Mike's Oud Forums

What is the name of this maqam?

SamirCanada - 12-4-2005 at 11:50 PM

I was noodling around on my oud and I landed on this maqam by chance or mistake.

It goes F, G flat, A, C, C sharp, e, f.

Brian Prunka - 12-5-2005 at 12:46 AM

The scale you played was F Gb A Bb C Db E F
This is Hijazkar on F; as far as I know, there is no specific name for this transposition. Hijazkar on G is Shadd Araban, on D it's Shahnaz, on A it's Suzdil.

SamirCanada - 12-5-2005 at 10:49 AM

Thanks Brian and TP who awnsered me via U2U
Maybe someone should name it something.

Brian Prunka - 12-5-2005 at 02:35 PM

According to Scott Marcus's dissertation, the mode is sometimes called Jaharkah Turki (that is when it's not simply called Hijazkar on F).

al-Halabi - 12-5-2005 at 03:48 PM

Hi Brian,

I don't have Marcus's dissertation with me, but I was curious about Jaharkah Turki and looked it up in Erlanger's inventory of maqams. It appears there as having a Hijaz (or alternatively a Jaharkah) pentachord on F followed by a Rast tetrachord on c (kardan). This would not be a Hijazkar mode, which should have a tetrachord of Hijaz rather than Rast. I wonder what source Marcus used for his version of this maqam. Erlanger's description seems to reflect aspects of an older Cargah mode used in Turkish music before the invention of the new makam Cargah by Arel in the twentieth century (essentially a major scale).

SamirCanada - 12-6-2005 at 10:34 AM

For one second I tought I had made a breakthrough discovery in arabic music. I was going to give that maqam my name ;) too bad...
Thanks guys

eliot - 12-7-2005 at 11:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by al-Halabi
Hi Brian,

I don't have Marcus's dissertation with me, but I was curious about Jaharkah Turki and looked it up in Erlanger's inventory of maqams. It appears there as having a Hijaz (or alternatively a Jaharkah) pentachord on F followed by a Rast tetrachord on c (kardan). This would not be a Hijazkar mode, which should have a tetrachord of Hijaz rather than Rast. I wonder what source Marcus used for his version of this maqam. Erlanger's description seems to reflect aspects of an older Cargah mode used in Turkish music before the invention of the new makam Cargah by Arel in the twentieth century (essentially a major scale).


Cargah, in Turkey, is swinging back to the old definition. It's considered both in the Saba and Hicaz makam families; in Saba since there's a characteristic use of D and E half flat below the zirgule-hicaz-on-f scale.

The only substantial body of repertoire I know in Cargah is a bunch of Mevlevi music - 2 ayins and a bunch of ilahis - which are customarilly played at the end of a suite of work in makam Saba.

oudmaker - 12-10-2005 at 04:53 AM

Hello Samir:

Question you are asking should be " What SCALE is this?" or "Which MAKAM has this SCALE?" The melody you are playing is a scale. It is not a makam. In Turkish music, this is a scale partially used and/or a part of scales of many different makams. By some additions it is the scale of Hicazkar, Sedaraban, Sehnaz, Suzidil and also some old makams such as Sphir. We all should - some of us already- know that a scale is just one part of a makam. You need much more then just hearing - which you played very nicely- a scale to recognize a makam.

And Brian:

Contrary to what some very famous Turkish music theory books (such as Arel's and copying from him Oztuna and others) says, by simply transposing a scale on different keys does not constitute a makam. Some also calls " to transpose a makam " which is completely absurd. You may transpose a scale but not a makam. If you are an established musician such as late Cinucen all the makams you have mantioned above can be played on same key. He did it for me so many times.

I am responding to this subject openly not to criticize you guys but to help all people of this wonderfull forum of Mike's who curious about and anxious to learn what a makam is. So please forgive me that I mentioned your names.
Regards to all

Dincer

Maqam Transpose

sydney - 12-10-2005 at 06:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by oudmaker

Some also calls " to transpose a makam " which is completely absurd. You may transpose a scale but not a makam.
Dincer


Hello Dincer,

I am buzzeled by what you said here.

I personally agree that maqam transpose does exist. But of course this can be corrected if it is wrong.

Here is a simple example for you to look at and educate me if this case should not be called a maqam transpose.

If we look at this form of maqam Saba ...

D , E(1/2b) , F , G(flat) , A , B(flat) , C , D.


If it is transposed to start from G string it will be as such ...

G , A(1/2 flat) , B(flat) , C(flat) {which is B} , D , E(flat) , F , G.

for both of the maqams the distances are equal and it is will known among musicians that playing Saba maqam on G string instead of D string is called Saba on G. We call it Saba on Nawa too.

It does not have any other name that I have heard of. So do you call that a different maqam or a scale or do you have a name for it?

It is always great to talk about maqams which is the most important issue of music, But talking about it with you Dincer is adding a wonderful value to it.

Looking forward to talking more.

Have a great week-end

al-Halabi - 12-10-2005 at 07:42 AM

Hi Emad,

In the example you give, you have transposed the SCALE of Saba from D to G. The transposition is correct. Dincer was making a distinction, though, between transposing the scale of a makam and the makam itself. One can play the same makam from any tonic, and it will remain the same makam. Saba on G or any other tonic is still Saba. The scale is one important component of the makam, but beyond it there are also the specific rules for melody-making associated with the makam. These rules involve the point of departure of the melody in the makam (whether it starts around the tonic, or around the octave, or between the two main tetrachords, etc.), the tonal centers (for example, the third degree, or F in Arab tuning, is an important tonal center in makam Saba), the tetrachord structure of the makam, the appropriate leading note, the changes of intonation of certain notes within the makam (the fourth degree of Saba, for example, is played higher when ascending and lower when descending, and also it is played a bit higher than the notation indicates), and so on. To the extent that one plays the makam correctly, it remains the same makam no matter where its scale begins.

The distinction between scale and makam is also illustrated by the existence of different makams that share the same scale. In some cases the scale appears conventionally on the same tonic. For example, makams Huseyni and Neva have the exact same scale, but the rules for playing in them are different, making them different makams. In some cases makams have the same scales as other makams, but the scales conventionally appear with different tonics. For example, Hijazkar with its tonic Rast and Hijaz Zirgule with its tonic Dugah have the same basic sequence of intervals. But these are not really transposed versions of the same makam, but different makams because they follow different rules for melody-making, and in the end it is these rules, not just the scale, that define a makam.

Our tendency to represent makams in the form of scales tends at times to reduce the makam in our minds to a sequence of intervals. The rules for using the makam are not readily apparent from the scale itself, and as a result this key element that makes a makam a protocol for composition rather than just a series of notes may sometimes be overlooked.

View point

sydney - 12-10-2005 at 09:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by al-Halabi
Hi Emad,

In the example you give, you have transposed the SCALE of Saba from D to G. The transposition is correct. Dincer was making a distinction, though, between transposing the scale of a makam and the makam itself. One can play the same makam from any tonic, and it will remain the same makam. Saba on G or any other tonic is still Saba.



Well, This is exactly what Brian said.
Quote:
Originally posted by Brian
The scale you played was F Gb A Bb C Db E F
This is Hijazkar on F; as far as I know, there is no specific name for this transposition.


I did not see where Brian saying "transposing a scale on different keys does constitute a makam" So where did master Dincer get this idea from?

Back to Samir's question.

He was noodling around on his oud and landed on this maqam by chance or mistake.

He never called it a scale even though he is a new learner.


I see you agree that playing a maqam from a different note with the same intervals will still be called that maqam name.

Quote:
Originally posted by al-Halabi

One can play the same makam from any tonic, and it will remain the same makam. Saba on G or any other tonic is still Saba.


Of course one can never play saba on G at the same time while being part of a band playing Saba on D. Or while the rest of the band tunning their instruments 1/2 a step lower for example.

Then I guess it is fair to say maqam trasposing exists as long as different instruments are in harmony with it.

Now, we all don't agree with the idea of "A maqam is a scale." It is right to say there is a scale inside the maqam not a maqam inside the scale. so where did anybody represented makams in the form of scales?

My view point, is that it's wrong to represent maqams as a rocket sience. It is something originally heard and felt. It is a great result when any of us answers a question in a very simple way rather than in a complicated way specially when it is an oud beginner is the one asking.

I still believe that Brian's answer was ideal.

It would be great if you could provide a sound sample to explain your example ...

Quote:
Originally posted by al-Halabi
For example, Hijazkar with its tonic Rast and Hijaz Zirgule with its tonic Dugah have the same basic sequence of intervals. But these are not really transposed versions of the same makam, but different makams because they follow different rules for melody-making, and in the end it is these rules, not just the scale, that define a makam.


This way people will feel it much better.

Master Dincer and al-Halabi, Brian,

I thank you for you are all a great asset to this forum.

al-Halabi - 12-10-2005 at 12:21 PM

Hi Emad,

My comments were intended as general observations on the traditional understanding of the concept of maqam in Arab and Turkish music. They were not meant as a criticism of anything said here - Samir asked a good question, and you, Brian and Dincer all made useful comments that advanced the discussion. The distinction between scale and maqam is, from my experience, not always clear to everyone, and because it's so important for understanding the workings of the modal system I thought that it would be helpful to say a couple of things about it. I am not sure that there is a good reason why a deeper understanding of the concept of maqam would be something problematic for an "oud beginner" to deal with, or why such an understanding needs to be subordinated to feeling the music when both can be enriching. If what I wrote made things sound unnecessarily complicated, I apologize. Others who are more knowledgeable and articulate will be able to step in and do a better job clarifying the characteristics of the maqam system that I tried to comment on.

SamirCanada - 12-10-2005 at 01:16 PM

I feel the issue here might be that we landed on the reason why Arabic music was mostly oraly communicated. Its just more meaningfull when someone is playing it in front of you and explaining what is hapening. I did enjoy everyone's reply tho. Thanks for doing just so since thats the only ressource we have to learn and share. That way there is enough info regardless of what level your at.
Thanks

oudmaker - 12-10-2005 at 01:38 PM

Hello Emad

Now read this comments carefully.

First Samir is playing and giving the notes of a scale and saying that he was nooduling around of his oud and landed on a makam. He was asking what is the name of it?
Second Brian calls that scale a makam by saying " This is Hicazkar on F " Since Hicazkar is a makams name.
Third He contunuing to say " Hicazkar on G is Sedaraban, on D is Sehnaz and on A is Suzidil" and you were saying Saba is Saba regardless of the key its played!!. You are rite so Brian was wrong and yet you are asking " where master! Dincer! got the idea "
That was exactly my point you cannot. CAN NOT constitute a makam by transposing on any key it is therefore absurd!! Furthermore I said YOU CAN PLAY ANY AND ALL MAKAMS ON A GIVEN KEY like Cinucen did show to me. I also add to my comments about Brian's lines that many of distinguish music teoriest made the same mistake.
So don't jump of your guns and make some comments before you truely understand what was said why was said.

Dincer

Brian Prunka - 12-10-2005 at 03:26 PM

I guess since many of these comments involve me, I should respond in some way.

Samir did NOT ask: what "makam" is this?

He DID ask: what "maqam" is this?

There is much disagreement about the meaning of maqam (Arabic) vs. makam (Turkish). Since the two traditions overlap so much, and Turkish music is the source for many of the Arab traditions, it is tempting to view Turkish thought as more authentic/correct/scholarly/etc. But to do so is, in my opinion, to underestimate the uniqueness and depth of the Arabic tradition. From my research and experienc, Arab musicians are, as whole, inclined to prefer aural transmission to verbal distinctions; so in Arabic music, Shadd Araban (for example) is considered a transposition of Hijazkar. But when you are serious about the music, you know that it has its own character and tendencies--if asked, most musicians will acknowledge this (though not all by any means, including many excellent musicians, who nonetheless will play 'correctly'). But it's not something that is usually stressed, except by westerners and academics. The idea being that, since the difference can't be put into words anyway, why not describe things simply and let people learn from hearing. I wouldn't get this nitpicky usually, but since Dincer wants us to be exactly correct, he should have noted that we are on an Arabic ouds forum, and the question was asked in reference to an Arabic maqam.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly with Dincer that my answer treated the distinction between maqam/makam and scale too casually. But I was just try to give Samir a simple answer and I guess I thought that the distinction is so obvious and has been discussed repeatedly throughout the forums that I didn't need to rehash it in response to such a simple request. But he's exactly right, a scale is not a maqam and vice versa. And he made excellent points that that collection of intervals can be found in many maqams, and that you can have the same intervals and a different maqam.

So here's my reworded response (changes in italics):
The scale you played was F Gb A Bb C Db E F
This is like Hijazkar on F; as far as I know, there is no specific name for a maqam which shares this transposition. Hijazkar on G has the same scale as Shadd Araban, on D as Shahnaz, on A as Suzdil, respectively.


And in general, you can argue about terminology and what's right or whatever all day long, and in the end music is about music. And it's music that is the teacher, and not the words.

.

sydney - 12-10-2005 at 07:31 PM

Al-Halabi and Master Dincer

I am the one to apologiz.

I did not mean to run down your opinions or offend any of you.

Master Dincer,

I seem to have offended you. I do not see that I have jumped off my guns but Sorry if I did. I hope you could see my point now.


Thank you so much Brain. For explaining the idea of simplicity.

eliot - 12-13-2005 at 03:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Brian Prunka
There is much disagreement about the meaning of maqam (Arabic) vs. makam (Turkish). Since the two traditions overlap so much, and Turkish music is the source for many of the Arab traditions, it is tempting to view Turkish thought as more authentic/correct/scholarly/etc. But to do so is, in my opinion, to underestimate the uniqueness and depth of the Arabic tradition. From my research and experienc, Arab musicians are, as whole, inclined to prefer aural transmission to verbal distinctions; so in Arabic music, Shadd Araban (for example) is considered a transposition of Hijazkar. But when you are serious about the music, you know that it has its own character and tendencies--if asked, most musicians will acknowledge this (though not all by any means, including many excellent musicians, who nonetheless will play 'correctly'). But it's not something that is usually stressed, except by westerners and academics. The idea being that, since the difference can't be put into words anyway, why not describe things simply and let people learn from hearing. I wouldn't get this nitpicky usually, but since Dincer wants us to be exactly correct, he should have noted that we are on an Arabic ouds forum, and the question was asked in reference to an Arabic maqam.

So here's my reworded response (changes in italics):
The scale you played was F Gb A Bb C Db E F
This is like Hijazkar on F; as far as I know, there is no specific name for a maqam which shares this transposition. Hijazkar on G has the same scale as Shadd Araban, on D as Shahnaz, on A as Suzdil, respectively.

And in general, you can argue about terminology and what's right or whatever all day long, and in the end music is about music. And it's music that is the teacher, and not the words.


Just curious, Brian - you want to keep your maqam discussions in an Arab context - but I've never played with Arab musicians who knew of or talked about Sed Araban or Suzidil makams, unless they were playing the ubiquitous (Turkish) "Semai Shatt Araban" [sic] by Cemil Bey, and as far as I know, there is no Arab musical repertoire in those two maqamat. Not trying to challenge you, but wondering if you have experience with contemporary Arab musicians who actively use these maqamat - if so, is it something they talk about when describing their taqsim-s, or when do these maqam names come up?

oudmaker - 12-13-2005 at 06:44 AM

Hey Eliot

Did you know your 'Mood' Evcara uses the same scale ?
Did you know that Suz-i dil was invented by Turkish musician Abd-ul Halim Aga (1720?-1802)?.
Did you know Sedaraban was invented around 1550 by Gazi Giray Han
Did you know Serif Muhy-id Din Targan (coming from Arabic backround but a Turkish musician) built Bagdat Conservatory in 1934 and stay there as a director for 12years?
Did you also know that Cinucen was there for a year (1973) teaching oud aqnd music?
I wonder if they used Maqam or makam since they are different as we all now been informed?

By the way one time I heard Om Kalsoum on a record singing an Arabic song very close to Sed araban and the song was 10/8 Aksak semai beat?. May be one of our friends will help me to get the name of that song.

Regards
Dincer

Brian Prunka - 12-13-2005 at 08:57 AM

Hi Eliot,

actually, I don't particularly want to keep things in an Arabic context, but just wanted to point out that there are different ways of conceptualizing this music and that if someone insists on Turkish ideas as being correct, then maybe they should consider that the site is named "Arabic Ouds". I'm actually very interested in what Dincer has to say, he is obviously very knowledgeable about Turkish music. And there is a close relationship between the two musics.

Regarding whether or not Arabic musicians use those maqam names or not, I agree that most of them don't--this is in line with what I was saying about Arabic music not being as interested in terminology.
I have heard them referred to in the context of taqasim or in classic vocal repertoire (aside from Turkish repertoire, of course). The muwashshah Laha Badru Tim, for example, I have heard referred to as Suzidil. Now, maybe when Arab musicians use these terms they may not be strictly referring to the same things as a Turkish musician; I don't know. Obviously, Arab musicians use different intonation and ornaments than Turkish musicians and have different playing/singing styles. Maybe Arab musicians don't really understand the distinctions and are just misusing the Turkish terminology--this seems possible. It's further complicated by the way Arabic music is generally transposed up a fifth for female singers (though the oud usually plays down a fourth instead of up a fifth)--is it intended as HijazKar on G or Shadd Araban? And the practice of twentieth century composers being actively interested in doing unorthodox things with the maqamat. In general, it just points to Arab musicians having a more fluid conception of the maqamat--not as rigidly defined.

Dincer, thanks for your helpful information--I think your post was meant to be directed at me, not Eliot. I was in fact aware that those makams were invented by Turkish musicians, though I didn't know their names. The connection between the Baghdad conservatory and Turkey is very interesting. I think that you misunderstood me however, about maqam vs. makam, this is probably my fault for not being clearer. I wasn't saying that the musical sense of the maqam was very different (although there are some obvious differences, as I noted above), but that the approach to terminology was different. So a Turkish and Arabic musician might both play Shadd Araban, but the Arabic musician might call it HijazKar on G. Since Samir used the Arabic transliteration, I assumed that he was asking in the looser sense often applied by Arabic musicians.
I hope you don't feel that I am antagonizing you; I respect your knowledge. I feel that perhaps the difficulty of communicating over the internet is insurmountable in this case. As I said before, you were absolutely right to insist on the distinction between a scale and a makam.

Maybe we can move the post in a positive direction . . . would you be able to post some recordings of yourself demonstrating the differences between these various makams, as Cinucen did for you? I'm sure everyone would love to hear it, and we could all learn a lot from your playing.

oudmaker - 12-13-2005 at 11:55 AM

Brian
I wish I can demonstrate as Cinucen did it for me But I can't. I am not an oud player and I am not a genious as him as well.
Dincer

eliot - 12-14-2005 at 08:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by oudmaker
Hey Eliot

Did you know your 'Mood' Evcara uses the same scale ?
Did you know that Suz-i dil was invented by Turkish musician Abd-ul Halim Aga (1720?-1802)?.
Did you know Sedaraban was invented around 1550 by Gazi Giray Han
Did you know Serif Muhy-id Din Targan (coming from Arabic backround but a Turkish musician) built Bagdat Conservatory in 1934 and stay there as a director for 12years?
Did you also know that Cinucen was there for a year (1973) teaching oud aqnd music?
I wonder if they used Maqam or makam since they are different as we all now been informed?


Except for the length of time that Targan was at the Baghdad conservatory, yes I am entirely aware of those historical details. I love the suzidil makam, and in fact regularly perform two almost entirely unknown pieces written by Cinuçen quite late in his life in that makam. I think Suzidil and Evcara, for whatever reasons, provide a framework for very beautiful oud taksims.

Dincer, I'm not sure why you're attacking me on this issue. My prior post was reponding in suprise that contemporary Arab musicians had begun re-using Turkish terminology for sed makamlari (rather than calling everything a transposition of hijaz, which is a customary way many Arab musicians I know talk about a variety of makams).

I have done much research on makams (primarily on 20th century Turkish conceptualizations of makam - reading Ezgi, Arel, Ozkan, Karadeniz, Yilmaz, and most recently Fikret Kutlug's work - and studying privately with many Turkish teachers). However, I've had enough experiences to know that though there are hundreds of makams in which repertoire has been written, the great majority of Turkish musicians use and talk about a much smaller number of makams.

I'm also interested in what I guess could be called "folk" conceptions of makam. These aren't a new thing, but have existed alongside a more academically and book-minded system for hundreds of years. For those whose musical universe consists of 8-12 more general makams, how do makams function? How do the seyir, karar, and other aspects differ? Does it change the sense of tasteful modulations? These kinds of things. In looking at these "folk conceptions" (I wish I had a better term to label these), there's a very large difference between Arab and Syrian and Egyptian and Kuwaiti and Iraqi and Turkish conceptions of makam. There may be a common historical origin (though due to differences in regional folk musics and the flow of ideas from folk to sanat back to folk music, I'm not even sure about the singular historical origin hypothesis), but contemporary usage and theoretical conceptualiizations have diverged in many ways.

oudmaker - 12-14-2005 at 05:46 PM

Eliot
I am not attacking you any way or form. Please forgive me if I sounded that way. It is probably because of my difficulties in English. I just happened to see your mood being "Evcara" and that triger the idea of sending few notes. As you can see above my good friend understood what I ment. By the way do you know what evcara means? I think it is a good idea to open up a new trend on the questions you are asking in the last paragraph of your comments.
Both of you gentlemen please except my apologies if I sound attacking any way.
Best Regards

eliot - 12-15-2005 at 09:33 AM

Dincer Bey,
Apologies accepted, but not necessary - I've always respected the wealth of information you continue to provide to this board and the kinds of questions you raise.

Makams (or more generally, the nuances of music) are difficult to talk about - in any language... but I think we all feel it's worth the effort!

Warm regards,
-eliot

Brian Prunka - 12-15-2005 at 04:36 PM

Dincer,
I appreciate your apology, but I knew you didn't mean to sound like you were attacking anyone. Anyone who speaks and writes in another than their native language has my admiration and definitely deserves the benefit of the doubt. Obviously we're all passionate about music here and things can get heated rather quickly, especially since this is not the most nuanced way to communicate.
My apologies to you if I offended you in any way.

Brian

zalzal - 12-21-2005 at 03:59 AM

Well it has not much to do with this post.
There is a researcher in France called Amine Beyhom who has a doctorate on "Modal System".
His work in french is in internet. For me is too complicated, i am new learner. This is for specialists. I think there you can find anything you need to know on maqam.

ftp://ftp2.beyhom.com/beyhom/download/thesis/pdf/genres_systeme.pd...

ftp://ftp2.beyhom.com/beyhom/download/thesis/pdf/Vol3_05_pages1-50...
Fm page 18 to 22 there is a copy of al Khula'i on arabic
Fm 25 to 27 is a copy in arabic of description of maqamat by J Bashir

I hope it can be useful for any of you

David Parfitt - 12-21-2005 at 07:14 AM

Hi Zalzal

Thanks for this link - what a fantastic resource! Do you know if it is possible to buy a printed copy of this thesis? I find it quite tiring to read on the screen.

Best wishes

David

zalzal - 12-21-2005 at 02:51 PM

Great, it is of use to someone.
Just found this link on the author, just seen first page and answer you quickly, i think there are some english ressources inside, may be you can mail him for printed copies
http://www.beyhom.com

Meanwhile i m going to read it quietly.

zalzal - 12-21-2005 at 03:02 PM

A presentation of doctoral thesis in english
http://www.beyhom.com/systematique/index_en.htm

SamirCanada - 12-21-2005 at 10:22 PM

I was reading and I found that he has developed a electrified oud wich you can see in pictures. He has made 3 versions they have a much shallower body and mechanical tuning heads. They were developed by a lebanese luthier named Georges Bitar. I have never heard of him but they dont sound too too bad. The only thing is that the mechanical tuning head makes the tuning a little too precise so that its rather odd to hear.