Mike's Oud Forums - Powered by XMB

The Problems of Arabic music, A listener's perspective

joseph - 12-22-2007 at 04:33 AM

Hi,

I would like to introduce some discussions on Arabic music below, which might be a little different than what is usually discussed on this forum, but I hope is not out of line, and is of some value. I will continue this, depending on my free time, and how much interest there is in my writing. I will try to incorporate discussions of any responses in my next article, if I don't have a chance to respond earlier.

Regards, and best wishes for the Christmas/New Year
Joseph Harfouch, Perth Western Australia, Dec 2007

================================

1- Introduction
===============
It is really the same question for Arabic society, whether in politics , or science , or the arts including music: How should Arabic society respond to the challenges that face it? To this question, very few see the current status of Arabic society as acceptable, and two conflicting, seemingly irreconcilable, solutions are offered. The first is to modernize and/or Westernize, so in politics that would include democracy and secularization, and in science and education the adoption of a Western style curriculum. The opposite camp, offers a "return to the roots" type of option, that is to the so called glory days of the past. There are compromise positions of course, ones that don't oppose modernization completely, as long as it is sensitive to the Arabic culture. What each person regards as an acceptable change of course is different, and the debate continues year after year.

To me, and I guess to most Arabs, the problem when it comes to science and technology is trivial, and it is simply madness to ignore the Western advances in science. Politics, is more controversial of course, but I would take a similar position towards adopting systems that achieved much better results over hundreds of years. It gets trickier when one considers the arts, because here the ideas of progress do not quite apply, and what is better or worse can be very subjective. Nevertheless, my subjective position since my school days, was in favor of modern Arabic Literature. I liked the writings of those that did not just follow traditional forms. I really enjoyed classical Arabic literature too, but I could see the problems that the modernizers objected to, and I shall mention them briefly, because some of the same things, might come up again, when we start talking about music. One of the problems, for example in traditional Arabic poetry, was the domination of form over content. Traditional Arabic poetry, not only followed strict rhyming but also strict rhythmic patterns, which allow for many variations, but still many modern writers felt that this places too much emphasis on form, that can be restrictive to the poet. There was much criticism of the content also. For example, much of Arabic poetry, was in praise of kings and rulers, or savaging of their enemies. There was Little emphasis on unity, or developing a theme in a coherent manner,so the poet will talk in the first line about his lover, and in the second about his family or tribe, then about he king and so on, so by the end of the poem, there was no unifying theme that was developed. The Arabic emphasis on poetry, was in itself a problem, and favored the emotional over the intellectual, so other forms such as novels, and theater, unfortunately did not exist. As a result of the modernization effort in Arabic literature, I find that Arabic literature had greatly benefited from the Western influence, so we have many Arabic writers that address modern concerns, and some have achieved international recognition such as Jubran Khaleel Jubran and Naguib Mahfouz.

So now that you know my position on this, with respect to Arabic literature, science, and politics, would you expect me to take a similar position in regards to Arabic music? Should we regard the rules of maqam, the forms of Bahsraf and Longa for example as restrictive in the same way that the rules for Arabic poetry were? Are we missing out, that there are no Arabic symphonies or composers in the Western sense of composition? If I took this position, then I would have to reject most of what is written in the "Music of the Arabs" by Habib Hassan Touma (Amadeus Press, 1999), with its emphasis on traditional forms, and traditional instruments. I reject some of it for sure, because I find his views of what good Arabic music is, and what it should be, to be too narrow for my liking. I do however sympathize with his arguments, that the Arabic tradition when it comes to music is quite different, with its emphasis on the oral rather than the written, that composition and performing are not seen as separate activities, and that an Arabic musician is much more likely to achieve international acclaim by adhering to Arabic forms, rather than competing with Western musicians on their own turf. I sympathize with these arguments, but haven't quite worked out, whether I really agree with them or don't, and I remain uncomfortable accepting any arguments that are based on tradition only, but on the other hand, we could carry the analogy between literature and music too far. Arabic literature can adopt all Western forms, and can still have something that is clearly Arabic, and that is the Arabic language, and the Arabic occupations that the literature caters for. It is less clear, what will be the Arabic in instrumental music if Western musical forms were adopted in a substantial way.

So when it comes to modernization and Westernization in Arabic music, I haven't quite worked out what my position is. It is a pity that there is is not many more books and arguments on the subject, in response to Touma's excellent book, because we usually work out where we stand in regards to a topic, by listening to the competing arguments. I haven't yet rushed to buy an electric oud, or any other instrument, and I doubt even then, that I would simply stop playing the more traditional oud. Being unsure, may not be a great advantage, when I'm trying to write on the subject, but it may have an advantage in not being too dogmatic, or limited on what the answers should be. While no answers are likely to be offered, I hope to be clear about what the problems are, as I introduce them one by one in later articles.

MatthewW - 12-22-2007 at 05:47 AM

Hi Joseph. Regarding the questions of Arabic society, culture, politics, science, poetry, and what may be viewed as their modernisation and contact with The West, I personally feel that this forum is not quite the right place to go into deep and serious dicussions on these topics- this is not to say that these questions are not vaild or important ones, but I've always seen this forum first and last as about music.

Regarding the question of modernisation and Westernisation and Arabic music, my feelings are that ever since the dawn of television and radio, the world has been becoming a smaller place. With the ever expanding corporate mass media takeover of existence and the growing accesibilty to share ideas, including all forms of music, through radio and the internet, music that was more or less found within one culture or place is now heard everywhere. A person in China or in Chicago or Amman can all communicate quite easily now, and if you are a musician then you can listen to all types of music much easier. Also with the movement of peoples from one country to another, and especially if they are musicians and are coming from an 'Arabic' culture to a Western one, they bring their music with them and so musicians from the West and the East are seen playing together more often now.
To make a long story short, I see no problems with what may be termed 'modernisation and westernisation' in Arabic music, and I feel this is something positive. I think that if any musician, be it an oud or sitar or saxophone player, is interested and wishes to try playing his/her instrument 'outside' of the music culture and style associated with that instrument, then that is cool. If an oud player from whatever background wants to play some western Jazz or Blues on the oud, then cool. If this same player wants to stick to the traditional musical heritage of his/her culture, thats cool. If they can do both well, that's even cooler. As the world is ever becoming a smaller global village, then it is natural that musicians from all cultures, including a classical Arabic tradition, will try something new and mix and share musical styles and ideas. Many excellent 'world music' musicians and groups are doing it, and producing new and exciting music.
I think every musician will decide for him/herself what they want to play and how, and we need to respect that. There will always be oud players who will follow the rich classical Arabic maqam tradition, just as there will always be violin players who play Bach. The musical academics and musical critics/historians in the world can then try and figure it all out!

Woodlandjustin - 12-22-2007 at 09:08 AM

Hi
Hmm, firstly I think the term "modernisation" is quite interesting. It seems to imply quite a linear idea of time, time being a linear "progression", i.e. progress. This in itself seems to be a "western" idea, of linear progress. If one takes this abstract idea to be true, then it would seem that "modernisation" is desirable. Then those who are less "modern" would seem unfortunate.

However, if this linear progression, where everything always improves, is actually not the truth, the conclusion could be different. I think things surely always change. Styles and fashions come and go. And maybe come again. Things go up and down. A million circles circle. But to suddenly stop this cycling cycling happening, and say "ah, this cycle/circle is the best" - that doesn't seem to make sense to me.
For example, I love French baroque music. Could I wish that all that music was changed, into the more "modern" music (e.g. orchestral)? Personally, no.

So I think personally "more modern" = "more good" is not any more true than "more modern" = "more bad".

As for westernisation...
If the Arabs had bigger guns than Europe and its colonies (U.S.A. etc), perhaps the question instead would be whether Western music should be being made modern and Arabic!

I hope that if there are some musicians who like Arabic music, they will make good Arabic music. As for style and so on, and whether it should be traditional or not, I think the most important thing is that it should be good music. And I think that choice happens naturally. I hope good musicians will play good music, due to their taste. Also I hope a good audience will want good music. Supply and demand then take care to some extent. If enough people want to hear good traditional music, I reckon people will play it. If on the other hand people feel that the traditional forms actually do not make good music, then they will not pay for it! So, probably it will wane.

However, sometimes it seems the mass audiences become not so tasteful, I think. For example, there is a lot of pop music which is not very musical, but, very popular. And a lot of T.V. which is rubbish, but still people watch it. This is connected to the educatoin of the audience. For example, the U.S. population is largely educated politically by the government itself, via the school education curriculum and through the media, which are arms of the government (or we could say they are all arms of..) People are also educated by advertising. (For example they are educated to be very desirous, to buy buy buy etc).
So also their music tastes are educated by the record companies. In this way, what they like is actually (at least to some extent) controlled by forces outside of themselves.

I think this is quite relevant. This means that for example, there could be a music which is actually very good, which nearly no-one likes! Luckily some musicians will play this music even if it gets them no money. Very dedicated people! Sometimes, someone will recognise it. Sometimes only many years later. Sometimes maybe never.

One relevance of this is probably temperament. I think sometimes some Arabic music can sound uncomfortable to many Westerners because it sounds "out of tune". That is of course because they are accustomed only to the current Western fashion of tuning, which is 12 tone equal temperament (which is, of course, out of tune from the beginning!)

I think my point is, perspective. I think there are many different things. For example, there is rock and roll. There is French baroque. There is Persian classical. There is Sudanese folk. There is ... all these things. And if all these different things became the same, surely there would be a great loss. If everything became homogenized, even if the result was "nice" or "good", still, it would be as terrible as the huge fields of corn which can dominate the agricultural landscape, for example. The whole land covered in just one species. It is very very unhealthy. In nature, diversity is actually ESSENTIAL. The ecosystem can ONLY be healthy with much diversity. It is a living system. Also, I think culture and society need diversity to be healthy. Diversity is wealth. Homogeneity seems to be like a sickness.

I think there is nothing wrong with learning from others, and absorbing ideas and styles and so on. I don't think it is so healthy to think that the West is always "better" though, and throw away ones traditions. But, even these two forces, one of striving for change, and the other of traditionalism, are actually perhaps both essential. I think they are probably both very natural, and actually not working against each other. Perhaps instead they are two complimentary forces, in one whole process. I will not call that process "progress". But we could call it movement. A Movement within the cycle. The most interesting point perhaps is right on the edge where these two forces rub. I like the term they give it in complexity theory - they call it the "edge of chaos", right between order (=frozen = traditionalist stuck blindly to form) and chaos (=no organisation = wild modernist who disregards form). That's where things happen.
So perhaps society needs both of these.
All natural processes I think.

I hope you all make lovely music!
Justin

gilgamesh - 12-22-2007 at 12:16 PM

Well spocken. I belong to people which see Life as Movement too, and simply think that Humanity has to find harmony with the great inconstancy of things.Love is all :airguitar:

eliot - 12-22-2007 at 02:36 PM

"Modernization" is a strange thing, since often after the modernization people are left with an incomplete understanding of what the preceding form was, and what exactly had changed. In comparing Armenian and Turkish music modernization, for example, Armenia for the most part abandoned the makam-based koma system early in the 20th century, and adopted equal-temperament. We can safely call that a Westernization of Armenian music.

Turkey, in contrast, modernized tuning systems through an over-the-top theorizing of the pure nature of the sundry obscure intervals contained only in Anatolian musical forms. Now there are two "competing" camps of tuning systems (central Anatolian folk and Ottoman classical), both of which have a deficit of symbols and terms to describe all the exception notes and intervals that theoretically shouldn't be in a piece of music but, well, are. Turkish makam systems are modernized, in that they are theorized and talked about *as if* they were more symmetrical, more perfect than other systems, more natural (ALWAYS be suspicious of claims of "natural" intervals or "natural" things in a musical system). But it's not a thoroughly Westernized modernization: some of the keywords of Western discourse came to shape the ways local scholars approached an overhaul of what they perceived to be a deficient system. The overhaul was done "on their own terms," however.

The other HUGE modernization I see in Turkey is the transformation from poetic meter to intervallic meter. For example, a rhythm now called a fast 7/8 (2+2+3), depending on the speed and the poetry in question would have been counted as a 3 (short-short-long) or as a 2 (long-short). In the 1st case (short-short-long), the long beat may not have been 1.5 times as long as the short beat. In fact, in early field recordings of Anatolian folk music they rarely were. However, the musicians in question might have been very precise with their rhythm. Folk performers also often put in pauses, sometimes for breath and sometimes for dramatic purposes, all of which have been removed in a contemporary, intervallic-meter context. 7/8, you could say, entirely modernized the way people conceived of rhythm. I think for the worse, for the simple reason that much of the incredible variety between folk musics was in the subtle ways similar rhythms could be interpreted. However, others don't see it that way: those inaccuracies (as they're now conceived) were part and parcel of the self-perceived "backwardness" of Anatolia.

Woodlandjustin - 12-22-2007 at 05:22 PM

Hi Eliot
What you are saying is very interesting. To summarize what you mentioned, it sounds like you are saying that that Turkish case of "modernisation" (starts to sound like a sickness doesn't it!) consisted of a simplification of pitch and timing. And it sounds like those old field recordings were therefore more complex than the modern way. I think this could be a global trend. In your example of Turkey, it sounds like the scholars may have been responsible. This is a very interesting point.

Here in Japan, people nowadays are fussy about pitch and timing, especially if they train in a University. I think there may be 2 things going on. One is that I think in past times music was more important than pitch, and timing. Now it seems people (well, the "musically educated" (e.g. University or the like)) think that music is made from pitches and timings. But somehow I don't think so. I wonder if perhaps they are merely tools of the music. So if someone is educated very strictly how to make good tools, it is still possible that their "correct" sound is devoid of music. And then, if they are educated like that, they may believe, as they have been taught, that good music = good pitch and timing. So if they here an old recording (for example 90 years old) and the timing and/or pitch are "less accurate", they may think the music is therefore "less good". I think perhaps a lot of that "less accurate" music actually could be far superior and more "musical" than much of the modern "correct" music, not because it is "less accurate", but because it is simply more musical.

I think it is to do with what the musician is focusing on. If they are trained to focus on technique (as perhaps they are taught to do at universities or other big music schools) then perhaps a result of this focus is actually less focus on "music", or, what I might suggest as being the "essence" of music, which I am saying is something other than pitch and timing.
Another way to say this, is that some of the modern training perhaps focuses on the parts. If one focuses on the parts too much, it is possible to loose sight of the whole.
Indeed, perhaps it is exactly that which produces what you have noted about Turkey. The modern musicians focus on the parts, so they notice specific timing patterns and rules, and then when they listen, also they listen to/for the parts. So, not only has their playing become less holistic, but also their listening has become less holistic. This could mean that they are not only no longer able to produce "music", but also now unable to hear music!

Actually, if I could be a little more kind to them, i could suggest that, they may still be able to hear music. But, the more they are "educated" (=programmed) in that way, the more easily the gate of their subconscious is closed. I mean, perhaps the real listening to music is an intuitive process. But their intellect has become active. If they hear pitch or timing which does not fit to their learned rule of what is "correct", that fires up their intellect (which is complaining about "error") and that naturally shuts off their subtle receptivity. In that case, if we as musicians are to play to those people, I think it is better if we play not only good music, but also play in tune, for example. Anything to get through their "gates". It is either that, or re-educate them! (That is also possible).

I think this change in emphasis towards precise pitch may not only be in Japan, but also apparently in Western classical too, according to a friend of mine who listens to many old recordings. However, in Arabic music, I might guess that people were already precise about pitch - is that right? It sounds like pitch was a very deep subject and very refined, since a long time already, is it? In that case it sounds like the musicians may have had excellent control of pitch already, and could express their real music with this refined tool, whereas the modernisation you mentioned sounds like the intellect taking control of the choice of pitch, rather than the creative-element (the source of music), which surely would be the better thing to have in control!

Hoping my words are not boring you all too much!
Justin

eliot - 12-22-2007 at 05:34 PM

Let's not forget that Chopin was booed by critics in the mid 19th century when he gave concerts on an equal-tempered piano. It has only been very recently that equal-temperament has been considered an acceptable tuning system anywhere in the world.

I think a "previous" generation of folk musicians may have cared about intonation. They may have, in some places and at some times, cared a lot. No one bothered to ask them about tuning. Folklorists (from the 1930s on) collected melodies and lyrics only. Not folk knowledge about tuning systems.

Quote:

To summarize what you mentioned, it sounds like you are saying that that Turkish case of "modernisation" (starts to sound like a sickness doesn't it!) consisted of a simplification of pitch and timing. And it sounds like those old field recordings were therefore more complex than the modern way.

I'm not sure that simplification is the best word to use... I think reification is more accurate. A huge variety got distilled down into an "acceptable" form, which was theorized and disseminated through modern pedagogical institutions and mass media.

Thanks for the Japanese comparison, Justin. Interesting stuff to ponder there...

Woodlandjustin - 12-22-2007 at 07:11 PM

Quote:

Let's not forget that Chopin was booed by critics in the mid 19th century when he gave concerts on an equal-tempered piano. It has only been very recently that equal-temperament has been considered an acceptable tuning system anywhere in the world.

That's interesting. Perhaps it was because their ears were accustomed to the previous temperament? You know that 12 tone equal temperament is "out of tune" don't you? I mean, from the beginning it is an explicit compromise, so that it is as less out of tune as possible through all the transpositions of keys. That means, actually it is out of tune in every key! Whereas for example just intonation would be "in tune", but progressively more out of tune the more you away from the original key. Violins and voices don't have any problem there because we can adjust naturally as we change key (for example Welsh choirs and the like, even today), but due to the limitations of the piano, with its fixed-pitch keys, it cannot adapt in that way. So they created the compromise of 12 tone equal temperament. (Incidentally there were many experiments with keyboards for pipe organs (and maybe harpsichords?) with extra keys (notes), more than 12 per octave, to try to overcome these problems. Though more in tune, perhaps these were eventually judged as too difficult to play as the keyboard would be too crowded or too large).

So perhaps it was that compromise which sounded so "bad" to Chopin"s audience. However, that compromise of pitch allows for a new kind of music, which became so popular that that temperament became widespread, so much so that today in the West it is the only one most people here. So that now even in electronic music, which does not have the technical limitations of the piano keyboard, stills sticks to the same compromise of 12 tone equal temperament designed for pianos!

Quote:

I think a "previous" generation of folk musicians may have cared about intonation.

Perhaps it depends on which country.

Quote:

They may have, in some places and at some times, cared a lot.

I think so.

Quote:

No one bothered to ask them about tuning. Folklorists (from the 1930s on) collected melodies and lyrics only. Not folk knowledge about tuning systems.

But there are quite a lot of recordings. Many of them are only available now on old 78 speed gramophone records or even wax cylinders. Some have been made into lps or cds. I wish there were more of them!
As for actually asking the old players about tuning (as opposed to merely listening to their recordings), how about in the Arabic world? Since it seems Arabic music is so advanced in terms of pitch (tuning), is there not any detailed writings from the past (e.g. 19th century) about tuning?

Quote:

I had to look "reification" up! It said, to make something which is abstract, concrete. Is that what you meant? I don't exactly follow.

Is it like this?
Music (concrete, real) is studied by music "scholars", who then analyse it and create an abstract theoretical system of rhythms and pitches. So their theoretical system has been derived from observing the concrete (the real music) and trying to understand the "rules" of the music.

Perhaps due to their limited understanding of music, or perhaps because their over-dominance of intellect, they create their system of theory which is very pretty (pleases their intellect, and hunger for logical consistency), but which does not perfectly fit what they actually observe (the real music). However, they convince themselves that it is not their theoretical model which is at fault. It is the object of their observation which is at fault! So, they think they have understood the "rules" from which the music was created, and they then see where the (real) music does not follow these rules. Therefore those are judged as "errors".

This is quite similar to a doctor who has learned very well in University about medicine, and will tell a very sick man "There is nothing wrong with you" simply because the man's sickness is not in his book of medicine! (I have witnessed this personally). And again in science, when concrete fact is simply denied, because it does not fit with current theoretical fashion (for example telepathy, reincarnation etc).

So we have abstract theory from concrete music.
Then those scholars proceed to make or teach music. In that way, you have music which is created from their theory. So perhaps that part is "reification"? (I do apologise if I have misunderstood this word!)
The process as a whole though, in this way at least, looks as if it is from concrete to abstract to concrete. (Theory got from real music, which is then used to produce music). Perhaps, from such as process, we could naturally expect simplification. I have an image now of translating Poetry from one language to another and then back again. Surely much would be lost.

Perhaps this could be somehow connected to the difference of a musician studying under a master in the traditional "apprentice" style, directly absorbing the music (with no translation from music to theory and back again), and the perhaps more modern way of learning in a University or some such place.

Just some thoughts.
Justin

eliot - 12-22-2007 at 08:18 PM

Quote:

Yes, but so much has been lost since no one saw the value in maintaining a functional archive of much of the early-collected wax cylinders. Often things were destroyed or lost after the first transcription was made. I'm talking primarily about Turkey here... The government archives are essentially inaccessible to almost anyone except for TRT employees. I know Turkish scholars who have not been able to access archival materials for most of their professional career, let alone foreign scholars... but the private archives which are being made available are quite amazing!
++++

My meaning for reification is from OED's 2nd usage example:

Quote:

A process of what may be called reification, or the conscious conversion of what had hitherto been regarded as living beings into impersonal substances.

Just replace "beings" with "musical forms", and "substances" with "theories".

But re-reading what I wrote, I think it's a bit incomplete. Reification is part of it, for sure, but in addition to that there is a contraction of acceptable possibilities. Like equal-temperament rules out the possibility of any intervals (except octaves) being in tune.

joseph - 12-23-2007 at 07:35 AM

Hi,

I just like to say in response to Mathew's earlier comment that I never intended the discussion not to be about music, and what I said in my intro was that I wasn't talking about the oud specifically, and this is why I was hoping I wasn't straying too far away from other topics on this forum. The subject is Arabic music, but I needed to put the debate in a wider context first. Sometimes it is impossible to separate music from other issues.

There is some advantage in some divergence, and thanks to Justin and Eliot, I've learned a lot about tuning systems and historical background. I already , agree with some of the expressed opinions, for example that art does not necessarily progress, and there is no linear path. I have to think about some of the other opinions a little more, and I'm sure we'll touch on some of them in the next installment. It would have been impossible for me to learn all this by asking a direct question, since I wouln't know what to ask. The discussion has diverged a little, as it always does, but it is still related to music. I find it quite interesting, and I've learned a lot from it.

I hope this is true for others as well, and they will find the discussion to be useful. I will try to focus my future contributions relating to this topic, on Arabic music specifically, and wherever possible, as it relates to the Oud.

Regards, Joseph