Mike's Oud Forums

hicaz question ?

elreyrico - 5-14-2013 at 11:53 AM

hi

I have a (maybe studid) question about the makam Hicaz :

why do the note "Hicaz" itself, which gives its name to the scale, is actually not played ? and is "replaced" by "nim hicaz".

any theoritical explanation ?

Jono Oud N.Z - 5-20-2013 at 04:52 PM

Hey.

The note hijaz (hicaz) was played until after 1750 in Turkey.
The notes of jins (cins) hijaz previously were: dugah, segah, hijaz (also called uzzal) and nawa (this is equivalent to Persian Homayun).
It seems that the hijaz note was lowered and the segah pitch flattened to tik kurdi after 1750 sometime, when more notes were added to the Ottoman music.
Here is a piece in Uzzal (hijaz family)from the Demetrie Cantemir collection (1673–1723), written around 1700.
(The F#note is Hijaz in this notation).

[file]26811[/file]

[file]26813[/file] [file]26815[/file]

elreyrico - 5-21-2013 at 07:11 AM

thank you very much !

Brian Prunka - 5-21-2013 at 11:07 AM

Maybe I am confused by the Turkish names, but I wouldn't consider Hijaz to contain "nim hijaz"

Correct me if I'm wrong (examples in Arabic tuning):
Chargah/Jiharkah (F)
nim hijaz (F half-sharp)
hijaz (F#)
tik hijaz (F sharp and a half)

The third of Hijaz is F#, not F half-sharp. It is lower than an ET western F#, but not a half-sharp.

Of course, "half-sharp" etc. are simplifications, since we are not truly talking about 24TET.

In Turkish makam, as I understand it, the F# is approximately equal to a pure 5:4 third in relation to the D, which is the same note to be expected in Rast transposed to D (although practice suggests that the tuning is actually slightly lower in both cases). So in Turkish practice, the third of Rast and Hijaz would be (about) the same, if started from the same tonic.

In Arabic maqam, the third of Rast is not the same as the third of Hijaz; the third of Hijaz is essentially the same as in Turkish practice but the third of Rast is lower. This is one reason why transposition of Turkish music to Arabic notation is not a simple matter. You find this kind of confusion, for example, in the sheets in Jamil Bashir's book, where sometimes Rast is rendered as Rast and sometimes rendered as 'Ajam.

In old Arabic music (going by recordings), the third of Hijaz is often played/sung much lower than is standard today. So if anything, it would seem that the note has gotten higher over the years, not lower.

The nim hijaz note would be found as the second note of Hijaz transposed to Buselik (e.g., E F+ G# A), not as the third note of Hijaz.

There might be some variation of Hijaz (like the Arabic Sikah Beledi) where the notes are closer to D E/b F+ G, but not standard Hijaz.

Jono Oud N.Z - 5-21-2013 at 02:15 PM

Good information.

The nim hijaz in modern Turkish tuning is hijaz one comma flat.

The archive recordings of Arab music in the first half (or third) of the 1900's were influenced by the tunings employed in Istanbul.
Ali al-Darwish and Iskander Salfun (Sami al-Shawwa maybe too) had studied in Istanbul and brought back many maqamat and were influenced by modern Turkish tunings.

At the time of Mikhail Mishaqa the maqamat Hjaz and Nakriz still contained the earlier segah and hijaz notes (like current Persian music).

Modern eastern Arab maqam tunings seems to be in between modern Turkish (post 1750) and western tunings.
This has been demonstrated more clearly in recordings than in theory.
The usual 'play the second slightly higher and the third slightly lower' is the common terminology.

This recording by Mohhamed El Akkad is interesting.
This seems to show a strong Turkish influence.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_LYNlt7kj0

Hijazkar is a maqam that originated in 19th century Istanbul and was employing the post 1750 tunings, so modulations to Segah worked fine.
Also transposing Turkish pieces in Hijazkar to modern Arab tuning can be awkward because of the modulations to Segah.
I believe this explains the D# to E in this piece, if Nadim al-Darwish was playing with the same tunings of Mohammed El Akkad which is very likely.

[file]26817[/file]

Brian Prunka - 5-21-2013 at 04:19 PM

Interesting information.

When you say "one comma flat", I assume you mean 1/9 tone (the typical Turkish comma)? As "comma" just means any very small interval . . .

When I've seen scores in modern Turkish tuning, Hijaz is written with the # symbol, not +, which would indicate Nim Hijaz.

Are you saying that Turkish Hijaz actually uses the lower note?
That would mean that the third of Hijaz is lower than the third of Rast. Which I do not think is the case generally. Perhaps I am mistaken? My understanding is that it is the same note as occurs in Rast.

If the Hijaz note as played in Turkish and Arabic music is essentially the same, it is only the Sikah/Segah that is different.

To use the Hijazkar example you provided:

The E would be played by Arab and Turkish musicians the same in the Hijazkar jins:
C Db E F

Although the Turkish notation would indicate the Db as being a comma higher (as it is played in Arabic music as well, just not written). In both cases, the E is slightly lower than in Western music. Essentially, then, the Hijazkar jins is played the same by both traditions.

While Arabic musicians could modulate to the E (and use a new jins not currently named in the theory, although Sami Abu Shumays has suggested "Pseudo-Sikah"), you are saying that Turkish musicians would actually consider that to be Segah. Which makes sense, as it is the same Segah note that occurs in maqam Rast. The difference is that in Arabic music there is a different note that is considered Segah; the Arabic Segah is lower (I know you are aware of this Jono, it's just to clarify for anyone who is unsure).

So we could consider this to be a modulation to "Turkish Sikah"; therefore there is no reason why it should work any less well than it does in Turkish music.

This is assuming that Hijaz does not have a lower third degree than Rast does . . . any thoughts on that?

Jono Oud N.Z - 5-21-2013 at 11:04 PM

Hi.

I totally agree with all you have said Brian.

1/9 tone is very accurate, good point about the vagueness of the comma unless specified more accurately.

The third of Hijaz in modern Turkish tuning is the same as Rast so Hijazkar and Zirgulile Suznak (and other Hijaz maqamat) can modulate to Segah without any problem (modern Turkish maqam music).
It is definitely not lower than the third in Rast.

'Psuedo sikah' is a very helpful way to describe this tone in current East Arab maqam music.
Excellent page!:)

Mikhail Meshaqa and Cantemir's tuning for Hijaz (and Uzzal) have the major third and the medium second so D, Ed, F#, G.
This is the same as current Persian Homayun.
Also Karl Signell mentions that the 'Gypsy' tuning in Turkey is like this ('Makam, Modal Practice in Turkish Art Music').

The intonation of jins Hijaz seems to have been 'shrunken' from both ends after 1750.

One particularly helpful source for the dates of the changes in intonations comes from the liner notes to 'Tanburi Isak' (Bezmara Ensemble) by Walter Feldman.
He mentions that this happened around 1780 and that this is the basis for the modern Turkish tunings.

Many instruments went out of use at this period like the chang (ceng) harp and miskal (panpipes) as there literally 'too many notes' for these instruments to play,
more frets were added to the Ottoman tanburs as well.

I think a big difference is that Hijaz family maqamat in Turkey and the Arab East used to use a neutral second, which is not the case in either modern Turkish or Eastern Arabic maqam music, only the Persian tunings (and possibly the Turkish 'Gypsy' tunings) have kept the old intonations in this regard.

Most people today play the Demitrie Cantemir and Ali Ufuqi (Ufki) repertoire with modern Turkish tunings, Bezmara are an exception to this.
Al Kindi uses Julien Weiss' tunings for the pieces ('Parfums Ottomans'),which is really a perfect compromise between current Arab/Turkish and Persian intonations thereby creating a sort of musical bridge between these three modern schools.

If played with the old tunings the maqamat Rast, Segah and Saba are equivalent to the current East Arab ones and maqam Hijaz instantly sounds 'Persian'.
Also famous Turkish players like tanburi Necdet Yasar add an extra fret for the neutral second in maqam Ushshaq (Ussak) and name this fret the 'Ussak note' (Karl Signell, 'Makam..'), notes that occur in practice are not fully accounted for in the theory.







Jono Oud N.Z - 5-22-2013 at 01:32 PM

The sharp symbol in Turkish maqam is not a full-sharp.
Another symbol is used for the full sharp.
This confused me for some time as the flat symbol is the full flat.

[file]26818[/file]

So the F# in Hijaz is the note nim hijaz in modern Turkish maqam music, whereas before 1750-80 it was played as the note hijaz, the major third.

[file]26820[/file] (C# here, actually played G# - Turkish tuning).

Before 1750-80 the second was also a neutral second - segah (like the current Arab and Iranian) pitch. So both the second and third were higher, further than western tempered 'piano' Hijaz than today, as the neutral second is noticeable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlRxEnnl0v0 (Persian music, Homayoun)

The note nim hijaz and segah are both lower in the modern Arabic maqam and are neutral intervals (around 2.5 commas flat) rather than 1 comma flat intervals.




Brian Prunka - 5-22-2013 at 03:19 PM

I don't think this is exactly correct.

The sharp symbol is a true major third (5:4). Western ET has raised the third higher (though it is still typically performed lower whenever practical).

The "other symbol" that you're saying is used for "full sharp" is really for a note higher than the full sharp (at least in theory).
That note is not hijaz, it is tik hijaz, correct? Hijaz is hijaz, nim hijaz would be even lower than hijaz.

Nim hijaz should be a different note; which would be the second note of hijaz from buselik, substantially lower than the third of hijaz. Assuming that we are talking about theoretical 9 comma division.



Jono Oud N.Z - 5-22-2013 at 05:36 PM

Hi.

The notes for Turkish hijaz:

'Dügâh, Dik Kürdi, Nim Hicaz, Nevâ, Hüseyni, Eviç, Gerdaniye ve Muhayyer’ (Hicaz notes)

http://www.eksd.org.tr/makamlar/hicaz_makami_yeni.php

In the Cantemir Notations by Owen Wright, he puts the old key signature for Hijaz /Uzzal with C full sharp (hijaz, third sharp symbol down here) and Bd, and also the modern key signature with C# and B-b-.
[file]26822[/file]

There are 4 sharp symbols here.

When I transpose the Turkish / Ottoman pieces to Arabic notation I use the Arabic system, so # represents a full sharp.
I realise that there are some subtle differences with the way that these notes are played in modern Arab maqam music in maqam Hijaz.

There did not used to be so many notes in Turkish makam music until 1750 - 1780.
So Hijaz maqam used to use the note hijaz but now uses nim hicaz in the Turkish maqam (as well as tik kurdi in place of segah which it previously used).

As you said the third of Rast - segah is considered to be a true major third today whereas it used to use a neutral third (Turkish maqam)..

Turkish, East Arab and Persian music used to use the same system.
This has been proven by Walter Feldman (Music of the Ottoman Court') who compared the fretting of the Persian setar with the Ottoman tanbur in Cantemir's book; it was the same.
Quote:

(C# here, actually played G# - Turkish tuning).


My mistake, I do not know how to write the hijaz note here on the keyboard, lol. :)

[file]26824[/file]

The attempt at the removal of the 'Arab quarter-tones' from modern Turkish theory is discussed here:

[file]26826[/file]
[file]26828[/file] [file]26830[/file]

(from:http://www.ozanyarman.com/files/doctorate_thesis.pdf)



Brian Prunka - 5-22-2013 at 07:54 PM

The symbol marked "5" in the table you post would seem to be significantly higher than the true M3 and probably closer to the pythagorean M3. Are you saying that the historical evidence points to the usage of this note as the third of hijaz?

I can't think of an instance in Arabic music where this note would ever be used.

The /b and # symbols are mirror images intervallically (one is 4 commas up, the other is 4 commas down). They are close to the just M3 and m2 in the case of Hijaz.
The resulting interval structure is:
1 (5/9) 2 (12/9) 3 (5/9) 4

This is almost exactly the same as just intonation, the m2 is 1.48¢ sharp (anything less than 2 cents is generally considered inaudible), and the M3 is 1.40¢ flat.

In fact, a very close approximation of the Turkish 9 comma system would use just and Pythagorean intervals for the smaller and larger versions of the intervals.

Arguably, the second and third would be indistiguishible from their just counterparts, except that the resulting augmented second interval between them is now 2.88¢ smaller! Which is just barely perceptible as a different interval. If you played those four notes without expressing the A2 interval, you wouldn't be able to discern the difference (for example: D Eb G F#, G F# D Eb, Eb D F# G, etc).

The 4 comma minor second is essentially indistinguishable (0.34¢ higher) from the Pythagorean version. The 18 comma major third is only 0.28¢ lower than the Pythagorean major third, again indistinguishable.

If we use the 8 comma major second (aka minor whole tone) and 18 comma major third (as you are suggesting was old practice), we get:
1 (8/9) 2 (10/9) 3 (4/9) 4

If the second was the 7 comma neutral second, you would have:
1 (7/9) 2 (11/9) 3 (4/9) 4

If the second was the 6 comma neutral second, you get:
1 (6/9) 2 (12/9) 3 (4/9) 4

This last one interestingly results in the A2 being the same as in current practice but shifted one comma higher.

If the second was the 6 comma neutral second and the 3rd the 17 comma Major third:
1 (6/9) 2 (11/9) 3 (5/9) 4


Some observations:

While the Segah note is nearly indistinguishable from a pure M3 when in Rast, it is noticeably lower than the pure M2 in Bayyati/Ussak. Why?

Because a pure M3 consists of a large whole step plus a small whole step, while a pure M2 is just a large whole step. What we are doing is replacing the large whole step with the small whole step, essentially.

From the 9 comma standpoint, a "large whole step" is the full 9 commas. This results in an interval that is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the Pythagorean whole step, which is the traditional "large" whole step in Western and other music (and is what the Turkish theory was based on).
The 8 comma whole step is the small whole step.
This coincides with the difference between a Pythagorean M3 and a standard Just M3 (which is, in fact, the origin of the Turkish comma; it was just simplified to make the division of the whole step divisions even).

Typical Western C major (just) or C Rast (Theoretical Turkish):
C (large whole step) D (small whole step) E(d) (large half step) F
For Turkish Bayati, we get:
D (small whole step) Ed (large half step) F (large whole step) G
For Just Western minor and Turkish Buselik/Nahawand
D (large whole step) E (large half step) F (small whole step) G
For Just Western Phrygian:
D (large half step) Eb (large whole step) F (small whole step) G
Arguably, Phrygian can also be performed as:
D (small half step) Eb (large whole step) F (large whole step) G
(this would be Pythagorean intonation)

Arabic Rast:
C (large whole step) D (neutral step) E/b (neutral step) F
Arabic Bayati:
D (neutral step) E/b (neutral step) F (large whole step) G


My suspicion is that Turkish theorists' mathematical bent has influenced practice (as you seem to indicate by your statement that Turkish music didn't used to have so many nortes).

Now, let's conjecture for a moment: we know that the 9 comma system was developed for convenience, in order to have a repeatable equal division that resulted in usable intervals (essentially 53TET). It is very unlikely that the intervals used before this system was adopted could be described exactly using the new terminology; hence my guess that it is mostly that the meaning of the name "hijaz" that has changed.
If Turkish Segah used to be lower, then possibly Turkish Hijaz may also have been lower? In which case, it is the name of hijaz that has changed, and not the pitch.

It seems pretty clear that the pitch of the second note of Hijaz has changed. It is not clear to me that the third note has actually gotten lower; are you saying that it has been proven that the Persian and Ottoman frets indicate that the (near) Pythagorean third was actually used for Hijaz? Which would be interesting if true.

Brian Prunka - 5-22-2013 at 08:03 PM

Short version:

What exactly is the evidence that the hijaz note as performed at the time of the "old" Ottoman music was actually the higher (Pythagorean, or nearly) F#, not the lower (Just, or nearly) F#?

This is very interesting stuff, by the way, it has helped clarify the Turkish theory for me quite a bit.

Jono Oud N.Z - 5-22-2013 at 08:36 PM

Hi.

Really good work.:)
I find the maths quite confusing.
You know the ratios much more precisely than me.

You have an excellent point about the possibility of the name changing and not the note.

I am trying to find the answer to this.
Thanks for bringing this up, I am keen to clarify this as well.

Maqam Nishabour (Nisabur) had the note hijaz as the major second (rather than medium second, Cantemir); so E (buselik), F# (hijaz), G (nawa), A (huseyni), bb (ajam), C (kardani), D (muhayyar) and eb (sunbule). (Most of the old Nisahabour pieces do not reach the octave - tiz buselik).
This is equivalent to Arabic Nishabour.

Also it is interesting that in Rast pieces the note iraq is often substituted with qawasht (B, gevest) in closing cadences in the Cantemir repertoire.
Maqam Panjgah (Pencgah) uses a combination of maqam Nishabour and maqam Rast (Cantemir's description of Panjgah being a mixture of the two and therefore being a compound maqam).

Maqam Nishabour From D'Erlanger's 'La Musique Arabe'

[file]26837[/file] [file]26835[/file]

Is the major second the Pythagorean or the Just one?
I am not sure.

The old frettings and tunings seem to have evolved from the 17 note scale in use in the Middle Ages.
Not every maqam was transposable.
This is the case with current Persian music.
Quote:

From the 9 comma standpoint, a "large whole step" is the full 9 commas. This results in an interval that is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the Pythagorean whole step, which is the traditional "large" whole step in Western and other music (and is what the Turkish theory was based on). The 8 comma whole step is the small whole step. This coincides with the difference between a Pythagorean M3 and a standard Just M3 (which is, in fact, the origin of the Turkish comma; it was just simplified to make the division of the whole step divisions even).


Thanks!:)
This has helped me understand the system much more.

There is some connection with the newer Turkish system and the Byzantine one as well.
I am still learning about this.






Brian Prunka - 5-23-2013 at 09:02 AM

From D'Erlanger, it would seem that it is the just F# and not the Pythaogrean one, since he characterizes the first jins as "Tsahar-gah" (i.e., Chahargah/Jiharkah) on Re, which would characteristically have the lower third degree.

Jono Oud N.Z - 5-23-2013 at 12:35 PM

Thanks.

So the F# would be the this Just major third of Jiharkah on D then.
Some of D'Erlangers descriptions of the jins do not always match the taqasim examples.
Jins Nishabour is not mentioned even though it one of the main jins along with Buselik on G.

Modern Turkish Nishabour (Nisabur):
http://www.eksd.org.tr/makamlar/nisabur_makami.php
Here the C# (Turkish tuning, F# Arabic tuning) is as you said, the Just interval according to modern Turkish tuning, and also the same C# of Turkish Hijaz (Hicaz).

(Sidetrack):
It is interesting to me that the scale of Nishabour is like the Jazz mode called 'Locrian #2' - E, F#, G, A, bb, c, d, e.
This could be an effective mode in Jazz/Mid East fusion styles.
I will transpose a piece soon.

(Back to the subject):
Maqam Mahur:
http://www.eksd.org.tr/makamlar/mahur_makami_yeni.php (Turkish tuning):
Here is a piece in maqam Mahur in Turkish notation.
[file]26839[/file]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5qfJLnRGeg
The 'full sharp' or third symbol on the list is used for the F#.
This is alternated with the Rast third, the lower F# in the first bar of the Taslim.
When Mahur is transposed to Arabic key the F# becomes B natural.
[file]26842[/file]

I wonder if this is a Just or Pythagorean third?


This contrast of thirds is employed in the Persian Dastgah Mahour as well in gushe-ye Shekaste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dastg%C4%81h-e_M%C4%81hur
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=66ylh50EUaAC&pg=PA71&lpg...

Brian Prunka - 5-23-2013 at 02:45 PM

In Arabic Mahur, I believe the contrast is between the half-flat and just third.

In Turkish, it would seem from the notation that it would be between the (slightly low) just third and the Pythagorean third. This is conceptually similar, but with a different result of course.

edit: from the recording posted, it would seem the practice is quite a bit more complicated. The backwards flat intervals are played lower than theory would suggest much of the time. The # and extra-sharp intervals sound to me closer to what theory suggests, although sometimes the # intervals are also played a bit lower.

D'Erlanger may be incorrect about the jins; it seems odd that he would characterize it as starting from D when the tonic seems to be E. However, since the scale contains a Bb instead of a B natural, it is plausible that the F# is just. If the scale contained a B natural, it would certainly be Pythagorean, and the F# would have pressure to match it. Without a B natural, it could go either way.

Jono Oud N.Z - 5-23-2013 at 03:04 PM

Hi.

That is that sorted:).

I agree, in practice this seems complicated.
In the the thesis on Tunings I linked to, the difference between the 'accepted theory' and the actual practice in Turkish music today contains the answers to this predicament I think.
It seems to have more to do with politics than music, although the Turkish segah pitch was definitely on its way up from 1780.

Just found this helpful information:

'By Abdulbaki Dede's time (1795) the segah note had probably already begun it's journey upward, so that the distance between it and the note buselik would have been approximately a comma, as it is today. It is apparently this note, one comma below buselik which was called 'nisabur' in the later 18th century. By the middle of the 19th century (at the latest) it became accepted as the higher version of the note segah and was no longer named nisabur.'

Due to the segah pitch being played higher by this time Abdulbaki Dede writes in 1795:

'There is no doubt of the absurdity of (placing) an obstructed (or 'closed', mesdud) note below the note buselik (buselik tahtina), called nisabur with the distance of an irha (comma) on the tanbur. Due to the fact that between buselik and segah there is the distance in the gamut from yegah to tiz huseyni, even if there one were to create a note, the difference would be extremely hidden.'

(Walter Feldman - 'Music of the Ottoman Court', page 213).

It does seem though, that musicians that play the Turkish style seem to play the third of Rast lower than notated, it does sound noticeably different to Ajam/Mahur type maqamat.

Personally I think the neutral thirds (and seconds) are more effective, especially when contrasted with the major thirds in the Mahur Samai and the Persian modulation.
(As you said the musicians that play the Turkish style still seem to play the segah note flatter than written, but they play it slightly higher than a neutral third).

So there were originally three types of third and three types of second (at least, from roughly Abbasid to Cantemir times).
Some instruments are unable to articulate the slightly flatter segah in Bayati employed in current Arab maqam music, but the oud is fine and the voice of course.


spartan - 5-24-2013 at 01:24 AM

Quote: Originally posted by elreyrico  
hi

I have a (maybe studid) question about the makam Hicaz :

why do the note "Hicaz" itself, which gives its name to the scale, is actually not played ? and is "replaced" by "nim hicaz".

any theoritical explanation ?


As you see your question was not stupid at all.

First of all thanks for the nice conversation both Jono and Brian.
I would like to contribute to this, but I'm very bad in maths and I couldnt bring some good scientific arguments.

My point of view:
The adoption of european notation had some negative effects, despite the well known positive ones.
It was impossible to create a notation like this and cover all different traditions from all Middle East.
The main problem is not the right intervals, or the exact position of Hijaz note, but the way Hijaz maqam is expressed in Greece, Armenia, Turkey, Arab countries, Iran, Azerbaidjan and everywhere else through the ages.
The different approach of Hijaz in various countries isnot a disadvantage but a sample of the richness of the modal system.

On the other hand the need to transcript all these in european notation was a compromise. Τhe importation of western instruments I guess had exacerbate this.

In Scott Marcus' treatise about "Arabic Music Theory in modern period" p. 213-228 is discussed the issue of "shrunken" augmented seconds.
It's also mentionned how many (about 4) different intervals of hijaz maqam existed.

Also Byzantine chromatic modes always existed in two versions. Both tempered and non-tempered.
Thats also evident even in traditional pieces, different versions of Hijaz existed in the same tradition

Jono Oud N.Z - 5-24-2013 at 02:55 PM

Hey:).
Quote:

The main problem is not the right intervals, or the exact position of Hijaz note, but the way Hijaz maqam is expressed in Greece, Armenia, Turkey, Arab countries, Iran, Azerbaidjan and everywhere else through the ages. The different approach of Hijaz in various countries isnot a disadvantage but a sample of the richness of the modal system.


Absolutely!
The variety is not a problem at all, just different ways of expressing the mood of the modes, which is the main point.

There used to be more unity than today as far as the three major eastern modern schools go; Turkish, Arab and Persian before 1750.
I am reading as much as possible from these sources as well as Byzantine, Armenian, Azeri, Central Asian etc.
Recently I got a book of translations of (and the original Persian) two treatise from Iran and Central Asia describing the maqamat, bashraf and usul in the period from the 16th to the 18th centuries.

http://www.amazon.com/Two-Treatises-Two-Streams-Treatises-Post-Scho...

It seems that in the Timurid/Safavid/Early Ottoman periods for example that musicians would utilise the same theory and repertoire in the same system from Samarkand and Herat to Tabriz to Azerbaijan to Egypt to Turkey (etc).