| Pages:
1
2
3 |
adamgood
Oud Junkie
Posts: 499
Registered: 6-27-2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: 2.7 koma flat
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Edward Powell
The thing which is CONSTANT (meaning the SAME in both systems), is the PLAYED NOTES IN THE VARIOUS TRANSPOSED TUNINGS, for example;
1. First of all- ALL the notes in the makam system have oriental names.
-Rast makam starts with Rast note
-Nahawand/nihavent start on Rast note
-many makams start on Dugah note: bayati, hicaz, ussak, buselik... etc
-etc etc ---once you CHOOSE your starting point in the system, then ALL the makams will keep their proper place... for example if I choose to play
A (la) as the RAST NOTE, then bayati will start on B (si)... etc etc understood? |
Just one example of when it's not absolute and where this statement can be confusing to a beginner, don't forget that some (actually all) makams are
made up of tastes of various makams:
"Hicaz, Ussak and Neva all have some tastes of Rast in them"
and a beginner may interpret that as meaning Rast from (notated) Sol. In the case of hicaz and neva, the rast taste begins on the pitch Neva aka
notated Re.
Ussak likes to use a Rast-like taste that would begin on the pitch Yegah.
Ferahnak makam is built up of various Rast tastes.
Just thought I'd throw it out there and Edward I'm sure you are already aware of it.
|
|
|
adamgood
Oud Junkie
Posts: 499
Registered: 6-27-2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: 2.7 koma flat
|
|
...but Edward yes you are correct that there are certain absolutes as you mention and I'll say the same thing in a different way:
1. When given some notation for Turkish music, for a piece that is makam Rast, the karar and pitch Rast will always be written as Sol.
(whoops, the other day my friend showed me a book of notations from the collection of Kantemir...everything was written down a 4th!!! ie, Rast = D
below the staff! Never mind, it's incredibly rare).
So once we are given the notation, then we decide from which pitch we will play it. So one must be good at transposing on the spot and honestly, it's
not at all difficult. Because of language barriers I just check to make sure before we play, I ask for the concert pitch but refer to it as "piano Do"
for example and they seem to know what I mean.
In our Turkish choir here in Berlin we play in one of the following tunings:
Rast = piano A (Kiz)
Rast = piano G
Rast = piano C
And I swear one time we played Nihavend where Rast = Bb
We never play anything in Bolahenk tuning! Some of these are kind of tricky on the ud but well, they sound great with the voice and the vocals always
win...always and I think they should. Makes a nice challenge for us!
Though whenever I get the chance to refuse to play in Rast=G or C, I take it! I really don't like it.
Please as a really good exercise, take some Turkish notation that you have and play it in the tunings I gave above...also in Mustahsen tuning, also
very cool! (Rast = B) A favorite of Cinucen Tanrikorur according to Necati Celik.
Have fun! And don't stress....this is way less complicated than people make it out to be.
adam
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by adamgood
Just one example of when it's not absolute and where this statement can be confusing to a beginner, don't forget that some (actually all) makams are
made up of tastes of various makams:
"Hicaz, Ussak and Neva all have some tastes of Rast in them"
and a beginner may interpret that as meaning Rast from (notated) Sol. In the case of hicaz and neva, the rast taste begins on the pitch Neva aka
notated Re.
Ussak likes to use a Rast-like taste that would begin on the pitch Yegah.
Ferahnak makam is built up of various Rast tastes.
Just thought I'd throw it out there and Edward I'm sure you are already aware of it. |
Very very good point Adam.... how I explained might lead the beginner to confuse the usage of RAST PENTACHORD, thinking that it must only start from
Do, as found in RAST MAKAM.... whereas, as you say, "as a part of another makam" rast tetra/pentachord can start from anywhere and be used as a RAST
TASTE.
Very good point.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Reda Aouad
So I understand that you mean the following:
Turkish Rast (SOL) played as LA is Kizney tuning?
(Which is the case of the Ferahfaza taqsim example since it sounds one note higher)
Now that's what I call confusing!
But thanks for the good ( though a bit messy  ) explanation..
|
To be more clear, ANY Rast note (Turk or Arab) played as La is called KIZNEY tuning.
This means that if you are reading Turkish notation you will play everything one wholetone higher than it is written.
If you are reading Arab notation, everything will be played a major 6th higher than it is written (or a minor 3rd lower).
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A "TURKISH RAST NOTE", or an "ARAB RAST NOTE". But Turk/Arab write different notes on paper to REPRESENT these Oriental
names.
|
|
|
Reda Aouad
Oud Junkie
Posts: 553
Registered: 1-2-2009
Location: Lebanon
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
But Ed.. Although I lack knowledge in Turkish theory and Im familiarizing my self slowly with the concepts that differ from Arabic ones, I can say
that there is no such thing as Kiz tuning in Arabic theory. So I don't see how any Rast note (DO or SOL) played on LA is in Kiz tuning. Shouldn't it
be a standard that playing notes a whole tone higher only is called Kiz tuning (which is derived from the written SOL to played LA correspondence)? It
makes no sense to call the Rast DO in Kiz tuning if it is played sounding as LA..
And about the tri/tetra/pentachords.. This is what all the music theory is about.. Ajnas (plural of jins) which form the maqamat and may start on any
note. Rast maqam is basically 2 successive Rast tetrachords on DO and SOL (in Arabic theory for example). It doesn't matter on which note the jens
starts.. as long as it give the same taste and feeling. But as we all know some ajnas are tricky to play on the oud, so most of the maqams are built
on ajnas that simplify the fingering and include only few easy microtones and not other harder-to-play ones.
|
|
|
Reda Aouad
Oud Junkie
Posts: 553
Registered: 1-2-2009
Location: Lebanon
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Plus.. this tuning we are talking about is not for the oud. Ouds sound an octave lower than what is written. This tuning concept is for nays which
come in different sizes and tunings, so the notes should be transposed for them (or the oud) to sound similarly. It is not like a tuning system
invented to play a certain piece higher or lower.. you do it as you do for a Bb trumpet for example.
This is as far as I know.. any corrections would be great if I have misformed concepts.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
First of all, I am struggling to learn all of this just like you. I can tell you what Mohammed Antar has been telling me recently. He says that
essential the Arab/Turkish makam/maqam system is the same thing... meaning that in the OTTOMAN times this was all one country and a certain
standardisation was reached. However, after the Ottomans left, the two peoples altered their musics slightly - intonations changed slightly, and as a
result of various music conferences several new NORMS were adopted - - resulting now in what looks like two different systems: Turk and Arabic.
Try to go back a bit and realise that they come from the same thing. This really helps to understand both.
Antar was telling me that Arab's have different names for some of the transposed tunings - for example Kiz is called HARIMI in Arabic (if I am
correct).
Turkish written SOL played as LA is always KIZ. But don't forget that in Turkish writing SOL represents the RAST NOTE. ...and in Arab writing the
RAST NOTE is written as DO.
Forget totally about what you want to CALL the Rast note. RAST NOTE IS RAST NOTE. It is as simple as that. When you think about the RAST NOTE, you are
just identifying the note that you will start rast makam with, and from there you will orient yourself to FIND the starting notes for all the other
makams... Bayati and Hicaz start from one whole tone higher than Rast Note.
So, you have a TOTAL MAKAM SYSTEM, and once you start one makam in one place, then you must play all the other makams in a position that corresponds
correctly to where you started. If you shift the starting point of makam rast, then you also must shift the starting point, to the same degree, of all
other makams.
If you start makam rast on Do, then you can not also start bayati on Do and call it bayati. You NEVER CHANGE TRANSPOSITION SYSTEM in the middle of a
piece, or taksim. Once you start in one tuning, you are FIXED there till then end of the piece.
So forget about what note you will CALL rast... but be concerned with what note you choose to PLAY as Rast note. If you choose to play Rast note as
La, then you are now playing in transposition Kiz (OR Harimi, in Arabic).
- - -
unless you only intend to play solo oud all the time, it is important to get beyond the idea that some microtones a the difficult ones... etc as
Adam was suggesting we need to be able to play all makams in all possible keys if we want to play with singers etc.
But of course nobody is going to play solo oud in YILDIZ tuning!  )
|
|
|
Reda Aouad
Oud Junkie
Posts: 553
Registered: 1-2-2009
Location: Lebanon
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
mmmm.. ok got ur idea..
As for transposing freely on the oud.. it is really much more difficult than guitar or piano for example. Of course we make every effort to improve
such skill.. but did you ever hear of Rast on Si half-sharp? Rast is most commonly played on Do, Re, Fa, Sol, La, Sib. These are the only tonics for
the compositions I have seen in Rast, even tough rarely enough.
Anyways.. I don't want to deviate much from the subject.. Thanks for the info 
|
|
|
Reda Aouad
Oud Junkie
Posts: 553
Registered: 1-2-2009
Location: Lebanon
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Ok now that I'm reading more on the subject.. I'm starting to grasp the idea better. I always thought that Kiz tuning meant that Do sounds La when
played. But now the concept is totally different.. and it seems interesting to have such systems, although I never heard of anything like that in
Arabic theory. Rast was always Do, and it will always be for me. Maybe we should ask experts about the Arabic theory. But can anyone explain the
benefit of such tuning systems? Why not just transpose a piece written in Rast Do to Rast Re for example if all what is needed is to match a singer's
vocal range? Why to bother with extra complexity?
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Reda Aouad
mmmm.. ok got ur idea..
As for transposing freely on the oud.. it is really much more difficult than guitar or piano for example. Of course we make every effort to improve
such skill.. but did you ever hear of Rast on Si half-sharp? Rast is most commonly played on Do, Re, Fa, Sol, La, Sib. These are the only tonics for
the compositions I have seen in Rast, even tough rarely enough.
Anyways.. I don't want to deviate much from the subject.. Thanks for the info |
Dont mind if I get "picky" because I find that exploring these concepts in detail really helps me to understand.
I would the note Si half flat does not actually exist. Anyway, there are NO transpositions that would make RAST NOTE be played starting from one of
the "half-flat" notes.
I think this concept of the "half-flat" note needs to be examined more closely, in our efforts to get to the CRUX of all of this. 
I know what you meant however - but again, I feel that our understanding can improve if we use the approapriate terms in the proper place.
For example, what I was suggesting previously is to use the oriental note names when refering to a makam note, and the western names when refering to
an actual played note.
So perhaps this question would be better understood and have a more exact meaning if we would say SEGAH (SIKAH) NOTE, instead of Si half-flat.
Half-flat is a very inaccurate and misleading term...
|
|
|
Reda Aouad
Oud Junkie
Posts: 553
Registered: 1-2-2009
Location: Lebanon
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I'll try my best to use the proper terms. You are totally right about half flats and sharps which are only simplifications to the theory, but it is
the easiest way to express the notes you hear, since I will definitely never remember that what you hear as C# is called "Zirkula", or F half-sharp as
"Nim Hijaz", or B half-sharp as "Tik Kawasht" - I had to reopen my books for that!
1. I asked about Si half-sharp and not half-flat.
2. Segah is Mi half-flat and not Si half-flat Si half-flat is Iraq in the lower
register and Awj at the octave above. But never mind I know they are a bit confusing.. I got your point, although we are using western names and half
accidentals to simplify our understanding.
3. I don't see why theoretically, there is no transposition of a Rast composition from Rast (Do) to Segah for example. Rast on Segah would be:
Segah - Nim Hijaz - Nawa - Tik Hisar - Awj - Nim Shahnaz - Muhayyar - Buzrak
which is somewhat easily fingered and playable on an oud (seriously) and would match a slightly higher voice range.
|
|
|
corridoio
Oud Junkie
Posts: 184
Registered: 3-11-2007
Location: Italy
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
this list comes from a previous post, if it's ok should be good to have here, in this topic for the understanding of everybody with a lacking memory,
like me..
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
Si "half-flat" is segah in the turkish writing system... you see how ingrained it can become - - I am now used to BOTH of them so it really gets
confused.
Again, there is a confusion between the modern turk and arab theory systems. They both used to be the same thing but there were some conferences in
which the Turks decided to standardise in one way, and the Arabs in a different way - - - after that, the new way of notating the music greatly
influenced how the musicians played.
For example, the arabs REALLY wanted to simplify so they brought in the quarter-tone concept.
Turks wanted to make the theory a represent the actual practice more closely so there are NO quarter-tones in turkish theory. Turks divide the
whole-tone into 9 komas (so quartertone is impossible). Turks have big and small wholetones and semitones. Big wholetones have 9 komas and the small
ones have 8 komas. Likewise semitones are either 4 or 5 komas. This is the theory anyway - the practice is something different again.
You see, the OFFICIAL turkish intonation is closer to Western intonation than Arab's. And Arab's official intonation is as far from Western as you can
get. I have been told that what was much closer to the truth is something BETWEEN these two modern versions. I am told that the Turks made a conscious
effort to move their intonation closer to western, and Arabs made a conscious effort to distinguish it's intonation as different - - - or perhaps it
was just a case of trying to simplify, that they came up with the modern 1/4 tone theory.
|
|
|
adamgood
Oud Junkie
Posts: 499
Registered: 6-27-2005
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: 2.7 koma flat
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Edward Powell
If you start makam rast on Do, then you can not also start bayati on Do and call it bayati. You NEVER CHANGE TRANSPOSITION SYSTEM in the middle of a
piece, or taksim. Once you start in one tuning, you are FIXED there till then end of the piece.
|
True I think you will rarely find written pieces that begin in one makam from one tuning system and modulate to another makam by the end of the piece
in another tuning system but you'll find taksims of course that can do this, say if you want to make a bridge of a taksim between pieces, again it's
all about the singer(s).
For example, if you play sarki A from hicaz in bolahenk tuning and sarki B is in ussak in Kiz tuning and you don't want the performance to stop, you
can perform a taksim in between as a bridge. For a master that would be no problem.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
Excellent point!
Yes, a transitional taksim would do this.
In fact lately I noticed a MAMDOUH taksim that started in Rast, and went thru a bunch of modulations and finally ended in Rast one fourth higher (from
Cargah).
Actually, during a taksim, and also theoritically, in composition, it IS POSSIBLE to pretty much go where you want. Rast from do, then Bayati from
do... or whatever. I think for a long time I was analyzing each note an modulation from everything, and then when I found "inconsistencies" I would
question experts - - - until finally I reached a point where not EVERYTHING could be fit into some rule or another, and the experts would either be at
a loss for an explanation, or they would just say, "ok, sometimes there is no logical explanation or rule to follow - we just PLAY from heart."
I find I am slowly getting to this point in my own playing to where studying the rules has been a great way to gain vocab., but then I end up just
trying to play from the heart and forget the rules after a while...
But I am very very grateful for the rules and the seyirs and and and, because when my own imaginatin starts to run a bit dry there is a vast source of
VOCAB. just waiting to be tapped into.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2939
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Edward, you raise a lot of good points (i'm definitely learning some new stuff).
| Quote: | Originally posted by Edward Powell
Turks wanted to make the theory a represent the actual practice more closely so there are NO quarter-tones in turkish theory. Turks divide the
whole-tone into 9 komas (so quartertone is impossible). Turks have big and small wholetones and semitones. Big wholetones have 9 komas and the small
ones have 8 komas. Likewise semitones are either 4 or 5 komas. This is the theory anyway - the practice is something different again.
|
This statement is a little misleading, in my opinion.
It's arguable that the theoreticians were trying to systematize and "justify" theoretically the musical practice. That is, they wanted to have an
prescriptive effect on practice, not merely describe what IS, but what OUGHT to be practiced. To some extent, of course, this is in the spirit of
greater understanding, but at some point it becomes merely math and dubious attempts to find reasons for why certain things sound a certain way. You
allude to this, in your statement that the practice doesn't exactly match the theory.
This seems to be a characteristic of theoreticians everywhere . . .
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
