| Pages:
1
2
3 |
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
The REAL Egyptian/Arab MAQAM???
since my laptop bit it, I have been studying this one book of music notation I have that I got from Marko's music store.
cuz I can't read arabic I had a friend at least translate all the names of each piece- the composers- and the names of the maqams.
to my surprise almost all of the composers were Turkish, and all of the makams seem to be Turkish makams.
In fact, looking now at my BIG LIST of makams there are only a few that I have that I can not find anywhere at all in the Turkish system: hense I am
assuming that these are REAL Egyptian/Arab maqams. They include:
-nairuz
-zanjaran
-nahawand murassah
-ushaq masri
-shawk afza
...and furthermore, so far I have never seen or heard and actual full composition written with one of these (above) maqams as the HOME MAQAM.
I am becoming aware that in the Arab maqam system there seems to be a serious maqam hierarchy in which we have a handful of PARENT maqams, and then
many low-status family member maqams in which full compositions in them are not found.
My experience with the Turkish makam system however seems almost the opposite - - although in the Turkish system there are definitely COMMON and
UNCOMMON makams- still, generally speaking, each makam hold a more or less equal status - meaning that each has an authentic SEYIR, and is at least
capable of having full pesrevs or even a full AYIN composed in it.
Can anyone help me out here? What is the REAL ARAB MAQAM?
----or, is it the truth that before the Turks came here bringing their music, the Arab maqam was in fact a very simple maqam?
Did the Turks bring here the concept of the complex maqam?
...I highly suspect this, also because even when talking to very high level Egyptian musician - they seem unaware of the SEYIR concept --- they seem
unaware that a makam has a "direction" --(ascending, ascending/descending, or descending)-- --even the way that the most common maqam here
(bayati) has, in common practice, seemingly lost its directional characteristics - - resulting in what looks like sort of a combination of Ussak,
Bayati, and Huseini all wrapped into one - - - essentially it looks like Arab Bayati is just a sort of free-from use of the bayati-scale. This is
very different than the Turkish usage, and leads me to suspect that the concept of the COMPLEX MAQAM comes from Turkey, and has lost much of its
sophistication after being transplanted down here.
If this is not true, then where are those hundreds long involved mega compositions in Maqam Nairuz or Sikah Baladi...
...it seems to me that the true Arab maqam is something only used to add some Arab spice in modulation...??!!
|
|
|
Danielo
Oud Junkie
Posts: 365
Registered: 7-17-2008
Location: Paris
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi Edward,
I am by no means an expert on these matters, but I agree with you that it is hard to find compositions out of the prominent maqamat. Regarding
taqsims, I know few examples of the beaten track:
*"Saltana" by Abraham Salman, the great Iraqi-Israeli kanun player. There are full taqsim in maqamat such as Zanjaran, Suznak, Bayati Shuri,... Other
are in more Iraqi maqamat like Awshar,Homayun. This CD is one of my favorites
*"Unwonted maqamat" by the syrian oud player Mohammad Qadri Dallal. The title by itself is revealing as the maqamat used (Nikriz,Mahur,...) are by no
means "unwonted" in turkish music ! Is it also a coincidence that he comes from Aleppo, where the turkish influence is strong?
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
Yes...
I am guessing that it is hopefull thinking on my part to get comprehensive answers here - but it is worth a try. Correct me if I am wrong, but it
seems that on this forum frequent mostly people interested in and knowledgable about, primarily Arab as opposed to Turkish music.
I would guess that an Arab musician would not jump in and admit that his/her music is majorly derivitive of Turkish music. I am also wondering why not
more Turkish oudis are not participating here?
I do find it unfortunate however, that in the oud world in general, that the pre-eminance of Turkish influence is not properly recognised and admitted
to. Sure, the Arab world is much more populous and geographically dominant - - but this does not justify the situation.
Personally I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder regarding this issue. I had been playing oud for year and years before I even got an incling of this
truth.
To be honest, if it was not for studying the Turkish makam I would still be totally in the dark regarding how makams really work - because it seems to
me that of course while Arabs PLAY maqam, they tended to neglect being very articulate in describing HOW they work. However, the Turkish way of
describing the Seyir etc. make the whole idiom very comprehesible.
Nowadays when confronting an Arab version of a maqam - I can only really "grasp" it after refering back to what I had previously learned about the
'same' makam from the Turkish system.
I think it is a pity that it is not more common knowledge that the makam system is clearly more intelligible and refined on the Turkish side of
things. I think the Turks deserve credit for this loud and clear... rather than generally being regarded as a variation on the prominant Arab
makam.
Not in anyway to critisise this wonderful forum, but here is one example of how the assumed dominance and superiority of the Arab oud and the Arab
maqam system is shown---- with this site being decorated and adorned with obviously Arab (Egyptian) ouds and praises for Farid (Arab/Egyptian).
I think that to be fair and to represent the reality on the groud more accurately, the Turkish oud, players, and repertoire ought to be given at least
equal visibility and recognision.
- - -
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Edward,
while I am not an expert on the history/influences etc. I wanted to point out a couple of things.
1- the oud is far more important to Arab music than to turkish music, and originated either in Arab/Levant culture or Persian (depending on who you
ask).
Since oud music has a more prominent role in Arab music, it is not surprising to find people gravitating toward that music.
2- Arab music indeed had concepts regarding the developmental direction (Seyir) of the maqamat. These have mostly been lost/degraded over time. Dr.
Scott Marcus discusses this in detail. The ascending, descending, and asecending/descending variants of the scales have just been simplified in
referring to the scale rather than the different names. This seems to have gradually confused things as aural tutelage under a master musician is
being replaced by conservatory training. Turks seem to have overall a greater disposition toward naming/categorizing/theorizing than Arabs.
3- The fact that Turks have made their system more intelligible does not make the MUSIC more complex/refined/beautiful/whatever. Music does not
actually operate according to systems, they are merely attempts by humans to impose order on things. One could say that Arab music is guided by
finely honed intuition and sense of tarab, while Turkish music is excessively formalized and prescribed by rules and intellectualization. See how the
same situation could lend itself to different perspectives? I'm not saying that I think that, but I'm sure some people feel that way.
4- If you want to understand Arab maqam, the instrumental repertoire is not really the place to look. The instrumental forms are clearly borrowed
from Ottoman music, and this is widely acknowledged. I would advise spending a lot of time with Muwashshahat.
So aside from a general degradation in musical training, I don't think the situation is unfortunate at all. We have two different kinds of music that
both influenced one another, both are different and have a different kind of beauty.
|
|
|
tchandler
Oud Maniac
Posts: 63
Registered: 1-10-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Hi Edward,
I disagree, I think there's lots and lots of more Turkish-oriented players that participate here on the forum. Isn't it a bit semantic to argue over
whether Turkish or Arabic is more authentic or pure? What's better Iraqi or Egyptian or Lebanese or Syrian or Turkish? All of them! And of course,
let's not forget that the web site is Mike's, and he holds Farido in a special place in his heart.
best
tom
|
|
|
Masel
Oud Junkie
Posts: 367
Registered: 6-18-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Edward see the other thread started by suzidil afew days ago about the names of maqams and their origins. It is no secret that middle-eastern music
started in PERSIA, not turkey, and spread from there. The persians have the dastgah system, they only have 7 main dastgah (maqamat) and five minor
ones, yet they are broken down into "corners" (gushe), short melodic sections that make up the larger form and seyir, in a much more articulated way
than the turks or arabs can think of.
Brian you made some good points, especially the third. Edward I agree it is unfortunate that many arab musicians are losing the sense of what maqam is
but this is a very modern thing, even if before they were less concerened with theoretical diversity. Always remember that theory is there to help
understand the music, not force it into some mold.
And I want to add that I love turkish music and I play it also, in fact I am searching for a good teacher for it but it is hard to find in israel. I
might end up studying persian music in "hed" academy...
|
|
|
Masel
Oud Junkie
Posts: 367
Registered: 6-18-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
And since Danielo mentioned Avraham Salman who I've had the honour of watching play live, here is a taqasim (starting in) rast. See if you can name
all the maqamat he goes through...
http://www.box.net/shared/20jrbn1vbi
A psychadelic experience.
|
|
|
eliot
Oud Junkie
Posts: 252
Registered: 1-5-2005
Location: The Gorges
Member Is Offline
Mood: Aksak
|
|
This whole "more real" or "more authentic" or "more anything" argument is a red herring.
Who were the Ottomans who created makam-s? Were they only Turks? No. Walter Feldman's lengthy and, unfortunately mistitled, Music of the Ottoman
Court accomplishes very well the objective of ascertaining exactly who composed, performed, and consumed the music now known as TSM/ KTM/ OSM. At
certain points in time, the majority of the sultanate-employed musicians were not Turkish at all but Persians, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Roma, Arabs,
Moldavians, etc. At other points in time, the balance shifted so that many more Turks were involved in the creation of urban music. So whose music is
it?
The Dede Efendi makam-s in Turkey were highly influenced, we know, from him observing opera performances that happened from 1797 onwards (Sultan Selim
III loved European opera and sponsored its happening in Istanbul). It could easily be argued that Dede Efendi "westernized" the makam system. Yes,
some of his makam entities were more complex, but are they more or less real for it?
Masel's right to point out the Persian origin of certain makams and makam names. The Persian makam system existed and was used up until the creation
of the dastgah system, then fell out of use somewhat. However, we don't really know how much of the Persian system really spread throughout the Middle
East, and whether anything other than some maqam names and some basic interval patterns spread as well.
We will NEVER be able to prove that the maqam/makam system as we know it today originated in one place and spread, since we lack solid evidence about
what musical systems existed throughout Anatolia, in Egypt, in the Levent, etc. that were either displaced or adapted to fit within a system of maqam.
We do not have repertoire from 13th-17th century Iran that is widely played in either the current Turkish or Arab speaking world.
We don't even really know how widespread the knowledge of maqamat was in the 17th century, outside of the few people who wrote about it. So I hesitate
to affirm that maqam went from point A to B, end of story. It's not as if Persians were not influenced by musicians, music styles, and thought that
came from abroad. A lot of stuff was in circulation during the Safavid period - Islamic jurisprudence scholars, musicians, philosophy, material goods,
instruments, maqamat, etc.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
Wow, all excellent and very helpful responses - A LOT to respond to there...
For the moment, in practical terms, I am very thankful for the suggestion to look to the vocal music rather than instrumental, in my search for the
Arab maqam expression. Yes, as far as the instrumental repertoire is concerned, it seem I might as well just get out my Turkish books and
recordings...
...but I am not giving up so easily - I came here on a quest to discover the Arab maqam - so, yes, and thanks, I will focus on the vocal music!
|
|
|
ALAMI
Oud Junkie
Posts: 643
Registered: 12-14-2006
Location: Beirut
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Arab musicians were always reluctant to music theory, the essence of their modal music is rooted in tarab and improvisation and is based on oral
transmission. of course this system is risky, like everything in the Orient, and some concepts are reluctant to rationalization, no Arab would ever
attempt to explain tarab to another Arab.
I am attaching the music sheet of "Eswaret El Arous" a pop song composed by the late and great Philemon Wehbeh for Fayrouz in the 1980s.
This guy was unable to read music, this song has an incredible instinctive seamless modulations from its base on Saba to Hijaz F, Bayat C, Rast B,
Ajam B and Bayat F...
A true maqam labyrinth in a simple short pop song, A MUST TRY !
This guy had not a clue on what is ascending or descending sayir of a maqam, for his ears it just sounded right with the lyrics.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
Hi Everybody... I just got my notebook back from service - - - it turns out that what happened was I had been having it sitting on my bed every day
and the cooling system had been sucking up dust from the bed and it eventually blocked up the vents - and that is why it overheated.
Anyway, thank you ALL for contributing to this thread, I am learning really a lot from it - - -
I am just reading down now, and will respond as I go along;
- - -
I wouldn't agree that the oud is more important in Arab music than in Turkish, Brian - on what do you base this statement?
I am not sure who Dr. Scott Marcus is... but I always get a bit nervous whenever I hear this word "scale" enter into a discussion about makam. I have
been under the impression that the true concept of a scale is a bit of a misnomer regarding makam theory. Meaning that the true fundamental of a makam
is NOT a scale (7 notes) but rather a tetrachord (4 notes)-- so that no such thing as a BAYATI SCALE exists. Rather, the "bayati scale" is in fact
ussak plus buselik. (or bayati plus nahawand in Arab terms). So in my opinion, this is the first step "off-course" is to start to think about makams
in terms of "scales".
I disagree that "Music does not actually operate according to systems". Amjad Ali Khan, the great sarod master described Indian music as "FREEDOM
WITHIN DISCPLINE". The same is true of BEBOP JAZZ, another great "system" of improvisation. To illustrate I will make comparison:
I am a pretty good cook, because I have some technique, a good imagination, and a fine intuition... however, there is no "system" in my cooking
method. I just put whatever ingredientS I have in the fridge in the pot, and varying amounts of whatever spices are left in the spice shelf - mix
together - or various things in separate pots, or whatever, and COOK AWAY! The result is always very tasty and satisfying. However, my girlfriend
often complains that after a while everything I cook sort of tastes the same, and my dishes, although tastey, rarely have any kind of clearly
identifiable characteristic flavour.
Whereas, when she cooks (very rarely) she takes out a cook book and finds a particular dish and sets about doing her best to create that meal
according to the instructions given. Of course along the way she has to improvise somewhat and add this or that or substitute something else or
whatever - but the end result is something very recognisable as something particular. Like, WOW THIS TASTES REALLY ITALIAN, or whatever. Whenever this
happens I realise that thru my systemless mixing of whatever is at hand - my food becomes finally characterless.
In my opinion - perhaps this is one way in which Arab music is suffering. For example...
Each makam in fact has it's own individual character, flavour, and MOOD. This individuality comes out as a result of following it's specific SEYIR.
Afterall makams USSAK, BAYATI, and ACEM all share the same "scale", but in fact have completely different moods. But Arab maqam BAYATI tends to be
played like a scale in which all these makams (plus huseini, karcigar, and more) seem to be mixed in together perhaps unsystematically sometimes.
Seems to me that the fine flavour of USSAK is lost, as is that of "systematic" BAYATI, ACEM etc.
Another point and opinion I wanted to share is that I often hear people crisicise intellectuality in music as an element that seems to automatically,
by it's very presence, degrade the HEART/EMOTIONAL element in music. Finally I have never been able to understand the logic in this assumption. I
mean, back to cooking, if I want to make a cafe and put in 1 kilo of sugar, does this then make it impossible for me also to put in 1 kilo of salt?
or vise versa? Why is it then not possible to have a music which is both very highly intellectually refined, and very deeply emotional?
From my time in Istanbul I was deeply moved and impressed not only with the systematic sophistication of their music, but much more so by emotional
heartrending of it.
I also deeply love Arabic music and Arab oud playing - otherwise I would not be here in Cairo...
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by eliot
This whole "more real" or "more authentic" or "more anything" argument is a red herring.
Who were the Ottomans who created makam-s? Were they only Turks? No. Walter Feldman's lengthy and, unfortunately mistitled, Music of the Ottoman
Court accomplishes very well the objective of ascertaining exactly who composed, performed, and consumed the music now known as TSM/ KTM/ OSM. At
certain points in time, the majority of the sultanate-employed musicians were not Turkish at all but Persians, Jews, Greeks, Armenians, Roma, Arabs,
Moldavians, etc. At other points in time, the balance shifted so that many more Turks were involved in the creation of urban music. So whose music is
it?
The Dede Efendi makam-s in Turkey were highly influenced, we know, from him observing opera performances that happened from 1797 onwards (Sultan Selim
III loved European opera and sponsored its happening in Istanbul). It could easily be argued that Dede Efendi "westernized" the makam system. Yes,
some of his makam entities were more complex, but are they more or less real for it?
Masel's right to point out the Persian origin of certain makams and makam names. The Persian makam system existed and was used up until the creation
of the dastgah system, then fell out of use somewhat. However, we don't really know how much of the Persian system really spread throughout the Middle
East, and whether anything other than some maqam names and some basic interval patterns spread as well.
We will NEVER be able to prove that the maqam/makam system as we know it today originated in one place and spread, since we lack solid evidence about
what musical systems existed throughout Anatolia, in Egypt, in the Levent, etc. that were either displaced or adapted to fit within a system of maqam.
We do not have repertoire from 13th-17th century Iran that is widely played in either the current Turkish or Arab speaking world.
We don't even really know how widespread the knowledge of maqamat was in the 17th century, outside of the few people who wrote about it. So I hesitate
to affirm that maqam went from point A to B, end of story. It's not as if Persians were not influenced by musicians, music styles, and thought that
came from abroad. A lot of stuff was in circulation during the Safavid period - Islamic jurisprudence scholars, musicians, philosophy, material goods,
instruments, maqamat, etc. |
thanks for taking the time to explain all this Eliot ...very insightful and helpful
Thanks!
|
|
|
Masel
Oud Junkie
Posts: 367
Registered: 6-18-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Yes I agree that freedom is only worth while when it is freedom with restriction, there needs to be a strong grounding element otherwise the music
floats everywhere meaninglessly and that is something that arabic music suffers today.
The cooking metaphor was good and I agree with it (I cook the same way as you but with a more middle-eastern bias), I need to learn some recipies, but
regardless I think wouldn't eat anything with a kilo of sugar, much less a kilo of salt on top of it!
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Edward, it's an interesting discussion you've prompted here.
If you read my post closely I nowhere say that the maqam is a scale. A scale is a collection of different pitches presented in a sequential order.
Therefore, all maqamat CONTAIN a scale, by definition. Of course a maqam is not equal to or "just" a scale. In the context of my statement, the same
scale (i.e., collection of pitches) could represent different maqamat, which used to have different names. Now, however, for the purposes of
nomenclature, the scale is just given one maqam name, even though in practice the same scale may function as different maqamat.
By the way, Dr. Marcus has written some of the most extensive research on Arabic music theory available. Based on your questions, I highly recommend
you read his doctoral dissertation, it deals with a lot of what you seem interested in.
I base my statement on the oud's importance on several observations:
The oud is a prominent instrument in the Arab ensemble, and every major composer plays oud, most perform on it. This is not the case with ottoman
music, where the tanbur, kemance, and nay are all at least as important as, and possibly more important than, the oud. The clarinet is also at least
as important as the oud. It is entirely possible to have a turkish group with no oud, but it is pretty much unthinkable in the Arab world. While
there is a lot of solo oud from Turkish musicians, this seems to be a relatively recent phenomenon, and it has little impact on the overall importance
of oud in the music.
You can disagree with the notion that music doesn't operate according to systems, but in the case of Bebop, you are most certainly mistaken. There is
plenty of discipline and rigor in the practice of the music, but it is not according to any defined system (though there have been many attempts, with
varying degrees of success, to infer the "rules" from the actual practice, which proceeds without regard to rules). If you've figured out the Bebop
system, you should write a book, you'll make a million dollars.
Furthermore, it is obvious that music does not operate according to systems, since if that were the case, anyone who knew the system could be a great
improviser or composer. Anyone who knows me would tell you: I am the last person who would disparage the role of the intellect in great music, and I
heartily endorse systematic attempts to understand music. But that is all they are, attempts to understand why something works. To confuse the
system for the working itself is a grave error.
I know the problem you're describing, but I haven't found it to be a problem with pro players.
|
|
|
eliot
Oud Junkie
Posts: 252
Registered: 1-5-2005
Location: The Gorges
Member Is Offline
Mood: Aksak
|
|
If you play with your heart, all these problems slowly fade away...
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
I contend that it is misleading to claim that all maqamat contain a scale. For example, from my understanding- just speaking in very very simple terms
for the sake of debate- if we take bayati:
- for example, when ever you are playing in a makam you always have in your head or your subconscious WHAT IS YOU CURRENT "CENTER OF GRAVITY"... if I
am playing bayati and my current center of gravity is the lower tetrachord, then the "scale" will be the normal scale we tend to call Bayati.
- but when my center of gravity shifts to the upper tetrachord and beyond then the 6th degree shifts from full flat to a half flat position.
So if one thinks in terms of scales, then which scale do you identity as being the REAL bayati scale?
- - -
I certainly don't claim to be an expert on any of these topics --- but I can offer some of my observations. For example, I recently spent one year in
Istanbul and attended dozens and dozens of concerts of makam-based music - TSM etc.. In every single concert there was at least one oud player. I
don't recall even once seeing a clarinet in a concert hall ensemble.
Furthermore, just last Friday night here in Cairo I attended a concert put on by a Classical music group from the Zamelek music academy-- there was no
oud player in this group. What I have noticed is that in the current Arab classical groups there tends always to be at least 10 or more violins and
even more vocalists. Yes, of course there is usually an oud also, but you can never hear anything he is playing.
- - -
In fact there have already been hundreds of wonderful books describing magnificantly the system found in Bebop, and I don't think any of those authors
made much money however. The system in bebop is simply this:
-you have a rather complex chord progression and this goes around in cycles continuously.
-i call this a "complex" chord progression as opposed to a "simple" chord progression because if one simply plays one scale on top of this, it will at
times clash melodically with the underlying chords. With a 'simple chord progression' - like the 12 bar blues- the soloist can pretty much get away
with playing one scale all the way thru and it will basically always fit.
-with bebop, one scale does not work.
-with bebop there is simply to way around it... if you want to improvise meaningfully over a complex chord progression you simply must know what
chord is happening NOW, and what notes will fit over that chord. This is what I call a SYSTEM.
I agree that it can be argued, and perhaps Brian, this is your point, that the first bebop players, as with the first makam players were not thinking
systematically. Bebop developed from American pop songs from the 30's and the first improvisers simply played the melody then embellished it and on
and on and developed their soloing in this way. But, Charlie Parker who is known as the inventor of modern bebop was famous for long hours of sitting
under a bridge and systematically practicing all possible scales, progressions, melodies, and arpeggios etc, in all 12 keys (try doing that on an oud!
it is almost as difficult on a sax)! It was only thru this disciplined and incredibly systematic approach that he was finally able to internalise a
very complex system to the point where it became utterly second nature - and hense in practice he was then able to "turn off his head" and play from
his heart... and create the music that he invented.
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Hi Edward,
I'm sorry but the system you described as bebop is nonsense. I don't know what your musical background is, but I am a jazz musician and a pretty
fluent bebop improviser.
This is off topic, so I won't get into a lot of detail, but:
Most of the books describing the bebop "system" are extremely misguided and misleading and if followed, do not result in anything like bebop playing.
I'd be curious for your examples as to what you think are good books. David Baker, one of the first writers to attempt to systematize bebop logic,
made some decent money, but his books are (while a worthwhile attempt), not very good. Ditto for George Russell (though his ideas are interesting in
their own right). Most subsequent books are attempts to refine their fundamentally flawed ideas. Jamey Aebersold, I'm sure has made lots of money
with his "how to improvise" stuff. There are certainly not "hundreds of wonderful books" about it. I can name exactly two, and a lot of other books
that are marginally useful.
The chord progressions in Bebop are simple, they are the same chord progressions used in swing and dixieland for the most part. The complexity is
only in that the chords change more often.
Playing the same scale over the 12 bar blues fits just about as well as it does over any other chord progression. You can play from the same scale
over lots of complex chord progressions, you just have to play the right notes at the right time. As a teacher of mine once said, "there's a scale
that fits over every chord progression: the chromatic scale". It's sort of a joke, but really it's not.
You said "if you want to improvise meaningfully over a complex chord progression you simply must know what chord is happening NOW, and what notes will
fit over that chord. This is what I call a SYSTEM."
Calling that a system is quite a stretch, in my opinion. A system, as I understand it, would have to be quite a bit more involved.
I would also say that while you're correct that you must know what chord is happening at all times, all 12 notes will work over every chord, it's more
a matter of knowing HOW each note works over every chord, and how melodic phrases are structured, because music is linear and temporal--it's about how
things are changing (why we call it "playing changes"), not about each chord in isolation. And even so, that does not describe a system, but just a
process.
You're somewhat right in discerning my point--the CREATORS of music are not applying a system.
(by the way, it was Sonny Rollins who practiced on the bridge, not Charlie Parker).
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
| Quote: |
--even the way that the most common maqam here (bayati) has, in common practice, seemingly lost its directional characteristics - - resulting in what
looks like sort of a combination of Ussak, Bayati, and Huseini all wrapped into one - - - essentially it looks like Arab Bayati is just a sort of
free-from use of the bayati-scale. |
I think that we have a misunderstanding here, since even you seem to acknowledge that there is an underlying scale being used. Otherwise, why are you
likening Bayati, Ussak and Huseini? what do they all have in common? Clearly you also are aware that there is a scale relationship. To answer your
question, the scale would be: D E/b F G A Bb B/b C, with both variants of B being used at different times. Note that I am not saying that this is the
best way to understand performance practice, merely that there is a matter of fact at hand: they all have the same (or nearly the same) underlying
scale. This in no way contradicts maqam theory or the use of ajnas to gain a more nuanced understanding of what is happening.
Some extremely accomplished Arab musicians I know (who certainly have a deeper understanding of maqam than you or I) insist that it is the Turks who
have corrupted the maqam with their incessant theorizing and naming, not that Arab musicians have dumbed-down the Ottoman theory.
Also be aware that there is historically a significant gulf between theoreticians and performers, and the postulations of theory are rarely
prescriptive (even when they intend to be), but are merely attempts to describe practices that have arisen for musical reasons.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
Brian, you make some very good points, and I agree with what you say about bebop.
...also, if you have found a way to think about makam that has helped you to understand it then all the power to ya. Personally I think that all these
types of music require us as individuals to figure out our own ways to make sense out of them. Some people are more right brained - some more left
brain, some some people work better off intuition - others a more intellectual approach.
I know I have the tendency to get very enthusiastic about what has worked for me, and then in my enthusiasm sometimes try to ram my ideas down other
peoples throats  )
I think, whatever works to help us make beautiful music is totally ok by me!
|
|
|
Brian Prunka
Oud Junkie
Posts: 2916
Registered: 1-30-2004
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Stringish
|
|
Hi Edward,
I tend to be pretty analytical and systematic about how I approach things, which is helpful, but that very process has proven to me how it's
impossible to capture the complexity of any music in a system.
The unsystematic way in which the Arab maqam is taught (in my experience) is deliberate, in order to force the student to connect with the music in a
direct (that is non-theoretical) way. Some teachers could discuss the maqam seyir if they wished, but they do not feel that it is the appropriate way
to learn--you learn by imitation until you HEAR the correct way to play and then you will know why it is correct, when you really hear it properly.
Ultimately, to play at a high level, you have to hear correctly, and then you can play anything you wish (because your wishes will be proper).
I certainly haven't even come close to mastering any maqam. I'm considering studying with a good ottoman-style player when I get a chance,
specifically because I think (as a westerner) that it would helpful to have more explicit guidelines.
|
|
|
eliot
Oud Junkie
Posts: 252
Registered: 1-5-2005
Location: The Gorges
Member Is Offline
Mood: Aksak
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Brian Prunka
The unsystematic way in which the Arab maqam is taught (in my experience) is deliberate, in order to force the student to connect with the music in a
direct (that is non-theoretical) way. |
This is a very interesting theory...
| Quote: | | I'm considering studying with a good ottoman-style player when I get a chance, specifically because I think (as a westerner) that it would helpful to
have more explicit guidelines. |
What's most fun is when you get all those explicit guidelines and later find out that they bear little relation to what your teacher would actually
play in a normative situation.
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
I feel it like a long staircase we must climb... and those of us who are native Westerners must realise and accept that. Everything that I say and
suggest is coming from one Westerner to supposedly another.
I have to agree with you Brian that an ideal situation is the one you describe in which the master is always nearby to "direct" the young students
'ear development' -- -- -- just the way a child learns to speak a spoken language simply thru talking and listening, rather than thru books.
However, from my own experience, with, when I started playing the oud 15 years ago, I could hardly even find recording!! Let alone theoretical
teaching. . . . all I could find were a few recordings and a few lists of scales. This did not help me too much.
It was not until I encountered the very precisely laid out and systematic Ottoman approach that the whole thing began to make A LOT of sense.
However, as Eliot suggests, this finally is just one more step in the grand staircase because in fact this "theory" is only perhaps a more detailed
'direction pointer' - it is not finally exactly what the musicians play.
Luckily, my teachers have always made it clear to me that with makam music there is NO fixed way... and that in the end the theory will always
contradict the practice - - - - so keeping this always in mind is very helpful.
happy climbing 
|
|
|
jazzchiss
Oud Junkie
Posts: 217
Registered: 12-20-2004
Location: Madrid
Member Is Offline
Mood: Improvising
|
|
Hi, folks.
Interesting discussion about maqamat and bebop but, in my opinion, theory is good for reading and writing music, but not much useful for improvising.
The better way to learn how to improvise is listen to records and play with them.
As a former western jazz musician (fan of Eric Dolphy), the maqam theory looks quite crazy for me and I prefer to think in scales with added
alterations.
On the other hand, I've found very useful the approach of teaching of Samy Abu Shumays in http://maqamlessons.com/
|
|
|
Edward Powell
Oud Junkie
Posts: 1212
Registered: 1-20-2008
Member Is Offline
Mood: g'oud
|
|
...i will admit to one thing that irritates my about music in Turkey (and anywhere), is when musicians have to read the music on stage. First of all I
hate the music stands blocking the view, and second, I feel that the act of having to use the intellect so forcefully to read the notes - acts as a
block to the heart element.
my feeling is that if the musicians can't memorise the pieces, they should play more simple pieces and improvise more. . . . OR at least reduce the
amount of onstage sight-reading to a point at which it does not dominate the concert.
The written page is a relatively new thing in Turkey - I heard that it was introduced first by a Polish guy!
|
|
|
Masel
Oud Junkie
Posts: 367
Registered: 6-18-2006
Member Is Offline
|
|
Hey Edward I talked about persian dastgah but also I'd recommend listening to iraqi maqam. This is a musical style, there are many maqamat, though you
cannot really look at it the same way as normal maqam/makam. Each maqam is a whole piece, some have distinct characters which you could use in a
taqsim or composition but others seem to have no special charactaristics, such as the many variations on bayat like jburi, ibrahimi or bhirzawi, but
hopefully someone more knowledgable can add information.
In the meantime here is maqam araybun sung by Yusuf Omar:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdR4T4dBAOM&feature=sdig&et=...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1r7BvU320sA&feature=related
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3 |
|
![[*]](images/xmbprobrown/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
