| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
7 |
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
And maybe on any oud, actual buzzing is just a nuisance ;-)? I dunno, it's not so much buzzing as a longer singing of notes, and as Ameer points out,
it interacts with the string material, and it does sound altogether less Turkish as you raise the strings. There was a Fadi Matta clip demo of his
neck adjustment that's no longer on YouTube, and it was very audible how the timbre seems to move North as you lower the strings, South as you raise
them. Not the only factor of course, but not a myth either.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud  | | the timbre seems to move North as you lower the strings, South as you raise them. Not the only factor of course, but not a myth either.
|
I hate to be Mr. "Disagreeable" on this thread - and perhaps it is a part of me that feels uncomfortable with any type of "stereotyping"...
...but I also tend to disagree that Turkish sound is characterized by low action buzzing. In my opinion some of the most Turkish sounding Turkish
players seem to have quite high action. For example the first Turkish oud playing I ever heard (back in the very early 90's) was Elgin Kizilay, and I
had a cassette of his taksims which I absolutely fell in love with, and this has been imbedded in my brain as "old school Turkish sound" and in my
opinion the "really Turkish" Turkish sound. . . and this sound did not include low action buzzing.
Unless I'm mistaken, this low action thing is rather a recent modern thing.
I guess generally speaking lower action takes a more technically minded luthier to achieve - and generally, the further north you go the technical
people get. . . . so there can be some co-relation in this assumption.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
...I also wanted to add then again I think most people are assessing the differences between Turkish and Arabic tone quite opposite from what is
really happening.
People generally try to say that Arabic ouds are much more bassy and deep/dark sounding than Turkish ouds.
Well, just listen to some players and what you notice is that Arabic player tend much more to be up on the nylons most of the time, and do not hang
around much on the low strings.
On the other hand, the opposite is true for Turkish players who spend much more time on the wound strings and finally don't do all that much up
high.
I think this myth built up perhaps because Arab ouds are bigger than Turkish so people began "hearing with their eyes" and assuming that Arab ouds are
more bassy.
Again, there is a reason why Arab oud players tend to spend so much time heavy handedly shredding on the nylons whereas Turkish oud players tend more
just to gently stroke the lower strings... one reason is that although Arab ouds are bigger, their soundboards are thicker than Turkish... and
Arabic braces are skyscrapers compared to the very low Turkish bracing..... and the 3rd thing is that Turkish soundholes are much smaller than Arabic
- this also deepens the Turkish tone ...the result is that although the Turkish oud has a smaller body, the small holes, very thin SB, and
low-light bracing means that Turkish ouds really sing in the lows and mids...
Arab ouds with big body and heavy construction: The big body allows for a kind of punch very very low... but the heavy SB and bracing means that the
highs are going to be the sweetest area to play in, and the strings will need a stronger attack - - - whereas a Turkish oud is so light and fragile
that an Arab Attack on one sounds horrible.
PS - Brian, my comments are in no way argumentative towards you specifically. I think that you know what I'm talking about and we are confusing terms
(mids - low mids - bass), which can confuse everyone in fact.
|
|
|
jack
Oud Junkie
Posts: 116
Registered: 4-5-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell | ...I also wanted to add then again I think most people are assessing the differences between Turkish and Arabic tone quite opposite from what is
really happening.
People generally try to say that Arabic ouds are much more bassy and deep/dark sounding than Turkish ouds.
Well, just listen to some players and what you notice is that Arabic player tend much more to be up on the nylons most of the time, and do not hang
around much on the low strings.
On the other hand, the opposite is true for Turkish players who spend much more time on the wound strings and finally don't do all that much up
high.
I think this myth built up perhaps because Arab ouds are bigger than Turkish so people began "hearing with their eyes" and assuming that Arab ouds are
more bassy.
Again, there is a reason why Arab oud players tend to spend so much time heavy handedly shredding on the nylons whereas Turkish oud players tend more
just to gently stroke the lower strings... one reason is that although Arab ouds are bigger, their soundboards are thicker than Turkish... and
Arabic braces are skyscrapers compared to the very low Turkish bracing..... and the 3rd thing is that Turkish soundholes are much smaller than Arabic
- this also deepens the Turkish tone ...the result is that although the Turkish oud has a smaller body, the small holes, very thin SB, and
low-light bracing means that Turkish ouds really sing in the lows and mids...
Arab ouds with big body and heavy construction: The big body allows for a kind of punch very very low... but the heavy SB and bracing means that the
highs are going to be the sweetest area to play in, and the strings will need a stronger attack - - - whereas a Turkish oud is so light and fragile
that an Arab Attack on one sounds horrible.
|
Lovely analysis Edward.
I would add that much of the difference between Turkish and Arabic ouds is 'proportion'. I can compare their relationship to the more extreme
relationship of tenor ukulele, and guitar. If you capo a guitar at the 5th fret, you get the ukulele tuning on the 4 highest strings, but you never
get the ukulele sound from those same four strings. The notes do not sing the same song, nor do the chords come together the same way. The proportions
are different. Similarly, to me the Turkish oud will never match the Arabic oud for warmth, depth, and fullness, but the notes on a Turkish oud are so
well defined, and they blend together in a completely different way than Arabic ouds, even up to the bass string (as Edward pointed out). You can play
all six strings as a collective on a Turkish oud in a more 'together' sense than on an Arabic oud, where some strings are more melody, some more
rhythm, some more drone.
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Yes, things are in flux, that's what I meant about "a moving target". Probably the best ouds increasingly take freely from both traditions. And the
way players work, both right and left hand, contributes a lot to the way ouds sound. For every generalization we make, like about playing mostly high
or low, we can find opposites cases.
But let's start with where we DO agree, so we can try to broadly define what we mean by "Turkish" vs "Arabic" oud sound. We agree that Nasser Houari plays an Arabic oud. What tells us it's Arabic? Can we agree on these:
1) Arabic: plunky. Fast percussive attack and shorter decay of notes. Turkish has longer sustain.
2) Arabic: Fundamental frequency dominates after an initial "pop". Fewer upper harmonics, a more "nylon" sound. Turkish: less initial pop, more upper
harmonics from the outset, a more "metal-wound string" sound.
If we can agree on these simple beginnings, what else? Can you point to what you'd consider a "purely Turkish" oud sound?
I do wish Mr Turunz would verbalize specifics, rather than just tell us he understands it all. Although more balanced than most ouds, to my ears this
instrument has a very Turkish sound:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh0k03UL0BQ
|
|
|
Ararat66
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1025
Registered: 11-14-2005
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Member Is Offline
Mood: mellow yellow
|
|
Just a quick comment - I know my knowledge and experience is relatively little, but I don't recognise the general characteristic of Arabic ouds as (to
paraphrase) 'heavy' and high action.
I had the good fortune of playing on dave Humphrey's Kamil Mowais in Oxford this year when Nizar Rohana came over. It was one of the most wonderful
instruments I have played - really low action, no buzz and a very thin sound board. I think the body was quite large as I remember but it was very
lightly built.
Nizar has also brought a number of Arabic ouds for some of us UK udis, often older models, and they tend to be characterised by a very light weight,
low action, thin soundboards and very very easy playing ... the strings feel almost buttery to the risha.
Leon
|
|
|
Bodhi
Oud Junkie
Posts: 168
Registered: 2-26-2012
Location: North West England
Member Is Offline
|
|
Just thought I would say that I don't believe that the size of the instrument really alters the sound in such dramatic way. I own a Mohammadi bros.
Barbat and as many will know the dimensions are much smaller than even the Turkish ouds. The sound however resembles more the syrian ouds with a depth
not found in Turkish ouds. Previously I owned a Turkish Oud by Saandi who we can probably agree have that Turkish sound down to a fine art) and so I
know the difference by direct comparison.
Ustad Ghanbari the Master of Iranian instrument building taught the Mohammadi Bros. and his bracing pattern is the result of much research, to gain
maximum volume with the smaller bowl. I would also say that in Iran the Oud is generally used as a bass instrument in ensemble playing which is
probably the reason for them wanting that, lets say, syrian sound with deep bass and little high harmonics. (I hope I this is not a wrong
interpretation of harmonics regarding the syrian oud sound)
I would like to say to Faruk Tarunz that I await his reply to my e-mail with anticipation, and that it would be really to the benefit of the board if
he started a thread and dealt in depth with his 'Tuned Bracing System' and the difference between Turkish and Arabian Ouds in a scientific way. So,
for us laymen there would be less guesswork and more understanding.
Regards
Bodhi
|
|
|
jdowning
Oud Junkie
Posts: 3485
Registered: 8-2-2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
How thick is thin and how light is heavy?
If some 'Arabic' ouds made today are relatively heavily built with thick sound boards this would seem to be a modern trend - made possible by the
relatively late invention of nylon trebles and metal wound basses allowing, in turn, low pitch tuning and greater volume of sound.
In the past 'thin' wood would seem to have been the order of the day for oud construction (as it was and still is for the lute). As 14th C Ibn
al-Tahhan al- Musiqi has to say " Seasoned larch wood, without flaws, is cut very thin for the sound board. It should be of two or three pieces rather
than one piece. The bowl should be of thinner wood ...".
No indication of thickness measurement of course but my old (early 20th C?) Egyptian oud has a pine sound board of measured thickness averaging about
1.8 mm - somewhat thicker in the central areas and somewhat thinner around the edges. Actual average thickness, however, is somewhat thinner than this
as the whole underside of the sound board is scored with fine grooves made with a toothing plane. Total weight unstrung is 0.9 Kg (including the
soundboard weight of 0.14 Kg)
By way of comparison, the somewhat smaller 7 course lute, 60 cm string length, that I regularly play weighs - fully strung - 0.56 Kg.
Do we have any similar measured data for Arabic and Turkish ouds?
|
|
|
suz_i_dil
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1064
Registered: 1-10-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I don't think there is one type of "arabic" sounding oud.
That's a matter of taste. For exemple the one played by Nasser Houari, post by Fernand Raynaud, is absolutely not the kind of arabic, arabian, or
whatever else I'm looking for.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmlzEEKbfXU&feature=related
What about this one ?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Z0kmrV7BEA&feature=relmfu
For me, very oriental and I love it.
And this one ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mNxwgAmTKM&feature=related
Both of 3 are rather different, but who can say one of the 3 is not arabic ?
For me, I own a Faruk previously name grand concert arabic oud, and I really enjoy it. For me it's perfectly what I was awaiting of an "arabic" oud.
Moreover I feel it, believe me or not, more near of the sound of Shaheen's Nahat.
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1378
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
A limited yet useful, helpful way to describe the tone of musical instruments, and therefore to discuss the difference between instruments is to
compare their sound to the sound of vowels. Bearing in mind that there is variety of sound amongst both Turkish and Arabic ouds and also between wound
and unwound strings on either type of oud, and that all samples will not conform to what I am about to suggest, would the contributors/participants of
this forum agree that —in general — the sound of Arabic oud is in the area of "ah" and "aw", and that the sound of Turkish oud is in the area of
"oh" and "ooh" Of course there is overlap but I do find this paradigm useful. Further, I submit that the sound of "eee" and "eeeww" are not typical
oud sounds. Of course other vowel sounds can occur on most ouds, particular those of the language of the player.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2949
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher | | A limited yet useful, helpful way to describe the tone of musical instruments, and therefore to discuss the difference between instruments is to
compare their sound to the sound of vowels. Bearing in mind that there is variety of sound amongst both Turkish and Arabic ouds and also between wound
and unwound strings on either type of oud, and that all samples will not conform to what I am about to suggest, would the contributors/participants of
this forum agree that —in general — the sound of Arabic oud is in the area of "ah" and "aw", and that the sound of Turkish oud is in the area of
"oh" and "ooh" Of course there is overlap but I do find this paradigm useful. Further, I submit that the sound of "eee" and "eeeww" are not typical
oud sounds. Of course other vowel sounds can occur on most ouds, particular those of the language of the player. |
I hear the Arabic sound as more of an "uh" or "eh". . .
|
|
|
Bodhi
Oud Junkie
Posts: 168
Registered: 2-26-2012
Location: North West England
Member Is Offline
|
|
I would go with Jody on this one, and adding in the consonants at the beginning you really get the feel of the arabian oud for instance:
Tah Toh
Taw Tooh
Dah Doh
Daw Dooh
Ofcourse opinions may vary but the D or T could depend on nylon or steel wound or the position of risha and heavyness or sharpness of stroke.
the Turkish, I would say, prefering D to T.
Would we all also agree that probably Risha technique and string tension/material also play a larger role than has been noted in this topic?
P.s. where suz_i_dill says "arabic, arabian, or whatever else" Arabic is the language and Arabian is anything coming out of the Arab world, just a
quick clarification.
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1378
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
Brian and Bodhi are both correct. The sounds they describe occur in the context of playing music. The general sound categories I proposed are an
attempt to describe the basic sound of ouds when artificially separated from the music they play. My idea was they sound this way when the string is
gently plucked with the bare pad of a finger. That way the sound of various plectrum materials are not a factor, and neither are plectrum
techniques.
In context I hear the vowel "uh" from Omar Naqshbandi and Sunbati along with other vowels. From George Michel I hear lots of "ah". I also hear lots
of "aw" from Turkish instruments in the middle strings whereas the "aw" in Arabic instruments seems to be to be more on the lowest strings.
Obviously I would need to have tested hundreds or even thousand of samples of ouds to make any definitive statements about "oud vowels". I'm just
looking for a way to talk about these differences in a productive way that might be more helpful than saying that Arabic ouds sound Arabic and Turkish
ouds sound Turkish ( which, by the way, is not such a bad description, but maybe not the best one).
|
|
|
jack
Oud Junkie
Posts: 116
Registered: 4-5-2010
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Bodhi |
Just thought I would say that I don't believe that the size of the instrument really alters the sound in such dramatic way. |
If this were the case, there would be no reason to build a contrabass, because a violin would be able to be built with such a type of bracing that it
could be as 'bassy' as a contrabass, which is obviously impossible. Size does matter. It is not the one and only factor in 'bassyness', but it is one.
But I wasn't quoted on size, but on 'proportion', which is a different ballgame altogether. Proportion is how the whole works together, and in the
case of Turkish ouds, I believe the proportions work differently in many acoustic ways than with Arabic ouds. No matter which type of oud, the voice
and sustain of each single note, and the way the notes intermingle are all related to 'proportion'.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Ararat66 | Just a quick comment - I know my knowledge and experience is relatively little, but I don't recognise the general characteristic of Arabic ouds as (to
paraphrase) 'heavy' and high action.
I had the good fortune of playing on dave Humphrey's Kamil Mowais in Oxford this year when Nizar Rohana came over. It was one of the most wonderful
instruments I have played - really low action, no buzz and a very thin sound board. I think the body was quite large as I remember but it was very
lightly built.
Nizar has also brought a number of Arabic ouds for some of us UK udis, often older models, and they tend to be characterised by a very light weight,
low action, thin soundboards and very very easy playing ... the strings feel almost buttery to the risha.
Leon |
Exactly! ...this is why 'stereotyping' never leads anywhere...
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
...these are only my "opinions" by the way - I don't claim any expertise.
This sample you have presented seems to me like the "modern" Turkish sound - which to me sounds like the old sound PLUS a lot of bright high sizzle. I
think these added highs are a relatively new thing... My guess is the old school Turkish sound was much more round - perhaps like this sample.
http://youtu.be/JgobGjQaSqw
|
|
|
Bodhi
Oud Junkie
Posts: 168
Registered: 2-26-2012
Location: North West England
Member Is Offline
|
|
yes Jack you are right
I wrongly confused size with proportions, and as you say their is a vast difference between a contra-bass and a violin, never mind that take a viola
and the tone changes dramatically.
I would like to know when Jody was listening to George Michael making "aw" sounds. I hope it wasn't in that public toilet fiasco?
Firstly; I never heard that he had any interest in Arabian music or the oud.
Secondly; His vocals tend to lean towards "Oooohs" and "yeaaaaahs"
Please enlighten us Jody. )
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Wonderful contributions, at least we rudimentary prigs are trying.
Eddie, Eddie. Without categorizing there's no science, no logic, no discourse! Good point about the prominence of higher harmonics being a recent
development, but in my case for instance that's what I've always known as "Turkish", definitely brighter, but un-saz-like in that the brightness is
just an attribute of a sustaining midrange vowel, what Jody calls the "o". Hmm, so to your ears Turkish is just that upper midrange roundness, that
"o"? Notice that the short "ah" vowel starts with a glottal "plunk", so it does capture that Arabic thing. We need some spectra!
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
Sometimes I wonder if we all woundn't be better off without these things...? 
exactly...
|
|
|
fernandraynaud
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1865
Registered: 7-25-2009
Location: San Francisco, California
Member Is Offline
Mood: m'Oudy
|
|
Bunny-hugger! Head-in-the-sand greenie commie bystander veggie! ;-)
But, seriously, we're actually making some progress. Maybe we can say that Arabic ouds have a shorter "ga" sound? And that contemporary Turkish ouds
a longer "zoo" timbre?
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
now there u go categorizing again! )
|
|
|
Aymara
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1162
Registered: 10-14-2009
Location: Germany / Ruhr Region
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ah's and oh's, George Michael in the toilet and now the "zoo" timbre ... what a discussion  
Greetings from Germany
Chris
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1378
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Bodhi |
I would like to know when Jody was listening to George Michael making "aw" sounds. I hope it wasn't in that public toilet fiasco?
Firstly; I never heard that he had any interest in Arabian music or the oud.
Secondly; His vocals tend to lean towards "Oooohs" and "yeaaaaahs"
Please enlighten us Jody.) |
I had to do a web search for George Michael to have an inkling of what you meant. He is not a household name in the USA, especially to my (older)
generation. But in *my* household the Egyptian oud player George Michel is highly respected and his music much enjoyed.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Bodhi |
I would like to say to Faruk Tarunz that I await his reply to my e-mail with anticipation, and that it would be really to the benefit of the board if
he started a thread and dealt in depth with his 'Tuned Bracing System' and the difference between Turkish and Arabian Ouds in a scientific way. So,
for us laymen there would be less guesswork and more understanding.
|
It is my understanding that sometime soon Faruk Usta may soon be publishing a book about his "Brace Tuning Method" - as well as holding public
seminars/workshops for those wanting to learn how to apply this method.
|
|
|
oudistcamp
Oud Junkie
Posts: 144
Registered: 5-27-2009
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Two weeks ago, Faruk and I spent a full day together calculating and analysing the Brace Tuning Method. It makes so much sense and sheds light as to
why certain ouds sound the way they do.
The Brace Tuning Method is openly available to anyone who is interested with an open mind. After fully understanding it, you are free to accept it or
not. Prior to that, any criticism of the Method is a display of ignorance tinted by prejudice.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
..
7 |
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
