Quote: Originally posted by ArmoOudist  |
| Quote: Originally posted by ArmoOudist |
| Quote: Originally posted by ArmoOudist |
| Quote: Originally posted by Brian Prunka | |
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, as I love your enthusiasm, but it seems to me that you are a bit confused on multiple fronts. First, the examples you list don't exactly support your thesis — both of these are very clear and obvious bayati/ussak makams, with precise and clear microtones (or in the female singer's case, as precise as anything else she sang). The Dinkjian one is not really any less specific, precise, or "systematized" than one would expect in Arabic music (though the precise intonation and ornamentation of the 'quarter tones' are slightly different). Listen back to these recordings a bit more closely. Second, you seem to be conflating whether someone "knows" what they are doing in a theoretical sense with the idea of musical intention and precision. They have nothing necessarily to do with one another, which is (I think) part of what Jody was getting at. Traditional musicians were usually very precise in their intentions and execution, even if they didn't have names or mental constructs for things other than "this kind of sound" and "this other kind of sound." Whether a musician 'knows' or thinks "this is a segah note" or "this is E half flat" or "this is Si 4 komas flat" or whatever has absolutely nothing to do with how intentional or precise they are being. Regardless of the influence of abstract or conceptual/theoretical frameworks or vocabulary, a musician can still be extremely careful and specific about what they are doing, just by ear. Indeed, the whole aim of being a musician is to cultivate one's ear, imagination, and skills so that "what feels right" is precisely what one intends and what comes out, without having to rely on thought or concepts. This is a really, really important point, so apologies if I'm belaboring it a bit. Third, Ottoman music was very standardized and precise, we know this both from recordings and the many works describing the musical theory. What you are observing is that Greek and Armenian music, as well as other musics from within the Ottoman sphere of influence (Macedonian, Bulgarian, Georgian, for example) have a complicated history, as many of the more obvious Turkish makam elements were intentionally de-emphasized for many years following the liberation from Ottoman rule. If you listen to Ottoman era recordings, Armenians, Greeks, etc. all play with the Turkish intonation and pretty consistent and clear microtones. Armenian music has the additional complication of diaspora musicians in America, Lebanon and Syria, who followed different musical paths than Soviet Armenia. There are some Greeks and Armenians who have always maintain the more codified microtonality of Ottoman music, and some of the younger generations have been rediscovering the microtonality of the past that had been minimized in the generations following WWI—I've heard this with Greek and Macedonian musicians particularly. Arabs also de-emphasized the Turkish elements of the music following the collapse of Ottoman rule, but their choices were in other areas — creating new song and instrumental forms, combining various strict makams into more flexible super-maqams (i.e., combining Beyati, Ussak, Karjighar and Husayni into one Bayati maqam, which would then form the basis for larger-scale works rather that the usual suite of shorter works in related maqams). Arabs also re-centered the national traditions (that were always preserved in 'folk music') and de-centered Ottoman styles. It's really impossible to know what pre-Ottoman Armenian or Greek music sounded like, but evidently in the Arab world microtones didn't have the same conflicted associations with Turkish influence. Which is all to say that the music is and always has been in flux. Yes, Arab music puts microtonal choices front and center in a way that is arguably somewhat less true of much Armenian and Greek music (though not, it seems to me, to the degree you seem to be suggesting). Bulgarian and Macedonian music do usually restrict the microtones to vocal inflections (the accompaniment instruments generally lack microtones). But if anything, Turkish microtones are more standardized than in Arab music (unsurprising given the fact that Turkey is one country of ~84 million and the Arab world is ~22 countries and ~436 million people). Turkish musicians are, in my experience, much more prescriptive about exact ratios etc (look at a Turkish kanun vs Arabic qanun, or the frets on a tanbur vs. a buzuq if you need convincing on this point). But it's not uncommon among certain Arab musicians to play Syrian repertoire, Egyptian repertoire, Lebanese repertoire, and Ottoman repertoire all with slightly different intonation, or even 1930s Egyptian repertoire differently from 1960s Egyptian repertoire. Some repertoire, like Iraqi or Tunisian, are very specialized and both the intonation, maqam conception and repertoire are very different from other 'Arab' music. The Onnik Dinkjian recording is awesome btw, the composition is really cool. Thanks for sharing that. Again, I hope this doesn't come across as argumentative; I certainly appreciate your contributions — we don't have too many people here focused on Armenian music so it's nice to get your perspective. |
| Quote: Originally posted by kampanas |