Mike's Oud Forums - Powered by XMB

metal fingerboard?

Edward Powell - 8-3-2012 at 09:47 AM

Has anyone heard of an oud with a metal fingerboard???

If yes, how does it sound?

Fritz - 8-5-2012 at 08:47 AM

Hi E.P.

I´ve never heard of an Oud made with a metal fingerboard... metal frets are known on an Oud... but a metal fingerboard ? I thing, it would be far far far away from traditional oud-making to use such unusual materials. The word "oud" means "wood", and so and only so an oud has to be made of

The physics of a metal board on the neck will be as a break... the vibrations can´t go through the wood, the sonic-waves will be destructed in the difference of the two materials. I´d never try such a thing indeed.

The sound will be taken down to a smaller range of frequency ... not the whole wideness of possible sound is given I think. Such an Oud will perhaps make a clear sound in higher pitches, but the sound will not live...

An Oud is good as it is... if it´s made like an Oud !

Innovations are good... but they have to make sense

)

Greetings

Fritz

:buttrock:

Edward Powell - 8-5-2012 at 12:04 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Fritz

Hi E.P.

I´ve never heard of an Oud made with a metal fingerboard... metal frets are known on an Oud... but a metal fingerboard ? I thing, it would be far far far away from traditional oud-making to use such unusual materials. The word "oud" means "wood", and so and only so an oud has to be made of

)

Greetings

Fritz

:buttrock:

I agree with you that to make an actually real oud with a metal fingerboard would not seem to make any sense since an oud sounds great as it is...

...however what I have in mind is trying a metal fingerboard on the "oud neck" of my RAGMAKAMTAR which is sort of a double neck oud -- one neck oud and the other neck sarod. A sarod is a bit like an oud with metal strings and a metal finger board.

Normally I use a material called "trespa" for both fingerboards... trespa looks like ebony but is more hard. It is made from wood fiber and epoxy resin. This material works well for both nylon and steel strings.

But for my next ragmakamtar I am thinking to use a brass fingerboard for the sarod which will sound great.... but my girlfriend actually suggested to use brass for BOTH necks simply because that would LOOK amazing.

So I am just checking to see if anyone has tried something like this...

...anyway you are probably right that it will not work - but in a couple of days I will try it out and we will know for sure :-) I have a walnut and an aluminum fingerboard prepared and will try them both out on the new instrument... I am afraid that wound bass strings might give off a bit of a harsh sound as they buzz against the metal. . . . . . . but anyway for this new instrument I am looking for a very bright sound - so who know?

I let you know how it works.

Jody Stecher - 8-5-2012 at 12:25 PM

Fritz, first of all I want to say how lovely your ouds are. A lot of care and skill went into these. Now i am going to disagree with you about the universal non-functioning of metal fingerboards. Many banjos in America have metal finger boards. The sarode and sursringar of India have metal fingerboards. All these instrument are acoustically functional. The first Indian metal fingerboards were flat and were made of recycled blades of hand saws that were used to cut down saplings (teeth removed of course). Later they were flanged and curved and fastened to the sides of the neck. In the case of sarode the neck and body are carved from one block of wood. In sursringar the neck and body are not the same, as the body is a gourd. In both cases the neck is hollow so the metal board serves as a soundboard to a certain extent. In the case of banjo, the neck and body are separate. But although it works on these fretless instruments I don't think a metal fingerboard would be good for oud. But maybe that is just my prejudice. You know Richard Hagopian and other Armenian-American oud player stop the strings not with the pads of the fingers of the left hand, but with the fingernails. That is the same with the instruments I mentioned. The nail is a substitute for a fret. Hard nail, hard board, but also hard string. These instruments have steel strings except for 19th century banjos which were gut strung.

Edward: I've seen several American banjos with brass fingerboards. They work well and sound good but they tarnish easily and quickly so they don't always look good after all.

Quote: Originally posted by Fritz

)

Greetings

Fritz

:buttrock:

Edward Powell - 8-5-2012 at 12:49 PM

Hi Jody,
I was also going to say something similar in support for the metal fingerboard - but I hesitate more these days to openly disagree with people (unless I know them). But yes - I don't see any reason why a metal fingerboard would block frequencies. . . . however, Fritz still may be right - the thing needs to be tested, then we will know for sure.

I have tested a nylon string on a metal board and it sounded great... I also tested a wound string and it sounded good but the action was very very high - so I feel the real test will be using low Turkish action with a metal fingerboard. . . let's see (hear) how that will sound.

Actually I put a brass (or bronze) fingerboard on a fretless guitar about 13 years ago and it still looks great. It is true that it does need to be polished every couple of years but that is no big deal. I guess chrome is ideal in terms of low maintenance.... but the gold colour of brass is amazing.

Giorgioud - 8-6-2012 at 02:57 AM

Fritz,
first and foremost, thanks for your e-mail detailing the prices of the ouds. I cannot believe that some of those beauties are not as expensive as one would expect, considering that they are perfect! I'm gonna have to start doing some serious saving up! I want one of those! Ahhh bummer man, if I had met you two months ago, I'd have one of your ouds by now, but alas.....
Your expounding on the oud and the wood is flawless and cannot be argued. However, I urge you to check Edward's site because he's built some very unusual stringed instruments which are very innovative and effective, and also esthetically very pleasing to the eye. In other words, although they don't deviate, in terms of nomenclature and dynamics, from the "Eastern" tradition, they manage to enrich it greatly......and they really do sound great.......

Edward Powell - 8-6-2012 at 05:46 AM

Thanks Giorgi for your kind words... I just checked out Fritz's site and man those ouds look amazing! Bravo!

I think Fritz perhaps misunderstood slightly in my question - certainly a 2mm thick metal fingerboard on an oud would be absurd... but what I am going to try is a 0.5mm thick piece of brass glued to a 2mm thick piece of maple. Still of course even this might cause some sort of blockage of frequencies. . . (?) . . .on the other hand the effect might produce some unexpected pleasant results. If there is anything I do know for sure, and that is that it is never enough simply to go on theories and speculation alone - new ideas need to be tried and tested before discarded.

For example when I first had the idea to try to make a double neck with one neck nylon and the other neck steel string, everyone told me that this can never work. After 8 times trying I almost gave up on the idea assuming that what they all told me was finally correct..... however I feel that ragmakamtar version #9 has a very good sound on both the nylon and the steel string necks. . . which just goes to show that commonly accepted theories can be wrong.

For those interested, here are two clips comparing both necks:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2gOcczf7IM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXDM8TEvPQk

Fritz - 8-6-2012 at 08:05 AM

I agree with you that to make an actually real oud with a metal fingerboard would not seem to make any sense since an oud sounds great as it is...

...however what I have in mind is trying a metal fingerboard on the "oud neck" of my RAGMAKAMTAR which is sort of a double neck oud -- one neck oud and the other neck sarod. A sarod is a bit like an oud with metal strings and a metal finger board.

Normally I use a material called "trespa" for both fingerboards... trespa looks like ebony but is more hard. It is made from wood fiber and epoxy resin. This material works well for both nylon and steel strings.

But for my next ragmakamtar I am thinking to use a brass fingerboard for the sarod which will sound great.... but my girlfriend actually suggested to use brass for BOTH necks simply because that would LOOK amazing.

So I am just checking to see if anyone has tried something like this...

...anyway you are probably right that it will not work - but in a couple of days I will try it out and we will know for sure :-) I have a walnut and an aluminum fingerboard prepared and will try them both out on the new instrument... I am afraid that wound bass strings might give off a bit of a harsh sound as they buzz against the metal. . . . . . . but anyway for this new instrument I am looking for a very bright sound - so who know?

I let you know how it works.

[/ rquote]

Hi again :-)

I have seen your extraordinary instruments before, now I realize, that it´s You here.

Thanks for the nice statement about my Ouds :-)

I´m also interestet in unusual instruments... and when reading your text... it makes another picture in my head... a very thin "coating" with a sheet of massive metal would work... but the mass has to be low... How are you glueing the metal on wood ? 2-component-glue ? It hast to be very rigid...

Bronce seems to be a good choice, brass is too sensible against stain, I never would suggest aluminium

Make your experience... and ofcourse share the results :-)

Fritz :-)

Fritz - 8-6-2012 at 08:33 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Giorgioud

Fritz,
first and foremost, thanks for your e-mail detailing the prices of the ouds. I cannot believe that some of those beauties are not as expensive as one would expect, considering that they are perfect! I'm gonna have to start doing some serious saving up! I want one of those! Ahhh bummer man, if I had met you two months ago, I'd have one of your ouds by now, but alas.....
Your expounding on the oud and the wood is flawless and cannot be argued. However, I urge you to check Edward's site because he's built some very unusual stringed instruments which are very innovative and effective, and also esthetically very pleasing to the eye. In other words, although they don't deviate, in terms of nomenclature and dynamics, from the "Eastern" tradition, they manage to enrich it greatly......and they really do sound great.......

Hi Giorgioud :-)

Ofcourse I checked his site... and I "know" him a long time... as I´m allways looking for homemade unusual instruments !
But I didn´t realize fast enough, that he ist the one I know :-)

Now I remember :-)))

Fritz :-)

Edward Powell - 8-6-2012 at 08:38 AM

well in a matter of perhaps hours I will know if it will work or not - at least with aluminum.

if aluminum will sound good, I will go buy the more expensive sheet.

I guess 0.5mm is the thinnest I could go - and thicker would be too heavy.

Perhaps metal might interfere with some resonance - I'm not sure, but my main worry is that with very low action the buzzing might be way too metalic . . . but it must be tried to know for sure.

Anyhow it is all just about cosmetics since TWO shiny gold fingerboards would look amazing...

The way I glue it is very fast, easy, cheap and unconventional ...... I put a 5mm wide band of contact cement around the outer edges of both sides to be glued - then I saturate the area inside the 5mm bands with super glue (!), then I just put the two sides together (the 0.5mm metal and the 2mm wood. The nice thing about this method is the contact cement holds it in position immediately, and then the CA glue squeezes to saturate the entire surface, and holds tight like a mother once it is dry (25minutes).

Of course I clamp it between two very flat boards to be sure that the final surface is totally flat because metal can not be tweeked like wood (this is the main disadvantage).

Will let you know how it sounds....

Fritz - 8-6-2012 at 08:45 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Jody Stecher

Fritz, first of all I want to say how lovely your ouds are. A lot of care and skill went into these. Now i am going to disagree with you about the universal non-functioning of metal fingerboards. Many banjos in America have metal finger boards. The sarode and sursringar of India have metal fingerboards. All these instrument are acoustically functional. The first Indian metal fingerboards were flat and were made of recycled blades of hand saws that were used to cut down saplings (teeth removed of course). Later they were flanged and curved and fastened to the sides of the neck. In the case of sarode the neck and body are carved from one block of wood. In sursringar the neck and body are not the same, as the body is a gourd. In both cases the neck is hollow so the metal board serves as a soundboard to a certain extent. In the case of banjo, the neck and body are separate. But although it works on these fretless instruments I don't think a metal fingerboard would be good for oud. But maybe that is just my prejudice. You know Richard Hagopian and other Armenian-American oud player stop the strings not with the pads of the fingers of the left hand, but with the fingernails. That is the same with the instruments I mentioned. The nail is a substitute for a fret. Hard nail, hard board, but also hard string. These instruments have steel strings except for 19th century banjos which were gut strung.

Edward: I've seen several American banjos with brass fingerboards. They work well and sound good but they tarnish easily and quickly so they don't always look good after all.

Quote: Originally posted by Fritz

)

Greetings

Fritz

:buttrock:

Hi Judy :-)
Thanks for the nice state, it´s a pleasure to see my ouds are liked :-)

You might be right, but I haven´t seen (and touched) enough instruments like them with metal parts. I know a sarod, ofcourse a banjo... and just like the cümbüs (Turkey) many instruments have parts of metal.

Perhaps people like E.Powell will sometimes innovate an instrument, or create a really new one... in this aspect they have to be helped as one can :-)

It´s good to read your arguments, and the honest words :-)

Keep doing this :-)

Fritz

Fritz - 8-6-2012 at 08:57 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell

Hi Jody,
I was also going to say something similar in support for the metal fingerboard - but I hesitate more these days to openly disagree with people (unless I know them). But yes - I don't see any reason why a metal fingerboard would block frequencies. . . . however, Fritz still may be right - the thing needs to be tested, then we will know for sure.

I have tested a nylon string on a metal board and it sounded great... I also tested a wound string and it sounded good but the action was very very high - so I feel the real test will be using low Turkish action with a metal fingerboard. . . let's see (hear) how that will sound.

Actually I put a brass (or bronze) fingerboard on a fretless guitar about 13 years ago and it still looks great. It is true that it does need to be polished every couple of years but that is no big deal. I guess chrome is ideal in terms of low maintenance.... but the gold colour of brass is amazing.

Edward :-)

Please do not hesitate to tell me your opinion, if I agree or not... say, what you want to say !

How else do I really know what you mean ?

I am new here in this forum... if somebody has to hesitate posting "dis-agrees"... it´s me !

I am building my instruments in a very traditional way... I always have to do with traditions. So I "automatically" disagree with all not compatible to tradition :-)

I´ve a lot to learn, and where else could it be so comfortable like it is here in this forum... under people with the same (or nearly the same) passions :-))

Best regards :-)

Fritz

Edward Powell - 8-6-2012 at 10:14 AM

well, on a forum one never knows about another member until one has had some interaction with them --- sometimes people just like to be confrontational just for the fun of it --- but obviously you are not like that so I will speak my mind.

I think you made great points in your original comment - and I should have made it clear that I am not thinking about doing this on a normal oud - and also the metal will be extremely thin.

However, I do think that sometimes the word "traditional" also gets misunderstood. Sometimes people take traditional to mean stagnant. I don't completely agree with this. A real living tradition is always changing and growing and accepting and rejecting ideas all the time. So a metal fingerboard on an oud, in my opinion, might not be completely untraditional. If it really worked, and there would be great reasons for doing it - then it could be incorporated into the tradition, and thereby become actually traditional :-)

Man, words can get us into trouble sometimes

)

)

BTW I have the greatest and utmost respect for what you are doing! Keeping the old tradition alive - building ouds old school - and doing it really really well - is making a great contribution! Keep it going bro!

farukturunz - 8-6-2012 at 11:52 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell

well, on a forum one never knows about another member until one has had some interaction with them --- sometimes people just like to be confrontational just for the fun of it --- but obviously you are not like that so I will speak my mind.

I think you made great points in your original comment - and I should have made it clear that I am not thinking about doing this on a normal oud - and also the metal will be extremely thin.

However, I do think that sometimes the word "traditional" also gets misunderstood. - then it could be incorporated into the tradition, and thereby become actually traditional :-)

Man, words can get us into trouble sometimes

)

I anticipate an indirect, unvoiced, implied, tacit timidity clinged to everyone when anything apart from "traditional" is the case.
Why?

Oud making art has missed the development era of western instruments. They have reached to their climax for at least 4 centuries.
Once I was trying to reveal my findings on the oud soundboard frequencies at an international forum; one of the attendees, who was/is a very famous oud maker made a remark after I had spoken. He said " Mr. Türünz is talking about some physical relations between the frequencies and the oud "table". The westerners have long found out these things. All we need is to translate their books into Arabic..."

The knowledge pond of the oud craftsmanship is very shallow yet. All researches and innovations and innovative proposals should be welcomed according to my perception.

I would bravely affirm a "metal fingerboard" provided that it is made of stainless steel or any other stainless metal (the best is gold)
The amount of energy converted to heat by the neck of an instrument appertaining to the "lute family" is proportionally great as the length of the neck ascends. So, a neck reinforced by a metal fingerboard decreases the amount of energy inevitably doomed to get lost as heat thus, much more amount of the given energy to the instrument is converted to vibration movement in the resonant areas of the soundboard and the vessel grows.

My friend Eddi, Godspeed

) Why to stem for new "traditions" ???
Who knows what the tradition will look like a century ahead ...

Best regards...

Edward Powell - 8-11-2012 at 01:58 PM

I got the bronze fingerboard on... so far it works great for the nylons... it seems to work well with the wound strings, but I'm not yet 100% sure --- the instrument is only half a day old now, so it will take a little time to settle. . . but so far I am very encouraged.

Giorgioud - 8-12-2012 at 12:48 AM

Well, my most heartfelt congrats Edward, I am really looking forward to see how your new "baby" is going to sound like.....may I ask if you if you could post some sound samples in the near future for our aural pleasure?
Thanks, nice one mate!

Edward Powell - 8-12-2012 at 12:54 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Giorgioud

Well, my most heartfelt congrats Edward, I am really looking forward to see how your new "baby" is going to sound like.....may I ask if you if you could post some sound samples in the near future for our aural pleasure?
Thanks, nice one mate!

Thanks G.O.!
Here is a pic...
i will be making a short vid very soon..... will post!

Giorgioud - 8-12-2012 at 01:20 AM

Wow, man, gorgeous! How do you tune the esachord (may I venture at a wild guess that you tune it like a guitar?) and the five-course (Syrian tuning perhaps?)?

Edward Powell - 8-12-2012 at 03:17 AM

What is the 5 course Syrian oud tuning?

My oud neck is tuned (from low to high):
FF - CC - GG - cc - ff

The Sarod neck is almost the same:
cC - C - G - c - f

Giorgioud - 8-12-2012 at 04:27 AM

Syrian/Egyptian tuning is cc, gg, DD, AA (or BbBb), F (or E or G or D. The differently tuned bamm string is used regionally, for example the E in Lebanon, the D in Algeria, the F in Egypt, the G in some of the Greek tradition which, although being Ottoman-influenced, uses an Arabic tuning sometimes.....). It seems I was wrong! You've got the oud neck tuned in Iraqi tuning but without the 4th course (which would be DD). The Iraqi tuning complete would be ff, cc, gg, DD, CC, F

Edward Powell - 8-12-2012 at 04:33 AM

yeah for some reason it feels very iraqi to me!

cool info about the syrian tuning! the first oud i ever heard was in this tuning and turned me on incredibly to oud! OMAR NAQICHBENDI... you can hear those clips right on this forum.

Edward Powell - 8-12-2012 at 01:15 PM

just and update: it is starting to sound very good all around - even with the wound strings with very low turk-type action.

however I can see now one major disadvantage of the metal fingerboard for an oud, and that is that when u want to seriously fine-tune the superlow action, it is great to have a wood fingerboard because the wood can be sanded and finely tweeked - - - this is also possible with metal, but more difficult.

personally I would not use a metal fingerboard on a regular oud - and I am only using it on the ragmakamtar for cosmetic reasons. . . it simply looks very cool to have a double neck with two metal fingerboards :-)

It definitely does sound great, but it is more difficult to work with.

Edward Powell - 8-13-2012 at 03:37 AM

a very quick and very rough test of Ragmakamtar #13 recently completed...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-aGeFa9I_g

fernandraynaud - 8-13-2012 at 01:07 PM

Fritz, another vote of admiration for your beautiful ouds!

I have a question. Doesn't it make sense that the vast majority of the sound comes from the bridge to the soundboard? I can't somehow imagine more than a small fraction coming from the neck through the headblock when the bridge is so much better coupled to the soundboard. If that is so, the metal on the neck would change the timbre but not the volume. No?

Giorgioud - 8-13-2012 at 01:09 PM

Omar Naqishbendi is my all-times favourite oud player, ever! I worship in The Church of Naqishbenndi. He was the bestest and he's never been bettered......the fire, the passion, the risks he took in his impros.....man!!! He was IT!!! The BIZ!!!!
Ahhh man, that ragmakamtar sounds so gorgeous....... :applause:

really really good, have you patented it yet? Well You should!

Edward Powell - 8-14-2012 at 12:17 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Giorgioud

Omar Naqishbendi is my all-times favourite oud player, ever! I worship in The Church of Naqishbenndi. He was the bestest and he's never been bettered......the fire, the passion, the risks he took in his impros.....man!!! He was IT!!! The BIZ!!!!
Ahhh man, that ragmakamtar sounds so gorgeous....... :applause:

really really good, have you patented it yet? Well You should!

that's wonderful to hear you opinion on Naqishbendi... I've mentioned this before on the forum, but he was the first oud I ever heard and it floored me in one second. I had to literally beg the owner of that cassette to let me copy it - and I listened to that cassette every day for years after that! I still listen now and get the same feeling!

Until now I never actually heard anyone express a similar kind of admiration that I have for his playing. . . I cant understand why most people consider him mediocre ????

Back to the metal fingerboard... yes it feels very smooth and responsive under the fingers... Another advantage is that even tho it is more difficult to get it set right initially, it will certainly last longer and require much less maintenance than a wood board.

Regarding patenting the ragmakamtar??? Thanks G.O. ...I think that now finally I've accomplished the basic goal of getting an oud sound and a sarod sound in one instrument which is NOT overly complex at all. I wonder if one day it might catch on somewhat --- ? it's hard to say. At the moment I simply hope that the idea will catch on and people will start making and playing them and I am happy to encourage and help anyone who wishes to do this.

Giorgioud - 8-14-2012 at 03:18 AM

Well, if someone considers Omar Naqishbendi mediocre, I don't think he/she really understands what oudism is all about......I know that taste is an individual thing and all that jazz, but calling such a player mediocre? No, there are some things that have to be rectified, where it's not any longer a matter of individual taste. Some truth are simply universal. Omar Naqishbendi is one of the giants, and for my money THE giant. Everyone, even indirectly, owes him a debt. Someone somewhere is copying somebody who copied Omar Naqishbendi, or started off copying him.......before being steered towards more conventional routes........
Maybe it's because he was so unconventional in his approach......all I know is that I'm pining for more players like him....
You know Edward, the sarod-like quality of your instruments is very inspiring? I love the sound of the sarod, but to see it conjugated to an oud-like structure is quite compelling to witness. It is a very generous attitude you've got, and yes, it's the right one under the circumstances....ideally, we're all helping each other to progress (of course the more experienced more than the less experienced), and that alone is priceless.....

Edward Powell - 8-14-2012 at 03:34 AM

I totally agree about Omar N.!

Regarding the patenting... I have a feeling that the ragmakamtar concept is probably a bit too complicated to attract a mass market and therefore would probably not be profitable to mass produce and thereby gain profit from a patent...

...it is a bit tricky to play:
1) to get the right tone I use a sitar wire mijrab on the first finger of my right hand... and hold the risha between my thumb and second finger of my right hand. Take a while to get used to this.
2) to get the right tone on the sarod one needs to put crazy glue on the nails of the left hand - and this is where we lose most oud players since almost all of them would never consider doing this.
3) to make the ragmakamtar really work it doesn't hurt much to have a lot of experience with both middle eastern AND indian music. . . . and these days with average attention spans diminishing as we speak, it is only going to be a very few people who will take the time to do this.

But still I do hope that some musicians will give it a try.... it is a cool way for an oud player or a sarod player to widen horizons - and can be interesting to hear what guitar player would do with it.

Giorgioud - 8-14-2012 at 03:44 AM

Ahhh, it looked from the video like you were using a very short risha, or even a plectrum (maybe a long one like the one used by saz players...), but no, I was wrong.....
Well, yes, it might take a bit of getting used to the technique, granted, but I can see that once mastered, the instrument might become a faithful and ever-present feature in many a player's repertoires.
Me, for example, as I have this dual interest in Mediterranean/Middle Eastern/Arabic/North African AND spreading Eastward towards Hindustani, Afghani, Pashto....it is something that I would like to consider at some point in the future........

Edward Powell - 8-14-2012 at 04:51 AM

yes, this is the point - - I am sure that slowly slowly, with time, (and I can already see this happening) Indian, and Middle-eastern musicians will more and more recognise the similarity in their musics (modality) - and will also see that a very logical direction to be taken in their musical evolution is, rather than looking towards "tempered Europe", to take inspiration from other "modal traditions".

and why not get it all in one instrument?

i think it really would take off - but the main problem, as I said, is that an already accomplished oud player has no desire to look like an amateur on a sarod for 5 years while he gets up to speed on that - and vice versa... very very few are willing to put in the time to learn new skills - - - rather most of us seem preoccupied with getting as much recognition as we can, as fast as we can, for what we already can do well.

Anyhow if you are ever interested to try, just let me know, cuz at the moment I have quite a few previous models sitting here at home gathering dust.

Jody Stecher - 8-14-2012 at 06:46 AM

Giorgioud, I agree that Omar Naqshbandi is an exceptional player. One's opinion about his music might depend on what one has heard. For instance there is a recording of him playing dance tunes and songs that I got from the Traditional Arabic Music website

http://www.traditionalarabicmusic.com/Instrumental%20MP3/omar_naqsh...

where he is playing with percussion accompaniment. He pretty much sticks with the melody. How one will react to that depends on where one is "coming from". On his French Lp he follows his taqasim with a composition. To my ears this is very nice playing because he is almost speaking the words with his oud and the phrasing is very musical. But he doesn't have an attractive technique, by which I mean he doesn't show off or try to get the listener to pay attention. He simply plays. As for the Lp, some of the music on there is intellectually challenging. Saba Husseyni makes some demands on the listener for instance. But then on this same LP he begins his Nahawand taqsim rather sentimentally. He's full of surprises. And there are no "fireworks".

For all his musical worth I can't agree that all oud players have been influenced by him even indirectly. Assuming that you mean all oud players who came after Omar Naqshbandi ( you don't really mean he is so cosmic that he influenced oudists who recorded in the 1930s, right?) I think you are overstating the case. I don't see or hear the aural evidence or the historical evidence. Maybe you can give some examples?

Edward, I also play sarod. I have some ideas about India and maqam but my time is limited this morning. I hope to comment soon. For now I'll say that the links between raga and maqam are both deeper and more frequent than one might imagine listening to how raag sangeet and maqam music are sung and played today. Looking at the past objectively reveals some surprises. I don't mean to be secretive or tantalizing, I just have to go to a dentist appointment and after that I have to work all day for the next 3 days.

Edward Powell - 8-14-2012 at 06:59 AM

Hi Josh
Regarding Omar, I guess I can only say, that with him or any musician for that matter - I think something gets missed when we (we all do this) analyse with words a players music and playing. . . . just speaking for myself, and getting beyond all words - the sound I heard from that cassette with him playing is responsible for me playing oud today. There was just simply a feeling that I felt and still feel that intrigued me so much that I couldn't stop listening.

Strangely, I also have an old taksim cassette by Elgin Kiziley playing turkish taksims, which affects me almost or about as deeply at that Omar's French LP. Now if you mention Kiziley these days to anyone, as being a great Turkish oud player, you will get laughed out of town! ...hmmmm well, I guess I just have simplistic musical tastes or something. . . but that's just me. As a kid my favorite bands were Black Sabbath, Grand Funk, and Nazareth.... so I guess that tells it all

Please share more of your thoughts on the "modal overlap" after the dentist...

Giorgioud - 8-14-2012 at 01:56 PM

Hello Jody,
ah, blinded by science....let me put my sunglasses on....a faultless analysis of Omar Naqishbendi, but unfortunately I fear I won't be able to reply in kind. As a self-taught artist, I have not the theoretical knowledge to put it into words. I play music. That's how I (don't) eat (or eat very rarely :-)). It would be great to be able to have the time to study theory in depth, but my take on the experience is that I must concentrate on other matters. This frustrates me terribly because of course I cannot converse in theoretical terms. On the other hand I do have my special and unvaluable advantages in this approach.......
Edward, you are quite right, it brings me to the matter that many musicians won't have the time to spend on learning the sarod in a sufficient way not to be thought as amateurs.
Unfortunately, if you want to try and make a go and make a living (well, let's say more like surviving just on the breadline, that's my case) in this "thing" which, apart from the differences we have individually, it all brings together people like me, you and Jody, conversing about this great passion of ours, you realize that the time is limited. And the time has to be spent on establishing your name, fast. You know that of course, and I am sure you agree.....
But Jody, it seems to me that many runs, to name one name, that Farid used to play, let's say on a maqam Kurd, were similar esthetically to Naqishbandi, in spirit and content. I say Kurd because I have this vivid memory of a musical form that later I learned was the Kurd, played by Omar and then after listening to Farid on the same sort of impro I thought: a-ha!
Yes, as Edward quite rightly said, some things cannot be explained...there's only the raw emotion....and I still mantain what I said about him......because I feel it......
Edward.....when I was a kid I was quite into Black Sabbath and Grand Funk....in vincibus eruptum.....hahaha!!!!
What were you saying about the instruments gathering dust? Were you serious? I'd love to try one. Moreover, I am about to embark in a series of performances with several outfits, plus illegal busking, and some serious recording (CD and downloads) so, you know, I would bloody well love to get one and see how I can make it sound like me........what do I have to do in order to get one?

Edward Powell - 8-14-2012 at 02:15 PM

yes, I'm serious - I have made 13 versions now and only actually play a few of them... many need serious tweeking, some are just sitting, and a few are completely ready for a new home. . . I am just too lazy to make soundclips - photos - and advertise. . . . . I somehow can't be bothered until if and when I really 'need' some cash which luckily hasn't happened in a while. . . .

version #6 and #7 are definitely ready to go.... and some others almost ready. . . .

http://www.edwardpowell.com/rmtar.html

I can also build one from scratch which now takes me about 3 weeks for an undecorated one...

...the thing is that there is such a huge variation in playability, sound, and tuning, between all the completed versions that a guy really needs to have it in his hands before knowing if he wants it or not.

Edward Powell - 8-15-2012 at 02:23 AM

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

Doesn't it make sense that the vast majority of the sound comes from the bridge to the soundboard? I can't somehow imagine more than a small fraction coming from the neck through the headblock when the bridge is so much better coupled to the soundboard. If that is so, the metal on the neck would change the timbre but not the volume. No?

Yes, Ferny I think you got it... I don't think the metal is greatly affecting the volume and blocking frequencies... but the metal does seem to affect timbre. - not so much for the nylon strings, but for the wound strings the metal on metal vibration comes out sounding more hard and metalic than a trespa or wood FB. I am not sure I like the effect too much, but on this "oud" the wound strings are used very little.

Also with higher action the is little difference in timbre - the harder tone only seems to become appearant with very low action.

Jody Stecher - 8-15-2012 at 07:21 AM

1) descriptions and lists of ragas current in the 17th century often include names like Zangula, Husseini, Hijaz etc. These names survive today in ragas whose current names are linked with well known raga names. There is Zangala Bhairavi, Husseii Kannada, Hijaz Bhairav. We know there were Persian musicians at the court of Akbar, including players of tanbur. The link between Persian music, and the makam/maqam music of Turkey & the Middle East has already been established. We should bear in mind that Persian music in the 17th century was not today's radif music. Survivals of the older Persian music can be found in the classical music of Kashmir called Sufiana Kalam. There they use the word Maqam in preference to Raga though both words are used.

2) There was an Arab presence and and Arab Music presence in Bombay for most of the 20th century. Jewish musicians from Baghdad have been in Calcutta ever since there was a Calcutta. Then there is the case of Gauhar Jan, arguably the first Indian classical music recording star. She is said to be of Armenian descent. She recorded 600 sides including songs in Arabic.

3) the problem with compatibility of Raga music and Maqam music is (at least) twofold. First is the problem that Raga music does not modulate to different tonal centers. But it may be that at one time it did. The second problem is in the area of plucked string instruments. At present sustain is a virtue in raga music but can be a problem in maqam music. But older sitars and sarods had less sustain than they do now and the music that was played reflected that. I'm not saying (here) which is better or worse.

4) I agree that compatibility through a modal and microtonal sensibility is a better match than through cheesy quasi-western tempered approaches.

5) just as Maqam theory in Arab music provides fewer names for microtones than are in practical use traditionally (and as some Turkish music theories stipulate more microtones than are in practical use) modern Indian raga theory with its 12 tone silliness disregards the microtonal reality of the older raga music. Even the 22 sruti theory is inadequate to describe what accomplished raga musicians actually sing and play. What I'm getting at (rather poorly I'm afraid) is that there is a receptivity to minute microtonal variety in both maqam musicians and raga musicians and there is the ability to hear and reproduce very small differences in pitch and to use this to produce effective musical results.

6) who is "Josh"?

Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell

Hi Josh

.........
Please share more of your thoughts on the "modal overlap" after the dentist...

Jody Stecher - 8-15-2012 at 07:55 AM

I was never trying to minimize the musicality of Omar or deny the effect his recordings had on either of you (Giorioud and Edward) , I was just offering a tentative explanation of why others might not be similarly affected, I also find the recorded music of Omar Naqshbandi, especially his french Lp, to be very arresting. Sometimes when I am playing compilations I have made of different oud players playing one after another whenever Omar comes on I feel a magnetism and a weight that is special. But that has nothing to do with history. The influence of one musician on another (and the influence of one musician on ALL others) is, as far as I can tell, not something that can be *felt*. I will suggest an extreme and silly example to show what I mean. Suppose, Giorgioud, I were to "feel" that you have not moved, or are not in the process of moving , to London (as you have mentioned in recent posts). Suppose I were to *feel* you have actually moved to Reykjavik. If I were to feel this very intensely would it be any truer? For Farid to be influenced by Omar he would have had to have heard him or to have heard someone who had heard him and had been influenced. Now I will be the first to admit that certain events can have a ripple affect and move through time in all directions. Who am I to deny the connection of space and time? But I am not ready to accept that a musical passage recorded by Farid Al Attrache in 1965 was influenced by something played by Omar Naqsbandi in 1972. No amount of feeling can make this true. Do we know if Farid Al Attrache was even aware of the existence of Omar Naqshbandi? I'm not saying he wasn't, I just don't know.

By the way, where can I hear a recording of Omar playing maqam Kurd?

Fritz - 8-19-2012 at 11:54 AM

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

Fritz, another vote of admiration for your beautiful ouds!

I have a question. Doesn't it make sense that the vast majority of the sound comes from the bridge to the soundboard? I can't somehow imagine more than a small fraction coming from the neck through the headblock when the bridge is so much better coupled to the soundboard. If that is so, the metal on the neck would change the timbre but not the volume. No?

Hi You :-)

I allways have been anylising the the "way" of the sound in very very small "parts of time"... meaning steps in acoustic movement... beginning with the impulse of the risha stroking a string (course). The materials are complex... and it´s impossible to involve every fact in "calculating" the sound... but I am trying to go a "special" way creating the sound of my ouds. This means... I take every part of an oud as a unique piece of material, stiffnes, resonatability, with it´s own favourite frequencies... It´s also a question of the position of the impulse on the string !!! In detail its very complex to explain, what I really mean... but the neck of an oud for example is the direct continuation of all of the body... the ribs, the tob, fixed at the neck-block... and on the neckblock directly the neck... in order to "catch" a part oft the vibrations comming from the body and the face of the Oud. So it has part of the sound... including the pegbox as a "brake" at the end of the neck... leading the sonic waves back in the neck and further back in the body and the top...

The speed... in wich these "operations" will change the sort of energy going through the Oud, makes the sound characteristics. And every piece beeing NOT of wood... so I think, will "disturb" some important features of the instrument and makes the oud going in distance to the really sound of an oud created in traditional way. Such a changed oud will not be like an oud... more like a "new" sort of instrument...

And that´s, what E.P is making... an I think... he makes really good things :-)

May be I´m right or not... but in fact there are no really documented physics how an oud has to be built and the reasons for making some things so and only so :-)

I hope, my english is good enough to explain such complicated things to native-speakers.

Best wishes

Fritz

Edward Powell - 8-19-2012 at 12:02 PM

Fritz, you are certainly correct in that every single piece and part of an instrument affects the sound.

...and also yes, I am not trying to make a traditional sounding oud - but something new and different, however it is very much inspired by oud (and sarod).

Different materials give different effects, but also very important is weight. I have made instruments with wood necks, but much too heavy, and this HEAVY neck very much blocked certain frequencies (kind of "absorbed" them). So I very much agree that necks affect the sound majorly. I thing that part of the reason an oud sounds so rich and gentle is that the neck is so light and short that it does not "swallow" very much of the soundboards resonance.

Fritz - 8-19-2012 at 12:15 PM

Quote: Originally posted by fernandraynaud

I wrote a very detailed posting to your question... but it hasn´t been postet allthough I got the message of "successfully posted"...

Fritz - 8-19-2012 at 12:48 PM

Quote: Originally posted by Edward Powell

Fritz, you are certainly correct in that every single piece and part of an instrument affects the sound.

...and also yes, I am not trying to make a traditional sounding oud - but something new and different, however it is very much inspired by oud (and sarod).

Different materials give different effects, but also very important is weight. I have made instruments with wood necks, but much too heavy, and this HEAVY neck very much blocked certain frequencies (kind of "absorbed" them). So I very much agree that necks affect the sound majorly. I thing that part of the reason an oud sounds so rich and gentle is that the neck is so light and short that it does not "swallow" very much of the soundboards resonance.

Hi Ed :-)

That´s exactly what I meant :-) I try to make every neck as light as possible using "Cedrela" for the core, sometimes laminated to get a very stiff consistence if the wood of the body "requires" that. The "reflection" of the sonic waves going through the whole instrument I precisely check by holding the oud at different points and give an impulse to the strings... You´ll find that the sustain and the spectrum of the frequencies will be very different depending on wich part you fix by holding the oud. The best results you´ll have while adapting the top (when mounted ! ) in thickness in different areas. Sometimes the effect will need a very small change in thickness, sometimes you´ll have to prepare the whole top to get the best results. But one point of interest is that the neck isn´t only the neck... the head (pegbox), assembled nearly rectangulary on the end of the neck... is a very stiff "brake" in all directions for all arriving sonic-waves, but also reflecting these ! And this fact "doubles" the "killing" of a rich part of the spectrum... Equalizing and optimizing in construction and dimensions is the secret :-)) Thats my opinion :-))

The pegbox nearly doubles the length of the neck... and the angle of the box makes it very rigid and does have many effects to the sound... and not only good ones :-) But on some ouds these effects are welcome... and let them sound as the luthier or customer wants to !

Btw : Your little posted concert is great... :-))

Fritz

Edward Powell - 8-19-2012 at 12:57 PM

Yes, I think a lot of oud makers and players simply take for granted the basic established construction of the oud and therefore attribute practically ALL the tone to the SB and bracing. These people should try one time to take a great sounding oud, and then just for fun attach a very heavy neck (like a guitar neck) to this "oud" and hear the difference.

Because the oud has been designed so well, with such a light neck and back, we tend to forget that these elements are that way to allow for great resonance in the SB therefore with the current design the SB for sure IS the most important.

I am really not sure about anything - but I think there is no coincidence that my ragmakamtar version that for sure sounds the best has not only the smallest necks of any of them, but also each neck is identical in size and weight to eachother...

Edward Powell - 10-7-2012 at 03:31 AM

I thought you guys might be interested to hear this example of my metal fingerboard. I think it DEFINITELY gives a particular timbre... definitely a metalic touch to the tone - I quite like it... it is different than a standard oud tone.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBXVpKQwDOQ

fernandraynaud - 10-7-2012 at 02:42 PM

I thought it was interesting that when Rahim AlHaj released that Ancient Sounds CD, they mixed it so both oud and sarod are panned to the middle, and it's hard to tell them apart. The playing technique is more characteristic than the timbre itself. It's a little like the Turkish vs. Arabian dichotomy. Yes, they are different, but not so dramatically that a clever player can't make one sound a lot like the other. JT manages to make all ouds sound like ... JT shredding.