Arto
Oud Junkie
Posts: 120
Registered: 4-1-2006
Location: Finland
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Turkish makams and Arabic maqams - how different are they?
Some of this has been touched upon in the excellent "how to practice taqsims" thread, but I´d like to know more. If I have understood right (I´m a
novice in this music) Turkish makams and Arabic maqams are closely related, but how close? And what about using these modes in playing taksims - are
there any great differences in how a Turkish and Arab musician would "build", elaborate and modulate in playing Nihavent/Nahawand taksim, for example?
If I have understood right, the pitch is lower in Arabic maqams than in Turkish makams, corresponding to different oud tuning, but what about other
differences?
And are there maqams/makams in Turkish and Arabic systems that do not exist at all in the other system, or are known with a completely different name?
I think I have read somewhere that old Turkish written music from for example 17th century may sometime use a makam name that would nowadays mean some
quite different mode, so the use of makam nomenclature is not consistent over the centuries? And (again, if I remember right) mode names in Greek
rembetiko music could be quite different from what a Turkish musician would name the mode in that particular piece?
thanks, Arto
|
|
|
billkilpatrick
Oud Junkie
Posts: 563
Registered: 1-3-2004
Location: italy
Member Is Offline
Mood: what?
|
|
i was going to ask something similar about scales in the andalusian tradition. nomenclature aside, can the tab' (pl. tubu') that i learned about from
zalzal in a previous thread simply be a regional, north african variation of maqam from the middle east?
- bill
|
|
|
eliot
Oud Junkie
Posts: 252
Registered: 1-5-2005
Location: The Gorges
Member Is Offline
Mood: Aksak
|
|
The most significant difference, at least in how things are performed today, is that Turks are much more likely to follow seyir (melodic progressions)
that are specific to one makam, whereas this knowledge is not transmitted as much between Arab players, teachers, and students. Meaning, that in the
performance of a taqsim, Arab taqsims have more of a standardized taqsim form which includes its own seyir regardless of maqam (typically starting at
the tonic, working up to the octave/jawab and then back to the tonic finishing with qaflah - there are 3 section standardized taqsim forms that add
other seyir details). Turkish taksims will begin somewhere appropriate for the seyir of the makam and have the makam's seyir guide the melody of the
taksim.
You can see a huge difference between Arab and Turkish makams when you consider Arabic maqam Bayyati versus Turkish Beyati, Ussak, Huseyni, Muhayyer,
Tahir, and Neva. In the Turkish makams, there is a much more limited sense of what you can pull off, as each of these 6 is really specific and sounds
different (they all basically have the same pitch classes), and there might even be intonational differences between one and another. In the Arab
Bayyati, one might hear a bit that sounds like (Turkish) Ussak, a bit that sounds like (Turkish) Beyati, etc., at least from the "Turkish"
perspective. 100 years ago, Arab musicians may have used a wider variety of names which got reduced down to the 36 or so names used today. But in the
process of reduction, maqams like Arabic Bayyati now have a huge number of possibilites, and bits of old forgotten maqams included in there, making
them both more complex and also harder to understand.
That said, many Turkish musicians I've met really don't maintain a knowledge of the 270-odd makams that theoretically exist. In practice, particularly
in playing contemporary music, a dozen or so makams are commonly used, seyir is only sometimes important, etc. Some classical musicians, on the other
hand, are compensating by being even more compulsive about the micro-distinctions between makams, and perhaps (my guess) entirely fabricating new
realms of technical difficulty just to make Turkish music seem like the most complex music on the planet.
And don't get us started on the naming - if you want to see just an example of the consistency of naming, check out Owen Wright's article on the
changes to makam Çargah. 80 pages of historical work should be enough to illuminate that through the centuries, scholars of the music have been very
quick to entirely fabricate new makams or totally alter the description of an old one, just to create a more mathematically symmetrical theory.
|
|
|
mavrothis
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1674
Registered: 6-5-2003
Location: NJ/NYC
Member Is Offline
Mood: big band envy
|
|
Hi,
I agree with 99% of what you said eliot, but I disagree with what you said about the limiting factor in Turkish style taksim. I believe the only
limiting factor is the imagination and experience of the player (though perhaps you were saying that too but in a different way).
I know what you mean though, and I've seen it (and been guilty of it many times), and I'm certainly not being argumentative here. But a real master
performer of either school of playing will be able to take you to any makam he/she wishes to, and back again.
A few months ago I was at a solo oud concert featuring Dr. Munir Nurettin Beken. He began with a Mahur taksim that literally went everywhere, even
Saba. I've also seen some video of Necati Celik performing with the Whirling Dervishes at the Labyrinth Seminars in Houdetsi, Crete. He not only
modulated a great deal, but also ended up on a different tonic and makam to lead into the next piece. Those are just a few examples of freedom in
playing taksim.
When I was studying with my class under Yurdal Tokcan last summer, it really amazed me how many makams Yurdal, Goksel Baktagir and company, were
easily familiar with. Of course it wasn't all 300 or so makams, but a lot of them, believe me. It's impossible for a creative and independent
person, with that much knowledge and experience, not to push the boundaries when playing/improvising.
Anyway, I'm just saying that from listening and talking to a lot of players, it seems that regardless of what school you belong to, the point is to be
yourself and show who YOU are and what you know when playing a taksim, not just simply the makam.
Take care,
mavrothis
ps - Another example of confusing naming is the old version of Kurdi was pretty much like Huseyni, at least of the older pieces that I've
heard...sorry, I guess we weren't supposed to get into that anymore... 
|
|
|
eliot
Oud Junkie
Posts: 252
Registered: 1-5-2005
Location: The Gorges
Member Is Offline
Mood: Aksak
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mavrothis
Hi,
I agree with 99% of what you said eliot, but I disagree with what you said about the limiting factor in Turkish style taksim. I believe the only
limiting factor is the imagination and experience of the player (though perhaps you were saying that too but in a different way).
I know what you mean though, and I've seen it (and been guilty of it many times), and I'm certainly not being argumentative here. But a real master
performer of either school of playing will be able to take you to any makam he/she wishes to, and back again. |
When I say limit it's a positive thing - it's not so much a limit on creative freedom, but a set of guidelines that one can follow while in that
makam, perhaps you could call it a set of "suggestions." The sorts of places you can go (other modulations), as well. I've heard Necati pull off a
couple minute taksim with 36 modulations, but at no point did he "violate" the seyir of any of the makams (has a funny ring to it, but not sure how to
say it differently), and the result was very fluid and beautiful. I find the "limits" of the seyir of Neva, for example, quite liberating - I don't
have to worry about the question of "where do I need to go next?" - rather, I know where I'm going, and can worry about how I want to get
there.
I think we're saying the same thing...
|
|
|
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
