maqam scales, the 7/6 >ratio NOT
> covered well in 24TET, but not the "very important and common to a >similar
> extent a traditional major third in Western theory is common" >Turkish third of
> Makamlar (which, supposedly, is why Ozan keeps bringing up this >scale to explain
> why 53TET falls short).

53 has the Pythagorean structure of fifths, almost perfect- .068 cents off! and the resulting 4/3s, Pythagorean minor 3rds, ditones, etc. and a bunch of "middle intervals", and 7/6, 7/5... it's a fantastic tuning. But if we want a fixed tuning and don't want to erase "ethnic variations", so to speak, it can't be right. Notice in Ozan's paper the other tuning propositions which are subsets of 106. 106 is a huge number already, and I believe 171 has been proposed as the grid for the tuning of fixed tones in maqam music.

Basically any reasonable number can't possibly cover the variations, and any number of fixed tones that gives a big variety is going to result in a huge tuning. This has always been known.

>His tuning, meanwhile, is "3-times-53-TET", and his
> scale as a 79-tone MOS subset of that which takes all the good >things about
> 53TET and adds support for the few missing intervals like the Turkish third
> within a couple of cents instead of a half-comma-ish 8+ cents like >that which
> occurs in 53 times 2 = 106TET, correct?

I think that's basically the idea. Part of the problem is that 79 and 159 look way too big- how can you fit 79 frets in an octave on a tanbur? But if you look in the Scala archive at the "yarman" files you'll see for example yarman24-159, a practical subset of his master tuning, which is if I'm not mistaken completely backwards-compatible with one of the tunings already "officially" in use in Turkey.

>
> Indeed, it seems there are obvious increased accuracies in >Ozan's system vs.
> 24TET, 53TET, etc...and in many cases commatic levels of increase >in accuracy
> toward intervals VERY prominent in Maqams and tradition which have >nothing to do
> with the Pythagorean system Carl seems to be implying the whole of >Turkish music
> theory can be "squeezed" into.

I think Carl has been saying that maqam music can't be squeezed into any one tuning. But we all already know that. It's just that you can't tune a qanun interval to "about 125-135 cents...". You have to use either your specific local tradition, or you have to choose SOMETHING.

>
> >"The whole affair is fraught with difficulties. It's absurd- obscene- to think
> >of Ozan as being in an "intellectual quaqmire", when he has attempted to tackle
> >what may very well be insurmountable problems and come up with an admirable,
> >and implementable, system."
>
> Indeed. It seems like Ozan tried to tackle a whole lot of problematic
> intervals suggesting the need for many different "historically correct" tunings
> to be used at once...and created a system which enables any instrument playing
> it to play any type of Maqam with any other instrument. Also, a personal
> note...while being off by 7 cents or so may sound OK in polyphonic or
> chord-based music...in more traditional Middle-Eastern monophonic music I've
> found my ears are MUCH more sensitive to tonal color because there's nothing to
> provide any triadic context to "lock in" those notes. So, in that case, those
> few cents really can change the color of tones to an instrument.
>

Yes I think you're exactly right there. Not just maqam music, but all kinds of music has tunings that either sound right or don't, and don't suffer much approximation, else they sound either "fake" or inappropriate like "but that's how it's done in a different part of the country, you're mixing it up".

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
> I think the problem is that Carl made some absurd claims about the tuning of maqam
> music being explainable by 24-tET

No, he didn't. He reported his analysis of one piece on YouTube, and somehow you, Ozan, and "Bob" knows who else twisted that into him making some general/universal claims about maqam music--and ignored his persistent insistence that he is not making and has not made any claims about the applicability of 24-EDO to maqam music in general.

That initial claim was made as a single-case refutation of Ozan's claim that 24-EDO is of no value in describing maqam tuning; if a performer of maqam music, on a free-pitch instrument, consistently hits 24-EDO pitches, there needs to be a justification given for excluding that datum from the analysis, or else it DOES refute Ozan's claim. Of course, if that player was trained to adhere to 24-EDO specifically, then that is reason to exclude it, because that's not traditional maqam playing. So the background of the player is really more important than his playing...but either way, the response to Carl has been utterly ridiculous, no one bothered to refute his claims, they just went hog-wild with straw men and ad-hominems.

-Igs

Oh good. Now we have one more person who will rant about the injustice of the Tuning List over on MMM.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Nah, I'll just do it myself. Come back when you've come
> off your high horse. -Carl
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@> wrote:
> >
> > My dear Carl, who are you to demand that I unsubscribe from
> > the list? Do you own the place? If you find a fault with me
> > worth kicking me out, go tell your apprentice to ban me.
> > Or else, endure my cynicism against your acrimony.
> >
> > Cordially,
> > Oz.
>

Hans wrote:

> I agree about Carl

You agree I made absurd claims? You agree I fell back and
blew smokescreens? I think if you reread the threads, it's
clear Cameron, Cris, Margo, et al are practicing an
imaginative or metaphysical form of music theory. They don't
like it when this is pointed out, so they gang together and
support each other in name-calling. Graham's said most of
the same things I have.

I must be the only active poster who reads and understands
> 90% of the posts here. The archives clearly indicate that
both Cameron and Ozan were first to escalate threads offtopic,
and Ozan continued with rude remarks to several members
despite numerous olive branches being extended to him.

Of course I can scrap with the worst of them. But I also
post more than average, and engage with a much broader group
of members than average. To answer Kraig's question, yes,
Ozan developed his scale several years ago. Objections were
politely voiced then, because he was polite then. Mostly we
let it go because we were so excited to have a brilliant
young musician like him from the Near East taking a fresh
approach to the problem, and we wanted to be as supportive
as possible. Also, as Gene said, his approach/requirements
weren't completely clear at that time, since he hadn't
published on it yet.

Though to date I have always let my attackers have the last
word when this happens, this time I'm having it. Feel free
to respond about music theory. No more metadiscussion on
this topic will be tolerated at this time.

Speaking of which, I believe we have a dangling thread on
keyboards somewhere. I was sincerely looking forward to
your response, though of course it's understood if nothing
came to mind or you lost interest.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@...> wrote:

> And in the later course of the discussion, it appeared to me (from my unscholarly perspective at least) that Gene and Graham did have some arguments. I see no need to get hyper-defensive.

The only argument I made is that ruling 72 out because it is divisible by 12 is an absurdity. What I really did is make a proposal--that the criteria for an acceptable universal maqam system be spelled out explicitly. Cameron, for instance, tells us that we need this or that interval. If we could get a complete list of such needed intervals, along with error bars, we could at least start to make sense of this discussion. Some attempts were made along those lines but it really never got down to brass tacks.

Years ago on this list it was established that 24 EDO was common in the Mediterranean area where it serves as a compromise between cultures. Yamaha makes instruments that do this too.
I do believe it was proposed theoretically some time before.
An element i have not heard discuss is the Modulation we find in much Turkish music which is often a mere momentary touch upon other scales. i admit i don't know enough about this element.
It would seem this type of language and extended reference would be hard if not impossible in 24 EDO.
we have guitar players in Mozambique playing 12 ET guitars, should we conclude that it represent Chopi music.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > I think the problem is that Carl made some absurd claims about the tuning of maqam
> > music being explainable by 24-tET
>
> No, he didn't. He reported his analysis of one piece on YouTube, and somehow you, Ozan, and "Bob" knows who else twisted that into him making some general/universal claims about maqam music--and ignored his persistent insistence that he is not making and has not made any claims about the applicability of 24-EDO to maqam music in general.
>
> That initial claim was made as a single-case refutation of Ozan's claim that 24-EDO is of no value in describing maqam tuning; if a performer of maqam music, on a free-pitch instrument, consistently hits 24-EDO pitches, there needs to be a justification given for excluding that datum from the analysis, or else it DOES refute Ozan's claim. Of course, if that player was trained to adhere to 24-EDO specifically, then that is reason to exclude it, because that's not traditional maqam playing. So the background of the player is really more important than his playing...but either way, the response to Carl has been utterly ridiculous, no one bothered to refute his claims, they just went hog-wild with straw men and ad-hominems.
>
> -Igs
>

"cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> How about 72? 19 more tones than 53, for a system that's
> inferior in almost every way. A heavy price to pay for a
> "Turkish third" only 4 cents better than 53's, for you
> lose the near-perfect (and circulating!) Pythagorean
> system of 53. With 72 you lose the limma as well. That's
> just plain "wrong" for a system attempting to be as
> suitable as possibe for as much maqam music as possible,
> I'm suprised that anyone would even look twice at 72. But
> as Ozan says in his paper, it's easy to tune as 6x 12-tET
> with an electronic tuner.

Oh, yes, 72. It's inferior in every way except for where it
isn't. It's the obvious higher division to check against.
It may not be a serious proposal, although as it's in use
by Turkish musicians, why not? It is at least a good null
hypothesis. I find it surprising how well it does compared
to Ozan's 79 note tuning.

For either disjunct tetrachord, Ozan's system is an equal
division of the perfect fourth into 33 equal parts. That's
how it's designed to work, and the best way of analyzing
it, because it tells you what intervals you can get in a
tetrachordal division. So that's what I'll do.

There isn't an interval in the 370--375 cent range in
either tuning. 72-equal has 366.7 cents. Ozan's scale has
362.3 cents and 377.4 cents. So Ozan does slightly better
here, for an example you made up.

72-equal does, indeed, miss the limma. The nearest
interval to the 83.3 cents target is 90.2 cents, and you
don't get it from a chain of fifths. Ozan's scale, on the
other hand, gives you 75.5 or 90.6 cents, neither of which
you get from a chain of fifths.

But, yes, what about that 7:6! A target of 266.9 cents
approximated by 266.7 cents by 72-equal. 53-equal can only
manage 271.7 cents, which isn't bad, but the winner is
obvious. Until we look at Ozan's scale, which gives 271.7
cents, and that must be better because Ozan thought of it.

So you're surprised anybody would look twice at 72, because
it doesn't precisely give theoretical intervals that Ozan's
scale doesn't give either. And you think it's unusually
easy to tune electronically despite not having step sizes
of a whole number of cents.

> What about 41? Beautiful way to get the essential
> Pythagorean structure, but like any division that is not
> quite large, it is missing a key feature as far as
> attempting to cover different maqam variations, which is
> various sizes of the "middle" intervals. In Istanbul
> alone, the Romi play the large semitone smaller than
> the... Anatolians? (I don't know the right word) do.
> (This has been measured electronically by the way.)

Citation?

> Ozan uses 3x 53, which is 159 equal divisions. It's
> backwards-compatible with the current best thing going of
> 53. His 79-MOS is a practical subset arranged to give as
> much as possible in the most common places. If you study
> it a bit you'll quickly see how ingenious it is.

I studied it, and noticed that it doesn't use the best
approximation (in the tetrachords) to 9:8 from those 159
divisions. It doesn't give the best approximation to 7:6
either. You may think that's ingenious, I think it doesn't
make sense. Nobody's even started to convince me otherwise.
It does reasonably well, because it divides the octave into
a reasonably large number of steps. That's all empirical
measurements tell us is required, after all.

Maybe it is a perfect fit to maqam music, and Ozan's a
visionary genius for finding it. I'm not qualified to
comment on that. But if so, it means that maqam
music flouts every contradictory theory from the whole of
its history. What hope do we have of understanding it?

Graham

I think you all misguided him in using ETs in the first place and as we see one little thing turns out to be wrong and the whole thing potentially can come crumbling down.

If turkish music was done all on electronic instruments ETs might be a good approach , but if you are going to use these things in the real world, you can't be rebuilding every 3 years.

SO if one dealt with this materials with ratios which also preserves the language it was originally communicated in. one could add pitches as they appeared allowing it to be readjusted to what ever constant structure was near by. Each pitch could be retunable as more data can in the future. This way any new data will not always result in the whole deck of cards falling down and having to rebuild from scratch.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Graham Breed <gbreed@...> wrote:
>
> "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> > How about 72? 19 more tones than 53, for a system that's
> > inferior in almost every way. A heavy price to pay for a
> > "Turkish third" only 4 cents better than 53's, for you
> > lose the near-perfect (and circulating!) Pythagorean
> > system of 53. With 72 you lose the limma as well. That's
> > just plain "wrong" for a system attempting to be as
> > suitable as possibe for as much maqam music as possible,
> > I'm suprised that anyone would even look twice at 72. But
> > as Ozan says in his paper, it's easy to tune as 6x 12-tET
> > with an electronic tuner.
>
> Oh, yes, 72. It's inferior in every way except for where it
> isn't. It's the obvious higher division to check against.
> It may not be a serious proposal, although as it's in use
> by Turkish musicians, why not? It is at least a good null
> hypothesis. I find it surprising how well it does compared
> to Ozan's 79 note tuning.
>
> For either disjunct tetrachord, Ozan's system is an equal
> division of the perfect fourth into 33 equal parts. That's
> how it's designed to work, and the best way of analyzing
> it, because it tells you what intervals you can get in a
> tetrachordal division. So that's what I'll do.
>
> There isn't an interval in the 370--375 cent range in
> either tuning. 72-equal has 366.7 cents. Ozan's scale has
> 362.3 cents and 377.4 cents. So Ozan does slightly better
> here, for an example you made up.
>
> 72-equal does, indeed, miss the limma. The nearest
> interval to the 83.3 cents target is 90.2 cents, and you
> don't get it from a chain of fifths. Ozan's scale, on the
> other hand, gives you 75.5 or 90.6 cents, neither of which
> you get from a chain of fifths.
>
> But, yes, what about that 7:6! A target of 266.9 cents
> approximated by 266.7 cents by 72-equal. 53-equal can only
> manage 271.7 cents, which isn't bad, but the winner is
> obvious. Until we look at Ozan's scale, which gives 271.7
> cents, and that must be better because Ozan thought of it.
>
> So you're surprised anybody would look twice at 72, because
> it doesn't precisely give theoretical intervals that Ozan's
> scale doesn't give either. And you think it's unusually
> easy to tune electronically despite not having step sizes
> of a whole number of cents.
>
> > What about 41? Beautiful way to get the essential
> > Pythagorean structure, but like any division that is not
> > quite large, it is missing a key feature as far as
> > attempting to cover different maqam variations, which is
> > various sizes of the "middle" intervals. In Istanbul
> > alone, the Romi play the large semitone smaller than
> > the... Anatolians? (I don't know the right word) do.
> > (This has been measured electronically by the way.)
>
> Citation?
>
> > Ozan uses 3x 53, which is 159 equal divisions. It's
> > backwards-compatible with the current best thing going of
> > 53. His 79-MOS is a practical subset arranged to give as
> > much as possible in the most common places. If you study
> > it a bit you'll quickly see how ingenious it is.
>
> I studied it, and noticed that it doesn't use the best
> approximation (in the tetrachords) to 9:8 from those 159
> divisions. It doesn't give the best approximation to 7:6
> either. You may think that's ingenious, I think it doesn't
> make sense. Nobody's even started to convince me otherwise.
> It does reasonably well, because it divides the octave into
> a reasonably large number of steps. That's all empirical
> measurements tell us is required, after all.
>
> Maybe it is a perfect fit to maqam music, and Ozan's a
> visionary genius for finding it. I'm not qualified to
> comment on that. But if so, it means that maqam
> music flouts every contradictory theory from the whole of
> its history. What hope do we have of understanding it?
>
>
> Graham
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brofessor" <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> I think you all misguided him in using ETs in the first place

We never recommended he use ETs.

-Carl

Oh who did then.
did he come to this list with an ET? and then even if he did, you did not point out this problem with Ets.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brofessor" <kraiggrady@> wrote:
> >
> > I think you all misguided him in using ETs in the first place
>
> We never recommended he use ETs.
>
> -Carl
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brofessor" <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> Oh who did then.
> did he come to this list with an ET?

He came to the list with various desiderata, one of which was some degree of flexibility with modulation.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brofessor" <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> Oh who did then.
> did he come to this list with an ET?

Yes, he came asking about ETs.

> and then even if he did, you did not point out this problem
> with Ets.

I'm not sure what problem you're referring to. I've been
pointing out since the '90s that maqam music is probably
not best described by ANY single fixed-pitch scale.

-Carl

Is that an Et or not?
i also want to know if Carl is no longer a moderator , how can he ban Ozan

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brofessor" <kraiggrady@> wrote:
> >
> > Oh who did then.
> > did he come to this list with an ET?
>
> He came to the list with various desiderata, one of which was some degree of flexibility with modulation.
>

Gene wrote:

> > Oh who did then.
> > did he come to this list with an ET?
>
> He came to the list with various desiderata, one of which was
> some degree of flexibility with modulation.

As I remember it, he was already fond of looking at various ETs,
not that he was or is wedded to them in any way. Here are his
first posts:

/tuning/msearch?AT=ozan&AM=contains&date=before&DY=2005&DM=0&DD=1&pos=60&cnt=10

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brofessor" <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> Is that an Et or not?
> i also want to know if Carl is no longer a moderator, how can
> he ban Ozan

I didn't ban Ozan, I removed him. As I clearly explained, I am
still a moderator until Mike is trained and the present flames
have died down. Please take further metadiscussion offlist.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Brofessor" <kraiggrady@> wrote:
> >
> > Is that an Et or not?
> > i also want to know if Carl is no longer a moderator, how can
> > he ban Ozan
>
> I didn't ban Ozan, I removed him.

No such activity is recorded under Management.

Any tuning which is utilized by a significant number of performers in a given musical tradition is clearly a valid tuning for that tradition. Tunings receive their "validity" by music played with them. The question should not be whether or not 24-EDO is a valid maqam tuning, or whether 12-TET is a valid Chopi tuning--clearly, they are valid, as they are being used by a significant portion of musicians within those traditions. However, there are many other tunings and intonations used in those traditions, without a doubt, and their existence and validity does not invalidate other tunings and intonations being used. Is any one accent or dialect of English any more or less valid than any other?

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "banaphshu" <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> Years ago on this list it was established that 24 EDO was common in the Mediterranean area where it serves as a compromise between cultures. Yamaha makes instruments that do this too.
> I do believe it was proposed theoretically some time before.
> An element i have not heard discuss is the Modulation we find in much Turkish music which is often a mere momentary touch upon other scales. i admit i don't know enough about this element.
> It would seem this type of language and extended reference would be hard if not impossible in 24 EDO.
> we have guitar players in Mozambique playing 12 ET guitars, should we conclude that it represent Chopi music.
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> > > I think the problem is that Carl made some absurd claims about the tuning of maqam
> > > music being explainable by 24-tET
> >
> > No, he didn't. He reported his analysis of one piece on YouTube, and somehow you, Ozan, and "Bob" knows who else twisted that into him making some general/universal claims about maqam music--and ignored his persistent insistence that he is not making and has not made any claims about the applicability of 24-EDO to maqam music in general.
> >
> > That initial claim was made as a single-case refutation of Ozan's claim that 24-EDO is of no value in describing maqam tuning; if a performer of maqam music, on a free-pitch instrument, consistently hits 24-EDO pitches, there needs to be a justification given for excluding that datum from the analysis, or else it DOES refute Ozan's claim. Of course, if that player was trained to adhere to 24-EDO specifically, then that is reason to exclude it, because that's not traditional maqam playing. So the background of the player is really more important than his playing...but either way, the response to Carl has been utterly ridiculous, no one bothered to refute his claims, they just went hog-wild with straw men and ad-hominems.
> >
> > -Igs
> >
>

Good point, Igs. I'm also reminded of these words of wisdom:

"You say you are interested in scales which make sense in
a particular culture, but personally I think everyone is
in a particular culture, so that if a scale makes sense to
someone, there you are."

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Any tuning which is utilized by a significant number of
> performers in a given musical tradition is clearly a valid
> tuning for that tradition. Tunings receive their "validity"
> by music played with them. The question should not be whether
> or not 24-EDO is a valid maqam tuning, or whether 12-TET is
> a valid Chopi tuning--clearly, they are valid, as they are
> being used by a significant portion of musicians within
> those traditions. However, there are many other tunings and
> intonations used in those traditions, without a doubt, and
> their existence and validity does not invalidate other tunings
> and intonations being used. Is any one accent or dialect of
> English any more or less valid than any other?
>
> -Igs
>

Looks like you might be starting to comprehend the basic givens of
Ozan's paper. Now, imagine that instead of wiggling your fingers and
making relativistic new-agey "woooooooo-wooooooo!" noises about this, as
Carl does, you are faced with task of specifying a limited number of
fixed pitches to be applied to a real instrument in real life, pitches
will do the least damage and exercise the most respect to the continuum
in question.
-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...>
wrote:>> Any tuning which is utilized by a significant number of
performers in a given musical tradition is clearly a valid tuning for
that tradition. Tunings receive their "validity" by music played with
them. The question should not be whether or not 24-EDO is a valid maqam
tuning, or whether 12-TET is a valid Chopi tuning--clearly, they are
valid, as they are being used by a significant portion of musicians
within those traditions. However, there are many other tunings and
intonations used in those traditions, without a doubt, and their
existence and validity does not invalidate other tunings and intonations
being used. Is any one accent or dialect of English any more or less
valid than any other?> > -Igs> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com,
"banaphshu" <kraiggrady@> wrote:> >> > Years ago on this list it was
established that 24 EDO was common in the Mediterranean area where it
serves as a compromise between cultures. Yamaha makes instruments that
do this too.> > I do believe it was proposed theoretically some time
before. > > An element i have not heard discuss is the Modulation we
find in much Turkish music which is often a mere momentary touch upon
other scales. i admit i don't know enough about this element. > > It
would seem this type of language and extended reference would be hard if
not impossible in 24 EDO.> > we have guitar players in Mozambique
playing 12 ET guitars, should we conclude that it represent Chopi music.
> > > > > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep"
<igliashon@> wrote:> > >> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron"
<misterbobro@> wrote:> > > > I think the problem is that Carl made some
absurd claims about the tuning of maqam > > > > music being explainable
by 24-tET> > > > > > No, he didn't. He reported his analysis of one
piece on YouTube, and somehow you, Ozan, and "Bob" knows who else
twisted that into him making some general/universal claims about maqam
music--and ignored his persistent insistence that he is not making and
has not made any claims about the applicability of 24-EDO to maqam music
in general.> > > > > > That initial claim was made as a single-case
refutation of Ozan's claim that 24-EDO is of no value in describing
maqam tuning; if a performer of maqam music, on a free-pitch instrument,
consistently hits 24-EDO pitches, there needs to be a justification
given for excluding that datum from the analysis, or else it DOES refute
Ozan's claim. Of course, if that player was trained to adhere to 24-EDO
specifically, then that is reason to exclude it, because that's not
traditional maqam playing. So the background of the player is really
more important than his playing...but either way, the response to Carl
has been utterly ridiculous, no one bothered to refute his claims, they
just went hog-wild with straw men and ad-hominems. > > > > > > -Igs> >
>> >>

Carl wrote :

> Good point, Igs. I'm also reminded of these words of wisdom:
>
> "You say you are interested in scales which make sense in
> a particular culture, but personally I think everyone is
> in a particular culture, so that if a scale makes sense to
> someone, there you are."
>
> -Carl

Whether the "but" necessary in here, I don't know : we can learn from others, and find our own resonances as well.
Since these words were adressed to me in a quite different context, from the same wise man I would also take :

> What I really did is make a proposal--that the criteria for an > acceptable universal maqam system be spelled out explicitly. > Cameron, for instance, tells us that we need this or that interval. > If we could get a complete list of such needed intervals, along > with error bars, we could at least start to make sense of this > discussion. Some attempts were made along those lines but it really > never got down to brass tacks.

Which is a good idea, as long as we remember there is not one "universal maqam". Between Turkish, Egyptian, Irakian, Syrian, Libanese, Maghrebian, Andalusian, Uyghur, and I forget many, not to mention between different ethnies different styles and schools and periods, beyond merely the number of notes in use, the differences of intervals and the differences of instruments, that are part of each maqam identity, are significative and I bet they would lead to very different systems. It does not mean we can't try, and yes I think it would be essential to integrate these differences.
- - - - - - -
Jacques

We can get down to brass tacks no problem. I should probably disclose at this point that I have my own system of notation for microtonal and principally tetrachordal music, fundamentally different from Ozan's but closely related to, a variation of really, the circa 1930's Eastern European approach to the notation of microtonality.

Let's say we do want an equal temperament or ET-based system that will give us practical notation and fixed pitches for a modal tetrachordal system of potentially vast size. We can't do "everything", we already know that. We can approach this as "well, let's say we need so, and so, and so". It doesn't need to be something we, personally, would like. I don't need or want a fixed equal temperament, for example, but who cares?

First of all, the Pythagorean skeleton has to be addressed. I don't think there's any sane doubt about that reality. The step-wise nature of middle-eastern music, or many musics for that matter, can certainly overrun the skeletal fourths, fifths and octaves at certain points, but it would be crazy to deny that they are there as structures. We could call this "taking care of the open strings".

So, in my opinion, whatever equal divisions we come up with would have to to first support either a) a circle of near-pure fifths, or b) a limited number such cycles offset by some specific comma.

In Ozan's paper you'll find the Turkish theories which are subsets of 106 (53*2) and Ozan's approach is a subset of 159 (53*3). Ozan's task is made more difficult by the stipulation that it be backwards-compatible as much as possible with existing practice. Turkish theory already has 53 and in practice modified-53 ("seven and a half komas...").

If we don't accept this demand, I think it's best to say that we want our Pythagorean system to be circulating. Why not make the most elegant system we can?

The next step would be to define our "necessary" tetrachords, in all their permutations and typical junctions.

The third step would be to meld or otherwise bring into concord the Pythagorean system and the tetrachords. That is, whatever ET best describes our tetrachords and their repositionings must coincide or
otherwise jibe with 41, 53, 65, 200, or whatever circulating Pythagorean system we find to be best.

As for the tetrachords, I'd suggest that we start with the decidedly un-metaphyscial and physically most simple diatonic tetrachordal division of Ibn Sina, which originates in a dirt-simple arithmetic division and would provide very useful tunings for both various maqam musics and for new music using historical tetrachords, a la the ideas put forth in John Chalmer's "Divisions of the Tetrachord".

In Ibn Sina's form, the step-wise intervals dividing the tetrachord are 8:7, 13:12, 14:13. The ancient formal presentation (which best reveals the mechanical simplicity of the division) would be 14:13, 13:12, 8:7.

In my opinion we should name it according to the ancient way and call the intervals, say, x,y,z. So, taking the permutations, we would need to approximate:

x,y,z
x,z,y
y,z,x
y,x,z
z,x,y
z,y,x

This is probably not the best order of permutation, that would be a mathmatical decision for you (Gene) to make, or a historical one John Chalmers and Cris Forster would best know.

Let's call any order of these three intervals adding up to 4:3 "T" for the moment.

The tetrachord appears within an octave or in relation to another tetrachord (the octave doesn't even have to be present in tetrachordal music) in the standard positions (generally speaking, in maqam music as well) of:

T (by itself)
(T),T (conjunct)
(T), 9:8, T (disjunct)
9:8, T

So, for example if T is in "first position" of x, y, z, we need to keep an eye on our resulting approximations for x, 4:3*x, 3:2*x and 9:8*x as well.

The Pythagorean versions of our permutations and repositionings of "T" are pretty much automagically done for us in whichever circulating Pythagorean system we've chosen, but we might want to choose another Pythagorean system after seeing what our tetrachords suggest.

As you can see, it is absurd to call tetrachordal theory "metaphysical". It's the height of practicality, a most ancient way of putting immense variation into the hands of mere musicians, such that a couple of tetrachords can easily blow away the combinatoric possibilities of 12-tET "set theory", in an eminently performable way.

You can easily verify that, with the additional complication of trichords and some traditional conjunctions at places other than the simplest Pythagorean positions, this is indeed the basic structure of maqam tunings. Here, for instance.

http://maqamworld.com/ajnas.html

My own introduction to this concept came 20 years ago from a Bulgarian textbook on Bulgarian folk music.

gotta run, take care,

-Cameron Bobro

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "hstraub64" <straub@> wrote:
>
> > And in the later course of the discussion, it appeared to me (from my unscholarly perspective at least) that Gene and Graham did have some arguments. I see no need to get hyper-defensive.
>
> The only argument I made is that ruling 72 out because it is divisible by 12 is an absurdity. What I really did is make a proposal--that the criteria for an acceptable universal maqam system be spelled out explicitly. Cameron, for instance, tells us that we need this or that interval. If we could get a complete list of such needed intervals, along with error bars, we could at least start to make sense of this discussion. Some attempts were made along those lines but it really never got down to brass tacks.
>

On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Brofessor <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> Is that an Et or not?
> i also want to know if Carl is no longer a moderator , how can he ban Ozan

Carl's still a moderator for a little bit. I got moved up to moderator
at the same time that I'm moving all of my stuff down to Miami. 8+18
hours of driving has made it difficult to do anything for the past few
days.

-Mike

I have no intention whatsoever of making a criticism of Ozan's thesis or proposed tuning. I know nothing on the subject and have never professed otherwise. My academic background is philosophy, not musicology, so I restrain myself to dealing with the logical skeleton of the arguments being made.

Regardless of whether Carl was making a valid criticism or "relativistic new-agey 'wooooooo-wooooooo' noises", Ozan's reaction to him has been wildly inappropriate. If Carl has been coming from a place of ignorance or misunderstanding, the proper response would have been to politely educate or correct him. Ozan has attempted to do neither of these.

Rather, Ozan has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity for ad hominem, in that he rejects arguments not based on their logical soundness or validity, but based on the identity of the person making the argument. This is an old and unfortunately-common logical fallacy, one that any student in an introductory philosophy class is taught to avoid. Arguments must be addressed on their own merit, regardless of who is making them. Valid and sound arguments can come even out of the "mouths of babes". One cannot assume that just because a person is a novice, he or she is incapable of making valid and sound arguments against the work of a master. Were all masters to respond the way Ozan has to any student who raises an objection to the lesson, no student would truly learn anything.

And if Ozan had previously addressed whatever Carl's actual objection was, then he could simply have said "see my response to this objection elsewhere".

I am sorry, but there is simply no justification for Ozan's behavior. Carl had some lapses as well, to be sure, but only after repeated provocation. He also repeatedly sought to make peace, and requested that Ozan return to making positive contributions. Ozan has never attempted anything remotely resembling a reconciliation, he has expressed no remorse over his lack of decorum, and he has shown no intent to improve his behavior; he has not even recognized that his conduct is unreasonable and unprofessional (to put it nicely). If that doesn't justify removing him from the list, I don't know what does! Even Marcel, at his peak of ego-mania, was not so deliberately, flagrantly, and DIRECTLY offensive toward so many members of the list. So, based on the precedent of Marcel's banning, I believe Ozan has been treated with much more forgiving hands. In any other forum, under any other moderators, he surely would have been removed LONG ago.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Looks like you might be starting to comprehend the basic givens of
> Ozan's paper. Now, imagine that instead of wiggling your fingers and
> making relativistic new-agey "woooooooo-wooooooo!" noises about this, as
> Carl does, you are faced with task of specifying a limited number of
> fixed pitches to be applied to a real instrument in real life, pitches
> will do the least damage and exercise the most respect to the continuum
> in question.
> -Cameron Bobro
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@>
> wrote:>> Any tuning which is utilized by a significant number of
> performers in a given musical tradition is clearly a valid tuning for
> that tradition. Tunings receive their "validity" by music played with
> them. The question should not be whether or not 24-EDO is a valid maqam
> tuning, or whether 12-TET is a valid Chopi tuning--clearly, they are
> valid, as they are being used by a significant portion of musicians
> within those traditions. However, there are many other tunings and
> intonations used in those traditions, without a doubt, and their
> existence and validity does not invalidate other tunings and intonations
> being used. Is any one accent or dialect of English any more or less
> valid than any other?> > -Igs> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com,
> "banaphshu" <kraiggrady@> wrote:> >> > Years ago on this list it was
> established that 24 EDO was common in the Mediterranean area where it
> serves as a compromise between cultures. Yamaha makes instruments that
> do this too.> > I do believe it was proposed theoretically some time
> before. > > An element i have not heard discuss is the Modulation we
> find in much Turkish music which is often a mere momentary touch upon
> other scales. i admit i don't know enough about this element. > > It
> would seem this type of language and extended reference would be hard if
> not impossible in 24 EDO.> > we have guitar players in Mozambique
> playing 12 ET guitars, should we conclude that it represent Chopi music.
> > > > > > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep"
> <igliashon@> wrote:> > >> > > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron"
> <misterbobro@> wrote:> > > > I think the problem is that Carl made some
> absurd claims about the tuning of maqam > > > > music being explainable
> by 24-tET> > > > > > No, he didn't. He reported his analysis of one
> piece on YouTube, and somehow you, Ozan, and "Bob" knows who else
> twisted that into him making some general/universal claims about maqam
> music--and ignored his persistent insistence that he is not making and
> has not made any claims about the applicability of 24-EDO to maqam music
> in general.> > > > > > That initial claim was made as a single-case
> refutation of Ozan's claim that 24-EDO is of no value in describing
> maqam tuning; if a performer of maqam music, on a free-pitch instrument,
> consistently hits 24-EDO pitches, there needs to be a justification
> given for excluding that datum from the analysis, or else it DOES refute
> Ozan's claim. Of course, if that player was trained to adhere to 24-EDO
> specifically, then that is reason to exclude it, because that's not
> traditional maqam playing. So the background of the player is really
> more important than his playing...but either way, the response to Carl
> has been utterly ridiculous, no one bothered to refute his claims, they
> just went hog-wild with straw men and ad-hominems. > > > > > > -Igs> >
> >> >>
>

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Jacques Dudon <fotosonix@...> wrote:

> Which is a good idea, as long as we remember there is not one
> "universal maqam". Between Turkish, Egyptian, Irakian, Syrian,
> Libanese, Maghrebian, Andalusian, Uyghur, and I forget many, not to
> mention between different ethnies different styles and schools and
> periods, beyond merely the number of notes in use, the differences of
> intervals and the differences of instruments, that are part of each
> maqam identity, are significative and I bet they would lead to very
> different systems. It does not mean we can't try, and yes I think it
> would be essential to integrate these differences.

If there was a proposal for a set of required intervals just for Turkish, or Egyptian, or Iranian music that would be excellent.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> We can get down to brass tacks no problem.

Getting down to brass tacks requires explicit intervals together with explicit error bars. For instance, instead of saying you need excellent approximations to 3/2, you need to say you need it to within +-2 cents, or +-1 cent, or whatever you think is required, which could even be between -1 cent and +2 cents. Same sort of thing for 11/10 and whatever else you think is required.

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

> Rather, Ozan has repeatedly demonstrated a propensity for ad hominem, in that he rejects arguments not based on their logical soundness or validity, but based on the identity of the person making the argument.

Also argumentum ad vercundiam: "I am an expert on the given topic and you are not, and therefore you should be too modest to argue with me and should accept what I say as true". Not normally a helpful argument in any case, since we live in an age in which the average person seems to think they know more about any given topic than the experts do, since they read a blog somewhere, but especially unfortunate given the breadth of expertise of various kinds available here. We are not a collection of tuning ignoramuses.

> So, based on the precedent of Marcel's banning, I believe Ozan has been treated with much more forgiving hands. In any other forum, under any other moderators, he surely would have been removed LONG ago.

And he could not have been placed on notice that he would be put on moderated status if he continued because...?

Gene>"And he could not have been placed on notice that he would be put on
moderated status if he continued because...?"

I've lost track of the number of times I've had my posts blocked without
explanation and remember Cameron having similar issues with file uploads.
Guessing whether you're moderated or how close you are to being banned on here,
sadly, is often like playing Russian Roulette.

In the past, often the moderator doing the banning simply does not give
warnings. I do remember Marcel being warned about his "my scale is the answer"
attitude, but the warning took place as "you are an idiot" style comments and
massive threads about why his theories were wrong. In a forum environment where
one has to guess if an argument is either a heated debate OR an indirect warning
someone is about to be moderated or banned...there seems to me obviously to be a
lack of communication. In a situation where everyone is cursing at everyone,
who is to tell who is joking vs. arguing vs. ready to punish? IMVHO, we need
to establish a clear system for moderation warnings and, as mentioned many times
before, not have the moderator IN a heated discussion be allowed to decide
single-handedly who gets banned or thrown out.

-

Gene wrote:

> And he could not have been placed on notice that he would be
> put on moderated status if he continued because...?

I asked you to do that. You didn't take care of the problem,
so I did.

-Carl

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
> Gene wrote:
>
> > And he could not have been placed on notice that he would be
> > put on moderated status if he continued because...?
>
> I asked you to do that. You didn't take care of the problem,
> so I did.

I recall no such request.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
> I recall no such request.
>

/tuning/topicId_94229.html#94582

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <carl@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@> wrote:
> >
> > I recall no such request.
> >
>
> /tuning/topicId_94229.html#94582

That isn't even close to being a specific request.

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

> That isn't even close to being a specific request.

I thought it was clear. Sorry I failed to communicate.
Though I don't necessarily feel I should have to ask. -Carl

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

> And he could not have been placed on notice that he would be put on moderated status if
> he continued because...?

Well, I do believe he was well aware that he stood a good chance of being moderated, and in fact repeatedly goaded Carl into moderating him. I'm not sure putting him on notice would have done anything more than inspire more ire. But either way, 'twas not my decision one way or the other.

-Igs

hey Mike,

Without wishing to quit anything--including this group--I was curious about
"tuning research" group, and wished to eavesdrop, at least.

What's another 30-emails a day?

A quick Google didn't reveal how/where to apply to join this "tuning
research"--can you clue me in?

caleb

________________________________
From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, November 20, 2010 2:18:05 PM
Subject: Re: [tuning] Re: The maqam manifesto of Dr. Oz.

On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Daniel Nielsen <nielsed@...> wrote:
>
> "So, based on the precedent of Marcel's banning, I believe Ozan has been
>treated with much more forgiving hands. In any other forum, under any other
>moderators, he surely would have been removed LONG ago."
>
> Marcel was banned? Knew he had switched over to tuning-research, & then
>tuning-research came to a halt (or I was banned from it without knowing?). He
>said he was going to be putting up a website soon - hoping he still does. Any
>info on Marcel?
> Dan N
> PS I'm not meaning for this to turn into a discussion about moderation
>whatsoever. I'm really just wondering who is where now.

Marcel has been banned from tuning for a while now. I allowed him to
join tuning-research because he just joined and I wanted to hear what
he'd have to say without just banning him there. He was banned for
being inflammatory over here.

You aren't banned from tuning-research, but it's just inactive for the
moment. Now that things have calmed down over here, we'll just keep
discussing things over here. Perhaps if the lists explode again we'll
resurrect it.

-Mike

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Caleb Morgan <calebmrgn@...> wrote:
>
> hey Mike,
>
> Without wishing to quit anything--including this group--I was curious about
> "tuning research" group, and wished to eavesdrop, at least.

/tuning-research/