| Pages:
1
2 |
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Turkish interval system: tone breakdown and its usage
I'm getting more familiar with Turkish music system but I'm still far from complete understanding of its organization. There are bits and pieces all
over the Internet but not much information clearly presented in one place.
One of the questions I have is why out of 9 comas making up one whole tone only the 1, 4, 5 and 8 coma values get practical application in Turkish Art
Music?
I understand the choice of 4 and 5 comas: they are located in the middle between the base tones and both can logicaly represent half-tone with little
deviation from it which for some can be hardly noticeable.
However why the 1 and 8 comas instead of 2 and 7? If it were 2 and 7 they would quite reasobably represent quarter tones. In comparison 1 and 8 look
(please note I don't say 'sound') more like errors rather than intentional displacements from the core base tones.
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
I just realized that I probably asked a wrong question in respect to the application of the Turkish comas.
My question assumes the whole tones are a mainstay and comas are deviations from the mainstay. That would be correct if we were deriving the chromatic
notes from the Turkish system of intervals.
However as far as I understand there are no such things as chromatic intervals in Turkish music. Am I going in the wrong direction again? Sometimes I
feel like I confuse myself with incorrect usage of the terms.
So, I just realized the comas are not deviations from the mainstay but they themselve constitute the mainstays. Does it make sense?
In that case the 1 and 8 coma locations are more clear for me although I can't judge yet how good those choices are.
Anyway, what about chromatic notes in the Turkish music. Can the comas be applied just like chromatic deviations?
Sorry... I'm getting more and more confused.
|
|
|
abc123xyz
Oud Junkie
Posts: 114
Registered: 5-17-2007
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
The intervals used in music, Turkish and otherwise, are based upon mathematical ratios that, in certain combinations and sequences, affect the
pattern-recognizing regions of the brain in a way we call musical.
When these intervals get laid down in order on a piece of paper for examination, as frets on the neck of a lute, etc. they don't necessarily produce
an evenly spaced pattern, nor do they need to.
Western equal temperament, which does produce such an equal spacing, is an artificial creation, an expedient to allow for standardized design and
tuning of musical instruments and western orchestration, and none of its intervals, except the octave, correspond to the natural intervals based upon
the simplest ratios.
The Turkish comma system is actually an artificial creation itself, created by theorists, and also an approximation to the natural system. Although,
as you'd expect, with a larger number of divisions it can more closely approximate the natural tones than Western equal temperament can.
So we shouldn't expect an even or symmetrical use of every comma location available.
David
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2951
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Just think of the 1 and 8 cent versions the same way you though of the 4 and 5 cent version, but just in reference to the other notes in the scale,
rather than 0 and 9.
C D E = 0 9 18
C D Eb = 0 9 13 (i.e., Eb=18-5)
C Dd Eb = 0 8 13 (i.e., Dd=9-1)
C Db Eb = 0 4 13 (i.e., Db=9-5)
Make sense?
|
|
|
DavidJE
Oud Junkie
Posts: 265
Registered: 7-14-2013
Location: Vienna, Austria
Member Is Offline
|
|
Wow, I just wrote a long and detailed response to this and accidentally hit the back button and erased it all!
So, I think I understand your questions and issues here. Briefer this time...
The comma system is a theoretical system that does not represent actual practice/performance. I assume the theorists decided to limit notation to
only one comma flat or sharp of any whole or half tone to avoid having accidentals for 1 comma flat, 1.5 commas flat, 2 commas flat, 2.5 commas flat,
etc. In practice/performance different intervals are used. For example:
The note named buselik is written as a "B". The note named segah is written as a "B-one-comma-flat", but it is most definitely not always played as
one-comma-flat. In the makam Ussak it is probably 2 or even 2.5 commas flat on average. In the makam Rast it's probably between 1 and 2 commas flat.
However, even within a makam like Rast or Ussak there is no fixed position for segah. The flatness of the note changes depending on whether you are
going up or down, what notes are prominent before and after, etc.. This leads to a richness in sound, and even a richness in personal playing style.
Different players might play segah more or less flat in different situations. Sometimes segah is closer to dik kurdi than it is to buselik, and
sometimes vice versa.
Does that make sense?
Think of 1 and 8 as just meaning "sharper" and "flatter". When you see 1 and 8 in NOTATION or THEORY, it really could be 2 and 7 in PERFORMANCE. 1
and 8 just means "sharper" and "flatter".
This is why it's VERY useful to have someone with a lot of experience as a teacher. I don't think anyone who isn't an experienced musician will
recognize if something is "one comma flat" or not, if it is indeed only one comma flat, and especially within the context of a quickly moving piece of
music. HOWEVER, I do think there is a subtle difference in the sound/feeling of the music due to these small variations. I do think they add a
richness to the music.
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
All is fine with comas - makes sense. However what about "chromatics" in Turkish makams? For instance where you have a whole tone of 9 comas can you
put an accidental at 4 or 5 or... let's go right in the middle in Western style: 4.5 ?
I assume 'NOT' bacause it would ruin the particular makam. Correct?
So, it other words, when you play a certain makam, let's say the Cargah (Chargah) which according to L.Signel is the most close makam to the Western
major scale (9949994 in comas), do you have a freedom to split any of the 9's in half or are you limited to only the "diatonic" tones? Sorry about
diatonic - of course it has not much meaning here but it's the best definition I could find because I didn't want to call the notes 'fixed' since they
are not.
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by DavidJE  | Wow, I just wrote a long and detailed response to this and accidentally hit the back button and erased it all!
.... |
I get very frustrated when it happens. I remeber when I had that happening two times in a row maybe in the course of a few days I started to copy the
message post before hitting the 'Post' button. You know those forums with a short timeout logout?
However once it doesn't happen for awhile I forget to copy and then.... AGAIN!
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
One more question if you don't mind. Not exactly on the subject but very related.
When on Turkish tanbur (the long necked lute) the fret positions are identified as Makam names, i.e. Yegah-Asiran-Irak-Rast-etc. starting from the nut
(Yegah) is it safe to say we can relate that fret position to the makam it names and develop our taqsim in the corresponding makam from that fret?
I'm not sure the makams can be transposed on the tanbur neck with fixed fret positions or... can they?
By the way, since the tanbur frets are somewhat "fixed" and cannot be moved on the fly is tanbur playing considered more limited compared to oud in
this respect?
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2951
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SV_T_oud | All is fine with comas - makes sense. However what about "chromatics" in Turkish makams? For instance where you have a whole tone of 9 comas can you
put an accidental at 4 or 5 or... let's go right in the middle in Western style: 4.5 ?
I assume 'NOT' bacause it would ruin the particular makam. Correct?
So, it other words, when you play a certain makam, let's say the Cargah (Chargah) which according to L.Signel is the most close makam to the Western
major scale (9949994 in comas), do you have a freedom to split any of the 9's in half or are you limited to only the "diatonic" tones? Sorry about
diatonic - of course it has not much meaning here but it's the best definition I could find because I didn't want to call the notes 'fixed' since they
are not. |
Traditionally, chromatic playing like that is not typical for traditional music, but it has become more common, probably due to Western influence. It
wasn't even that common in Western music until the adoption of Equal Temperament because a succession of more than a couple of unequal semitones
sounds a little weird (one or two are fine but if you heard a non-equal chromatic scale it is a little strange),
So yes, you can use chromatic passing tones.
It does detract from the maqam somewhat; it is a more modern affectation but at this point it's an accepted practice. It pretty much only occurs
where you have a whole tone. Note that the minor whole tone is 8/9 so you can actually divide it in half. The major whole tone cannot be divided in
half using the comma system.
If you have any thing less than a whole step, you can't really use a passing tone.
A Western major scale, by the way, I think would actually be 9 8 5 9 8 9 5. The ET version is only an approximation.
Diatonic and chromatic mean the same thing here as in western music, it's just that we have more alterations to choose from.
Diatonic = belonging to the scale
Chromatic = non-diatonic
So if you have, say, Husayni: A Bd C D E F+ G A, those are the diatonic notes. Anything else would be chromatic.
Theory is a follower to practice—this stuff should come from listening. Trying to square it with theory is a waste of time, IMO.
As David notes, the music doesn't really follow the theory anyway, even in the basic makams.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2951
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SV_T_oud | One more question if you don't mind. Not exactly on the subject but very related.
When on Turkish tanbur (the long necked lute) the fret positions are identified as Makam names, i.e. Yegah-Asiran-Irak-Rast-etc. starting from the nut
(Yegah) is it safe to say we can relate that fret position to the makam it names and develop our taqsim in the corresponding makam from that fret?
I'm not sure the makams can be transposed on the tanbur neck with fixed fret positions or... can they?
By the way, since the tanbur frets are somewhat "fixed" and cannot be moved on the fly is tanbur playing considered more limited compared to oud in
this respect? |
The makams are named after the notes, not the other way around. The makam can be named after the tonic, a prominent note, starting note or just by
the note that distinguishes it. So Kurd is actually the second note of the makam Kurd, not the tonic. It's just the prominent feature of that makam.
Hicaz is the third note of hicaz maqam, etc.
Some makams can be transposed with fixed frets, it just depends on how many frets you have and whether those notes are there.
Yes, I would say that any fretted instrument is somewhat more limited than a fretless instrument.
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1378
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
I can add two small things to Brian's 99.9% complete answer.
1) One of the meanings of "maqam" in Arabic is *position* or *station*, and this may shed light on the names of the frets and the pitches they
produce.
2) The oud and other fretless instruments provide unlimited opportunities to play out-of-tune in ever new ways!
and one Big Thing: yes yes yes; theory describes existing music. Or tries to do this. When and where theory prescribes, the resultant music
suffers. And so do the listeners.
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Brian - thanks a lot for you help and here are a few comments:
I agree but often one needs to understand initial set of rules in order to proceed with practice. For instance you mentioned about naming makams after
prominent notes, not tonics. Without knowing that I would assume the latter and having had developed good ear I would have hard time struggling with
recordings trying to match them to tanbur neck diagrams with fret names.
That's a very specific example but I knew people who gave up playing piano because they didn't learn about whole and half steps first. That may sound
silly but the lack of that fundamental knowledge gave then troubles in related, still simple but higher level steps they've tried to take in order to
progress. Of course they weren't good ear players but not everyone has to be.
Bill Evans, the great Jazz pianist (sorry, you know of course who he is) used to say that because he had not so good ear he had to break down
everything to pieces and then assimilate and only then implement in his music. He could be modest of course but I doubt he would mention that if he
didn't face that problem of some degree.
If you didn't tell me that 'Maqam note' not= tonic of the maqam I wouldn't know that! It's not in the book of L.Signel or if it's there I overlooked
it.
I've tried to go without this forum but I found that many specific Internet resources on Mid-East music don't consider the basics.
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher | ...
and one Big Thing: yes yes yes; theory describes existing music. Or tries to do this. When and where theory prescribes, the resultant music
suffers. And so do the listeners. |
I agree again but someone envented that theory for some less initiated to get started. Also, bigs thanks to them because it helped to preserve
precious music over the centuries.
|
|
|
hans
Oud Junkie
Posts: 186
Registered: 5-6-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Theory helps western ears to make sense of what they hear :-)
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1378
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SV_T_oud | | Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher | ...
and one Big Thing: yes yes yes; theory describes existing music. Or tries to do this. When and where theory prescribes, the resultant music
suffers. And so do the listeners. |
I agree again but someone envented that theory for some less initiated to get started. Also, bigs thanks to them because it helped to preserve
precious music over the centuries. |
The various theorists in the Ottoman and post-Ottoman world and also in the lands of Arab music(s), created their theories for various reasons. Some
reasons were intellectual/philosophical, some were political, some mathematical, but to the best of my knowledge, helping the novice was not a
motive.
In the worlds of maqam music and beyond I cannot think of a single example of theorists and their theories helping to preserve music. It has always
been those who do the singing and playing who do the preservation. My pointing this out does not mean that I am against theory or theorists or that I
am not interested in theory. It does mean, in part, that I could not properly hear and understand maqam music until I realized that maqam theories
were neat and tidy systems that dealt insufficiently with the music of living musicians or of real musicians of the past whose musical style was to
some extent in living memory of present musicians. Maqam theories, ancient and modern, tend to describe ideal Plantonic models where everything fits
neatly. I could not square what my ears heard with what my eyes read. Once I realized that what I was hearing was maqam music and what I was reading
was Beautiful Ideas, I was able to begin making sense of the music.
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Sure it reminds me of one quite hot thread on the AllAboutJazz forum with the fight mostly between two persons:
- One was insisting that music theory in Jazz is useless and everything should be played by ear. That one was very objetive and somewhat rude in his
opinions. "Ear!!! - everything else is crap!" That was his point.
- Another one (Jerry Engelbach http://www.engelbachmusic.com/) was defending his point of view through his own experience. He admitted that before he could improvise by ear he
spent years playing standards from the fake books. He is a well respected musician and quite modest and gentle in his judgements.
Many more well respected forum members in that thread admitted that majority can't play MODERN Jazz exclusively by ear: there are so many theoretical
things embedded into that music that they cannot be picked up straight from recordings and appriciated as is by majority of the developing musicians.
I emphasized 'majority' - makes sense? 'Developing musicians' also is a key word here.
Well, Jazz is not Mid-East music, it's much more complicated in some aspects. But as you can see there are people in the Jazz World who try to prove
their point through ignorance. I'm not relating any of this to any of the previous posts in this thread, mind you! I just want to say that EVERYONE
has his own way of obtainig knowledge. Some are natural ear players, others approach the destination through theory and practice and everything else
in between.
I'm neither insisting that music theory should define practical performance but it's there to help especially to those, who are less gifted but still
want to play music.
|
|
|
Jody Stecher
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1378
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes, there many ways of learning and several paths to musical competence and understanding.
Certainly the various conflicting maqam theories can serve as a door. That was true for me as well. But how can a "system" that prescribes 24 equal
divisions of the octave help a novice musician to understand and perform music that does not make use of these artificial divisions? Arabic music
before the era of the 24 tone accordion used a different set of microtones than the theory presents. According to my still developing and not
perfected ears, today's better maqam musicians adhere to that, with a certain flexibility that allows for adjustment according to the type of music
and the variations that exist in regional and personal styles.
In my opinion the relationship between theory and practice is entirely different in jazz. Jazz developed its harmonic ideas "in harmony" with theory,
in accord with theory. As you say, the theory is embedded in the music. But Western chord theory is not a misfit with jazz. And there are not
conflicting theoretical schools in "western music". In maqam music there exist conflicting and incompatible theories all of which adequately describe
some aspects of the music and all of which ignore the inconvenient parts.
I think it is possible that we mean different things by "theory". I am not talking about tetrachords and the names of each maqam and the body of
knowledge that describes typical modulations to another jins and I am not dissing traditional models of seyir (melodic pathways). I am recommending
skepticism toward theoretical models that that exist apart from actual music.
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Oh, no, I also wasn't suggesting that if I understand how comas make up a makam it's all I need. It's just a *useful approximation* in order "to get
into" the Turkish makam world but only on the surface for a start. If there is no better way to describe something we use what we have even if it's
not perfect. And once again, if I had good a discriminating ear, I would be less interested in comas and makam names, etc. I would probably even
wouldn't like to know what kind of music that is: I would pick it up by ear and play.
Someone hearing me play would say: "Oh, you play such a wonderful Turkish taqsim on this oud"!
And I would reply: "What oud? Ah, you mean this oval guitar with a short neck I got on a flea market yesterday? So you say it's Turkish music? I don't
know - I just picked it up on the radio. Maybe it's Turkish, I don't care, I just like how it sounds."
- "Yes - but you play such beautiful music intervals, so nice 8-coma whole notes and so heart-touching 4-coma flats!"
- "Would you please stop insulting me! I just pluck these thin ropes and you hear what you hear - I don't care about... what you just said? -
intervals? Not sure what you mean..."
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2951
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
It depends by what you mean by "theory" and by "ear" . . . some people call reading music "theory," which is not what we're talking about here. Yes,
some amount of theory is necessary to even be able to communicate ideas but you are asking a specific question about microtonal intervals and the real
answer is that these intervals are now and always have been learned and understood aurally and not through the theory. I still answered the question
according to your parameters, but there is no way I can conscientiously answer the question without pointing out that the comma system does not match
reality.
To some extent the theory attempts to provide guidelines for fret placement (Al Farabi, for example was explicit about this). However, in my
experience, pro musicians typically end up refining the fret locations by ear if the instrument maker placed them according to the theoretical
positions.
There are a number of practical things that are part of the tradition that are unlikely to be learned just from listening: aesthetic principles,
formal concepts, etc. The mental categories we construct influence our perceptions in significant ways. If you are coming from a Western background,
you already have a mental structure built that parses music through a system of 12 note categories. So it is very helpful to study the theory as a
stepping-stone to increasing the number of perceptual categories you have access to. However, the simple fact is that the theory in this case does
not actually match practice and the correct intervals can be learned only by ear.
No one here is opposed to theory, we are just saying don't get too caught up in it because it is only a guideline and is often rather idealized
with respect to the actual music practice. There are people who argue against ever even using sheet music for anything, a position I find ridiculous.
Still, I end up learning most things by ear because there is a ton of information that can't be conveyed by sheet music.
I was probably involved in the AAJ discussion you reference; my position has always been similar to Jerry's—different things work for different
people at different times and we should use all the available tools. But that said, many people use theory as a crutch to avoid developing their
ears, and that is never OK. Also, the way much theory is taught encourages certain limiting ways of approaching music. Theory is great, but take it
with a grain of salt and always always confirm with your ears. I stopped participating there because. unlike here, the environment gets pretty toxic
and there are a lot of competing egos—it ended up feeling like a waste of time. Nice to see you here!
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2951
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
By the way, the Turkish word is "koma" but it in English it is "comma," just like the punctuation. You can use either, but a "coma" will put you in
the hospital 
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2951
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by SV_T_oud |
Brian - thanks a lot for you help and here are a few comments:
I agree but often one needs to understand initial set of rules in order to proceed with practice. For instance you mentioned about naming makams after
prominent notes, not tonics. Without knowing that I would assume the latter and having had developed good ear I would have hard time struggling with
recordings trying to match them to tanbur neck diagrams with fret names.
|
Sure, which is why I pointed out that you shouldn't expect the theory to match what you hear.
| Quote: |
That's a very specific example but I knew people who gave up playing piano because they didn't learn about whole and half steps first. That may sound
silly but the lack of that fundamental knowledge gave then troubles in related, still simple but higher level steps they've tried to take in order to
progress. Of course they weren't good ear players but not everyone has to be.
|
Early on I gave up on singing because I was always out of tune with the piano. It was only later that I learned that it is actually the piano that is
out of tune with how we naturally hear and was able to learn how to sing (not professionally but well enough) and develop my ears more deeply. For a
long time, I wondered why no one explained that the piano could really throw off your voice if you tried to match it.
| Quote: |
Bill Evans, the great Jazz pianist (sorry, you know of course who he is) used to say that because he had not so good ear he had to break down
everything to pieces and then assimilate and only then implement in his music. He could be modest of course but I doubt he would mention that if he
didn't face that problem of some degree.
|
Sure, I am not an opponent of music theory.
| Quote: |
If you didn't tell me that 'Maqam note' not= tonic of the maqam I wouldn't know that! It's not in the book of L.Signel or if it's there I overlooked
it.
I've tried to go without this forum but I found that many specific Internet resources on Mid-East music don't consider the basics.
|
There is a lot of useful theory, but there are some things that it is important to know by ear and that theory is somewhat inaccurate or vague on. I
think you are misinterpreting our comments about a specific area of theory (intonation and comma values) with a general condemnation of theory; I
assure you this is not the case.
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Brian, I don't care about the theory of this word
I picked it up by ear!
| Quote: Originally posted by Brian Prunka | | By the way, the Turkish word is "koma" but it in English it is "comma," just like the punctuation. You can use either, but a "coma" will put you in
the hospital |
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
Brian, that thing in bold would explain almost everything.
I'm an amateur musician without particular gift in music but I play a variety of instruments and gradually improve.
When I started five years ago I couldn't tell the fifth from the fourth by ear. Now I can and I can do many more things with music I couldn't do a
year ago.
I'll never be at the level of a pro musician but it doesn't distract me from learning everything music, includinh history, theory and after all, how
it sounds
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Brian Prunka | | ... I think you are misinterpreting our comments about a specific area of theory (intonation and comma values) with a general condemnation of theory;
I assure you this is not the case. |
That's quite possible. Honestly I rarely think of what is more theory and what is more practice in music. I approach learning music with whatever
means I have with what little gift I've got for music.
By the way, if I'm out of tune with piano, I tune up to the piano. That's my level.
Piano is a very forgiving instrument. You press a key and it's always "in tune" with itself. The rest is your technique and soul.
There are people who hear guitar as an out of tune instrument as well. I don't. However there are many people who I know who can't properly tune up a
guitar without a tuner. I can!
But once again, my level of hearing intervals is way below any pro musician.
|
|
|
SV_T_oud
Oud Maniac
Posts: 83
Registered: 8-27-2014
Member Is Offline
|
|
One more question I'd like to ask my more knowledgeable forum mates is about the difference in intervalic relationships between Turkish and Arabic
makams, maqams. Do they follow the same scheme or are there noticeable differences?
Take for instance Rast (that's one of a few I know by name): is Turkish version the same as Arabic and maybe even Persian versions?
In couple years from now I might be able to tell the difference (if any) by ear but for now please share with me your observations.
I ask because I'm mostly interested in Turkish music but majority of the instructional material is for Arabic music.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
