Mike's Oud Forums - Powered by XMB

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.

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.

posted on 8-7-2015 at 06:17 AM

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.

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

Oud Junkie

Posts: 1353
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline

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

Oud Addict

Posts: 41
Registered: 4-28-2015
Member Is Offline

posted on 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

Oud Junkie

Posts: 1353
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline

posted on 8-7-2015 at 07:54 AM

posted on 8-7-2015 at 09:27 AM

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

Oud Addict

Posts: 41
Registered: 4-28-2015
Member Is Offline

posted on 8-7-2015 at 11:53 AM

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

Oud Junkie

Posts: 184
Registered: 5-6-2014
Member Is Offline

"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

Oud Addict

Posts: 41
Registered: 4-28-2015
Member Is Offline

posted on 8-7-2015 at 12:48 PM

posted on 8-7-2015 at 09:00 PM

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

Oud Junkie

Posts: 114
Registered: 5-17-2007
Member Is Offline

Mood: No Mood

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.

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.

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.”

posted on 8-7-2015 at 11:14 PM

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

Oud Junkie

Posts: 184
Registered: 5-6-2014
Member Is Offline

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

Oud Junkie

Posts: 1353
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline

posted on 8-8-2015 at 03:26 AM

posted on 8-8-2015 at 03:35 AM

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

Jody Stecher

Oud Junkie

Posts: 1353
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline

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

Oud Junkie

Posts: 1353
Registered: 11-5-2011
Location: California
Member Is Offline

posted on 8-8-2015 at 05:32 AM

posted on 8-8-2015 at 06:31 AM

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

Oud Junkie

Posts: 184
Registered: 5-6-2014
Member Is Offline

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

Oud Addict

Posts: 41
Registered: 4-28-2015
Member Is Offline

posted on 8-8-2015 at 07:55 PM

Quote: Originally posted by abc123xyz

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:

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:

posted on 8-8-2015 at 08:35 PM

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

Oud Addict

Posts: 41
Registered: 4-28-2015
Member Is Offline

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.

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.