PDA

مشاهدة جميع الاصدارات : Question about vocal genres



jenni
20-11-2011, 03:41
What is the difference between

Dawr
Muwashshah
Qasida
Monologue
Dialogue (besides the fact that it's between two singers)
Taqtuqa


Since I've been listening to lots of Egyptian music lately, I guess it would be best to get definitions for that context, (if there is a difference between countries).

Thanks,
Jenni

Bassio
20-11-2011, 13:30
I am not an expert, so anyone can correct me here.

But to give some quick hints:

A taqtuqa is a light-weight song. The form can be easily recognized since it is similar to that of a Rondo. It is usually sung in local Egyptian Arabic dialect (unlike a qasida, which is almost always in classical Arabic).

A qasida is a more improvisatory form. The rhythm and tempo used is mostly uniform throughout. The performer modulates through the maqams, to end the piece after returning to the original maqam.

A monologue is kind of a free-form piece.

A dialogue is a duet.

Muwashah: not sure

Dawr: this is the most glorious form of Arabic Music. It usually starts with an introductory musical statement called a dulab. This is followed by the opening lyric (called mazhab, I believe), usually sung by the singer + the *usually two* mazhabgiyya. The mazhab is the constant piece of the dawr (i.e. the composed stable part) The performer then delves into the rest of the piece in an improvisatory fashion. By tradition, in the middle of many dors, there is an "Ahat" section where the performer and mazhabgiyya alternate singing "ah ah". The performer at the end is expected to end the piece by returning to the original maqam, just as you would end a classical sonata.

Although the dawr is improvisatory in nature, many performers sing their own personalized semi-composed versions. You can also think of a "dawr composition" as a skeleton or blueprint, which the performer should elaborate into a more detailed form.

PS You also forgot the mawwal.

Cheers

أبو علاء
20-11-2011, 15:01
Bassio has answered to a great extent. Further elaborations are still required to have a better understanding of thes genres. You should buy the Manyalawi box set to know more on this, especially if you can read/understand Arabic. :)
This said,


I am not an expert, so anyone can correct me here.

A taqtuqa is a light-weight song. The form can be easily recognized since it is similar to that of a Rondo. It is usually sung in local Egyptian Arabic dialect
and made of a recurrent initial section called madhhab and several sections called ghusn (pl. 'aghsan) where only the lyrics change while the melody is always the same and which are separated by the repetition of the madhhab. This was the case until the end of the twenties when younger "modernist" composers such as Zakariya 'ahmad, Qasabgi, Sunbati...etc started making taqtuqas where each ghusn featured a different melody. This late form then evolved in parallel with the monologue and sometimes in combination with it into the "modern " song ('ughniya) illustrated by many titles interpreted by 'um kalthum .(and so many other male and female singers) from the mid fourties onward




A qasida is a more improvisatory form. The rhythm and tempo used is mostly uniform throughout. The performer modulates through the maqams, to end the piece after returning to the original maqam.

This is the qasida muwaqqa'ah i.e a rythmic piece, which is one of the two sub-categories of qasida, the other sub-category being the qasida mursalah, which has no rythm at all and which is comparable to the mawwal. In both cases the melody is improvisatory and does not follow a rythmic pattern. But, the lyrics language is literary Arabic in the qasida and dialect in the mawwal.


A monologue is kind of a free-form piece.
of lyrical origin and/or origin/inspiration. Unlike the taqtuqa, the text itself here is conceived as a monologue carrying a meditative content or some emotional considerations, complaints...etc. The melody, which is much more elaborate than in the taqtuqa carries no repetition at all. The sentences are complex ones arranged in a sometimes linear and in other cases (most of them?) circular structure. A host of good illustation of this genre can be found in the thread dedicated to the monologues Qasabgi composed for 'um kalhtum.




Dawr: this is the most glorious form of Arabic Music. It usually starts with an introductory musical statement called a dulab. This is followed by the opening lyric (called mazhab, I believe), usually sung by the singer + the *usually two* mazhabgiyya. The mazhab is the constant piece of the dawr (i.e. the composed stable part) The performer then delves into the rest of the piece in an improvisatory fashion. By tradition, in the middle of many dors, there is an "Ahat" section where the performer and mazhabgiyya alternate singing "ah ah". The performer at the end is expected to end the piece by returning to the original maqam, just as you would end a classical sonata.


The dulab is not part of the dawr. Actually it is a common short instrumental prelude (or an interlude, if it is played in the context of a wasla) that might as well be used to introduce a qasida, a muwashshah or even a taqsim that prepares a mawwal.
The "rest of the piece" is made of one(ghusn) or several 'aghsan from the point of view of the lyrics. But have nothing to do with the sections of the taqtuqa on the musical side. The interpretation of the ghusn starts by reproducing all or part of the melody of the madhhab, but then that melody is developed in an improvisatory exloratory way. Very often, the 'ahat section is a transitory one that prepares a dynamic section called hank and made of an organised exchange between the solo singer (mutrib) and choral members (madhhabgiya) whereby the latter repeat short predetermined sentences in response to the improvisatory variations produced by the former. Now neither the 'ahat nor the hank have always been mandatory in the dawr structure. Both belong to a relatively recent stage in the development of the genre (the last third of the 19th century) and were part of innovations introduced by Muhammd 'uthman and 'abdu Al-hamuli. The use of madhhbgiya is somehow related to the introduction of those innovative features and probably started more or less in the same period.
Although this remains a dominant characteristic in mawwal, dawr and qasida (let alone the muwashshah), the reverting to the initial maqam in the end of those pieces is not a must and many examples can be found where the piece is concluded in a different maqam and/or part of the octave where it is clearly not due to a time constraint caused by the limited duration of the 78 rpm records.

jenni
25-11-2011, 22:22
Thank you both for your knowledge!!


Okay, I think I'm finally getting the feel of "Taqtuqa"... can the "madhhab" be likened to a "chorus" and the "ghusn" a "verse"?
It seems like a lot of NajaH salam pieces are taqtuqas, is this correct? And also, would it be accurate to say that the madhhab is usually repeated with a chorus (ensemble) while the soloist does the aghsaan?


For the monologue, is a piece like "yalli kan yishgeek anini" considered one? It seems very free-form to me...


thank you in advance
Jenni

أبو علاء
26-11-2011, 01:15
Okay, I think I'm finally getting the feel of "Taqtuqa"... can the "madhhab" be likened to a "chorus" and the "ghusn" a "verse"?
It seems like a lot of NajaH salam pieces are taqtuqas, is this correct? And also, would it be accurate to say that the madhhab is usually repeated with a chorus (ensemble) while the soloist does the aghsaan?

A triple yes, except that in the first and last instances, the madhhab is interpreted by the soloist singer on his own.


For the monologue, is a piece like "yalli kan yishgeek anini" considered one? It seems very free-form to me...

Except in a few cases (ya lilti-l-'id, dhalamuni-n-nas, nasra qawiya...) of elaborate taqtuqas (where each ghusn has its own melody), most of 'um kalthum songs from the fourties onward were built according to a sort of synthetic mould that combines elements of the monologue and the developed taqtuqa. For instance, in pieces like ya tul 'adhabi, ghanna-r-rabi', sahran liwahdi, gaddidti hubbak, shamsi-l-'asil...etc, there is a recurrent segment that would stand for madhhab (bu'di-l-habib; winta ya ghayib; 'atsawwar hali; 'inta-n-na'im wi-l-hana; winnay....). But, it is only part of the introductory section, which is much longer and much more elaborate than the traditional madhhab so that the initial part of it (that is not further repeated) could stand for a ghusn by its own, which makes the song structure quite similar to the one of the semai or pesrev (in this analogy, the initial one off section is more or less the equivalent of the first hane, whereas the second recurrent part is comparable to the taslim). Other titles, seem closer to the monologue (ya qalbi bukra-s-safar, raqqi-l-habib, el-'awwila, hulm, hallit layali-l-qamar...), and I would say yalli kan pertains to the latter, although it has a singular feature consisting in the repetition of a given section ('izzit gamalak fin) that comes first in the end of the introductory section; it is then followed by another section in the same mode (fidhilt-ahafidh 'ala 'ahdi) and thereafter repeated once and no longer comes back until the end of the song... Therefore, your description of a "free form" sounds correct. But, there are always similarities and connections with the prior genres.

jenni
02-12-2011, 07:02
The dulab is not part of the dawr. Actually it is a common short instrumental prelude (or an interlude, if it is played in the context of a wasla) that might as well be used to introduce a qasida, a muwashshah or even a taqsim that prepares a mawwal.
The "rest of the piece" is made of one(ghusn) or several 'aghsan from the point of view of the lyrics. But have nothing to do with the sections of the taqtuqa on the musical side. The interpretation of the ghusn starts by reproducing all or part of the melody of the madhhab, but then that melody is developed in an improvisatory exloratory way. Very often, the 'ahat section is a transitory one that prepares a dynamic section called hank and made of an organised exchange between the solo singer (mutrib) and choral members (madhhabgiya) whereby the latter repeat short predetermined sentences in response to the improvisatory variations produced by the former. Now neither the 'ahat nor the hank have always been mandatory in the dawr structure. Both belong to a relatively recent stage in the development of the genre (the last third of the 19th century) and were part of innovations introduced by Muhammd 'uthman and 'abdu Al-hamuli. The use of madhhbgiya is somehow related to the introduction of those innovative features and probably started more or less in the same period.
Although this remains a dominant characteristic in mawwal, dawr and qasida (let alone the muwashshah), the reverting to the initial maqam in the end of those pieces is not a must and many examples can be found where the piece is concluded in a different maqam and/or part of the octave where it is clearly not due to a time constraint caused by the limited duration of the 78 rpm records.

[/LEFT]


I don't think I'm quite understanding the dawr... to what extent is it improvised? Some of them seem way more improvised than others. What is the "blueprint" they are given before interpreting? obviously the poem and initial maqam... but are they given the modulations/development of maqamat? Are they given certain "time limits" (or limits according to the iqaa'at), or before the madhabgiyya come back in?

Basically, I would like to know, especially because it's an oral tradition (correct?), what information will the "composer" give to the singer before he/she performs it, and how "prepared" is the ensemble before it is performed?

Musical examples would help if possible, as there are so many dawrs.

أبو علاء
02-12-2011, 15:52
I don't think I'm quite understanding the dawr... to what extent is it improvised? Some of them seem way more improvised than others. What is the "blueprint" they are given before interpreting? obviously the poem and initial maqam... but are they given the modulations/development of maqamat? Are they given certain "time limits" (or limits according to the iqaa'at), or before the madhabgiyya come back in?

Basically, I would like to know, especially because it's an oral tradition (correct?), what information will the "composer" give to the singer before he/she performs it, and how "prepared" is the ensemble before it is performed?
Musical examples would help if possible, as there are so many dawrs.
Is this really all you want to know?:)
Ok. Oral tradition? Of course. Especially when talking about the repertoire from the 19th and early 20th centuries, this doesn't only mean that the music was not written, but also that it was not rigidly fixed and, depending on the various genres, what was initially crafted by the composer or the primary interpreter was more of a general canvass that the subsequent successive interpreters put in shape and filled in differently each according to their own genius and vocal capacities. More or less substantive variations could be found including in various performances by the same interpreter based inter alia on his/her momentary mood at the time of the performance and on the response of the audience...etc.
The muwashshah was the genre least prone to variation and improvisation. The mawwal stands on the opposite edge in that it is an exercise of shear improvisation with no presets, even though one could spot some recurrent micro-elements, which either emanated from the performances of outstanding interpreters to become a more or less standard feature or even a stereotype replicated by less gifted performers or were reproduced by the same interpreter who invented them in his subsequent performances.
The dawr comes next to the mawwal in terms of the amount of instant improvisation and maybe less synchronous additions/personalisations that are still of the interpreter's own contribution. Generally speaking, the madhhab is the only fixed precomposed section totally owed to the "composer" or the initial interpreter. For whatever comes after, the interpreter is provided only with a rough canvass and a number of milestones to which he's expected to give a fuller shape and "filling" of his own. Again, leading performers do progressively develop their own personal interpretation of a given dawr that becomes a reference for themselves throughout their various performances thereof, but also for other less seasoned and/or less gifted interpreters who mainly reproduce one of those interpretations or combine elements from various interpretations.
Now, you have to bear in mind two things. First, the genre has changed much over approximately a century of life between the thirties of the 19th and of the 20th century. It evolved from an extremely simple structure very close to that of the Aleppine qadd or the taqtuqa that was still to come to existence several decades later basically made of one madhhab and two or more ghusns ('aghsan) featuring the same melody (e.g. ya hliwa ya msallini, gaddidi ya nafsu hadhdhak, ya mas'adi-s-subhiya...etc) to be interpreted all the way by a solo singer without any elaboration, 'ahat, hank...etc (yet, those so called primary 'adwar could be easily distinguished from qudud and taqatiq owing to an intrepretative approach all but simplistic or minimalist - if you listen to ya hliwa ya msallini as interprted by Sabah Fakhri or Sayyid Makkawi, you can hardly see what differentiates it from any qadd or taqtuqa; but try and listen to 'abdi-l-hay Hilmi or 'ahmad Salim Al-'aguz singing it and you'll see what I mean!) to a much more elaborate structure with the introduction of 'ahat and madhhabgiya and the invention of hank (kadni-l-hawa, sallimti ruhak, min qabli mahwa-l-gamal, 'asri-l-hawa wi-l-gamal​...). On the other hand, the recorded material that reached us thanks to the record industry unfortunately doesn't provide us with "historic" performances that would have informed us on the status of interpretation of the dawr in general and of specific (old) titles in particular in various stages between, let's say 1840-50 and 1900, so as to figure out how the interpretation itself had evolved in the meantime. It only informs us on the status reached at the onset of the record industry at the turn of the century and that probably prevailed or, at least, was more or less shaped in the mid-nineties of the twentieth century. It also allows us to study more closely the evolution occurred between the early recordings date and the thirties of the twentieth when the dawr ended up becoming a fully composed piece commissioned by the recording company and assigned to a given performer whose personal input was thence limited to a few ornamentations (cf late Husni and Qabbani compositions interpreted by Safti, 'um kalthum and others whose names I mentioned in a previous comment) before its official death.