Mike's Oud Forums - Powered by XMB

The Turkish Oud Hiatus?

jdowning - 9-10-2011 at 12:18 PM

At the present time I am generally ignorant about the history of the Ottoman Empire so am looking for informed information about the Turkish oud that - today - has distinct characteristics.
Apparently - according to some sources - the oud in the high art culture of the Ottoman court - centred in Constantinople - went out of fashion in the 17th C. Orchestral music then took precedence - favouring larger audiences - a similar situation, it would seem, to the demise of the lute in Western society in the mid 18th C.
It is said that the oud was later reintroduced to Ottoman Empire during the 19th C - a time of nationalistic sentiment.

Does anyone know what happened to the oud during the 200 years between the 17th and 19th C in Ottoman Turkey?

DoggerelPundit - 9-11-2011 at 09:07 AM

I, for one, have no answer for this interesting question. However, for a good background and possibly some clues, allow me to recommend Music of the Ottoman Court, Walter Feldman, International Institute for Traditional Music, Berlin, 1996. At around $75 it's expensive, but worth it.

Though Feldman doesn't address your question, there are a couple of tantalizing mentions worth repeating:

Pg. 143, “Only toward the fall of the Ottoman Empire did the Tanbur begin to share its position in art music with another lute, the ‘ûd, which had been reintroduced to Turkey from Syria and Egypt.”

and...

Note 63, page 510, says in part, “…no dervish order in Turkey adopted the kobuz, ikliğ, or kemençe as a sacred instrument. It may be for this reason that no bowed instrument retained its place in the Ottoman orchestra…Likewise, the secular prestige of the ‘ûd and the çeng did not prevent these instruments from disappearing entirely from the orchestra.

In that last sentence, the apparent distinction between secular and art music is interesting. Does this mean the ‘ûd was in Turkey all along (18th & 19th centuries) but just not appearing in art music?

-Stephen

jdowning - 9-11-2011 at 12:28 PM

Thank you Stephen.

The reintroduction of the oud from Egypt and Syria in the 19th C - then part of the Ottoman Empire in its decline - is interesting. Does this mean that during the 'hiatus' period no ouds were being made in Turkey that the master luthiers had moved (for economic reasons) to other regions of the Ottoman Empire where the oud was still held in high regard?
Were the reintroduced ouds then made to the same luthier traditions and designs as the ouds of former times in Turkey? Impossible to say , of course, but why is the Turkish oud of today significantly different in size and geometry from ouds in other regions of the Near/Middle east?

DoggerelPundit - 9-11-2011 at 04:34 PM

"...but why is the Turkish oud of today significantly different in size and geometry from ouds in other regions of the Near/Middle east?"

All the sources I have seen point to Manolis Venios (Manol in Constantinople) as having "redesigned" or "recreated" the Arabic sized and tuned ouds into what has become known as the Turkish style. (If this is so, it would be rather like another Manolis—Manolis Hiotis—who added a 4th course to the 3 course Rembetic bouzouki and electrified it. In more than one way, I guess).

But your first, and main, question is still in the fog. Who, if anyone, was making and playing ouds inside Anatolia from about 1750 on. And, what was the form of the "reintroduction"; who was involved?

-Stephen

Danielo - 9-11-2011 at 11:31 PM

Interesting topic !

To bring a modest contribution to this discussion.

In the CD "Les orients du luth - vol. 2" Marc Loopuyt is playing, among other ancient ouds :

TOQATLE ONNIK, Konya 1823

And surprisingly the sound of this instrument is not really turkish (in the way that we mean today), it has a very 'dry' sound, more of the near-east flavor.

It would make sense that what we call today a turkish oud was, indeed, designed by Manol.

Is it also surprising that, in this interesting rendering of 17th Ottoman music, old Nahats, rather than Manol or other turkish ouds of the same period, were used ?

regards,

Dan

jdowning - 9-12-2011 at 12:24 PM

I have not had time to study in more detail the geometry of the surviving 'Turkish' ouds (including those made by Greek and Armenian makers as they all appear to have similar profiles).

I would agree that it is very unlikely that the oud disappeared in Turkey during the 'hiatus ' period (between the 1600's until the late 1800's). It is just that, apparently, the oud just did not have much of a place in the 'high art' orchestral music scene.

I would be surprised, therefore, if the oud - when it regained popularity in Turkey during the 19th C - was an instrument that was reinvented by Manol. The problem, of course, is that no ouds survive prior to the 19th C so we cannot know for sure about the geometry of pre 19th C ouds for comparison.
So where does the claim that Manol is the inventor of the modern Turkish oud originate?

The attached image of a 'traditional' Turkish oud geometry indicates that it was based upon a 3:4:5 'Pythagorean triangle in defining the upper sound board profile - as were the Nahat ouds (as well as many lutes of the 16th/17th C).
Perhaps this is why the Nahat ouds are preferred to represent 17th C Ottoman music today?

A quick analysis of the geometry of a 1905 Manol (based on a downloaded image) suggests that Manol did indeed modify this 'classic' geometry and so it differs somewhat from the 'traditional' Turkish oud geometry.

More to follow on the Manol geometry for comparison.

Turkish Oud Type 2 Geometry (467 x 600).jpg - 71kB

Ararat66 - 9-13-2011 at 12:03 AM

Really interesting post, I'm watching quietly.

Thanks

Leon

jdowning - 9-16-2011 at 12:10 PM

In the absence (sadly) of an original Manol to work with, it will be necessary to 'make do' with the best image available in order to analyse the design geometry used by this luthier. There are a few images of Manol ouds available on the internet but most are unsuitable for analysis as the images are not taken at 'full face' view.

The best image so far available is one posted by Hank Levin on this forum some time ago of his 1905 Manol that is complete with its original sound board. No dimensional information - string length etc - that might otherwise be useful is available.

A preliminary analysis of the profile of this oud indicates that it may be a modification of a more ancient geometry - perhaps in order to shorten the relative string length?
Otherwise, the geometry does not match the 'traditional' (modern?) Turkish oud geometry previously posted but may be an intermediate design that might eventually have led to this modern day concept.
More to follow!

jdowning - 9-16-2011 at 12:22 PM

For a more general up to date history of the Ottoman Empire, the publication "The Ottoman Empire and Early Modern Europe" by Daniel Goffman, Cambridge University Press 2004 is well researched and clearly presented. An interesting and informative read.

Jonathan - 9-16-2011 at 01:06 PM

A very interesting thread, although when I first read the subject line, I assumed it referred to the scarcity of Turkish ouds that date from the era following the creation of the modern Turkish state and, in particular, the 1930s.
I beliee that he scarcity of ouds from earlier centuries us due solely to the passage of time, and the fragile nature of ouds.
Manol's impact on the development of the modern Turkish oud cannot be overstated but, for what it's worth, I have an oud from Thesoloniki (I believe that was a part of the Ottoman Empire at the time) from the 1890s that, for all intents and prposes, looks, sounds and feels like a Turkish oud.
I am priveleged to own the Manol posted above, and i will gladly forward information on its measurements-it will e a couple of weeks until I have access to it again, though.

Ararat66 - 9-17-2011 at 12:29 AM

The Manol shape and proportion is truly a thing of beauty - my Tasos oud share much of this geometry - I'd love to try an original one day.

Leon

jdowning - 9-17-2011 at 05:43 AM

Thank you Jonathan - that is good news.
As I am working with a relatively low resolution reduced scale image, that may have some degree of optical distortion, some percentage dimensional error may be expected. Also there may be some degree of asymmetry in the oud profile. So I shall first post images of what I believe to be the geometry of this example of a Manol oud independently of any dimensional information. Then the exact dimensions measured from the original instrument will help to verify the precision (or otherwise) of the proposed geometry.

Note that the early oud and lute geometries seem to have been based upon relative proportions, belief in the significance of numbers as they relate to material matter in the Universe (numerology) and the use of Euclidean geometry where all constructions (and proofs) are accomplished by using no more than a straight edge and dividers (or compasses).
As the lute is supposed to be directly related historically to the oud (rather than being a completely independent development) one might expect to find key geometrical components in comparing lutes and ouds of different historical periods as well in the comparison of oud development over time.

One problem is the lack of original surviving artifacts. There are no ouds of any type surviving prior to the late 18th C or early 19th C. The reason for this may be not only the fragility of the instrument but the fact that the oud - unlike the lute - has enjoyed an unbroken tradition so replacement instruments have always been readily available. So although the oud fell out of favour in the Ottoman court music of the 17th and 18th C it continued to flourish elsewhere within the Ottoman Empire.
As far as the lute is concerned interest in that instrument died completely by the mid 18th C. Interestingly, although the lute is also a fragile instrument, many original lutes still survive from the period dating from the early 16th C to early 18th C - probably because most are works of art in themselves and so were preserved - admired, in their silence, as decorative artifacts.

If the oud and lute are directly geometrically then a study of the surviving lutes might go some way to providing or confirming some information about the likely form of some ouds dating prior to the 19th C.

Next to get to work with dividers and straight edge!

jdowning - 9-18-2011 at 05:44 AM

For more details on the general principles employed in the proposed geometrical constructions go to the topic "Old Oud compared to Old Lute Geometry" on this forum.

Starting with an oud profile based upon a Pythagorean 3:4:5 right triangle with neck length equal to the distance from neck joint to centre of rosette and from centre of rosette to bridge and with the bridge 3 'finger' units from the X axis (widest point of sound board). This represents the geometry of the Nahat style of oud which in turn seems to have been developed from the 9th C 'Ikhwan al-Safa' oud profile.

The objective of Manol seems to have been to reduce the string length of the oud while preserving all of the relative proportions of the other components such as rosette position, bridge position, bowl width etc of the original traditional profile. This is achieved by moving the neck joint location towards the bridge by a distance of 1 'finger' unit and making the neck length and distance from neck joint to centre of rosette equal. The upper sound board profile is then described by the radius R-Manol shown on the attached diagram. Although this layout appears to match the profile of the 1905 Manol oud image very closely the 'traditional' proportions based upon a 3:4:5 triangle with neck length being 1/3 string length no longer applies.
The rosette arrangement is shown in the attached image.

Going one step further if the widest point of the sound board is then lowered towards the bridge by 1 finger unit to a new Y axis then the 'traditional' proportions of neck length to string length are maintained as is the 3:4:5 triangle construction (now located on the new Y axis).
This construction is almost identical to that of the geometry of a Turkish style oud described by Eren Özek in an article published in 'Müzik ve Bilim', March 2005.

The only problem is that the new upper sound board profile generated by radius RY does not quite match the upper sound board profile of the 1905 Manol. So is this discrepancy due to optical distortions in the image and scaling error or did Manol - for this instrument decide to modify the upper sound board profile. Or did the oud as constructed not quite match the designed profile?

Of course no positive conclusions may be drawn from the analysis of only one instrument by Manol and is is likely that he may have built ouds to a number of slightly different geometrical constructions. This analysis does tend to confirm, however, that this may have been the construction used by Manol for his Turkish style ouds.

The string length for a full size (man size) Turkish oud today is 58.5 cm. Why?
Is this the string length of the 1905 Manol oud?

Only questions at this point in time.

manol 1905 rosettes (600 x 457).jpg - 81kB

jdowning - 10-13-2011 at 12:32 PM

If it is true that the oud, as a high art instrument, went out of fashion by the 17th C in the Ottoman court (based in Istanbul - formerly Constantinople) only to be 'reinvented' in the late 19th C (as what is now known as the Turkish oud) - how could this have happened?

The 17th C German scholar, musician and composer Michael Praetorius provides a somewhat biased perspective in his monumental and important work on musical instruments - Syntagma musicum (music encyclopedia). The Volume I of this work was written in Latin - Latin and Greek then being the language of the European scholarly elite. Volume III dealing with musical form and theory and Volume II (De Organographia) providing descriptions and scaled drawings of musical instruments known to him, on the other hand, were written in German, the common language. Praetorius did so because he considered that most musicians and artisans had no facility in Latin or Greek.

The publication of Volume II in 1619 begins with a dedication to his sponsors and patrons of the Leipzig town council giving a brief history of the ancient instruments of Israel. He then launches into a brief diatribe against Islam and the 'barbaric' music of the Ottoman Turks. No doubt his objective was to tell his readership what it wanted to hear - the Ottoman armies having invaded as far North as Vienna before being repelled and so were still considered to be a very real threat to the German states.

Praetorius refers to the longest reigning Sultan of the Empire (1494 - 1566) - known in the West, for good reason, as 'Suleiman the Magnificent' - as that 'Turkish butcher'. Regardless of the horrors and brutalities of war of any army - European or Ottoman - Suleiman I was, by all accounts a highly educated man, a competent leader and social and administrative reform innovator. Under his patronage culture and art prospered. He himself was an artisan (goldsmith), a poet proficient in many languages including Turkish, Arabic and Persian (the languages of the court and government).

More to follow.

jdowning - 10-13-2011 at 05:47 PM

Praetorius (latinised version of Schultze, his family name) was the son of a Lutheran pastor. Born in 1571 his comments about Suleiman I were, therefore, popular hearsay as - perhaps - were his remarks about Ottoman Turkish music.
He tells us that the religion of Islam forbade not only the liberal arts but anything that could make people happy including the music of strings. This music was replaced by the bell, drum and shawm (a loud type of double reed pipe), 'wretched' music that was highly esteemed among the Muslims for merry making, celebrations and in war. (Praetorius was here, presumably, referring to the Janissary military band).
He goes on to give an historical example of a gift of a large musical instrument (a pipe organ) given to Suleiman by king Francis I of France (France and the Ottoman Turks were allies at the time). The gift together with the accompanying French musicians were so well received according to Praetorius that people flocked to hear the delightful music - so that Suleiman - fearful that his people would become 'civilized' had the instrument destroyed and the musicians sent back to France!
Praetorius goes on further to say that he includes illustrations of the 'barbaric' instruments used in Muscovy, Turkey, Arabia, India and America "so that we Germans may become acquainted with them as well; not, of course, in the sense of using them ourselves - but simply to know what they looked like!"

He provides three pages in Volume II of his book illustrating 'barbaric' folk instruments including one showing Turkish drums but no other Turkish instruments - not a stringed instrument in sight.
By way of contrast he provides many illustrations of the full range of European instruments including a page showing various lutes and other plucked instruments.

Clearly Praetorius was exaggerating the situation as far as music of the Ottoman Turks was concerned - perhaps for political reasons or just out of ignorance. Nevertheless was there a grain of truth in his opinions? Could it be that Suleiman had no great interest in music as an art form particularly given that the overriding law of the empire was the Shari'ah law where the oud itself may have been banned and therefore excluded from the Ottoman court as well as in the Muslim society? If so did the oud only survive for the next two centuries among the non - Muslim societies that were tolerated and protected within the Ottoman empire as "people of the book"?

jdowning - 10-15-2011 at 12:33 PM

It is said that one of the great strengths of the Ottoman empire at its peak of power in the 16th C, like other Islamic societies, was its tolerance of other religious groups who followed the sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity. These groups "People of the Book" - for the cost of a 'head' tax - were protected and allowed to practice their religion under their own laws and jurisdiction. The empire thus became a safe haven for persecuted Christian groups who were able to escape from the European Catholic versus Protestant conflicts of the 16th C and later.

The Ottoman empire, at its peak, controlled trade routes to the East and access to the silks and spices in demand in Europe. The merchant 'middlemen' who moved freely between both Europe and provinces of the Ottoman empire to conduct trade were rarely Muslim but more often Jews or Armenian and Greek Orthodox Christians and later the Levantines.
The ongoing Christian religious conflicts in Europe also resulted in political and economic alliances with the Ottoman Turks.
The earliest of these was with France in the 16th C - an alliance that was to endure for 250 years until Napoleon invaded Egypt in the late 18th C. France benefited from this alliance not only in having a trading monopoly in the Mediterranean but the Catholic French King Francis 1 was able to successfully attack his arch enemy the Habsburg Emperor Charles V with the support of the formidable Ottoman armies. Francis 1 had ambitions to become the Holy Roman Emperor in place of Charles V but eventually without success.
A later alliance with the Ottoman Turks was with Elizabeth 1, Queen of England, who supplied arms and raw material such as lead and tin to Morocco - much to the dismay of Catholic Spain.

Another interesting historical 'twist' in the relationship with Europe and the Ottoman empire occurs as a result of the religious reform in the early 16th C against Roman Catholics and the Pope - a movement led by Martin Luther. With the impending attack on Vienna by Ottoman forces, Luther did not support the Turkish endeavours (although some of his fellow countrymen did) but was ambivalent seeming to prefer the 'Turks' above the Pope and Jews.
The Ottomans felt closer to the Protestants than to the Catholics. Suleiman I, at one point, sent a letter of support to the "Lutherans" in Flanders "since they did not worship idols, believed in one God and fought against Pope and Emperor".
Later Sultan Murad III sent a letter to the Lutheran sect in Flanders and Spain highlighting the similarities between Islamic and Protestant principles.
So, with an apparent symbiosis (albeit politically inspired) between the Ottoman Turks and European Lutherans in what direction might this take us concerning the oud in Istanbul of the 16th C and lute in 16th C Europe?

More to follow

jdowning - 10-16-2011 at 12:05 PM

The famous enigmatic painting "The Ambassadors" was painted in 1533 by Hans Holbein. It depicts Jean de Dinteville French Ambassador to the English court of Henry VIII in London and his friend and Catholic cleric Georges de Selve Bishop of Lavaur and one time Ambassador to The Emperor, the Venetian Republic and the Holy See.
The figures and articles in the painting appear to be rendered with photographic accuracy and in precise perspective view and include many items from the Near East such as a Turkish rug and navigational or surveying instruments of Arabic or Persian origin. In the forefront of the painting is a representation of a skull - no doubt a reminder of inevitable death (Memento Mori) - that must be viewed at the correct angle to be observed in its correct proportions.

The painting, probably a gift from the unknown person that commissioned the work - was once displayed in the Palace of Jean de Dinteville in France - no doubt a popular conversation piece among family members and friends.

Much effort has been spent by scholars in analysing the painting in detail and attempting to explain the apparent riddles and symbolism inherent in the work.

The scientific instruments - sundials, quadrants, celestial globe etc are all set to the date 1533, the year that Henry VIII divorced Catholic Catharine of Aragon, married Ann Boleyn and declared himself head of the Church in England - all in defiance of Papal authority - actions that resulted in his excommunication.

The Polydedrial Sundial (on the top shelf, next to the elbow of Georges de Selve) is set to a Latitude that is not that of London but North Africa (Barbary Coast?)

In the centre of the picture, on the lower shelf, is a representation of a lute and a case of flutes with an open Lutheran Hymnal alongside containing compositions of Martin Luther himself. There is also a book of Arithmetic, a folding square and pair of dividers on the same shelf.
This poses one of the, as yet, unsolved mysteries of the painting. Why would a book of hymns by the then 'notorious' Protestant Reformer, Martin Luther (from the Catholic Christian perspective) appear so prominently in a painting depicting two men of opposing Christian doctrines?

The answer may lie in the Franco-Ottoman alliance two years later - which was declared an "unholy alliance" - but served to curtail the ambitions of Habsburg Emperor Charles V in Europe and is thought to have been the reason that Lutheranism survived and developed in Germany by the second half of the 16th C. The primary factor contributing to this political and religious development was Ottoman imperialism.

It is not known who commissioned the "Ambassadors" painting or why. One suggestion is that it may have been Anne Boleyn who was a Reformist sympathiser and a patron of Hans Holbein the artist.

Now to focus on the lute represented in the painting. Can this tell us anything about the form of the oud as it may have been in 16th C Istanbul?

High resolution images of the painting can be viewed on the National Gallery, London website.

jdowning - 10-17-2011 at 11:50 AM

Martin Luther had a formal musical education at the University of Erfurt where he learned lute and flute. He was a capable lutenist and always carried his lute on his travels.
So - in addition to the Lutheran Hymnal in the "Ambassadors" painting it is likely that the lute and case of flutes also alludes to Luther.

The lute represented by Holbein appears to be typical for the time with six courses and eight frets on the neck - except for the rose that does not appear to be 'cut in' to the sound board but is separate and glued under the sound hole like an oud of today.

Forum member ALAMI - using computer graphics software - recently rendered the image of Holbein's lute from perspective view to orthogonal projection (full front and side view) as shown in the attached images. He found that the profile of the lute was a close match to the lute geometry given by Henri Arnault de Zwolle in the mid 15th C. Surprisingly, however, the neck is quite short, only long enough to carry six frets - good for an oud but not a lute of the time. So is this another riddle woven into the painting by Holbein? Did he use an oud for his model - in keeping with the other artifacts of Near Eastern origin (i.e. the Ottoman Empire) as represented in the painting but chose to paint it to represent a lute (easily done by a painter)? Was he intending to allude to the origins of the European lute perhaps?
Holbein is often said to have been a master of precise perspective representation. However, close scrutiny of the image of the lute shows that the perspective is imperfect - giving the lute a slightly twisted appearance. Another example of inaccurate perspective rendering can be seen in the handle of the terrestrial globe. So Holbein's perspective views of some of the objects in this painting would seem to be more intuitive than accurate - cleverly fooling the eye of a casual observer - a 'trompe l'oeil' - the stuff of artists!
Further evidence that Holbein may not have rendered the perspective of the lute correctly can be seen in the lute case almost hidden under the shelving. Assuming the lute case is meant to be for the lute in question, it is evident that the case is designed to hold a lute with a more correctly proportioned, longer neck.

Is this the oud design that was being made by luthiers of the Ottoman Empire perhaps introduced to luthiers of the German states by 'middlemen' traders such as the Armenians. Hard to say from this 'evidence'.

Curiously, there would appear to be another historical connection with early oud design, lute design and the Lutheran church.
More to follow.

jdowning - 10-19-2011 at 04:59 AM

The familiar carving of 'Pythagoras with Lute' by Jorg Syrlin the Elder is in the Lutheran Church in Ulm, Germany. The large church or minster is sometimes referred to as a 'cathedral' because of its size although it never was the seat of a Bishop.

So, is this representation of a lute another link with Luther's Protestant Reformation? Apparently not to judge from the history of events.
The foundation stone of the church was laid in 1377 when Constantinople was part of the Holy Roman Empire.
The fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman armies was in 1453.
The carvings in the church were created by Syrlin between 1469 and 1474.
Martin Luther was born in 1483
The citizens of Ulm by a referendum converted to Protestantism in 1530.

Nevertheless the lute represented by Syrlin may well have been derived from an oud design being made by luthiers in Constantinople and neighbouring states in the region prior to as well as following the capture of the city by the Ottoman Turks - possibly luthiers of Christian faith? Could this be the style of oud that was still being made in the region during the 16th and 17th C hiatus of the instrument in Ottoman court music? Did some of these luthiers as a consequence find it economically beneficial to move to other regions of the Ottoman Empire (such as the Levant, Syria, Egypt or the North African 'Barbary coast' in order to practice their craft?

One late 19th C lute made by the (Christian) Al-Arja Brothers seems to closely match the Ulm lute geometry and so may have been made to an earlier luthier tradition handed down through the centuries?
A full discussion of the comparisons between the Al-Arja oud and the Ulm lute can be found on page 2 of "Old Oud compared to Old Lute Geometry" on this forum.

It would be interesting to analyse the geometries of surviving old ouds made by luthiers originally from Armenia and Greece to try to find out if there might be other examples conforming to the Ulm/Al-Arja design - at least as far as the upper sound board profile is concerned.

jdowning - 11-2-2011 at 12:25 PM

The exclusion of the oud in the Ottoman court may have been initiated by Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent who, in strict accordance with Muslim law, banned wine drinking and dismissed the palace dancers and musicians, replaced silver plates with earthenware and ordered musical instruments set with gold and precious stones to be burned. Wine drinkers were discouraged from enjoying their habit by having molten lead poured down their throats! So Praetorius may have been more or less correct in his observations about the Ottoman court in Suleyman's reign. The fate of practicing musicians at this time is not known. Hopefully king Francis I musicians, on loan, were returned to France in one piece!

However, Sultan Selim II (1566 - 1574) on succeeding his father, repealed the alcohol drinking ban - draining his glass of wine he is said to have remarked that "I live for today, and think not of tomorrow".
It is not known at present if Selim II or his successors (who were also wine drinkers) had particular interests in music or, more specifically, the oud.

Danielo - 11-2-2011 at 12:42 PM

Selim III (1761 – 1808 ) certainly had - some of his compositions are still played today. He played the tanbur and the ney. About the oud, no idea.

Dan

jdowning - 11-3-2011 at 03:59 AM

Thanks Dan.

jdowning - 11-9-2011 at 05:27 AM

I am still trying to get a better understanding of why - apparently - some musical instruments had their place in the 16th and
17th C Ottoman court when others did not. Some historians say that the traditional instruments of the court were the Tanbur (long necked fretted lute), the Ney (end blown flute), the Kanun (zither), Kudüm (drum), Tef (tambourine) and Zil (cymbals). So there would have been a strong percussive element to the music of that time. There is mention of the oud (as well as bowed instruments) being incorporated into the high art music at a later period yet the oud must certainly have existed in the regions surrounding Istanbul as well as in the city itself in the 16th C and later.

Was it a matter of religious versus secular preference (or dogma)? Was the oud, for some reason, outlawed in the strict Muslim society of the Ottoman court of that time yet the Tanbur was not. If so, why? Did the oud have too strong a secular association?

Only questions at this point!

ALAMI - 11-9-2011 at 02:01 PM

I don't think it is religious versus secular, in traditional Islam only percussion instruments are allowed, so I don't see any reason that would allow tanbur or ney and ban oud. A nationalistic reason would be more logical, the oud being " less Turkish" and was widely used in Arab courts and probably Safavid court also. But the Kanun is also not exclusively Turkish.

May the absence of the oud from court ensembles was due to a practical reason: volume and loudness. Tanbur,yayli tanbur, ney and kanun are way louder than oud.
When I think of those huge rooms in Topkapi, filled with people, you need some volume.
I don't know, just a thought.

jdowning - 11-10-2011 at 01:13 PM

Thanks ALAMI

I understand that both the Ney and Tanbur did have sacred significance among some religious sects (extending to the20th C) but perhaps not in the Ottoman court at least until after Suleiman1 where strict application of Muslim doctrine seems to have given way to a more 'relaxed' interpretation of the religious law?

A large palace room filled with people would certainly demand a high volume output from a musical event that no doubt is the reason why orchestral music took preference in the 17th C. I am not sure, however, if any of the non percussive instruments (ie the Ney and Tanbur) were then particularly loud instruments bearing in mind that the Tanbur was strung with silk (or gut) strings like the oud whereas today metal strings seem to be the norm with, presumably, a louder sound (very modern!). I am not sure about the Kanun (Dulcimer) which might have been either a percussive instrument (using 'hammers' to strike the strings - louder) or plucked (less loud)? Of course, increasing the number of instruments of each type would result in increased volume overall.
As vocal music was part of the traditional repertoire at least some of these instruments would have been used to accompany the singers and so (unless the singers were practicing an early 'Bel Canto' technique) would have to be sufficiently low in volume to give precedence to the human voice probably in a more intimate setting than a large palace hall?

Again no answers only questions.

I am still puzzled as to why when the oud was re-introduced to Turkey in the late 19th/early 20th C that the traditional design (apparently?) was modified (if it ever was - by Manol?) rather than adopted, unaltered, from established traditional designs.
Perhaps a detailed examination of the geometry of surviving ouds from Turkey and neighbouring regions might provide some answers?

jdowning - 11-11-2011 at 01:10 PM

Miniature paintings from the Ottoman period 16th to 18th C might also be of some assistance in determining those instruments that were employed in the courts - providing that the date and identification/ venue of the event depicted can be verified.

Here are a couple of examples found after a brief Internet search - but there must be many more.

The first image is dated 1720 and shows four female musicians playing long necked lute and tambourine as well as two other instruments - a double reed pipe (shawm in Western terminology) and end blown flutes ( or 'pan' pipes). The shawm is a pretty loud instrument used a lot in outdoor bands so this seems to be a bit of an odd collection of instruments.

The second image - date and provenance unknown - depicts part of an out-door event complete with a 'circus' of trained animals - so presumably not high art entertainment for the court?
Instruments in evidence are tambourines, Ney flutes, long neck lutes, bowed instruments, 'pan' flutes, and drums as well as a 'bamboo shaped' percussion instrument.

Does anyone have more information about these paintings or access to other images that may be of relevance?

Both images seem to be part of the book of miniatures Surmame-i Vehbi dated 1720 by artist miniature painter Levni and poet Vehbi. Manuscript MS 3593 in the Topkapi Palace Museum Library, Istanbul.
Miniature books Surname-i Hümayun or Imperial Festival Book were commissioned by the Ottoman Imperial family as a record of special festivities. Books of miniature paintings went out of fashion after Sultan Ahmed III - the so called 'Tulip' era.

jdowning - 11-12-2011 at 12:21 PM

Apart from the high quality miniature paintings commissioned for the court by the Sultan, paintings for consumption of the general populace were produced by unknown artists operating in the market places - the so called 'Bazaar' paintings.

Here is a nice example - secular subject matter - showing a player of a long necked lute serenading a young lady (who does not seem to be very impressed!). Artist, location and date unknown (late 16th C?).

The search continues for representations of an oud.

000.jpg Bazaar Painter 17th C cropped (447 x 600).jpg - 59kB

jdowning - 11-13-2011 at 06:41 AM

Further evidence from a Western perspective about the apparent preference for the long necked lute in the Ottoman Turkish culture is the prejudicial comment made by Tinctoris when observing a group of 'Turkish' prisoners in Naples around the year 1480 singing accompanied by a long necked lute - songs that he found "so ugly and so dull that the only thing they succeeded in doing was showing how barbarous were those who sang them"! (It should be remembered of course that Tinctoris like Praetorius after him was not only making a political statement - the Ottomans and Europeans being at war with each other - but showing his distaste, like many of his contemporaries, for any music that was 'non European'.
Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that a version of the long necked lute (the Colascione) did subsequently enjoy a period of popularity in Italy during the 17th C and later - said to have been brought to Italy in its original form by Turkish prisoners!

I suppose if fretted instruments are preferred, the the long necked lute has the advantage over a short necked instrument in that it allows more frets to be tied on the neck (with practical spacing) so increasing the possible range of microtones available (not a problem, of course, for an unfretted oud). This would also have been an advantage of the Colascione for performance of Western music in attempting to achieve 'perfect' intonation of the European 'tempered' musical scales.

There was some discussion on this topic some time ago on the forum. See "The 17th C Turkish Saz?"

suz_i_dil - 7-31-2015 at 07:54 AM

Hello
i take out this thread, reading a recent post about the issue of mapple bridge in turkish ouds.
I noticed also while trying different ours that the Turkish one have usually a lighter weight and more important I think a more flexible soundboard.
this seems coherent with picture of turkish oud bracing showing a very thin brace in the area between the bridge and the main rosette (the 2nd one I think to remember).
Don't you think this issues of wood type of the bridge and flexibility of the soundboard would explain more the difference of sound we can await of a turkish oud ?

Btw, thanks for all those historical points you bring, it was nice to read those again

suz_i_dil - 7-31-2015 at 09:04 AM

Hello
i take out this thread, reading a recent post about the issue of mapple bridge in turkish ouds.
I noticed also while trying different ours that the Turkish one have usually a lighter weight and more important I think a more flexible soundboard.
this seems coherent with picture of turkish oud bracing showing a very thin brace in the area between the bridge and the main rosette (the 2nd one I think to remember).
Don't you think this issues of wood type of the bridge and flexibility of the soundboard would explain more the difference of sound we can await of a turkish oud ?

Btw, thanks for all those historical points you bring, it was nice to read those again

jdowning - 8-3-2015 at 04:16 AM

The wood type of the bridge and sound board flexibility would certainly be a factor in the acoustic response of a modern Turkish oud (compared to Arabic?). The history of the modern Turkish oud apparently only dates back to its relatively recent 'invention' by Manol at the beginning of the 20th C and we do not know if Manol based his design on old 'Turkish' oud traditions as none of the old instruments survive for comparison. Many modern oud makers likely do not follow any of the old traditions - if they knew what they were - so pretty well anything goes (which may be justified as today's concept of what sounds good may be quite different from earlier perceptions). The availablity of new string materials during the 20th C had a significant influence on the possibilities for changes in acoustic performance allowing something that would not previously work very well in the days of plaingut/silk strings. One example might be to allow use of heavy woods for bridges.

Ibn al-Tahhan writing in the 14th C says that oud bridges should not be made from or loaded with heavy materials - " As for the bridge, it should not be weighted by anything, and should not be made of ivory, ebony, gold or any precious thing because it makes the sound of the oud dull'. This makes sense as a heavy bridge requires more power from string vibration to set it, and hence the sound board, in motion to produce sound (i.e. what can be heard). All about the physical laws relating to change of momentum of a body.
This practice is found in the surviving, lightly built European lutes now centuries old, from the gut/silk string era, where bridge material is commonly found to be pear wood (specific gravity in the range 0.52 to 0.69) stained black and bridges are made as slender as possible to minimise overall weight (mass).

If modern Turkish oud makers are using Maple for bridges (what kind - there are about 125 species worldwide?) then this is likely a reasonable substitute for pearwood and may fall within the same range of specific gravity. Denser woods like tropical rosewoods or ebony may still work today through use of modern plastic and metal wound strings working at higher tensions than were possible with plain gut or silk.

Way off topic but interesting to consider nevertheless.

suz_i_dil - 8-3-2015 at 10:42 AM

Always interesting to read moreover linked to historical sources
thanks for your input about

suz_i_dil - 8-3-2015 at 11:02 AM

Always interesting to read moreover linked to historical sources
thanks for your input about

hans - 8-4-2015 at 12:46 AM

mehmet polat tells me that on the academy in Istanbul the baglama, that he used to play along with the oud, was frowned upon for being a folk instrument, maybe for being too anatolian. We 're talking about a very different time ofcourse, but maybe the oud wasn't liked at the Ottoman court for some time for social reasons? high versus low culture, or, as mentioned earlier, maybe too arabic?

jdowning - 8-4-2015 at 11:50 AM

It would seem that the preferred long necked 'lute' for performance of Turkish art music was and still is the tanbur or tanbur kebir türki (great Turkish tanbur) - with metal strings typically 104 cm in length. Long necked tanburs have been around since at least the 10th C but the style of tanbur used in modern times is said to have been established towards the end of the 17th C specifically for performance of art music according to the treatise Edvar-i musiki (Textbook of Music) written by Dimitrie Cantemir (1673 -1723). The attached image shows the original fretting arrangement set down by Cantemir.

I am not sure about the relative loudness of the large tanbur compared to the oud, baglama saz etc. but that may have had some influence where the sound of stringed instruments had to fill a large space and be heard in the palaces? I imagine the gut strung oud of that time was a relatively quiet instrument by comparison.
The particularly long neck of the tanbur was also suited for accommodation of the large number of microtone frets required for performance of the Turkish modal systems?

[file]36174[/file]

DivanMakam - 8-4-2015 at 04:21 PM

I am not an expert and I am not an oud player, but I am interested overall in Turkish music. So I will try to add my view to this discussion, if it is ok.

So I picked up some quotes and will comment on that. But before I do that, why do you have the conclusion of that the oud was banned from the court? I don't get it why you think that.

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

Could it be that Suleiman had no great interest in music as an art form particularly given that the overriding law of the empire was the Shari'ah law where the oud itself may have been banned and therefore excluded from the Ottoman court as well as in the Muslim society? If so did the oud only survive for the next two centuries among the non - Muslim societies that were tolerated and protected within the Ottoman empire as "people of the book"?

This is totally wrong, it is documented that Suleiman had his musicians in his court. See the attachments from I.H. Uzunçarşılı's essay (who was a famous historian).
When you see the word "avvâd" in brackets, that means that person was an oud player. (avvad is supposed to be the plural of oud player)

[file]36180[/file]

[file]36182[/file]

[file]36184[/file]

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

The exclusion of the oud in the Ottoman court may have been initiated by Sultan Suleyman the Magnificent who, in strict accordance with Muslim law, banned wine drinking and dismissed the palace dancers and musicians, replaced silver plates with earthenware and ordered musical instruments set with gold and precious stones to be burned. Wine drinkers were discouraged from enjoying their habit by having molten lead poured down their throats! So Praetorius may have been more or less correct in his observations about the Ottoman court in Suleyman's reign. The fate of practicing musicians at this time is not known. Hopefully king Francis I musicians, on loan, were returned to France in one piece!

However, Sultan Selim II (1566 - 1574) on succeeding his father, repealed the alcohol drinking ban - draining his glass of wine he is said to have remarked that "I live for today, and think not of tomorrow".
It is not known at present if Selim II or his successors (who were also wine drinkers) had particular interests in music or, more specifically, the oud.

This is completely the wrong direction you go. Don't mix religion in this discussion because from what I know there is not a single Sultan who was against music or art. All Sultans were artists and until the republic all Sultans had their court musicians, and also their concubines. Most of these concubines were excellent musicians because they were taught to be one. Where do you get the information that he banned the palace musicians? Sources? It would also be nice to check for Turkish sources.

And also through history after Turks becamse muslims, there was not a single time when they thought music should be forbidden. This kind of thought only exists in some extreme muslim groups like the Wahabis.

The thing about Süleyman the Magnificent is, that he spent 10 years of his life on a horse. He was involved in more than 10 wars, the empire got bigger in his time. So compared to other Sultans he had not that much time to celebrate and enjoy the beauty of the life. He was a poet and a well educated man. Forbidding music is not something he would have done with that intellect.

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

Was it a matter of religious versus secular preference (or dogma)? Was the oud, for some reason, outlawed in the strict Muslim society of the Ottoman court of that time yet the Tanbur was not. If so, why? Did the oud have too strong a secular association?

Only questions at this point!

No, neither oud was outlawed nor it was a matter of religious versus secular thing.

Quote: Originally posted by ALAMI

A nationalistic reason would be more logical, the oud being " less Turkish" and was widely used in Arab courts and probably Safavid court also. But the Kanun is also not exclusively Turkish.

May the absence of the oud from court ensembles was due to a practical reason: volume and loudness. Tanbur,yayli tanbur, ney and kanun are way louder than oud.
When I think of those huge rooms in Topkapi, filled with people, you need some volume.
I don't know, just a thought.

I am not sure if the Ottomans saw the Ud for being "less Turkish" because the Ottoman court also adapted very quickly violins in the 18th century. And also according to Turks, the oud is an Turkish instrument derived from the Kopuz.

Yaylı Tanbur was invented 1 century ago... It was never in the Turkish ensembles.

And tanbur is not louder than oud or it doesn't have more volume.

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

Thanks ALAMI

I understand that both the Ney and Tanbur did have sacred significance among some religious sects

Correct.

Quote: Originally posted by hans

mehmet polat tells me that on the academy in Istanbul the baglama, that he used to play along with the oud, was frowned upon for being a folk instrument, maybe for being too anatolian. We 're talking about a very different time ofcourse, but maybe the oud wasn't liked at the Ottoman court for some time for social reasons? high versus low culture, or, as mentioned earlier, maybe too arabic?

It is true that the folk and the ottoman court had some differences. But the folk didn't know (mostly) makams, so they kept that kind of music style, which means with their known musical instruments. Whereas the Ottoman court music (Classical Turkish Music) is based on makams and for that you need instruments which have those microtonal capacities. It is also just a matter of culture. In every country there is a different music culture between the higher class and the lower class.
But oud was never considered as a "lower class" instrument from what I read. But it is true that it was not as popular as it was in the 16th century.

See:
https://www.academia.edu/3416456/Musical_Performance_at_the_Ottoman_...

"Regarding the number of its players which constitutes the largest group of court musicians (Uzunçarşılı, 1977:84-86), it is quite reasonable to argue that ud – the widespread short-necked lute – was the most popular instrument of classical music at the court in the sixteenth century. Its status did not differ much in the preceding centuries, and the records denote its existence throughout court history, except in the eighteenth
century (Soydaş 2007)."

In the 18th century the oud really was at its lowest peak and I checked Soydaş 2007 thesis, and there he says that he found 1 record only.

If you look from a wider perspective , you will see that there were like 20-40 different kind of instruments used in the Ottoman court. Many of them don't exist anymore today. Many of them were for a time very popular and then never used again like the Kopuz or the Çeng.

Trying to find reasons for that is not very healthy. Can you tell me why Jazz is not popular as it was in the 30s? What happened? Why is Classical Western Music not popular? It is how it is. Different eras bring different vibes and people tend to go after that popular thing.

Quote: Originally posted by jdowning

It would seem that the preferred long necked 'lute' for performance of Turkish art music was and still is the tanbur or tanbur kebir türki (great Turkish tanbur) - with metal strings typically 104 cm in length. Long necked tanburs have been around since at least the 10th C but the style of tanbur used in modern times is said to have been established towards the end of the 17th C specifically for performance of art music according to the treatise Edvar-i musiki (Textbook of Music) written by Dimitrie Cantemir (1673 -1723). The attached image shows the original fretting arrangement set down by Cantemir.

I am not sure about the relative loudness of the large tanbur compared to the oud, baglama saz etc. but that may have had some influence where the sound of stringed instruments had to fill a large space and be heard in the palaces? I imagine the gut strung oud of that time was a relatively quiet instrument by comparison.
The particularly long neck of the tanbur was also suited for accommodation of the large number of microtone frets required for performance of the Turkish modal systems?

Yes, the tanbur is always the number 1 instrument in Turkish Makam Music (Classical Turkish music). Even the famous oud player Cinuçen Tanrıkorur says that "in a place where there is a tanbur, there is no need for the oud".

There is this myth, it is said that all oud luthiers tried to copy the mystical sound of the tanbur but they never succeeded.

The tanbur and the ney are the most important duo of Turkish religious music. So they were always the one of most favored ones.

It is also said that the tanbur is the "piano of Turkish music" because it has frets (so you can actually see the Turkish Music) and it has a range of 3 1/2 octave.

About the loudness.
Back at then all Turkish instruments such as the tanbur, ud, kanun etc. were quiter because of the used strings and the forms of the instruments (and modern quality). So at best, the oud and the tanbur had very similar loudness and volume.
Today it is very different. The tanbur is one of the most quiet instruments compared to the other instruments. You could have 10 tanburs and only 1 kanun, and the kanun would easily still dominate. And also the oud is much louder than the tanbur these days. See for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iii7H1jdFoY

So the theory of that the oud was not that loud and that is why it wasn't that popular is very likely not true.

jdowning - 8-5-2015 at 12:03 PM

Thank you for your welcome input to this thread Divan Makam.

You should note that the topic is well over three years old until member suz_i_dil brought it back to light a few days ago. I likely have kept some of my original material somewhere on file but the references quoted from others are not readily at hand. Rest assured that I did not make them up! I do not read Turkish so all the quotes are from English speaking authors that I have taken at face value. Some, like the historical writings of Praetorius in the early 17th are predudiced against the Turks for both religious and political reasons so can be read with a 'pinch of salt' although there may be a grain of truth in them. No doubt Turkish historians will paint the picture from a more positive perspective but after 4 centuries it may often be difficult to separate fact from popular myth. In this thread I am just looking for informed information about the oud in the high art culture of the Ottoman Empire.

Apparently Suleiman the Great did play the oud (and other instruments?) but following the death of his wife and consort Roxelana (who was also a musician) in 1558 had all of his instruments destroyed and henceforth abstained from all pleasurable things in life until his death in 1566. True or false? - I have no way of knowing - but this may account for the claim that he banned music, song and dance from court? Praetorius tells us that Suleiman ordered destroyed the gift of a pipe organ from Francis 1 of France and sent the organists back home - as evidence that he had no taste for 'real' music!

Wasn't hans saying that it was the baglama (rather than the oud) that was frowned upon as a folk instrument?

What difference was there in the string materials between the 17th C Tanbur and the instrument of today. They were/are both strung with wire?

BTW why do you think that Jazz today is not as popular as it was in the 30's or that Western Classical music is not popular? Is that just a personal opinion?

DivanMakam - 8-5-2015 at 02:22 PM

Hello,

I didn't realize that this topic is that old. Sorry, my bad.

Excuse me if I offended you, I haven't implied that you made them up. Just your source is in any kind of form not reliable.
It is not that Praetorius is prejudiced, he is lying.

Things like this:

Quote:

He tells us that the religion of Islam forbade not only the liberal arts but anything that could make people happy including the music of strings.

...

The gift together with the accompanying French musicians were so well received according to Praetorius that people flocked to hear the delightful music - so that Suleiman - fearful that his people would become 'civilized' had the instrument destroyed and the musicians sent back to France!

This is ridiculous.
Clearly he tries to demonstrate how Islam is bad compared to the Christianity. Islam forbids anything that could make people happy? Oh, really?

If this "destoying" existed, surely french and turkish documents would prove it. As you know any kind of "meeting with the Sultan" is documented from both sides. And I really would like to see this source.

But what do you expect from someone that does this:

Quote:

He provides three pages in Volume II of his book illustrating 'barbaric' folk instruments including one showing Turkish drums but no other Turkish instruments - not a stringed instrument in sight.

Really, this has nothing to do with Turkish pride or nationalistic feelings from my side. You can't take Praetorius seriously.

I don't think there is a "grain of truth" as I never heard ever that music was somehow forbidden in the Ottoman time.

And Turkish historians won't paint the picture more positive. They will show the historical facts. Do you even know who Uzunçarşılı is? I didn't mention just a random historian, he was one of THE historians of modern Turkey. It is really an insult if you think that they paint the picture more positive, just because they don't share your views.

As I said, there are facts. Facts such as payroll documents. They are all documented. I gave you the list of the musicians during the time of Süleyman quoted from Uzunçarşılı. So you can see which musician was in the palaces and got how much money. If you are really looking for an informed information about the oud, and I think you do, then you must use Turkish sources. I give you the source of the sources, better and more reliable source than Uzunçarşılı doesn't exist.
https://www.academia.edu/6714530/Osmanl%C4%B1lar_Zaman%C4%B1nda_Sara...

His essay is titled "Music in the palaces during the Ottoman period".
It is in Turkish of course. He explains how the music life was, not particularly talking about the oud but in overall.

The other source, one of them is a dissertation thesis (M. Emin Soydaş ) sums all up for every instrument used in the palaces.

Yes, Hans was saying that the bağlama was frowned upon and I tried to explain the this is not necessarily true. I mean, it is for sure partly true but it is not like they tried to differ from the folk or something. As most of the oud or tanbur players start with the bağlama. So later on, when these musicians become classical ones, now suddenly they look down the bağlama? That doesn't sound right. And also the high class didn't live a kind of life where they tried to seperate them from the folk, like with intention.
It is just a different culture and atmosphere.
I mean, let's say you are in a rock band and you don't have a clarinet in your ensemble. Does this mean you frown upon it? Or do you think it has no place in your culture (in this example the rock culture)? It is like that.
Different music culture brings different sounds. And the sound of the folk is different than the classical sound.

How was the tanbur in the 17th century? I really don't know. I am not an expert, but I do know that all manufacturing information are well documented for all instruments according to Murat Bardakçı. But this kind of source materials are creme de la creme, I mean you really must be a high-grade scholar to have access to those documents. As it is their job to know how and where to find them. I assume they are definitely in the libraries but first you must live in Turkey, secondly you must know where to find them and thirdly you must be able to read Ottoman Turkish (in Arabic/Farsi script).

But I do know that in the 70s the manufacturing of tanbur changed. Such as the wood, the soundboard, the neck. For example the neck got thicker, or the form of the body changed a bit, or the veins of the wood of the soundboard. Or the neck is built only from 1 piece of wood, instead of 7 bond together. Or the used strings for the 3. and 4. Or in the old times they used gut strings for all, and also for the frets. And the old ones only have 7 strings for example, today it is 8.
But of course it depends on from which luthier you get your tanbur, as todays modern ones are I believe very traditional, so very close to the old tanburs. But 30-40 years ago the tanburs were more different. They changed even the mızrap's form (tanbur's plectrum). But I am not a luthier or an expert, I am not that interested to know it very detailed. I got my information from reading only.

Why do I think that Jazz or Classical Western is not as popular as it was? Only a personal opinion?

Personal opinion? I really don't think so, I think it is a clear fact.
Let's pick a country, anyone you want. Then let's look to the charts. Do you think in the top 100, you will find any Jazz songs there? Or classical ones? And if so, how many?

Who is the Nat King Cole of today? Can you give me a name?
What is the last Jazz song composed in the 2000s you remember?
Where is the Beethoven or Schubert of our time? Any names?

Nobody listens to the music of old era. Only people who lived in that time or people like us, who don't get fooled by repetitive music.

Why are they not popular?

Because people get glared, because people don't really understand music. They just live with that what is served to them.

Look at the women in the 80s. Look at their hairstyles, makeups, clothes. If I asked back at then, if they find themselves beautiful and if they think that "this is it", they would agree and would explain me the beauty of their look. But nobody looks like that today? Why? If it was that beautiful, why doesn't they look like that anymore? Because they never truely understood what beauty is, they just did that what "anybody" does. What is "in" and what the fashion industry dictates.

So the collective minds are ruled and controlled by the "bigs" that can influence mass of people. Like televisions, internet, industries, etc.
So they choose what is "good, beautiful" and what not and the collective minds, the mass of people, the mainstream, follows them. And Jazz and Classical Music is outdated. Not because they are not beautiful, but because in their minds they are not beautiful. Simply not relevant.

If people would understand music, they would see the brilliance and uniqueness and high art in such music. But they don't. Simply said they are not interested to know. I am not saying they can't understand or know, they just don't care and they follow the mainstream. Following the mainstream makes you feel better, as you find connections to other people, so you don't feel alone.

If some music businessmen wouldn't have introduced Justin Bieber as the next best thing, who would have know him?
Why did this businessmen choose him and not a Jazz musician?
Because they do what they think is the best for them. What is the best? The best thing is someone who generates a lot of money. The best thing is "cool". Something from "now", not yesterday. Skills and brilliance is not something they need necessarily. If so, any opera singer has a better voice then all pop musicians. But... who cares? They are not cool.

I could go on but I think you get the point.

jdowning - 8-5-2015 at 03:22 PM

Whatever!

hans - 8-6-2015 at 01:20 AM

Wow!
to be more precise, which seems very important in this thread: I did not mean that the baglama was frowned upon in past ages (which it may have been, but that was not my point). When playing the oud at the music academy in Istanbul my teacher used techniques from the baglama; this was not liked by his teachers because the baglama is a folk instrument and they found only high Ottoman art acceptable. So I gave this as an example of how an instrument may be rejected in elite circles, and therefore the oud may have been rejected for a while at the Ottoman court (which I don't know, but in case it was….).

Elitism and precise statements are important in this thread :-}. Divanmakam, if you think no one listens to classical music anymore, you should spend some time in northern Europe. Every better educated mature person here listens to classical music, and it is a huge industry as well; it frowns upon the show culture of pop music and therefore may not be as present and in your face as those who undress to get attention.
Many classical musicians here are immensely arrogant; for many of them to reject an instrument because it is not part of their elite culture is not a question for me, it is a matter of fact.

There may not be a mozart around nowadays, i.e. classical composers loved by the crowds, but there are many brilliant and succesful classical composers. The reason why the crowds don't know them is that classical music has driven so far away from entertainment music since the beginning of the 20th century that few people can appreciate it. Listen to galina ustvolskaya, who is a bit of a demi god here. On the other hand, I wonder if most classical composers who are now famous were working in very small circles in their own time.

Bilen Isiktas told me how frustrated he was when he studied musicology in Istanbul and most of the books he read were western. The Turks would read all the western books, and the Turkish, but the western books were the best; problem was that they mostly ignored the rest of the world, as if not much happened outside the west.

I agree with DivanMakam that if you want to study Turkish music history you will have to study Turkish books; it is time that they get translated into English!

Any westerner who wants to understand middle eastern frustration about western attitudes, I can highly recommend Destiny Disrupted, a world history through the eyes of the muslim world. It is a huge eye opener for westerners (Funny enough, I work in a rather conservative environment, and Holland right now is not known for it's tolerance toward islamic views, but whenever I mention this book everyone grabs a pen to write down the title, which has never happened before with any other book. apparently there is a void aching to be filled)

DivanMakam - 8-6-2015 at 05:50 AM

Hello,

ah, I slightly misunderstood your comparison but now I get it. Yeah, yes, that could have happened with the oud but as I tried to explain, it seems it never happened though (that the oud was rejected).

It is very likely that it went out of fashion (in the 18th century) but then did return strongly with the Fasıls.

As said, when we analyze the older centuries, there we will see that many different instruments were used. But lately they went out of fashion and they never did a return in the classical scene.

About the Classical Western Music: I actually live in the middle of it (hello from Deutschland) and my point still stands. This music is like the Classical Turkish Music: dying. But of course there is a difference in the dimensions as the Western one of course has a bigger audience, musicians and base.
I am a young person and a student. I live amongst the elite people of the future. Ask me how many people I met who listens to Western. Ask me how many Germans I met who could name me only 3 classical musicians. They know the cliche ones like Mozart and Beethoven, I never get to hear the third one though. But this is only from my life, so this is not a good example. Just I know all the scenes of the mainstreams. And Classical music is surely not one of them.
When I said no one listens anymore, I didn't mean it literally. Of course there is always a group of people in every society who listens to those elite stuff like Jazz, Western or Turkish, but this is the exception and is like a part of their elitism. Older generations still have a connection to Western here, but that's all.
The point that "every better educated person" listens to Western is in my opinion highly unlikely, as that would mean overall all universities would have their own ensembles, or at least from time to time concerts. I mean universities are the main places where educated people grow and I am not aware of such organizations. But I know that all universities have sports teams and other hobby teams, but classical music? I'd like to see examples of that. And I can go on and give you examples from my life.

But let's go back to a wider perspective.
You say it is a huge industry and this is true because the elites of Europe support them but this industry only creates imitators. All what is left from this culture are the virtuosos, in that matter this music is still strong. But this is just chewing the same gum over and over. Give me a city name in Europe, anywhere you want. Let's find their classical concerts for the next few months that will occur in that city. You will see that they all play over and over the same pieces. The 10000th time of playing Tchaikowski's Violin Concerto or the 10000th time performing one the Verdi's operas.
And if they play newer things or unknown things, how many attend to those concerts?
This is from Wikipedia:
Amount of recordings from 1907 to 2009 (Verdi's operas)

Do we need 261 different Aida recordings? Or how many times do they need to perform this opera live?
The same old s*it over and over. It is nothing wrong with that as long as you also create new things.

So I ask you again, where are the Menuhins, Haifetz, Oistrakhs of today (even though virtuoso culture is still strong)?
Composers?

You said I should listen to Galina Ustvolskaya. She is only 13 years younger than Shostakovich, do you really consider her from "our time"? Because I don't. She belongs to the last group of the ending era of Classical Western Music.

But if you do, can you give me one example piece which has the same perfectness as one of the Shostakovich's pieces?
I am not very familiar but I think she was a student of the great Shostakovich (one of the last true 1A composers).
Surely none of her pieces will outshine the second waltz of Shostakovich, but maybe something in the level of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlBGtUQhGK4
?
Just interested to see as I am always open to newer things.

And yes, the West is very arrogant and ignorant when it comes to science and education or culture. I could write hundreds of things about this but this is not the right place.

Thank you all for this debate.

hans - 8-6-2015 at 06:57 AM

Ah you are already in Europe :-}. I don't agree with you about a dying culture. Entertainment has a huge pull on people and maybe classical culture is not as prevalent as it used to be; although I wonder how big the audiences actually were in the peak days, I have the feeling it was as much a question of cultural elite as it is now.

I am a bit surprised that you say the students around you can only name two composers. That was very different in my student days, and my daughter's boyfriend can easily name 10. I know of no universities with a sportsteam here; sounds rather american to me. I do know of students music ensembles. But I don't necessarily consider students the mature (and better educated) audience I was talking about. I agree with you that the audience will generally be much older; which is fine with me. At some point one must lose an interest in the mixture of music and sex, which doesn't make you old or outdated.

Classical music certainly has a much smaller audience than entertainment music, like all the arts. Although the visual arts have a huge audience nowadays compared to the days of van Gogh. And doesn't the fact that there is room for hundreds of recordings of Verdi opera tell you that it is not a dying culture at all?
I wonder if contemporary classical music may be in a stage like some of the instruments we discuss, a temporary dip in popularity, in this case because comtemporary classical has no entertainment value.

But I must apologize to jdowning for taking this very far off topic

(by the way, shostakovich considered ustvolskaya a huge talent and said he had as much to learn from her as she from him)

DivanMakam - 8-6-2015 at 11:46 AM

Quote: Originally posted by hans

Ah you are already in Europe :-}. I don't agree with you about a dying culture. Entertainment has a huge pull on people and maybe classical culture is not as prevalent as it used to be; although I wonder how big the audiences actually were in the peak days, I have the feeling it was as much a question of cultural elite as it is now.

It is not about the size of the audiences. I mean centuries ago, how many people were literate and could actually read? 5% of the population or 10? But still it didn't hold up all those writers to write their novels or poems. And they created a culture in literature.

A culture lives from 2 things. One side who creates it and one side who embraces it.

I ask again, where are the creators?
And I don't think they are enough people who embrace these culture, relatively spoken. Else we would see a reflection of this in the young adults and teenagers. But they are definitely not interested at all.

Quote:

I am a bit surprised that you say the students around you can only name two composers. That was very different in my student days, and my daughter's boyfriend can easily name 10. I know of no universities with a sportsteam here; sounds rather american to me. I do know of students music ensembles. But I don't necessarily consider students the mature (and better educated) audience I was talking about. I agree with you that the audience will generally be much older; which is fine with me. At some point one must lose an interest in the mixture of music and sex, which doesn't make you old or outdated.

I live amongst them, because I am interested in music, I always ask people about their music taste and so on. Hiphop, Metal, Pop and Rock and now electronic music is the only music they listen to. Even if the boyfriend of your daughter or any other person can name many names, it doesn't mean they are interested in this music. And here it is actually really bad. I can prove my point very easily. There are many forums out there. And mostly all of them have a thread named "what are you listening to". And forums contain every kind of person, from every kind of nationalities, social classes and education. There you can make an observation to which music the people listen to. For example this very big German Computer forum:
http://www.computerbase.de/forum/showthread.php?t=1430857
(Thread from 2015, you could check for the older ones). There are 1000+ entries only this year. Look which kind of music people are interested in.) Where is classic amongst the Germans?

Or another way, for example the last.fm page of Ustvolskaya:
http://www.lastfm.de/music/Galina+Ustvolskaya
Last week only 1 person listened to her, in total 1779.

Now let's take randomly the first entry in that German thread. I don't know that band, it is called Dire Straits:
http://www.lastfm.de/music/Dire+Straits

In total 1946175 listeners.

2 million vs. 2 thousand...

And with sportsteam I mean sports like olympic sports. Every university has it, not like a soccer team or a football team like the Americans.

You don't consider students the mature audience you talked about and I understand what you say and agree with you. But todays students are later in 20 years those matured people. You can see from today their music taste. These are doctors, scientists, engineers, artists...

Or if you are talking about the rich elite group. I'm not sure how many of them are interested in classical culture and even if, these are the exceptions. And I think many look interested in classical, just because it is a part of their elitist culture and not because they want to embrace it. You can see that when you open a newspaper and see their daughters or sons. Like when they crashed their new Porsche after leaving a club, or drank too much alcohol and got Paparazzi-ed after a party. I am sure they didn't leave a classical concert when the reporters or the police found them.

There is only this core of people, mostly from older generations, and they are dying, the culture with them.

Quote:

Classical music certainly has a much smaller audience than entertainment music, like all the arts. Although the visual arts have a huge audience nowadays compared to the days of van Gogh.

And can you name me the van Gogh of today? I mean we have the internet, television, newspapers. So nothing can hide those genius people. Where is he or she? The audience of nowadays just commercializing and exploiting the old culture. Where do they produce? As I said, chewing the same old gum over and over.

Quote:

And doesn't the fact that there is room for hundreds of recordings of Verdi opera tell you that it is not a dying culture at all?

No, this is exactly the proof of that the culture is dying. Because repetition shows that you don't produce new things, things with that same quality. So you tend to produce the old good stuff over and over because you don't have nothing new in your hands. A perfect example that the culture is dying or is dead.

Quote:

I wonder if contemporary classical music may be in a stage like some of the instruments we discuss, a temporary dip in popularity, in this case because comtemporary classical has no entertainment value.

I don't think so. When some instruments were not as popupar as they were once, some other instruments took their places.
And most of them didn't make a comeback ever.

So clearly the classical world is replaced by the modern things, and the contemporary classical music is not one of them.

But you ask if this is temporarily. And I think once you lose a culture, you can't get it back. It is too late. So you must stop this. Newer generations must be raised. But I ask again, where are they? I don't care if there are 1000 vilolin players who can play exactly like Paganini. This is just repetition. Where is the 1 new Paganini (the creator) we need for today so the culture can live on? I don't see one.

This is the same with Jazz or with the Classical Turkish music. They all are dying.

Look, this is an oud forum. And when you learn to play it, and if you are interested in the Turkish style/culture/music, you will play at one point a Saz Semâî.
Everyone of us knows the famous Nihâvend Saz Semâî by Mesûd Cemil. Thanks god we have a recording of him playing this piece. So, better than that it can't be. So if I wanted to listen to that piece, I listen to him.
But all of us repeat it over and over. It is played in concerts, alone, to friends, for practice etc.

BUT WHERE ARE OUR SAZ SEMÂÎs? We just consume the old ones without bringing new ones to life. So the culture is dying.
I mean you all oud players can become good and awesome, but if I wanted to listen to the oud, I will listen to Bacanos. When there is the master, why should I waste my time with the copycats? That is the problem. If you don't become the culture itself, if you don't create new things and bring the culture forward, we all will stay as copycats who imitated only and caused the death of the culture.

Quote:

But I must apologize to jdowning for taking this very far off topic

I apologize, too but he left the discussion with a "whatever" anyway

Quote:

(by the way, shostakovich considered ustvolskaya a huge talent and said he had as much to learn from her as she from him)

I believe you, but honestly I know not much about her so I assume it is because she was not that great as her master. Or it is just my illiterateness. I am not that interested in Classical Western Music, I only am superficial in that matter.

Jody Stecher - 8-6-2015 at 02:46 PM

In the Arab music world very fine new compositions in saz semai form are still being composed. In recent years Khalid Mohammed Ali and Simon Shaheen have composed some outstanding semai-s that are both traditional and up-to-date. Not only were these recently composed but living musicians have embraced these compositions and are playing them. Not very long ago George Michel and Jamil Bashir each composed a lovely samai in Rast. Just a few examples that come to mind immediately. And these also are played today.

hans - 8-6-2015 at 02:59 PM

you think everything is dying! I am not sure about classical music as I am about the visual arts, but today's artists are much luckier than those in van Gogh's days. Check out Anselm Kiefer, Georg Baselitz, Tony Oursler, there are hundreds of geniuses who need not die in poverty.

abc123xyz - 8-6-2015 at 10:46 PM

Wow. This forum is usually refreshingly free of chauvinism, but this thread is an outstanding exception, lol.

And personally I find the classical-is-superior-to-pop chauvinism no less repulsive than the nationalism.

Much reverence for the so called "classical" genres is no more than blind conservatism and the "Emperor's new clothes", and much complaining about the world's lack of interest is no more than veiled expression of elitist pride.

Gems come from every genre of music, along with a vastly larger amount of dreck, and that's as true of the classical genres as it is of the pop, folk, and experimental. Variety and novelty are just as important as any other musical consideration, and the diminishing popularity of "well used" forms, styles, and compositions is natural, to be expected, and necessary to make room for the new.

That's Life; that's how it works :·)

David

hans - 8-7-2015 at 03:21 AM

I grudgingly agree, but did anyone say classical is superior?

Jody Stecher - 8-7-2015 at 03:34 AM

I see the ongoing disagreement to be about what exists, not about what music deserves to live or die.

David Parfitt - 8-7-2015 at 04:06 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher

In the Arab music world very fine new compositions in saz semai form are still being composed. In recent years Khalid Mohammed Ali and Simon Shaheen have composed some outstanding semai-s that are both traditional and up-to-date. Not only were these recently composed but living musicians have embraced these compositions and are playing them. Not very long ago George Michel and Jamil Bashir each composed a lovely samai in Rast. Just a few examples that come to mind immediately. And these also are played today.

I would add to this Samai Farahnak by Tareq Jundi and Samai 'Bayya al-Ward' in Maqam Bastahnikar by Ahmad al-Khatib. :bowdown:

Jody Stecher - 8-7-2015 at 04:21 AM

Quote: Originally posted by David Parfitt

Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher

I would add to this Samai Farahnak by Tareq Jundi and Samai 'Bayya al-Ward' in Maqam Bastahnikar by Ahmad al-Khatib. :bowdown:

Yes, indeed! And these are not being played to prove a point about elite superiority nor were they composed for that reason. They are being played because people like the music and find it viable.

DivanMakam - 8-7-2015 at 04:41 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher

The same is happening in the Turkish world. Besides songs are being still composed, additionally instrumental forms are composed, for example from Göksel Baktagir.
With that said I wasn't implying that nothing is going on, just it seems like trying to run a wind turbine with our exhalations (breath).
There is not much going on, besides from the try of some masters.

Quote: Originally posted by hans

Yes, todays artists are much luckier, I agree. But I didn't deny that. I was trying to explain the need of a wakeup for the traditional arts or they will go under...

And I don't think that everything is dying, just if you are interested in history and culture, then you will notice a lot of things which were once important and now dead a long ago. And I am afraid, that this is happening right now with those 3 genres I talked about. You don't have to agree, but I still am waiting for the names equal to those people lived a time ago. But it is unfair of me to ask this question, as it doesn't have an answer as I try to state all the time. Dying...

Quote: Originally posted by abc123xyz

Wow. This forum is usually refreshingly free of chauvinism, but this thread is an outstanding exception, lol.

I think you can be more straight. You refer to the thread being chauvinistic, but I think it is safe to say that you refer to only my thoughts. So, the others shoudn't pay for my sins. This thread has still great information and I tried to contribute to it with sources but now we are a bit off-topic, which is ok by me, we just exchange opinions.

Quote:

And personally I find the classical-is-superior-to-pop chauvinism no less repulsive than the nationalism.

Your views, I accept that, but I don't agree with you at all.
And I am bit offended that you call it chauvinism, I mean if you have said elitism, I accept that but it is not a fanatical devotion as you try to imply here with chauvinism.

Quote:

Much reverence for the so called "classical" genres is no more than blind conservatism and the "Emperor's new clothes", and much complaining about the world's lack of interest is no more than veiled expression of elitist pride.

That is totally untrue. Blind conservatism? Elitist pride?
No, it is a result of observation, not pride or conservatism.

And accusing someone (in this case me) of being blind is in fact an elitist thought. As this implies that you, compared to me, judge this "whole thing" from the correct point of view. But me, I do it blindly. So it is like you are the one who can think, make a use of his brain but I am not? Maybe, just maybe, I also can think and make my own decisions and thought deeply about what I am trying to say? It has nothing to do with pride or conservatism. It is not that "everything was better back then" mentality. If I thought like that, I woudn't use a computer. I differentiate. There are things which are better today, and which are not. Just because someone is thinking some things were better in the past, it doesn't mean this is conservatism. It can be a matter of fact. But because this is not how you think, you label it as conservatism and with being blind or elitism.

Quote:

Gems come from every genre of music, along with a vastly larger amount of dreck, and that's as true of the classical genres as it is of the pop, folk, and experimental. Variety and novelty are just as important as any other musical consideration, ...

I totally agree with you.
None of us, or at least me, said the opposite.
I think with prejudice you wanted to make this statement, as you (maybe?) thought that I am not for vatiety or novelty.

Quote:

and the diminishing popularity of "well used" forms, styles, and compositions is natural, to be expected, and necessary to make room for the new. That's Life; that's how it works :·) David

But with this part I don't agree with. Why should the diminishing be natural, expected and more importantly necessary?

I agree with that it has to make room for the new, as I also tried to explain that this is the problem right now with this classical culture. It doesn't bring nothing new anymore, which is why I said it is slowly dying.

But why must this making room for the new be something solely with less value or quality?

Once you reach a quality, once you tasted that quality, why should I welcome the "newer thing" with less quality, if I also could have the better one?
I mean you can enjoy the lesser one, ok by me, but why do people try to force other people, who don't want it? As you see, if someone is not enjoying pop culture or the mainstream culture, than he is named as conservationalist or blind. Just because I prefer older things. But these people don't understand that this is not because they are old, but because they have that beauty I seek.

When you can buy for 10 dollars high quality 1 kg tomatoes and low quality 1 kg tomatoes, which will you get for your money? Once you tasted the quality of a car, will you ever go back to horses?
And this is with the music quality. Once I enjoyed that excellent quality, I am no longer satisfied with lower ones.
I assume you will call this elitism but then everyone of you is an elitist. Like I said, which tomatoes would you rather get?
It is natural to seek for the better one.
But I am not judging anyone who doesn't do this.

I mean I have my own definition of beauty and quality. And I seek for it and I find them in the 2 classical cultures + in Jazz. So a variety of American, European and Turkish. I don't like repetition and these ones offer me uniqueness and beauty together. The other ones lack mostly the uniqueness part which makes them necessarily not that beautiful in my eyes.

And this is right now the core of this discussion.

Jody Stecher - 8-7-2015 at 06:17 AM

If you don't like repetition how can you listen to any music except the most free form improv? Without repetition there is no rhythm. Repetition is one of the means which makes musical form apparent. Without repetition there is no makam music and no European classical music, there is no traditional folk music of any sort, no ritual music, no liturgical music, no blues, nothing with a form. I am puzzled.

DivanMakam - 8-7-2015 at 06:43 AM

Hello sir,

I am confused.

When you write down an improv. in notes (afterwards), there you have your composition. How is that different than written pieces, other than that the creation is simultanously and not laid-out in a wider time frame? I don't get your example, as by your definition of repetition also improvisation should have been in that list. (not talking about the brilliance, skill and experience needed to do an improv., THAT difference I know, but we was talking about repetition and if you consider written compositions as repetitive than improv. should also be in that category as by your definition improvs. have also a form)

Anyway.

Yes, rhythm is repetition but I am sure that you know that music consists not only of rhythm. I was referring to the whole concept of those types. For example melody is unique in those 3 cases (with exceptions) which is a part of that concept amongst rhythm.

I mean with your experience and expertise, I am pretty sure you know what I meant. This sort of a nitpicking is not very helpful in a discussion. If we want to be that philosophical, that any kind of music with a form has elements of repetition, than you are right. In that case, yes, I listen to repetitive music. But again, you know I didn't mean that or at least now you know it.

An example of repetitive music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOlDewpCfZQ

Jody Stecher - 8-7-2015 at 07:54 AM

Quote: Originally posted by DivanMakam

Hello sir,

I am confused.

I thought it was me that was confused.

When you write down an improv. in notes (afterwards), there you have your composition. How is that different than written pieces, other than that the creation is simultanously and not laid-out in a wider time frame?

No difference. Improv is composition in real time. I was I was referring to the kind of improv which deliberately repeats nothing.

I mean with your experience and expertise, I am pretty sure you know what I meant.

I had no idea what you meant. And I'm in agreement with many of your points in this debate.

DivanMakam - 8-7-2015 at 09:27 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher

I thought it was me that was confused.

Ok, we both are confused

Quote:

No difference. Improv is composition in real time.

Yeah, exactly. That was why I was confused, as there is no difference but you still made a difference there.

Quote:

I was I was referring to the kind of improv which deliberately repeats nothing.

Ah, now I understand what you mean.

But the improvisation with deliberately repeating nothing has also a form. The form of "not-having-a-form", which is a form.
And it is also repeating something. The repeating of "non-repeating". So technically and philosophical spoken, it is also repetitive.

Quote:

I had no idea what you meant. And I'm in agreement with many of your points in this debate.

Thanks.
As you see my English is not that great and also it may be that I can't express myself correctly from time to time. I apologize for that, I hope everything is clear now.

hans - 8-7-2015 at 11:53 AM

"I still am waiting for the names equal to those people lived a time ago".

That is because I doubt that I would be able to tell, especially in classical music. History tells us that one cannot predict who will remain and who will be forgotten. It reminds me of one of the most important art prizes in the Netherlands, the Prix de Rome. A few years ago there was an exhibition called "200 years Prix de Rome". The most important conclusion was that the juries had consistently chosen the wrong artists. Everyone who participated who is now famous ended up lower than second place.

DivanMakam - 8-7-2015 at 12:48 PM

Quote: Originally posted by hans

"I still am waiting for the names equal to those people lived a time ago".

That is because I doubt that I would be able to tell, especially in classical music. History tells us that one cannot predict who will remain and who will be forgotten. It reminds me of one of the most important art prizes in the Netherlands, the Prix de Rome. A few years ago there was an exhibition called "200 years Prix de Rome". The most important conclusion was that the juries had consistently chosen the wrong artists. Everyone who participated who is now famous ended up lower than second place.

That line was not directed to you (only), sorry if it looked like that I point my finger only to you.
The question was pointed to anyone who is reading it, as I am inviting anyone to name me names and their works.
But they can't, as you can't.

And I don't agree with that history tells us that we can't predict who will remain and who not. Yes, we can not predict everyone and mostly we will not honor all people (who should be honored).
But if something history tells us is, that we can predict some of them. We MUST predict the obvious ones or either the predictor doesn't know/understand that craftsmanship or there is not one to predict.

Just as an example, Brahms was very famous in his time and he was awarded many times in his life time (like other composers).
Or Ismâil Dede was very famous in his time, invited from the sultan and all musicians realized him.

Yes, there were also many many brilliant people who were not much known (such as Schubert). But the obvious ones always outshine the others, history never forgets them. History doesn't cover all genius people, but it does many of them. And during their lifetimes many people were already considered to be a part of history and culture. You can't deny obvious uniqueness.

(Just a random example, we can't deny that LeBron James is surely top 5-7 NBA player of all time, and yet he has many seasons to play and he has only won 2 championships. He comes directly in your mind when you talk about uniqueness in today's NBA.)

But if we can't name today some obvious names (such as in classical cultures), then we must do a conclusion. My answer I already explained, I believe these cultures are dying.

Of course, the population of the world is now 7 billion people, most of them are educated and we have many musicians, so it is very likely that we have still those genius composers out there. But we must put it in perspective and view it relatively to the mass of we have. I mean in past, there were handful of people capable of doing such a music because obviously education plays a big role and not many people had that. Handful of people but we still can name tens or hundreds of names for each century. Today, everyone has access to anything, the population is 10 times more than the past, and we are not even able to name some 1 or 2 epic names....

We have the internet, tv, newspaper and radio. Nothing gets lost. There are not people who live only in the basement and never come out and produce silently their masterpieces. Anything is very fast known everywhere. But yet we have to think very long to name such names, and we can't...

abc123xyz - 8-7-2015 at 09:00 PM

Quote: Originally posted by DivanMakam

I think you can be more straight. You refer to the thread being chauvinistic, but I think it is safe to say that you refer to only my thoughts.

It's not safe to say, lol.

I had two distinct bones to pick, and trying to combine them in one post was probably a mistake.

One is the matter of musical snobbery, which has bothered me for years now.

I'm a member of two music-topic forums now, this one and the Chandrakantha forum devoted to Indian music, and I've been in the past on a few others besides, and have many times been annoyed, or even offended, by the snobbery so often expressed on those forums. I have many times wanted to say what I said here yesterday, but have always held back fearing it would open a can of worms.

My point being that nobody's comments here were provocation equal to my reaction. Mine was more of a general complaint, not aimed too precisely at anybody here, but more at the unquestioned assumptions I preceive underlying some of what was said yesterday.

Quote: Originally posted by DivanMakam

So, the others shoudn't pay for my sins.

Nobody's paid much of anything; I accused nobody by name of anything, yet. At worst they had to read my post, lol.

Quote: Originally posted by DivanMakam

And I am bit offended that you call it chauvinism, I mean if you have said elitism, I accept that but it is not a fanatical devotion as you try to imply here with chauvinism.

You tend to split hairs, here and and in every post you make. You split so often and so finely that we’re blinded by the cloud of fuzz, lol.

There’s not much significance, for our purposes, in the distinction between elitism and chauvinism, certainly not such that would allow offense on one hand and none on the other.

However, for future reference in this post, I find chauvinism defined online merely as:

“exaggerated or aggressive patriotism.”

“excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one's own cause, group, or gender.”

Quote: Originally posted by DivanMakam

And accusing someone (in this case me) of being blind is in fact an elitist thought.

I never accused anybody by name, yet. I offered a shoe, and you claim it fits you.

I will accuse you now, by name, however, and this is the second bone I had to pick, which is your nationalistic chauvinism.

After claiming that Praetorius is biased, you lecture Downing that “Turkish historians won't paint the picture more positive. They will show the historical facts.”

Don’t get me wrong, because personally I don’t know nor could I care less about Praetorius, but why is Praetorius capable of bias while Turks are not?

Then you say “It is really an insult if you think that they paint the picture more positive just because they don't share your views.” So then should Praetorius’ people, whoever those might be, feel insulted by you when you question his objectivity, just because he “do[es]n’t share your views”?

Moreover Downing merely quoted Praetorius’ claims as possibilities, and merely asked if there was any truth to them, he did not assert. Downing himself also warned us, long before you came along, that Praetorius had to be taken with a grain of salt due to his obvious anti-muslim bias, but only to have you accuse him of sharing Praetorius’ views. That’s not really fair to Downing, and that along with your egregious hair splitting, was more than enough to make anybody throw up their hands, say “Whatever!”, and walk away.

Your implication that one must be fluent in Ottoman Turkish in the perso-arabic script before he dare comment on anything is also pretty obnoxious. I’m tempted to insist you learn medieval Latin before you comment again on the “West”, lol.

However your worst emesis of all was:

"And yes, the West is very arrogant and ignorant when it comes to science and education or culture.”

And yet you told Downing, who asks about the oud's loss of popularity in Turkey, that “Trying to find reasons for that is not very healthy.”

In case you didn’t realize, trying to find reasons for things is the very role of science, lol.

The other chauvinistic claims are equally ridiculous. If you know anything about history, you should know that Turkey has been well behind the West in science and education for most of the last few centuries.

Now I don’t look down upon, nor up to, nations on the basis of their success or failure in the areas of state building, economic systems, educational systems, nor any other such indices that seem so important to encyclopedia entries. Such mass and collective action is subject to random forces and the vagueries of history, but if you want to play that game yourself, you lose at it. Here, in regard to this one question, you lose at that game. So why play it?

“I could write hundreds of things about this but this is not the right place.”

Meaning that you have hundreds of pieces of evidence to back what you say, and so we must take it as fact, but that you just can’t share that evidence here because it’s the wrong place.

I say, if you can’t (or shouldn’t) provide the evidence for a claim, then keep the claim to yourself too, lol.

You’re right though, this is not the place to write about that, and you shouldn’t have even started.

¦:·)

David

hans - 8-7-2015 at 11:14 PM

I think we all know that this cannot lead us anywhere, getting too complex, and the tone is getting dangerously close to the kind of internet 'debates' that I hope none of us want here.
(I also hope jdowning learns turkish and finds his answers ;-}and shares them with us at some later point)

Jody Stecher - 8-8-2015 at 03:26 AM

Quote: Originally posted by hans

I think we all know that this cannot lead us anywhere, getting too complex, and the tone is getting dangerously close to the kind of internet 'debates' that I hope none of us want here.
(I also hope jdowning learns turkish and finds his answers ;-}and shares them with us at some later point)

There is passion in this discussion, but respect remains. Conversations like this can help uncover what is true.

Jody Stecher - 8-8-2015 at 03:35 AM

DivanMakam,

it is not so that everyone has internet access. And not all creative musicians who do have access make their works available there. Some of those I know not only have no wish to do that, but actively wish *not* to.

Jody Stecher - 8-8-2015 at 05:32 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher

Quote: Originally posted by hans

There is passion in this discussion, but respect remains. Conversations like this can help uncover what is true.

I believe that all participants in this particular discussion have been sincere. Not all have been well informed, not all have have understood the posts with which they disagree or think they disagree, but there are no "trolls" in this discussion as far as I can see. I think everyone means well.....in *this* conversation....so far.

hans - 8-8-2015 at 06:31 AM

And I am very thankful for that, but issues are brought together here that on their own should be the topics of full book shelves. I will ask one of my Turkish friends if they can shed some light on the oud's fate in the 17th and 18th century by studying their books, so that at least that get's an answer

, if there is one.
Happy conversing to all!

DivanMakam - 8-8-2015 at 07:55 PM

Quote: Originally posted by abc123xyz

Quote: Originally posted by DivanMakam

I think you can be more straight. You refer to the thread being chauvinistic, but I think it is safe to say that you refer to only my thoughts.

I understand your reaction. Yeah, I understand that you feel offended by snobbery as I often feel the same. I really thought you were talking of me. I couldn't realize that you spoke in general. But it is fine, no problems at all.

Quote:

Quote: Originally posted by DivanMakam

And I am bit offended that you call it chauvinism, I mean if you have said elitism, I accept that but it is not a fanatical devotion as you try to imply here with chauvinism.

You tend to split hairs, here and and in every post you make. You split so often and so finely that we’re blinded by the cloud of fuzz, lol.

That is correct. I am a person of nuances. I find it very important how you say something and what you say. One word can change the whole meaning of a sentence. My English is not that good that I can express myself as I wish, but even with my limited knowledge I think twice before I use a word. There is an important difference between elitism and chavinism. One is definitely a negative thing whereas the other one can be negative, and also their meanings differ from each other significantly.

Quote:

There’s not much significance, for our purposes, in the distinction between elitism and chauvinism, certainly not such that would allow offense on one hand and none on the other. However, for future reference in this post, I find chauvinism defined online merely as: “exaggerated or aggressive patriotism.” “excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one's own cause, group, or gender.”

There is a significance, a very big significance. Yes, your description of the word "chauvinism" is correct and this is how I also understood it previously. And I find it offending. Don't misunderstand me, I am not saying you are insulting, it is offending. But I think you have the right to use that word and offend somebody with it, as it is not an insult, just an expression of the situation how you think it might be.

Why did i think it is offending? Well, the description explains it. That term accuses someone of having an "aggressive patriotism" or "prejudiced loyalty or support for one's cause". And this is not true in this matter. Just because someone is thinking something is better, more beautiful or unique than the other thing, is is not chauvinism. When I say the child A plays better violin than child B, am I being chauvinistic now? And I think some musical forms are better, that is all. I explained why: they are not repetitive as others and mostly unique. I find repetitive music boring, once you heard one, you know all the other 1000 others as they sound the same/similar.
When you walk around in your block, you can find those houses there beautiful. I accept that. But I am sure there a lot of houses which look like the houses there. Of course, no house is exactly the same as the others, but in a block of houses with the same models, they all look the same and similar. But I want to see the Taj Mahal. When I listen to music, I want to see the Taj Mahal in that music piece. Others prefer and are satisfied to see usual block houses. Ok, fine, but some people like me prefer uniqueness and complexity. And there is a matter of fact that some form of music are more complex than others and are not as repetitive as others. You are welcome to make a statement and show us how repetitive Beethoven was.
So let's go back to the better description,

elitism:

"Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, high intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously or carry more weight; whose views or actions are more likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern."

And I do believe in that. I think some music cultures contain more high intellectual people, people with specialized training and experience, with distinctive attributes. And their influence or authority is greater than of others, whose views on a matter are to be taken more seriously, whose actions are more likelty to be constructive to society as others'.
When we pick an ordinary rockband guitarist and an ordinary violin player of a classical ensemble. Who do you believe have more specialized training and experience, who do you think has more knowledge in regarding music theory? I think it is a matter of fact that some music cultures contain the better musicians. You don't think like that, ok by me, but it is not chauvinism, it is purely a matter of a fact. As I said, let's take an opera singer and a popstar of today, let's see who can make more clear sounds, can generate more volume, can reflect better the music song. Will you bet on the popstar? Yes, like everywhere there are exceptions. But I never talk about exceptions, as exceptions are exceptions, not the rule.

Quote:

Quote: Originally posted by DivanMakam

And accusing someone (in this case me) of being blind is in fact an elitist thought.

You misunderstand the situation. You should care for the nuances. It has nothing to do with being Turkish or not. In this matter, it was a matter of Turkish history, I said "Turkish historians". I could also have said "American Historians", if it was American culture or history.

So it is not that Praetorius is capable of bias and Turks are not. Of course also Turks are capable.
But I was illustrating the importance of being an historian, as it is their WHOLE purpose to lighten the past.
Praetorius is not a historian. Whereas I quoted an historian. You must understand the importance.

Let me ask you. When you have toothache (your teeth hurts), which opinion interests you more and you trust more: a psychologist's or a dentist's?

I explained already, why you can't trust Praetorius' words. As he says things like:

"He tells us that the religion of Islam forbade not only the liberal arts but anything that could make people happy including the music of strings.
...
The gift together with the accompanying French musicians were so well received according to Praetorius that people flocked to hear the delightful music - so that Suleiman - fearful that his people would become 'civilized' had the instrument destroyed and the musicians sent back to France!"

He is clearly lying! Islam doesn't forbid and as an interested in history, and I am not aware of such a happening of destoying such instruments. "He was afraid of his people would become civilized?" Really?
I mean if you don't believe in Turkish documents, you can easily show me the French ones.
As far as I know, François sent his musicians as a gift to Süleyman, as he helped him and he offered his gratitude. So that ensemble came and they played. From what I read 3 concerts. Somehow the sultan thought that this kind of music might change the atmosphere of the army and he sent back the group back to François. As you know Turks have the Mehter Music (Mozart, Beethoven or Lully have famous pieces as you know referring to it) and it is very important in the army, as this kind of music spur people. Music helps to fight better. And somehow Süleyman thought that this played music by the French people might influence in a bad way the army, and he sent them back. As we know classical music is more "light", so maybe you can understand why he thought that. I am not aware of destroying instruments. Even if the destroying part is true, it had nothing to do with the Islam as it was claimed or it was also not about Süleyman hating music or something like that. As showed he had his own musicians, he just made a decision for the good of his army. It is hard to understand this which happened 500 years ago.

And also this is not at all,

"He provides three pages in Volume II of his book illustrating 'barbaric' folk instruments including one showing Turkish drums but no other Turkish instruments - not a stringed instrument in sight.
By way of contrast he provides many illustrations of the full range of European instruments including a page showing various lutes and other plucked instruments."

So, showing a full range of European instruments, but only a single Turkish one. So all Turkish instruments were invented after him? Or how come?

He was a "church guy", clearly very nationalistic (which you accuse me of) and telling ridicilous stories about how "Turks/Muslims" are bad.

In addition to all of that. I showed you 100% original sources of I. H. Uzunçarşılı. He was like a Tchaikowsky, Chopin of Turkish historians, a professor of history, an highly educated intellectual.

Did you even read those sources? Uzunçarşılı gives you precise explanation in which library, document, page you can find those things and also he shows a scan of some of the original Ottoman papers. And also I quoted from a dissertation thesis and linked to a work of the same person which has written another essay in English (also linked).

But if you still think I am being a nationalist chauvinist, fine with me.

Quote:

Then you say “It is really an insult if you think that they paint the picture more positive just because they don't share your views.” So then should Praetorius’ people, whoever those might be, feel insulted by you when you question his objectivity, just because he “do[es]n’t share your views”?

But I explained in details why I think the views of Praetorius' can't be taken seriously. Whereas nobody tried to explain why my views can be correct or the facts of Turkish historians. It is indeed an insult to accuse someone of painting a picture more positive without showing evidence.

This is called "slandery / defamation / calumny / traducement" and is in every society forbidden with laws.

Quote:

Moreover Downing merely quoted Praetorius’ claims as possibilities, and merely asked if there was any truth to them, he did not assert. Downing himself also warned us, long before you came along, that Praetorius had to be taken with a grain of salt due to his obvious anti-muslim bias, but only to have you accuse him of sharing Praetorius’ views. That’s not really fair to Downing, and that along with your egregious hair splitting, was more than enough to make anybody throw up their hands, say “Whatever!”, and walk away.

I apologize honestly if I offended you jdowning. I really didn't realize that this topic is that old and indeed I didn't think that he is sharing Praetorius' thoughts. As you say, he was asking if there was any truth to them and I tried to explain how I see it. I didn't accuse him of sharing Praetorius' views (where did I do that?). I quoted his postings, and tried to share my sources with you all with explaining how it is from that perspective. But maybe my tone was not correct. I hear that often. My family and friends think that my tone is often not the way they like it. My tone is always a bit heated, that is my nature and I apologize afterwards always, if I see that I caused a misunderstanding.

Quote:

Your implication that one must be fluent in Ottoman Turkish in the perso-arabic script before he dare comment on anything is also pretty obnoxious. I’m tempted to insist you learn medieval Latin before you comment again on the “West”, lol.

??? Huh?
Where did I say that?
I said if you want the "creme de la creme" of sources, like first class source, the bottom of sources, you must be able to be fluent in Ottoman Turkish. I only said this in relating to this:

Quote:

How was the tanbur in the 17th century? I really don't know. I am not an expert, but I do know that all manufacturing information are well documented for all instruments according to Murat Bardakçi. But this kind of source materials are creme de la creme, I mean you really must be a high-grade scholar to have access to those documents. As it is their job to know how and where to find them. I assume they are definitely in the libraries but first you must live in Turkey, secondly you must know where to find them and thirdly you must be able to read Ottoman Turkish (in Arabic/Farsi script).

But I never claimed what you are taunting me of

. As you know, many people think that "we don't know how the oud or the tanbur was in the past centuries", because we don't have any instruments left and no good pictures. But as I tried to explain, we have excellent documentations of how they were build. I at least heard it from Murat Bardakçı, that they are really well documented. So from strings to forms, used wood etc. well documented. Just, I don't know where to find them. As I said you must be really in Turkey and have advanced knowledge to be capable of to find the source of the sources.

While we are talking about this implication (that one must be fluent in Ottoman Turkish), here are my thoughts about it:
If you are interested in the oud, but the Turkish direction (not Arabic), then it is a MUST to know Turkish (for Turkish notation, culture, etc.). Sorry, but if you want to build an expertise in this matter, it is a duty. But only if you want to have that intellectual knowledge of course. And if you want high-class knowledge, like a real professional, you must also learn the old script as your interest is a subject of past, and this past was written in that script.
But it is very unlikely that someone will learn the old script, as even today maybe only 50 000 Turks can read it (all academic people mostly). So to expect that is exaggerated. But, I really expect people to learn Turkish (today's), as this will open you a whole new world. I mean if you are interested in Jazz, it is very helpful to speak English. And if you are interested in Turkish Music and Turkish oud, and if you want that knowledge, it is a must to learn it. If you just want to play the oud, fine, then there is no need. But if you are interested like jdowning what happened to the oud in the xxx centuries, then you must understand that you don't come far without knowing the language as the primary source is in Turkish.

Quote:

However your worst emesis of all was: "And yes, the West is very arrogant and ignorant when it comes to science and education or culture.” And yet you told Downing, who asks about the oud's loss of popularity in Turkey, that “Trying to find reasons for that is not very healthy.” In case you didn’t realize, trying to find reasons for things is the very role of science, lol.

Do you know what emesis is? When people quote from 2 different things (mostly 1 liners) and bring them together, which completely bastardizes what someone meant. And also you should really pay attention to the nuances of what is said.
Did I say he shouldn try to find for reasons? Actually, in case you didn't realize, I tried to help him in that matter.
I said "it is not very healthy". In which context did I say it (and to remember you, I didn't say he shouldn't try to find):

Quote:

If you look from a wider perspective , you will see that there were like 20-40 different kind of instruments used in the Ottoman court. Many of them don't exist anymore today. Many of them were for a time very popular and then never used again like the Kopuz or the Çeng.Trying to find reasons for that is not very healthy. Can you tell me why Jazz is not popular as it was in the 30s? What happened? Why is Classical Western Music not popular? It is how it is. Different eras bring different vibes and people tend to go after that popular thing.

As you see I was talking about that not only the oud, but many other instruments had the same fate. And I explained that this had to do with popularity. Now can you explain me, when something is popular and when not? Can you predict it? Can you predict the next song which will become popular? Or explain me why a past ordinary song was popular?
It is not very healthy to look after reasons why something is popular, as you can't address the popularity to something. That has its own dynamic and is influenced by so many things, as you can't give a sure answer to that question. So it is like playing lottery. But nobody stops you from looking for an answer. I think it is not healthy to look for an answer, as you won't find an exact answer, maybe at best some assumptions. Go ahead.

Quote:

The other chauvinistic claims are equally ridiculous. If you know anything about history, you should know that Turkey has been well behind the West in science and education for most of the last few centuries. Now I don’t look down upon, nor up to, nations on the basis of their success or failure in the areas of state building, economic systems, educational systems, nor any other such indices that seem so important to encyclopedia entries. Such mass and collective action is subject to random forces and the vagueries of history, but if you want to play that game yourself, you lose at it. Here, in regard to this one question, you lose at that game. So why play it? “I could write hundreds of things about this but this is not the right place.” Meaning that you have hundreds of pieces of evidence to back what you say, and so we must take it as fact, but that you just can’t share that evidence here because it’s the wrong place. I say, if you can’t (or shouldn’t) provide the evidence for a claim, then keep the claim to yourself too, lol. You’re right though, this is not the place to write about that, and you shouldn’t have even started. ¦:·) David

Now, let me tell you one thing. Until now, the discussion was heated, but enjoyable and a fine discussion. You tell me things I don't agree with and I tell you things you don't agree with (with you I mean everyone in general).
But now you get personal.
Let me also get personal.

I really, really suggest you to learn to read carefully. I showed above many cases where you don't realize what is actually told and what not. Now again.

In this passage, your prejudices are revealing themselves. The problem is, that you didn't even realize, that not I started it, Hans started. He was very kind and was suggesting a book about this problem. And I tried to back him up, saying, that I could tell many things which prove that this is a problem.

But what did I say: "And yes, the West is very arrogant and ignorant when it comes to science and education or culture. I could write hundreds of things about this but this is not the right place.”.

Now tell me please, how do you come from that line to the conclusion of Turkey and it is being behind the West in science and education? How?
I haven't talked about Turkey. I talked about the West being ignorant when it comes to some things. Does my sentence change its meaning, if I was a Chinese? Or Egyptian? No.
We clearly see here your prejudice, your superiority complex. You couldn't bear my criticism to the West. So you got personal and tried to humiliate me. "Hey, look, your country is behind us".
I ask you again, yes, Turkey is behind or not, what has to do with the ignorance and arrogance of the West?
I mean here we can see your arrogance.
You thought I was somehow trying to boost Turkey, but I wasn't. It was all about the West. And I only mentioned it because Hans did it and I totally agree with him and I really feel like that. I have that frustration about the western attitudes as I live here and have my own experience of that.

I didn't come from nowhere to that statement, I was just saying that I agree with Hans. I didn't start that "game". And I, who was born in Europe and grew here, I said that I have many examples.
I went to school here and I know what they taught me in history lessons, or what they NOT taught me.
Always acting like Europe is the center of the world. Like "people didn't know that the Earth is rotating around the sun until Copernicus/Galileo" came for example. Totally bull<b>shoot</b>. Even the old Greeks knew or the whole Muslim world with their precise equipments. But who is famous or known as THE ONE? Who? Isn't that ignorance?
Or, Europeans love to say that they invented the printing (of books). Who the hell are the Chinese people right? Right?
There are so many scientific things, which are claimed to be invented/known from the Western world. Not a single word about the whole Asia, Africa or South America. It has nothing to do with me being Turkish or not. Envision me as a Jamaican. My points still stand.
Or in maths there is this "Pascal's triangle". Someone who lived in the 17th century. I was reading a poetry book, the famous Omar Khayyam. I learned that he (600 years before Pascal) also knew that triangle. But in maths whose name is used as a scientific term? Let's guess...
All things which has nothing to do with Turkey...
Sure I won't list now hundreds of examples. But in my whole life, being familiar with the European culture and with the Turkish culture, I have a lot of memories. And after growing up, learning other cultures and history, I got more examples of ignorance.
And a last one from a very nice movie I watched. I really can recommend that movie. It is about an Indian family fleeing to France. And one son of the family is a very good cook. They open an Indian restaurant there and the French Lady, who owns a 1 star Michelin restaurant next to them, doesn't like this. So the whole movie is about this journey between these 2 cultures, with that son becoming an excellect cook.
That movie is called "The Hundred-Foot Journey" and you can find a trailer here:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980648/
I don't remember it exactly, but at some point the the boy wants to be a cook for the French restaurant. He is seduced by the lady. He says "I will get classical training". He is talking about cooking. And do you know how the father replies?
"India is not classical? We are the oldest civilization of the world".
I mean, another example is "Classical Music". Is there only one Classical Music or why do the West refer to the Classical Western Music always as the classical one? Isn't this arrogant and ignorant?
Yes, maybe Turkey, or whatever country is behind those western countries, but it doesn't change the fact that this western culture is filled with such attitude. One other example is Praetorius ironically...

Anyway, thank you for the discussion.

DivanMakam - 8-8-2015 at 08:35 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher

There is passion in this discussion, but respect remains. Conversations like this can help uncover what is true.

I agree. From my side everything is fine. If others feel differently, just tell us. If I see something bad from my side, I will of course apologize for it.

Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher

DivanMakam,

it is not so that everyone has internet access. And not all creative musicians who do have access make their works available there. Some of those I know not only have no wish to do that, but actively wish *not* to.

I didn't say that only internet is available for that, as I listed all medias, such as the internet, newspapers, radio and television. I can quote myself if you want.

I was trying to say that in today's world, it is very hard not to be noticed. I mean if you are really a creative musician, you will be noticed. Either in journals, or private music groups, or from experts or... Of course it only depends on if you publish something. If you silently make your work in the basement, without ever publishing it, of course nobody will notice. But then you can't blame history or anyone, as it is your fault. If people don't know about your existence, it is impossible to notice your brilliance.

Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher

I am sincere and If I am not well informed, just educate me. I am open to it and have no problems to learn new things or the correct versions. But you can do it either with providing evidence (if it is a matter of a fact) or with convincing (if it is a matter of an opinion).
So, if we have different opinions, you must convince me to change my opinion. I don't see why else I should change my opinion as I think that this is the right one.
But if my facts are not correct, just prove me wrong. No problem. I won't deny a fact, why should I? I welcome it.