Greg
Administrator
Posts: 928
Registered: 7-22-2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Member Is Offline
Mood: Serene
|
|
The sound of Arabic & Turkish ouds
Elsewhere on these forums, Samir (Canada) raised the important issue of the differences in oud sounds.
It is something that has perplexed me for a long time. I hope that other forum members will agree that the differences between, so called Turkish and
Arabic ouds, is worthy of further examination and discussion.
Leaving the different tunings out of the equation and forgetting about the playing styles of players from different regions and influences, how much
real difference is there between the sound of a fixed-bridge Arabic oud and a Turkish oud? No doubt I will be accused of heresy for saying this, but I
find there is sometimes greater variance between the sound of ouds made by different makers than the variance between, so called, Arabic and Turkish
ouds. For instance, if you compare the sound of ouds from great Arabic oud makers like Farouk Shehata, Mourice Shehata, Nazih Ghadban, Jameel Abraham,
Samir Azar, and Hatem Joubran (to name a few) you could make a very good case that there is no such thing as an Arabic sound common to all.
I think we would all agree that the Nahat family made ouds with what we call that “classical” Arabic sound. But there were many Nahat oud makers
and they made many ouds over many years. So it is inconceivable that they all sounded the same. They may sound similar now, but how much of that sound
is attributable to the aging process? We all know how good the Nahat sound is from listening to recordings of Simon Shaheen, Adel Salameh and Hamza El
Din. But the instruments we hear were made around the start of the last century. How can you compare such instruments with ones made in the last ten
years?
There is no doubt that the volumetric size of the bowl and the distance between the nut and the bridge will influence the sound. And most Arabic ouds
have bigger bowls and longer stringlengths than most Turkish ouds. So that might be the key to the difference. But some highly respected Arabic oud
makers are now making ouds with smaller bowls and shorter stringlengths. Does that mean that these ouds are now no longer considered to be Arabic? Do
they sound Arabic or do they sound Turkish (or Greek, or Armenian)?
I apologize for the length of this post, but the subject intrigues me. To bring my contribution to a close, I would suggest a little test. Samzayed
once told me that Palestinian oud player Samer Totah used two different ouds on his CD “Ghofran.” These two ouds were made by different makers
from different countries. Can anyone tell me which tracks are from oud A and which are from oud B? (not you Samzayed  ).
Regards,
Greg
|
|
|
Mike
Super Administrator
Posts: 1568
Registered: 12-3-2002
Location: California, USA
Member Is Offline
Mood: Happy
|
|
Hey Greg,
I think you bring up an interesting topic. I think if you listen to a Shehata oud, you know it is a Shehata oud. If you listen to a Ghadban oud, you
know it is a Ghadban oud. Both are "Arabic" oudmakers, but both have unique sounds. I still think though that there is a pretty noticable difference
between the sound of an Arabic oud and the sound of a Turkish oud. Much more noticable than say the difference between two Arabic or two Turkish ouds.
I'ma have to test my listening skills too Greg when I get home.
Best,
Mike
|
|
|
Jameel
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1672
Registered: 12-5-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
That's an interesting question Greg.
There is one criterion (maybe the most important) for distinguishing the two that I didn't read in your post, and that is the difference in pitch,
i.e. Turkish ouds being a step higher. That is the important distiguishing factor. A lot of the old arabic ouds we are used to hearing, Sunbati,
Farid, Qasabgi, were tuned in B (1/2 step down, or A415khz), which further separates them from the Turkish sound. However, I think there are many
Turkish-intended ouds that sound great tuned down to Arabic. So what is the real difference? I think it boils down to one thing only, what the maker
intended the instrument to be tuned as. I don't think you could call a Turkish oud tuned to Arabic one or the other. It's a hybrid.
This topic begs a question about a particular Arabic oud. Sherif Targan's Abdo Nahat--how was it tuned? Turkish? Arabic?
I think you've posed a provocative question and I look forward to reading other's responses.
|
|
|
SamirCanada
Moderator
Posts: 3405
Registered: 6-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
very good post Greg.
I do have to admit that you have made me look at it in a different light.
food for thought.
all these makers that are obviously concidered to be making arabic ouds do have a different sound from eachother.
One thing to remember is that Usta Turunz also mentioned when I raised that question is that how can one juge from a poor recording environement the
sound of a oud.
Another aspect is that to juge you need a standard... or a benchmark if you will. And because we all have different tastes and backgrounds we dont all
have that same standard of appreciation. I personaly get my apreciation of what a real arabic oud sound should be like from a combination of the old
masters like Farid and Ryadh Sumbati, oud playing in the orchestras of fairuz, oum koulthoum etc... to that you have to add the modern players that I
feel they have a true arabic sound like abadi el Johar and a few more. And again this is completly subjective to one's appreciation and standars.
Also a very importantly you have take into account the huge impact that the soundtracks for arabic soap operas have. The way the record the oud is
really particular and since these are watched by milions it also shapes the general idea of the standard arabic oud sound. In this case its a very
soulfull high reverb but with minimal trebles and overtones. I can describe it as an aim to make the oud cry or lament. Its a very rounded and soft
sound. When I hear that type of recording I say to myself this is pure arabic oud. 2 things that are worth saying is that you dont need an arabic oud
to do that. Its obvious that the sound is usualy recorded professionaly and highly modified with all kinds of effects to it. You seldom hear the risha
clicks. Of course the maqam being played influences the mood that it will be comunicated.
When I hear a oud sound like mentioned in the above I use it as my standard to identify it as a real arabic sound.
Where I can see the difference is that I dont see that aim in turkish oud (either in recordings or in live performence) the sound being sought after
is usualy a sharp one and a loud one. So I beleive the turkish oud aims to sound different then the arabic oud. From hanging out on the forums you can
tell that the people who apreciate turkish oud have a different set of standards to juge what is a good oud sound and for the them the turkish oud and
the way the masters played it and the way it was recorded what was made them love the sound. Iam not sure if they would apreciate if the trebbles
sounded rounded and soft.
lastly for the size issue The nahats made some ouds close to a turkish size.
Nazih Ghadban today is making them smaller too. but if you listen to them you cant argue that they have a arabic sound. Well actualy you could argue
if you wanted but I think Nazih himself whould tell you his ouds sound like arabic ouds and who's to argue with him Its probably all in the bracings but Iam not educated enough to tell you exactly why.
|
|
|
oudplayer
Oud Junkie
Posts: 849
Registered: 5-9-2004
Location: new jersey/ Israel
Member Is Offline
Mood: ouds up
|
|
hey guys
great question again however, i dont know much about this topic but i have been listining to oud for quit abit since i was small {not that long ago}
lol
but if you ask me i think of a famous line "it comes in all differ sounds, shapes and sizes" nothing will ever be the same , it can be 100% identical
but still sound differ. please dont kill me or kick me off the forum but i was once
told by my great uncle that nahat were amazing ouds, but they made alot of great oud and dull ouds, like it would sound dead or not as good as it
should be, we usally only hear the good ouds or restoured ones ,
If soemone wants to sponsor a delorian and we can go back to the future ,back when
they made them in the early stages we could tell how they sound arabic or turkish????
also i was just thinking arabic is huge catagory i mean i heard ouds from syria , egypt, israel, gulf coast, and more and let me tell you they all
sound differ so and it goes with turkish ouds as well. turkey, greece, arminia, ect.?
aso the real question is not whst the sound differant between turkish and arabic but about each country? we see from here that ever maker in there
country has its own style of making and playing oud??
um if non of this makes sence i just woke up its 12:21 pm lol
throw it out the window if you dont liek lol
thx sammy
we are lost camels in the desert and wanna find our way to water and the water is in aden
|
|
|
oudipoet
Oud Junkie
Posts: 190
Registered: 1-3-2006
Location: los angeles
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
hi guys that s a very good subject to discuss and you guys have raised some good questions fortunatly i can answer one of those which belogs to
jameel.
jameel asked that "Sherif Targan's Abdo Nahat--how was it tuned? Turkish? Arabic? "
the answer to your question is
from treble -----to----> bass
G-D-A-E-D-A
Targan has sometimes changed the last A to G, according to the piece to be played
i hope that would help.
|
|
|
oistrach13
Oud Addict
Posts: 34
Registered: 3-23-2005
Member Is Offline
Mood: es geht
|
|
I agree with Greg here, there isn't that much difference.
As far as I read, nobody has commented on just how much the playing style can affect the sound of the instrument.
Take my oud, it's seven years old, made in baghdad in normal arabic style by Adnan Makki, it's a bit of a cheapy, but it'll be a good example. If I
tune it half a tone down, get a slightly softer risheh, and play up nearer the sound hole (not quite udi nevres though), I'd get the Abadi Johar sound
(similar to wadi3 safi when he plays). Now, if I go to the salon, where I have poor acoustics that don't carry reverb, and I play near the bridge
with a hard risheh in staccato manner, I'd get the dry tangy Qasabjiesque sort of sound which is completely different. If I tune up (supposing my oud
can take it), and play with turkish ornaments, in turkish style, who's to say the oud wasn't turkish?
I think the size isn't the question, the main issue is that turkish ouds are built to "handle" high tension, and this tougher construction changes the
sound profile into what some people call a "tight" sound, which neads the higher tension strings to open up properly and get the proper volume.
Just my ideas there.
|
|
|
AGAPANTHOS
Oud Addict
Posts: 35
Registered: 2-23-2006
Location: CRETE-GREECE
Member Is Offline
Mood: hopeful
|
|
There is no doubt that Greg opens again one very crucial and fruiful topic as far as concern the present and the future of the oud in its various
types.
The discussion around this topic has been opened several times in the forum without persistence and continuity.
The Master Faruk was the member of the forum who made a serious effort lastly, to introduce us in the problematique of the need of a long term
scientific research that it has to be carried out in order to arrive to certain testified conclusions, but without result.
I believe that the real question is not the discrimination between the Arabic and Turkish ouds from the point of view of acoustics and sound. I know
that nobody is able to argue in a definitive way that there is , in practise, a general distinction between the sound of the Arabic and the Turkish
ouds, and to describe in words with detail the diferrencies.
The only real general discrimination could been done are the differend general traditions existing between the different schools of the oud , in
different sub-regions of our greater Region (or at the global- international level), and between the different musical idioms.
Behind the questions made by Greg i thing that there are other questions that are somehow hidden from our direct vision.
It is true that aspects related to the morphology of the instrument, the longeur of the string, the volume of the air inside the cavity of the
instrument, the functional patterns related to the bridge e.t.c. e.t.c. have a certain great impact on the sound of the instrument. Equaly it is
true that ,due to the heterogenous character of the wood ,there are numerous other aspects and parameters that are engaged and contribute to the
acoustic product of a certain instrument that are not in the direct control of the maker, or others that can be partially controlled under the
condition of the use of the latest technological means, or finally others that are totally uncontrolable.
The effort to approach the real substance of this kind of issues related to the oud must be:
-collective
-exploit all the positive- existing factors and potential
-persistent
-continuous
-longterm
-accurate and with precise objectives
-step by step and
-costly
I propose to plan and develop, in the close future a well organised and systematic discussion of this issues and prospects throught a serie of
international meetings in different places located in our greater region.
I believe that this forum is capable to carry out and undertake very important, serious and fruitful efforts in the direction of planning
,development and implementation of a global program/scientific research for the oud that could be financed by the E.U. in the close future
(initiatives relateted to the Barcelona process).
|
|
|
Lintfree
Oud Junkie
Posts: 171
Registered: 2-9-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Oistrach has a handle on it, I think. There's the string length that dictates a lot in an Arabic oud especially an Egyptian scale. That alone sets it
apart from the shorter scale. A longer string acts different than a short string tuned high or low. A longer string can hang on longer, have more
sustain...............maybe. Arabic string sets are also heavier and that makes a difference. I have an Arabic scale oud that has a smaller Turkish
sized body, but it has a cedar top. Cedar sounds different than spruce. Black Sea spruce sounds different than German spruce. This oud doesn't sound
like anything I've ever heard especially in the higher F tuning. The Arabic ouds I've played, and I have played Hamza's Nahat, have a rounder bowl.
The newer Turkish ouds I have and others I've played have a flatter back, especially the Mustafa Copcuoclu. But the Karibyan I played had a round
bowl.
I think the mistake is grouping ouds into only two families. With all the different tunings now used and the different scale lengths there should be
at least five categories if not ten. The Bashir moveable bridge oud is the key to all of this. It doesn't sound like anything before or since. It's
Iraqi in origin because of the maker. Then there's the Syrian school. The Nahat School. The Manol/Karibyan School. The Iranian School - they're way
different. Then there's the Necati School based on his tuning? That's a lot of different groups already and the problem still isn't solved. Maybe
there's no problem. The minute someone tunes a Turkish style oud down a whole step and plays in an Arabic style as Oistrach has described the entire
concept implodes. Tight or loose. Tuned low or high. Big bowl small bowl. Simple or complex. Good or bad. A great guitar player took my Rapakousios
tuned it all to fourths and ran some scales using a guitar pick that blew me away. He was Mexican.
|
|
|
AGAPANTHOS
Oud Addict
Posts: 35
Registered: 2-23-2006
Location: CRETE-GREECE
Member Is Offline
Mood: hopeful
|
|
In addition i would kindly ask Master Faruk to respond to our call. Thank you.
|
|
|
farukturunz
Oud Junkie
Posts: 569
Registered: 8-16-2005
Location: Istanbul, Turkey
Member Is Offline
Mood: hopeful
|
|
Since Greg had brought the question forward I have been thinking if there is a simple approach to this issue which can be grounded on a strong basis
or is it a totally terminological and arbitrary one.
If Mr. George Agaphantos had not proposed a plan which echoed a proposal I had made a while ago, I would not jump in to the thread and wait for some
more different point of view to come.
Yes, Mr. George I agree with your belief in the need of a well organized and systematic discussion of this issue.
Let me share my thoughts in brief incidentally in the present state of the issue:
The terms or characterizations which are vaguely accepted represent rather subjective assumptions since there is no measurable element in a depiction
like “Arabic Oud” or “Turkish Oud”. As oistrach13 states, the sound changes due to various factors like the habits of the player, technique
and also the risha used.
The main point in this respect may be the appropriateness of any oud firstly for a certain type of tuning secondly the convenience of that oud for
other specifications that are needed in any particular cultural environment by the musicians (oud players) whose discriminations were edified and
matured in that environment.
A collateral but a crucial point that is implied by such discrimination is some thing tends to be a start of “segregation”. I believe that no one
means such a thing in these oud forums since it is just an “oud forum” not a “nation’s forum”. It may be better to designate the type of
ouds using the names of the makers instead of the names of the nations they are from.
|
|
|
Lintfree
Oud Junkie
Posts: 171
Registered: 2-9-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Master Faruk has the best idea for categorization since he has made ouds that sound both Arabic and Turkish and, most importantly, his own sound. I
would venture to guess that he has taken apart and repaired and made more ouds in his lifetime than any of the rest of us. And his comment on the
"nationalization" of ouds is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.
Henri Besancon, both a great player and a supremely accomplished repairer of all kinds of ouds classified ouds as being either long scale or short
scale. He played a small bodied oud with a short scale that was made in Turkey but it had a Nahat bridge. To this day I have never heard an instrument
like it. Henri was the first person that ever explained the construction of a Karibyan, an oud most all of us would categorize as a Turkish oud.
Karibyan took Manol's design and made modifications to it that to this day mystify many makers. He loaded some of the braces by recurving them, some
one way and others in the opposite direction (compensating for the dip in front of the bridge and the hump behind it.) then contoured the sides so
that there would be a dip just after the neck-body joint, which allowed for a low action. Karibyan's tops, from the side, had an "S" curve to them.
They weren't flat. They were under tension and, although extremely thin they were rigid. And, according to Henri and several other makers I've talked
to, these features are what gave his ouds that distinctive tone and that "bigger than life" sound. I think we should leave the classifications and
things like that to the oud makers. Me, I just play them and not all that well. D.L.
|
|
|
MatthewW
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1031
Registered: 11-5-2006
Location: right here
Member Is Offline
Mood: Al Salam
|
|
hi all- very interesting thread, the sound difference between Turkish and Arabic ouds. I have heard both 'Turkish' and 'Arabic' ouds and ouds
constructed in other countries which all equally sounded beautiful. I have been playing on a Turkish oud ( but tuned in Arabic C-C tuning), and have
recently purchased a Shehata, which I guess you'd definitely call an Arabic oud. The sound quality between the two is noticabely different the Shehata
being overall more rich and with more projection, the Turkish more on the mellow side with a bit less projection. I ask myself are these differences
in sound down to the different woods in each of these ouds used as well as the construction techiques of each maker? Even the same type of woods used
for the bowl, when crafted by a maker in Turkey or Egypt or Iraq might produce a different sound. I would imagine that the wood used, especially in
the bowl, contributes a great deal to the final sound of an oud, be it Turkish or Arabic or what have you. if the woods used in the bowl of my Turkish
oud were instead used in the Shehata, and the Shehata had the woods used in my Turkish oud, this might be a very interesting experiment to see if they
would take on some of the sound of the other (no way I'm gonna go ahead with this experiment!) There are many wood combinations available to most oud
makers everywhere, and I wonder if there is a significant way in defining a certain sound to where the oud is made, especially now in our global world
community where oud players and oud makers can keep in touch and exchange all sorts of musical and creative ideas via internet. Bracing of the oud is
another consideration as well as other constuction processes used, like how thin or thick the top is made, how the ribs are cut and assembled, if he
argued with his wife or not that morning ( ), and so on, all which might give the
oud its own unique sound, and here master Faruk raises a very good point, that perhaps we need to look at the individual maker of the oud and then
see if we can identify a particluar sound or flavour of that oud with it's maker and less to which country it comes from? 
|
|
|
damascene_oud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 143
Registered: 4-28-2007
Location: Damascus
Member Is Offline
Mood: Obssessed by oud
|
|
Very contravertial and important topic that serves to be the main axel for a big research conducted by experts and maybe scholars and oud master
makers, rather than points of view originating from one's personal experiences or maybe hearings.
However, i totally agree with Master Turunz's point of view. I have personally witnessed this with the late master Antoine Abrass's oud in Aleppo
years ago, and was totally surprised to see that not all his ouds sounded the same. Each had it's own sound characteristics and as master Abrass had
expressed it each oud has it's own sound-print much like to finger-print. As he mentioned to me, that certain factors play crutially important role on
identifying the quality of the sound and even the sound nature. Wood quality is one of those, but he also mentioned a surprising thing that not all
ouds made of wall-nut wood may sound the same, since there is the aging element which plays rather a key role in inflicting a drastic change in the
sound quality of two ouds made of Wall-nut wood with differently aged. Then he mentioned the building process with all it's complications therein.
Like measurements that need to be meticulously observed in the building process.
I won't elaborate on this matter beyond my experience and pretned that i am i-know-it-all person, but i think; and this is due to my very humble
experience, but rather vast hearing habits to different kinds of ouds, that when Master Turunz built an Arabic Oud for Joseph Tawadross the result of
his work surely carried Turunz's ouds charectarestics, but huge difference sound wise resulted in terms of resonance, depth of sound and other
features.
Master Turunz i really appreciate it if you would elaborte on this topic with more in depth input, and tell us if what i suggested of the difference
between the sound of your Turkish ouds and Arabic ouds is there, and if yes to what can we attribute this change?
|
|
|
Jonathan
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1582
Registered: 7-27-2004
Location: Los Angeles
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Is the difference in the sound between Turkish and Arabic ouds becoming increasingly small? To me, a lot of the difference in sound between Turkish
and Arabic ouds is much more obvious on older ouds. A Nahat does not sound like a Manol or a Karibyan, regardless of how it is tuned, or how it is
played.
I don't think this this is just a factor of age, although it could be. Perhaps it is also because the ouds themselves, due to improved transportation
and communication among various cultures, are being made in a more similar manner now.
A little off-topic, but since it has been brought up, I just have to say (and we have dealt with this at length in previous threads), but I think the
wood on the bowl of the instrument means pretty close to nothing. If you listen to Karibyans from the 1960s, every one sounds very, very similar,
regardless of the wood that was used on the bowl. The face matters, the braces matter, the craftsmanship matters. To my amateur ears, the bowl woods
do not.
|
|
|
Lintfree
Oud Junkie
Posts: 171
Registered: 2-9-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
It's hard to do an A/B comparison unless you have two of the same design with different bowls with the same scales and the same strings and braced
identically and have tops from the same board, but I know what you mean. Karibyan built his ouds to have a certain sound and I think that's what they
sound similar. He may have modified the bracing to compensate for an all walnut bowl or for whatever he was using at the time to have the sound he
wanted. He tuned his instruments to sound the way he wanted them to sound. The bridges on some Karibyans are in slightly different positions. Out of
the five or six I have played I would say that they all sounded different for different reasons; how old the strings were, what the humidity was, from
what period it came, how much it had been played.
But I would venture to sat that EVERYTHING makes a difference. A softer bowl wood with a stiffer top will sound different than a hard bowl wood with a
wider grained top
and it can go on until all we do is try to figure out why things sound the way they do and forgt to practice. Then there's the reality that some
people can make a mediocre oud sound great and another player can make the best oud sound like crap.
Variables? They're endless. D.L.
|
|
|
AGAPANTHOS
Oud Addict
Posts: 35
Registered: 2-23-2006
Location: CRETE-GREECE
Member Is Offline
Mood: hopeful
|
|
The fruitful discussion of our subject until now i think that it appoints that one critical issue is rather the threshold of any classification for
the oud from a point of view of sound and acoustics and that there is an agreement that the partition Arabic- Turkish ouds are rather subjective in
our days.
I am afraid that the whole matter is far more complicated. Is there one threshold or many?I would say that there are many, where each one has its own
importance and role in combination and synergy with the others.
We don't have to remain and stuck at the level of one individual oud maker in comparison with others(no matter who is that maker). This is one
important threshold but it is obvious that is not enough to limited our discussion to this and that we have to introduce and others in parallel.
If we want to broaden and deepen this discussion at this initial stage, i am afraid that we have to address this discussion to all the members of this
forum. This decision should be taken by the colleques that are assign to .
|
|
|
SamirCanada
Moderator
Posts: 3405
Registered: 6-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
I would like to throw in another question here at the same time since I spoke about it before but on a personal level I would like to see what the
other members think.
The Idea of what the oud should sound like is a subjective one. But what should the standards be when making a oud either turkish or arabic. What is
the sound that should be aimed for.
is it the same for an arabic and turkish oud? What do we use for a guideline?? is it the recordings of a Nahat? or a Manol? or if not What else can be
used to set as a benchmark to determine what is the perfect arabic and turkish oud sound.
Preferences also evolve trough time and like jonathan said perhaps the techniques used in the past where drasticaly different between turkish and arab
oud makers.
Its to bad no one was there in the time of Ziryab
Is it an individual thing??? I was trying a oud with a friend and fell in love with its sound. My friend turns around and tells me I know nothing
about a good sound.... this one sounds to "punchy" as he put it.
|
|
|
MatthewW
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1031
Registered: 11-5-2006
Location: right here
Member Is Offline
Mood: Al Salam
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by SamirCanada
I would like to throw in another question here at the same time since I spoke about it before but on a personal level I would like to see what the
other members think.
The Idea of what the oud should sound like is a subjective one. But what should the standards be when making a oud either turkish or arabic. What is
the sound that should be aimed for....
Is it an individual thing??? I was trying a oud with a friend and fell in love with its sound. My friend turns around and tells me I know nothing
about a good sound.... this one sounds to "punchy" as he put it. |
Good point SamirCanada- I've been listening lately to Riad Sunbati, the 'taqsim oud' CD, and I just love the sound of his oud. (what woods were used
in making his oud?). Perhaps to someone else Sunbati's oud may not sound that good at all, as in your above example when the oud you thought sounded
so good was 'too punchy' to your friend's ear. Perhaps the old proverb "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" can equally be applied to the sound of
any particular oud, "the beauty of the sound is in the ear of the listener"?
|
|
|
SamirCanada
Moderator
Posts: 3405
Registered: 6-4-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
what influences sound ultimately
its not just the woods... its the strings (material and tuning), the braces, the type of risha, where its played along the scale lenght, the
dimentions, the type of glue, the humidity etc..... there are endless variables. As Lintfree put it. But the idea is to determine which variables can
be controled and which ones have to be endured since they are not possible to control.
regardless of that it doesnt tell us what is the ultimate disired sound?
and is it the same for turkish and arabic ouds?
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
