Shadd `Araban + Score + Analysis

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

Yes shadd Araban duplicates itself on the second octave. The Hijaz chord begins again on sol.

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

The beauty of transposing Hijaz Kar to GG is exploited with tuning DD,GG, A, D, G,C. The tonic GG can be played exact and sustained. "La bimol" can be naturally played slightly higher with the first finger on the GG. Si with second finger A-string. Do with third finger A-String. DD can make a nice sustained drone for your taqasim or as a bam when you play around the dominant D and the upper jins. You can also play a call/response melody easily on D and DD , G and GG. You also have two sets of adjacent strings (DD/GG an D/G) in which you can play jins hijaz comfortably back to back. Interestingly, higaz -d and higaz-g back to back create Nawa Athar.

For sure, I'm convinced about that ! But I prefer to keep the same tension on my strings and I can't have a oud for each maqam with the right tension

Music is a compromise...

Adel,

Check out this link :

http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=9799#pid651...

Many good links. Of course you should read ARAB MUSIC THEORY IN THE MODERN PERIOD, also read "La Musique Arabe" Tome V by the Baron d'Erlanger p. 120, and "A treatise on Arabic music chiefly from a work by Mikhâil Meshâkah of Damascus" p. 183 and 185. I'm not sure of what I write this my understanding when I mix theory and George Abyad's CD, I must confess this is weak and I shall work on other players but it asks so much time... BTW, the most important is to create our own vision and feeling of Arab music, this is long and asks experience. I'll be back on the taksim (Shadd `Araban) about the end of the year and our conversation will help me to re-understand the maqam

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

I played during 5 years with scores and a teacher who uses the 24 tones Arab scale as a tempered scale. I learned the skills but not the Arab thought. Now my way is to focus on ajnas while I'm playing, I don't think "maqam" or "scale". This had come naturally by playing by ear.

I'm sure those years served you well and I also think in ajnas and not scale or maqam. It's too much mental gymnastics for me to think that the next tone is a certain distance away.

Perhaps Marcus Lloyd's treatise should be called Arab music theory in the modern world FROM A WESTERN PERSPECTIVE...lol

I find it ineresting how the arabic word for theory is "nadhareya." It comes from the root word "nadhar" or "view" (as in "from my view"). First came the music repertoire and then came the "view of" the repertoire to explain it.

I'm sure you're aware that in the West (I lived in the USA since age 3), we first define the theory and then the repertoire comes from the theory. Regarding Arabic music, the repertoire came first with a history and various traditions. They were preserved and enhanced by the Arab world and then came the theory to describe what the seasoned musician of Arabic music understands and feels naturally.
If we begin to serve the writen theory (from a Western Perspective), we loose light of the authentic definition maqamat and their use even when treated as scales and expanded into the next "octave." If in ancient times they created melodies from two or three strings, I trust that it would be difficult to venture into higher octaves...lol.

Consider the ancient musicians. without the advent of a chromatic tuner, how did they tune their strings at concert pitch with strings made from the intestines of goats? They didnt have to. they could just tune one string to a desired sound or tention and easily tune the rest four tones apart. The accompanying musicians could follow the leader..lol
So if their tonics were not necessarily the same "re" "mi" that we use today then were they playing the maqamat corrrectly?
Consider Umm Kalthoum in concert. Many of her concerts in later years were deliberately out of concert pitch to accommodate her "aging" voice. The instruments were deliberately tuned a step or two above or below concert pitch for some songs yet the structured intertonal intervals were maintained. The maqamat were then effectively transposed to non "traditional" tonics, if you will. Wouldn't you agree that these maqamat were treated as "scales."
Do you still think that maqamat are not transposable to any pitch while preserving their unique structural integrity (ie... E half flat not necesarily having the same pitch in different maqamat)?

Regarding the idea of non duplication at the octave, i'd have to read Lloyd's book but I find the idea hard to believe.

You're right, that our own vision and feel for the music is ultimately what's important.

Many thanks for the links. They're very helpfull

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

I consider the ambitus of Shadd `Araban as Shadd `Araban + Hijaz on G : That's why a maqam is a maqam and not a scale, the way to see a maqam as a heptatonic mode is not so old and inspired by the occidental theory. This is not the original way in the Arab music. .

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

I'm sure you're aware that in the West (I lived in the USA since age 3), we first define the theory and then the repertoire comes from the theory. Regarding Arabic music, the repertoire came first with a history and various traditions. They were preserved and enhanced by the Arab world and then came the theory to describe what the seasoned musician of Arabic music understands and feels naturally. If we begin to serve the writen theory (from a Western Perspective), we loose light of the authentic definition maqamat and their use even when treated as scales and expanded into the next "octave." If in ancient times they created melodies from two or three strings, I trust that it would be difficult to venture into higher octaves...lol.

I'm perfectly aware about that. So do you think I deserve the written theory to the detriment of the authentic definition of maqamat ? To be honest I don't understand, because I use an academic oud player (George Abyad) who represents an oral tradition as my base of analysis and I use the written theories to understand what happens. So it perfectly follows the point of view you defend !

About scales vs melodic-types, we are both right, Arab music is a mix of both. So this is really interesting to discuss about that and I don't think this out of the subject. The problem is that we could talk about this during hours and this is so big that a special thread is needed (must actually exist but I can't find where...) especially in a thread where we talk about a professional sound clip called "Shat Arabân" (and not Hijaz Kar on GG). By this title George Abyad gives his point of view and I don't know how to analyze this taksim if I do not follow him ?

To be pragmatic I reiterate my question : How do you understand a f natural all the time (except for a compound mode at 05:29) from your point of view ?
I think you already gave half an answer when you wrote "the repertoire came first with a history and various traditions. They were preserved and enhanced by the Arab world and then came the theory". If you read my (not so good) score, you'll see that the highest note is actually f natural on the 3rd measure. My thought is that Abyad uses the Samai as a melodic-types and the taksim is a development of what happens in the Samai. This explains why George Abyad uses a f natural but the problem is just transposed : Why Cemil Bey Tanburi uses a f natural ?

Also I'd like to say that I prefer to assimilate this f from practice than f# from the theoretic taswir. Except if I work on an other piece of Shadd `Araban with a strong mirror scale, so I would mix both, but this is called experience...

At last I repeat myself, here it is not my point of view but George Abyad's one. So I have nothing to defend, I try to understand, and I'm so sorry if I understand completely wrong

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

I first read your sentence as: Sh araban= shad araban+ JINS Hijaz G if so, then this doesnt oppose the idea of duplication. however if you meant...= shadd araban + MAQAM Hijaz G then this suggests that the next "octave" ends with Jins nahawand D which did you mean?

Both of them !
Firstly, because I do not exclude a mirror scale and secondly because I think ajnas instead of maqamat. Concretely, for me, the first jins sets the maqam but the second one is changeable. So I don't feel myself paradoxical. This is the beauty of Arab music

PS
I think you wanted to say Nahawand on c (or Kurd on d).

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

Not until I read this thread did I realize that "sayr" was part of the definintion of maqam for some. Not that I'm fluent in Arabic but of all the Arabic literature I've come accross, I've never seen 'sayr" as part of the definition of maqam or even come across the word. If sayr is part of the definition of maqam then is it incorporated in all music forms (ie samai, taqasim, muashah..etc...)?

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

you may already know or interested to know that a duplicate on the second "octave" of shadd araban does exist as the ascending scale of maqam siga baladi.

No I've never noticed, if you want to describe it you're welcome !

So OK instead of "taswir" we should use "duplication" about the next octave in Shadd `Araban. For me it's early in the morning and I can't verify everything before I go to work

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

No I've never noticed, if you want to describe it you're welcome !

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

this link will give the description. [url]http://www.maqamworld.com/maqamat/sikah.html#sikah-baladi

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

here are the musical forms. http://www.maqamworld.com/forms.html notice how it says regarding samai that the third khana of the samai modulates to related maqams. Knowing about these forms, especially taqsim, dulab, samai and muashah might be of interest to you becuase George Abyad mixes these in his compositions.

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

So regarding your question about F natural, wouldnt the above simply suggest that in the taqsim, George Abyad is simply modutating from upper jins Higaz to Kurd on D? Rather than the maqam shadd araban having a complex definition that includes it not be a "scale" or duplicated at the next "octave?"

OK, I think this score contains what we're looking for, the 1rst khana uses a f natural and the 3rd khana a f#...

From : http://www.mikeouds.com/messageboard/viewthread.php?tid=3920#pid257...

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

I think we should split this discussion in 2 : -1rstly, what is the general understanding of Shadd `Araban and its ambitus. -2ndly, what is George Abyad's understanding of Shadd `Araban and its ambitus in this taksim. This is really interesting and I need a deep reflexion before I go further. I've got to play it carefully once more, I must decorticate the Samai and check out the outro on the rhythm Bambi Kabir (not done yet because I don't have this rhythm). At last I must read all my written sources once more.

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

Re George Abyad's understanding; someone better than me should comment on that. Quite frankly, I'm surprised no one else has chimed in on this discussion except briefly by fastforward.

Yes, it seems that talking about maqamat is not in fashion
That's why I thank you especially because this not what you're studying. I mean classical vs traditional (these are my subjective words to express music after and before 1932).

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

Consider posting your next George Abyad study before analyzing it.

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

That's very resourcefull that you found the score. the score doesnt include 3rd and 4th khana. the last 4 Lines are "khana 2" and the sinu means that you have to return to the taslim (refrain) 4th lline from the top.

Quote: Originally posted by David.B

"A treatise on Arabic music chiefly from a work by Mikhâil Meshâkah of Damascus" p. 183 and 185 Be prudent before you make easy conclusion, this is the early modern period and the notes don't correspond with nowadays theory. If I do not say stupid things Yegâh is CC (or C), Rest GG (or G) (if somebody can refresh my memory) etc.

Yegâh is C, `Ösheirân is D, Kuwesht is E, Rest is F, Dûgâh is G, Bûselîk is A, Hejâz is B and Nawa is c.

"Observe that the beginning of the notes of the octave with yegâh, as above, is not necessary in the nature of things. Some authors begin with rest ; and the Greeks begin with dûgâh. One may begin where he chooses, provided he make the octave consist of seven successive notes, so that the eighth shall be the response to the first." -> A treatise on Arabic music chiefly from a work by Mikhâil Meshâkah of Damascus p.176

Observe that the modern sight : Yegâh is GG, `Ösheirân is AA, Kuwesht is BB, Rest is C, Dûgâh is D, Bûselîk is E, Hejâz is F and Nawa is g, is used in the following posts.

Quote: Originally posted by myeyes2020

Rather than saying "shat araban on G," isn't it understood that "shat araban" is hijaz kar on g?

"§5. On variety in tunes, and their division into modes.

The difference between tunes is of four kinds. The first is in the key note. If you strike, for example, rest, then `arâk, then `ösheirân, and end with yegâh, making it the key note, the sound differs from what it would be, if you struck dûgâh, then rest, then `arâk, and ended with `ösheirân for the key note. And this difference does not arise from the height of dûgâh and `ösheirân, with which you begin and end the one, above rest and yegâh the first and last notes of the other. For difference in height, were the intervals between all the notes the same, would occasion no variety in tunes, and you might vary the key note, without varying the melody. But as it is, varying the key note varies the tune, because the intervals are unequal, and a succession of them is passed over in the one case, differing from that passed over in the other. As in the example above adduced in the first strain, the first two intervals are or three quarters each, and the third of four ; while in the second strain, the first interval is of four quarters and the other two of three quarters each. Thus appears the first kind of difference between tunes. In consequence of it, tunes are divided into modes according to their key notes, and are named from them ; one being called rest, another dûgâh, &c.

The second difference arises from two circumstances independent of the key note, which may remain unchanged. One is a difference of execution in passing from note to note, which is not to be described in words, and which the Arabs have no notation, as the Greeks and the Franks have, to express. The other is a difference in the notes with which different tunes begin. The two tunes dûgâh, and suba, for example, are both keyed on dûgâh, but the first begins with rest, and the other with jehârgâh ; as we shall see when we come to the description of particular tunes.

The third difference arises from a change of some notes, by substituting certain quarters for them. For example, in the tune called hejâz, the note jehârgâh is not used ; but in ascending and descending it is passed over, and the quarter hejâz is struck in its place. So in the tune beyâty, the quarter `ajem is used in the place of the note auj.

The fourth difference arises from the tunes being double ; the first or second cause of difference being united with the third. In this case, the voice passes over more than seven notes, striking notes in two octaves, which are the responses and bases to each other. For example, the tune muhaiyar is tune dûgâh repeated ; dûgâh being first sung on an octave dûgâh, and then the voice descending to the base of that, which is the octave to which dûgâh itself belongs. So the tune shed-`arabân, is made up of two hejâzes, on two different octaves. And `ösheirân is almost beyâty, sung from above huseiny, and then ending in beyâty on `ösheirân.

6. On Transposition, or the performing of a tune on another than its natural scale.

Musicians are sometimes obliged to perform tunes on other than their proper key notes. For example, dûgâh and hejâz, whose proper key note is dûgâh, are usually performed on nawa, in order, by a higher pitch, to give more pleasure to the hearer. This change is sometimes necessary. As, when a double tune, which takes in more than one octave, is keyed on a high note. Shed-`arabân, for example, whose key note is dûgâh, requires the voice to ascend to the response to huseiny, which is extremely difficult for most performers, and even if accomplished, produces an unpleasant effect upon the hearer. Hence this tune is generally performed on yegâh or `ösheirân. The same key notes, also, are generally adopted for the tune muhaiyar. A similar necessity likewise exists, when you wish to play on two instruments together, one of which, as a large kânôn for example, is made for very low notes, and will not bear tuning for high ones, and the other, as a short kerift, is pitched very high. Then the performance on the two will not agree, unless one or the performers transposes the tune so as to play it on such a key note as shall accord with the key note on which the other performs. Hence the professors of the art of music, have found it necessary to be exceedingly careful in the composition of tunes, to define and observe the exact number of quarters which compose the intervals between the different votes. For it is only in consequence of this exactness, that the musician is able to transpose a tune by changing its key note.

For illustration of what has been said above, take two examples. First ; suppose it be desired to transpose a tune keyed on dûgâh, so as to perform it on nawa. Then is will necessary to change two notes, huseiny and auj, by striking instead of them, the quarters tek-hisâr and `ajem, next below them. This being done, the succession of intervals in the transposed tune, will be the same as in the original, as may be seen in Table IV., below.
Second ; suppose it be desired to transpose a tune on rest so that it can be performed on nawa. Inasmuch as nawa is a fifth above rest, the first five notes will require no change, for reasons explained in section 4. But the next two notes do not correspond, and it bocomes necessary to raise buzereh and mâhûrân each one quarter, by using the quarters response to bûselîk and response to nîm-hejâz, instead of them, in order to preserve the intervals of the original tune, as may be seen in Table V." -> A treatise on Arabic music chiefly from a work by Mikhâil Meshâkah of Damascus p.181

"§1. Melodies keyed on Yegâh.

2. Shed-`arabân. This is in fact hejâz repeated in two octaves, to render the pitch easy for the singer. Its notes are 8, 8b, 8, 11, 10a, 8b, 8, 12, 12b, 12, 11, 10a, 8b, 8, 7, 5b, 5, 4, 3a, 2,1." -> A treatise on Arabic music chiefly from a work by Mikhâil Meshâkah of Damascus p.185

My own way :

Nawa (G), Hisâr (Ab), Nawa (G), Mâhûr (c), Nihuft (B), Hisâr (Ab), Nawa (G), Muhaiyar (d), Sumbuleh (eb), Muhaiyar (d), Mâhûr (c), Nihuft (B), Hisâr (Ab), Nawa (G), Jehârgâh (F), Kurdy (Eb), Dûgâh (D), Rest (C), Kuwesht (BB), `Ösheirân (AA), Yegâh (GG).

"§4. Melodies keyed on rest.

8. Hejâzkâr. It is 4, 8 distinctly, 8b, 8 distinctly, 7 distinctly, 6a, 4c, 4, 1, 4. Thus the Constantinople masters have arranged it. In it 5 and 6 are altered to 4c and 6a. Evidently this arrangement is that which is necessary for the performance of the tune hejâz itself ; except that the quarter 7b must be made 7a. And if it be thus arranged, and 5 be made its keynote, it will be easier, or only one note, viz. 7, will be altered to a quarter." -> A treatise on Arabic music chiefly from a work by Mikhâil Meshâkah of Damascus p.187

My own way :

Rest (C), Nawa (G) distinctly, Hisâr (Ab), Nawa (G) distinctly, Jehârgâh (F) distinctly, Bûselîk (E), Tek-zergelâh (D-b-), Rest (C), Yegâh (GG), Rest (C).

So the ancient understanding of Shadd `Araban vs Hijaz Kar is very different from nowadays understanding.

Also observe the old jins Hijaz is Dûgâh (D) {3 quarters} Sigâh (E-b-) {5 quarters} Hejâz (F#) {2 quarters} Nawa (G).

In the old maqam Hijaz Kar : Rest (C) {3 quarters} Tek-zergelâh (D-b-) {5 quarters} Bûselîk (E) {2 quarters} Jehârgâh (F).

While the old Shadd `Araban (Hijaz on G) is Nawa (G) {2 quarters} Hisâr (Ab) {6 quarters} Nihuft (B) {2 quarters} Mâhûr (c).

Nowadays we assimilate maqam Shadd `Araban as a transposition of maqam Hijaz Kar, so why purists want to keep the old fashion by saying "Shadd `Araban" instead of "Hijaz Kar on GG" ? This is an open question, my own answer is because it keeps the heritage of Arab music in its name.