PDA

„‘«ŚŌ… Ő„Ūŕ «Š«’Ō«—«  : Sami El Shawa - Taqsim Garkah (With Sigah Baladi Colouring)



AlfLeila
22-01-2012, 21:35
after some discussion in other parts of the forum regarding Sigah Baladi, I'm uploading this taqsim by Sami El Shawa

√»ś ŕŠ«Ń
23-01-2012, 23:26
Alfleila, I don't agree on your classifying this taqsim as a sikah baladi one. It does contain some sikah baladi colouring, but the fundamental mode is gaharkah as far as I can judge. And by the way, it is far below the usual level of Shawwa's taqasim.

AlfLeila
24-01-2012, 03:24
Alfleila, I don't agree on your classifying this taqsim as a sikah baladi one. It does contain some sikah baladi colouring, but the fundamental mode is gaharkah as far as I can judge.
i'll have to remain in contention here and stick to the call of sigah baladi.. sigah baladi's main contrast with sigah is that it's qarar subsists on a whole note instead of a usual sigah quarter note; this may account for a lighter feel when played in a certain fashion..



And by the way, it is far below the usual level of Shawwa's taqasim.
really? i like this piece.. ok, to each his own

jenni
31-01-2012, 07:18
Sorry, Alfleila, but I will have to agree with Abu Ala here; I definitely hear more jiharka with some sikah-baladi interjections.

But thank you for posting, nonetheless, because what I was really interested in was jiharka anyway, and why I was hearing some notes lower than in a western major scale (not referring to the quarter tone obviously) in the qanun taqsim that was posted. So that answers my question and confirms my prediction that these musicians are definitely not "out of tune" but rather first notes of jiharka are not played in the same way as a "major scale" which is what I was trying to hear.... from what I can tell, in comparison to a major scale, the 3rd and 4th notes are lower.

Also, where is this musician from? It's sort of an unusual taqsim, but maybe it's just that I'm not very used to jiharka.

Thanks,
Jenni

√»ś ŕŠ«Ń
31-01-2012, 17:01
Also, where is this musician from? It's sort of an unusual taqsim, but maybe it's just that I'm not very used to jiharka.

Jenni, Sámi Ash-shawwá is Syrian and he's probably the best Arab violonist ever. Anyway, he's the most renowned one ('ibráhím Sáhlún who came just before him was also a very good one). Shawwá was a Christian Aleppine. His father Antoine is said to be the one who "imported" the Western violin and introduced it in the oriental takht. Sámi started playing with professional ensembles very early (at the age of sixteen) and he accompanied every single important soloist singer in the Near East between 1905 and 1935 from the records of Manyaláwi and Hilmí to the early recordings of 'um kalthúm. Check the index for more about him and his works!

AlfLeila
01-02-2012, 07:03
Sorry, Alfleila, but I will have to agree with Abu Ala here; I definitely hear more jiharka with some sikah-baladi interjections.
again, i am unequivocally imputting this piece to sigah baladi.. please listen to the demostrations of sigah baladi in shams el aseel or qulli da kan leh for example, or any display of this maqam out of the plethora of sigah baladi exhibitions.


But thank you for posting, nonetheless, because what I was really interested in was jiharka anyway, and why I was hearing some notes lower than in a western major scale (not referring to the quarter tone obviously) in the qanun taqsim that was posted. So that answers my question and confirms my prediction that these musicians are definitely not "out of tune" but rather first notes of jiharka are not played in the same way as a "major scale" which is what I was trying to hear.... from what I can tell, in comparison to a major scale, the 3rd and 4th notes are lower.
there are several points bellowing elucidation..

jiharkah is not the scale ajam. ajam is the major scale, its qarar is on C-rast. its intervals are 1-1-1/2-1-1-1-1/2. on the whole when ajam is perormed in arabic music it is transposed to b flat, then called ajam ushairan.

jiharkah is the F note, when the scale of ajam is transposed to the jiharkah note it is called sazkar. not to be confused with the turkish sazkar, which is simply the scale of rast, but with special emphasis on the bayati and sigah jins which reside within the rast octave. even though it is infact rast, a new name emerges from its specific sayir.

jiharkah as a scale is jins ajam on F-jiharkah and upper jins rast on mahur. however universal partice of jiharka's sayir dictate a descent from jins ajam DOWN to rast on C-rast. which makes jiharka's de facto structure: jins rast on rast, upper jins ajam on jiharkah. when performing the maqam, we develop the ajam portion first before resolving on rast.
some examples of jiharkah are dawoud hosni's dawr 'bil eish ana albi hani', the mowashahs 'anta sultan el milah' & 'al rozana'.




Also, where is this musician from?

i nearly choked on my soda while reading that ;)

jenni
04-02-2012, 23:00
again, i am unequivocally imputting this piece to sigah baladi.. please listen to the demostrations of sigah baladi in shams el aseel or qulli da kan leh for example, or any display of this maqam out of the plethora of sigah baladi exhibitions.

I just listened to Shams el aseel like you suggested and that sikah baladi sounds nothing like what you are insisting is sikah baladi in this taqsim. Same with "yalli kan yishgeek anini" as well as the Abraham Salman qanun taqsim posted prior to your comment directing to this thread.

I know that jiharka is different from ajam... forgive me; I should have clarified that I am mainly asking about the first tetrachord in each, which technically has the same intervals as one another and also as the first four notes of a western "major" scale.
What my question was and I think was misunderstood was that I hear the last two notes of that tetrachord lower than in a western major scale... and this recording, (if we are correct about hearing it in jiharka), confirms that prediction.

We can agree that the very first note played in this is the main note, right?

Isn't sikah baladi supposed to have a quarter tone as the second note? So why is it that I hear the second note of the scale 1 whole step apart from the first? It is only the 3rd and 4th note which seem lower, but I think (and this is what I'm trying to confirm) that is just the typical/correct way to play maqam jiharka...if there's one thing I've learned about maqamat, it's that you can't rely on visualization/knowing the exact intervals entirely because the intervals are never "cut-and-dry" and change a lot according to context.
The 2nd note of the maqam remains 1 whole step from the 1st until the 26 second where he clearly lowers it, giving us a hint of sikah baladi. Then at second 35, there is another very clear change.
If surrounding 26 and 35 seconds he is playing sikah baladi, then what would you call 26 and 35? (And I can point out other changes too as there are many if it'd make it easier to answer my question.)

AlfLeila
06-02-2012, 01:00
hi jenni, some terse remarks below. i'm without a laptob for the next few weeks and answering now from my iphone, which is more than prohibitive :(


What my question was and I think was misunderstood was that I hear the last two notes of that tetrachord lower than in a western major scale... but I think (and this is what I'm trying to confirm) that is just the typical/correct way to play maqam jiharka...
ajam and the western major scale are notated identically and performed the same. ajam's notes are not lowered at all. if speaking about flattening a note, we need to be clear in what measure: half or quarter. a "slight" lowering or sharpening, with no defined degree, results in nashaz (an undesired dissonance). if a note is indeed flattened by bona fide quarter tone, then the entire maqam changes. for instance, bayati and kurd are all of a 1/4 interval apart..

it's possible, and my guess at best, that your perception of slightly out of tune measures while listening to ajam, may be the result of the atonal and harmonic differences between middle-eastern and western music. i'll tangentially mention here that i have a strong aversion to the term 'atonal' when ascribed to classical arabic music. it connotes condescension by insinuating a lack of virtue in the abscence of harmony.. (that statement isn't directed at you at all, just felt the need to mention)


if there's one thing I've learned about maqamat, it's that you can't rely on visualization/knowing the exact intervals entirely because the intervals are never "cut-and-dry" and change a lot according to context.
oh my, no not at all. the notes and their respective intervals are constant. see the above.


We can agree that the very first note played in this is the main note, right?
if by 'main note' you mean the qarar (tonic), then yes.


Isn't sikah baladi supposed to have a quarter tone as the second note?
yes, 2nd n 3rd. essentially the entire scale is a succession of 3/4 and whole steps.


So why is it that I hear the second note of the scale 1 whole step apart from the first? It is only the 3rd and 4th note which seem lower
i have to apologize for my consistent discord, but it isn't a whole step it's a 3/4 interval between the natural and quarter flat. a diminutive distance which can easily be mistaken with a whole interval (or maybe i am the one mistaken, but i don't think so).
i mentioned briefly above that one of sigah baladi's stark difference with sigah is that is resolves on a whole note. while singing a sigah tricord you're making a leap from a quarter note to a whole note, in sigah baladi you are making the leap from a whole note to a quarter note. the interval is the same, but the notated succession is quite different. sigah baladi begets and almost identical phonic to jins sigah; almost but not exact.


The 2nd note of the maqam remains 1 whole step from the 1st until the 26 second where he clearly lowers it, giving us a hint of sikah baladi. Then at second 35, there is another very clear change.
i don't think our 'seconds' are matching up, i'm gaging from the start of the track, i dont know if you've started the count from when shawa starts playing.. in any case i don't fully understand the implied relevance. he's playing on different notes.. it's not as if you said for example "shawa played an f natural but went back and played an f sharp"..

jenni
06-02-2012, 05:21
ajam and the western major scale are notated identically and performed the same. ajam's notes are not lowered at all. if speaking about flattening a note, we need to be clear in what measure: half or quarter. a "slight" lowering or sharpening, with no defined degree, results in nashaz (an undesired dissonance). if a note is indeed flattened by bona fide quarter tone, then the entire maqam changes. for instance, bayati and kurd are all of a 1/4 interval apart..

it's possible, and my guess at best, that your perception of slightly out of tune measures while listening to ajam, may be the result of the atonal and harmonic differences between middle-eastern and western music. i'll tangentially mention here that i have a strong aversion to the term 'atonal' when ascribed to classical arabic music. it connotes condescension by insinuating a lack of virtue in the abscence of harmony.. (that statement isn't directed at you at all, just felt the need to mention)

I find your two above statements contradictory... In the first, you say that they are notated identically which is what I meant when I said they are "technically" the same. But you also say that they are performed exactly the same, and then you pointed out that there are atonal/harmonic differences between western and arabic music, which means they are not performed exactly the same.
And I'm not necessarily talking about ajam... my focus in this thread is on the first tetrachord of jiharka (which is also notated exactly the same as the first tetrachord in ajam and the first four notes of a western major scale.) And from what I can hear, the third and fourth notes of that tetrachord are lower in comparison to a western major scale. I don't know how else I can say this for you to understand what I mean... or maybe I'm not understanding you properly.

BTW, I'm not claiming to be super advanced or anything, but it's not necessary to go through all the intervals... I know all the basic maqamat very well and am classically (western) trained since the age of 5 so I can read music and understand the intervals in a mathematical/visual sense. I have been studying arabic music for the past two years and would never refer to it as "atonal" and also find the term condescending and incorrect.


oh my, no not at all. the notes and their respective intervals are constant. see the above.

Sorry, that is not true! Like I said in my last statement, the first four notes of jiharka are technically the same as the first four notes in a western major scale, or ajam. But you can't play the first four notes of jiharka correctly on a piano! For example, the first part of "anta Sultan" (which is concentrated on the first tetrachord) would not sound the same exact notes played on a piano compared to when Sabah Fakhri sings it.
Intervals even vary slightly in western music. For example, a minor "third" in classical western music is slightly different from a "third" in medieval western music. It is notated exactly the same, but this is where visualization simply isn't enough, and only the educated ear can hear the extremely slight difference.




i have to apologize for my consistent discord, but it isn't a whole step it's a 3/4 interval between the natural and quarter flat. a diminutive distance which can easily be mistaken with a whole interval (or maybe i am the one mistaken, but i don't think so).


I also apologize for my discord, but I have to stick to my guns here. The interval between the "qarar" (tonic) and the second note (not the second note that we hear, but the second note of the maqam, assuming the first note we hear is the tonic) is most certainly a whole step. Because at right second 26, it is lowered to be 3/4 from the qarar... I'm 99.99% certain of this. Though perhaps I'm going crazy ;)



i don't think our 'seconds' are matching up, i'm gaging from the start of the track, i dont know if you've started the count from when shawa starts playing.. in any case i don't fully understand the implied relevance. he's playing on different notes.. it's not as if you said for example "shawa played an f natural but went back and played an f sharp"..

Yes, he is playing a different note. In the beginning as I said above it is 1 whole step from the tonic, and at second 26 (this is seconds according to my media player, not by my own count) he plays a note that is 3/4 from the tonic. These notes don't exist in the same maqam which is why I said he "lowered it."

I'm not sure we are understanding one another.... There is a chance I am wrong, especially since you sound like you know your stuff, but I've listened to this taqsim a bunch of times, pausing it and playing back certain parts, etc.

It is hard to have technical discussions about music over the internet.
I wish someone else would chime in...

ovide
08-02-2012, 14:04
I actually do agree with Abou Alaa, I hear a Jins jaharakah at the begining not a Sigah one, although Shawwa's moves from one to another.
the move at secnod 26 is only a "hint" of what would come where more jins segah will be used, but it is directly followed by a jins kaharkah again

and for me, the difference between the jins jaharkah (so the tetrachord) and the jins Ajam is that indeed the third and fourth degree are a bit lowered in the first.

jenni
08-02-2012, 19:36
I actually do agree with Abou Alaa, I hear a Jins jaharakah at the begining not a Sigah one, although Shawwa's moves from one to another.
the move at secnod 26 is only a "hint" of what would come where more jins segah will be used, but it is directly followed by a jins kaharkah again

and for me, the difference between the jins jaharkah (so the tetrachord) and the jins Ajam is that indeed the third and fourth degree are a bit lowered in the first.


Thank you, ovide. This confirms everything I thought and that I am not crazy after all :)

Najib
11-02-2012, 22:40
Hi,

And sorry for joining this conversation late!

Sikah Baladi is NEVER used as a single beginning to end makam. The whole ethos of Sikah baladi is an instrumental acrobacy-colouring (yes you can mimick that with the voice but the importance is playing the coulouring - playing it is where the difficulty is). As an oud player it is so hard to perform the Sikah Baladi colouring when you're playing a normal makam. It's even harder to get out of the colouring and go back to the original makam!

Sami Shawwa in this recording is doing this in and out in and out as if he's drinking water! But it's precisely the change that is the acrobacy.

This is to do with having an open string (basically made for non half tone or quarter tone variation) and transposing a quarter tone such as Sikah on it.

So you pick an open string that usually plays D, or C (I'm thinking of Oud here). And usually you play Bayati on D and Rast on C

you can play the same D but assume that it is a B half flat (sikah) and then trasnspose the whole Sikah trichord to start from that D (in your mind though that D is now an imaginary B half flat)

Now the bit I described above isn't where it's difficult What follows is the difficult bit:

The fingers position on the open string will drammatically change so that the Sikah trichord is produced. Hence this is only possible on fretless instruments such as oud and violin. AND only possible by someone with an immaculate finger-ear coordination

It's precisely this acrobatic that doesn't make it possible (nor logical) to have a piece all sung or played from beginning to end as a Sikah balady. It's the cleverness of the player/singer to go in and out of that "colouring" that shows his musical muscles and skills.

Hence in this recording our Nahda Uncle Sam starts with Gharkah, uses the Sikah balady (MANY TIMES to show he's king).

Is this is written and proven somewhere? no. But what sealed my knowledge about the "baladi" qualifier and it's relationship with the open string is a Rast Baladi again by Sami Shawa that Frederick posted.

In this case Shawwa is making the D (dedicated to Bayati) and transforming it to the C of Rast and hence the Rast is Baladi as in transposed on an open string that is not usually designated to play what is being played on it.

Hope this clarifies further (or muddy the water :) )

YOUSEFELMUSSRI
12-02-2012, 03:02
AlfLeila,
Sikah Baladi is only used as coloring in this taqsim. Everyone else is correct and this piece should be classified as Geharka.

If you were listening to a Dawr that opened in Bayati and modulated to nahawand and even stayed in Nahawand for a long time and finally returned to the original Bayati and closed in it, would you not classify the Dawr Bayati? Of course you would.

So this taqsim is geharka.

jenni
12-02-2012, 20:32
Hi,

And sorry for joining this conversation late!

Sikah Baladi is NEVER used as a single beginning to end makam. The whole ethos of Sikah baladi is an instrumental acrobacy-colouring (yes you can mimick that with the voice but the importance is playing the coulouring - playing it is where the difficulty is). As an oud player it is so hard to perform the Sikah Baladi colouring when you're playing a normal makam. It's even harder to get out of the colouring and go back to the original makam!

Sami Shawwa in this recording is doing this in and out in and out as if he's drinking water! But it's precisely the change that is the acrobacy.

This is to do with having an open string (basically made for non half tone or quarter tone variation) and transposing a quarter tone such as Sikah on it.

So you pick an open string that usually plays D, or C (I'm thinking of Oud here). And usually you play Bayati on D and Rast on C

you can play the same D but assume that it is a B half flat (sikah) and then trasnspose the whole Sikah trichord to start from that D (in your mind though that D is now an imaginary B half flat)

Now the bit I described above isn't where it's difficult What follows is the difficult bit:

The fingers position on the open string will drammatically change so that the Sikah trichord is produced. Hence this is only possible on fretless instruments such as oud and violin. AND only possible by someone with an immaculate finger-ear coordination

It's precisely this acrobatic that doesn't make it possible (nor logical) to have a piece all sung or played from beginning to end as a Sikah balady. It's the cleverness of the player/singer to go in and out of that "colouring" that shows his musical muscles and skills.

Hence in this recording our Nahda Uncle Sam starts with Gharkah, uses the Sikah balady (MANY TIMES to show he's king).

Is this is written and proven somewhere? no. But what sealed my knowledge about the "baladi" qualifier and it's relationship with the open string is a Rast Baladi again by Sami Shawa that Frederick posted.

In this case Shawwa is making the D (dedicated to Bayati) and transforming it to the C of Rast and hence the Rast is Baladi as in transposed on an open string that is not usually designated to play what is being played on it.

Hope this clarifies further (or muddy the water :) )



Thank you, Najib. Owning an oud myself (I hesitate to say "playing" ;)), I concur that producing sikah on an open string is very tricky in itself, but doing so in the way Shawwa does in this recording (constantly in and out of sikah) is incredible. It's such a subtle move, which is one of the reasons I was doubting myself. I can't imagine the impeccable "ear-finger coordination," as you call it, it takes to do this.

And I didn't think of it from that point of view, which is probably the most important and straight forward: the whole point of using sikah baladi in the first place is to modulate to it.... The reason sikah baladi is so special (for me anyway) always has to do with the context of it...if you wanted to start in sikah, then you would start on a b half flat or another non-open string because starting on an open string would just cause unnecessary difficulty, right?

Najib
13-02-2012, 01:24
Spot on Jenni, spot on!

If you just want to do Sikah as a base there is no point calling it Sikah baladi at all you would just call it Sikah. the in and out modulation is where the value is

I am privileged to have heard my dad modulate in Sikah baladi at church so many times

I am really lucky to have heard an esteemed member of this forum Tayseer Elias modulate and pepper his oud taksims with Sikah baladi many times in 2 jaw dropping sessions in London 3 years ago

Najib
14-02-2012, 18:26
I forgot to add that my personal belief is that the modulation started vocally in the Sa3eed of Egypt, in the popular music heritage, and then muiscians decided that it's nice virtuosic thing to sink their teeth into.

Hence the adjective "baladi".

All theories. Nothing proven. :-)

jenni
14-02-2012, 21:49
I forgot to add that my personal belief is that the modulation started vocally in the Sa3eed of Egypt, in the popular music heritage, and then muiscians decided that it's nice virtuosic thing to sink their teeth into.

Hence the adjective "baladi".

All theories. Nothing proven. :-)

What exactly is the "sa3id of Egypt"? Does it have to do with "sa3idi" dancing? And how would that apply the adjective "baladi" ?

Najib
14-02-2012, 22:31
Sa3eed means southern Egypt and baladi means of-the-village

jenni
14-02-2012, 23:01
Sa3eed means southern Egypt and baladi means of-the-village

‘Ŗ—«:)

AlfLeila
17-02-2012, 03:29
Whoa mama!
didnít expect so much after only one week..
Iím still without a laptop, using my iphone. I wanted to use quotes from the comments above, but thatís impossible with this device..

Iíd never dare argue with najib, and Iím desperately trying to avoid appearing obdurate through this dialogue. but there are major points that Iíd be remiss if not to address them.

foremost, the notion that sigah baladi is never exhibited without a continual modulation to another maqam (in and out, in and out) is erroneous. perhaps Iíve confounded najibís intent; if this is the case, a thousand apologies. but I take his statements to mean (1) sigah baladiís integrity lies only in the coloring and accent of another maqam. (2) it is not exemplified in and of itself, meaning when modulating from rast to sigah baladi, it cannot be a modulation from rast to sigah baladi alone, but a modulation from rast to nahawand with sigah baladi coloring (for example). since baladi cannot stand by itself without coloring another maqam, or it would just be called sigah. (3) a piece is never performed in sigah baladi start to finish.
on the first two points I must disagree. and the third, tacitly agree but with some reserve.

its virtue is indeed the faculty of switching to sigah from any maqam, in itís place with no necessity of a quarter note; achieved through baladiís whole note tonic (as everyone is aware of by now). but suggesting that without the pivot of a consonant maqam (which sigah baladi will color), sigah baladi cannot be called baladi on its own, rather plain sigah, is something I cannot agree with. a baladi tricord is not the same as a sigah tricord. yes, the intervals are the same; but sigah resolves on a quarter note, baladi a whole note. that makes for worlds apart!!

every cited example weíve brought to attention thus fur (the myriad of allusions to abdel wahab n oum kalsoum) has one maqam modulating to sigah baladi, and sigah baladi alone. In no one of those instances is sigah baladi Ďcoloringí another maqam. there are whole portions of oum kalsoumís performances exclusive to it, with no modulation outside of baladiís parameters..

yes, a singer or instrumentalistís authoritative command of maqam is manifest the more they can modulate to and from a maqam to baladi; in and out, in and out, as najib explicated very thoroughly with the acute coordination needed. but this craft is not compulsory as in the very oum kalsoum examples weíve mentioned. if one was to perform a piece in sigah baladi start to finish, I agree, it will lose some of its integrity as the Ďmodulatoryí maqam. but that is what makes this shawa piece so intriguing. which brings me to shawaís piece itself.

--------------------------------------

starting with the abraham salman taqsim in rast; now realizing I shouldíve listened to it as soon as this conversation began. thereís repeated reference to salmanís 2:30 Ė 4:00 minute mark, calling this jiharkah. this is 1000% not jiharkah, itís RAST!!!!! Iím baffled how this statement has gone so long unchecked. at this mark salman makes emphasis on the F-jiharkah note, but not a jiharkah tetrachord, he hardly makes it passed G-nawa (!!). stresses the jiharkah note n goes down rast. thereís not even an ample sampling of a jiharkah tetrachord (F-jiharkah through Bb) to surmise any judgments of Ďloweredí notes. jenni, the Ďslightly-loweredí tones youíre hearing are the quarter tones of rast (c through f 1-3/4-3/4)! now with that, revisit shawaís taqsim and see if your ears are still harkening jiharkah. if the salman taqsim is your rubric, then what youíre hearing is rast.. and certainly not the case here.

looking at your parlance, (and more than mere conjecture here) is what seems to be your unintended cognition of baladi. firstly where you hear Ďslightly loweredí notes (now identified quarter tones) and then point out where you hear an alternation to baladiís pitch. between your 2 observations, youíve constructed sigah baladi.
whatís more is Iíve notated the entire shawa score and sigah baladi is prevailing throughout.

--------------------------------------

on a separate but related issue, stemming from the implications of jiharkahís intonation, is western and arabic intonation in general. this is a subject that really warrants its own thread; but this is good a place as any to address a few rudiments.

starting off with jins ajam of F-jiharka, whether a full ajam scale transposed, or tethered with lower jins rast (an actual jiharkah scale). these jins are vocalized the same as a western F-G-A-Bb, with equally tempered 1-1-1/2 intervals. 200cents to a major second (or about 204cents which Iíll elaborate below), 100cents to a minor second.
I have more than several early recordings of ajam on jiharkah sung while accompanied by a piano! fakhriís version of Ďanta sultaní is on my computer which I will listen to as soon as I get it back ( :) ). But the 2 other versions I have on my phone are unmistakably even with pure ajam intonation. what I can offer for now is fakhriís middle-eastern timbre of voice may be incongruent with a pianoís timbre. but timbre should not be mistaken with intonation. try this same mowashah as performed by nawriyeís firqat or even nawriyeís version of Ah Kaleeli (it should be on the forum somewhere. if not, Iíll post it). or any khalwati piece in the Iraqi section, iím sure thereís plenty.

Now, there is A LOT OF TRUTH and a wealth of things to be said on your point of the difference between notating on paper one way, and vocally/instrumentally executing the notes a different way (in your mention of medieval music). even if you intended it as a point in passing, it is a huge huge deal, which carries implications from egypt, to iraq, to iran, to turkey, and everything in between. It is a point I donít want to leave un-expounded.

The methodical standardization of arabic scales began with the 3 arch-theoreticians Ibn Sina (11th century), Al Farabi (who followed Ibn Sinaís schematic), and the most influential, the great Safi Al Din (13th century). all three schools espoused the pythagorean system of tuning every perfect fifth interval (the span of 3 and half intervals) with a frequency ratio of 3:2 (an interval of 701.955c). pythagorasí (12 note) scale makes major leaps compared to our current scale (which Iím sure youíre aware of jenni). example: using a scale D, E, F, G, A, B C, the pythagorus scale leaps from D to A and so on. D his 1st note and A his 2nd note (technically his E).
The 3 aforementioned mathematicians broke down pythagorusí scale devising intervals for the potential notes pythagoras skips over; in between the D & A (D, E, F, G, A). ptolemy & didymus of rome did the same while revising pythagorasí comma (forming the system of Ďjustí intonation), but thatís an unrelated topic. the result is one whole interval/major 2nd/pythagorean ditone is equal to 203.91cents. one whole note is broken down into 3 components.
-2 limmas. 1 limma = 90.225cents (180.45c aggregate)
-1 comma = 23.46cents
this tuning was the foundation for all modal scales posited by these theoreticians.
there was a point before Safi Al Din, where although limma-limma-coma was the standard, multiple methods of flattening the duqah and sigah notes inconsistent with limma & comma measures were prevalent. chief among them was mansour zalzal n al farabi. Safi Al Din did away with all the alternatives and instituted the canon of flattening a note by an exact comma (23.46c), or a comma + limma (113.685c). or sharpening a note by an exact limma, or a limma + comma. His system along with his adoption of dividing a scale between 2 tetrachords was promulgated all through the arab world and became the foundation for all maqamat which would evolve in the centuries to follow.

the most predominant break from Safi Al Din, is the turkish system. which took on the tweaked pythagorean scale of ptolemy. but their system is not exact to ptolemyís. one whole note is divided into 9 commas of 21.46c each, with a whole interval equating 193.155c. if weíre splitting hairs, thereís a minute difference between the 21.46c turkish comma and the authentic 21.51c ptolemaic comma. ridiculously meaningless.. itís between the pythagorean and ptolemaic tunings the medieval european pieces you were referring to are founded on (the exclusive move to equal temperament didn't occur in europe until the 18th century). notated with the same nomenclature but utilizing different frequencies. Ďloweringí notes isnít an arbitrary or capricious practice, subject to the composers whim. the intervals are finite indeed.
-we will note, that with the turkish adoption of european notation (solfeig and staff notation), the turkish major second has evolved to a 200c interval, with its 9th intervals at 22.2cents. still a meaningless difference.

the persians retained safi al dinís measurements in the vocal tradition. bizarrely their prime instruments, the tar & setar, are tuned to a 203.91c whole interval (consistent with safi al din), but the semitones in between donít align with limma & comma. the frets are movable on the tar, and my guess where this inconsistency emerged from. the pitch difference between the vocalist and tar, in turn of the century recordings especially, is irritatingly noticeable.. but these gaps solidified during the 20th century coming closer to the tarís tuning, unfortunately abandoning the vocal tradition. (the decline of the persian tradition is a worthy topic to discuss, but not here).

when it comes to the levant, stark differences emerged over the centuries. depending on the geographic area, bayati could be intonated one way or slightly different etc. the sigah note in rast, in bayati, in sigah were all flattened to different degrees. but defined degrees nonetheless. these differences became part of the venerated and illustrious oral tradition.

By the cairo conference of 1932, it was decided to equally temper the arabic notational system. where every whole note (200cents) would be divided into 4 equal intervals. flattened or sharpened exactly by one half (100cents) or by one quarter (50cents) for all notes equally. subsequently the sigah note will be flattened by an exact 50c quarter no matter what maqam it appears in.
This was not an easy break in tradition to impose, especially on the already seasoned musicians and vocalists of the time. to a large extent the acceptance of an equally tempered system was ignored.
But as music in egypt exploded, utilizing equal temperament, a must for coordinating the large orchestras of abdel wahab and his ilk, became the norm even for later singers of adwar. the pre-20th century tradition nowadays is practically nonexistent and unknown.
even in Iraq, the difference between the music of qoubandji (old intonation) and the popular songs of nazem el ghazali (equally tempered) are different species.
though there are significant advantages to equally tempered maqamat. taking the sigah example above, an instrument or vocalist can hold one uniform sigah note and modulate to rast or bayati or saba. whereas before there were considerable dissonances.

All this said, jins ajam on jiharkah is not an instance of a departed tradition and a new equally tempered system. empirically , from the early recordings of egypt, to sham, to the iraqi khalwati, they are all pure ajam.

I think thatís enough for now :)
I must profusely apologize if I am stepping on anyoneís toes. I apologize again, and I apologize again!! and I apologize again!! If my words come across as presumptuous or rude itís only because I lack the ability to convey my thoughts properly, and the burden is on me. I beg you to understand that. I mean no malice by it.
In the end, we only have our ears to rely on. no amount of words will convince anyone what maqam this song or that song is, unless they can perceive it with their own ear.. so I can only do my best to relay my points in words. anything other than that is out of my reach.

jenni
17-02-2012, 07:45
foremost, the notion that sigah baladi is never exhibited without a continual modulation to another maqam (in and out, in and out) is erroneous. perhaps Iíve confounded najibís intent; if this is the case, a thousand apologies. but I take his statements to mean (1) sigah baladiís integrity lies only in the coloring and accent of another maqam. (2) it is not exemplified in and of itself, meaning when modulating from rast to sigah baladi, it cannot be a modulation from rast to sigah baladi alone, but a modulation from rast to nahawand with sigah baladi coloring (for example). since baladi cannot stand by itself without coloring another maqam, or it would just be called sigah. (3) a piece is never performed in sigah baladi start to finish.
on the first two points I must disagree. and the third, tacitly agree but with some reserve.

its virtue is indeed the faculty of switching to sigah from any maqam, in itís place with no necessity of a quarter note; achieved through baladiís whole note tonic (as everyone is aware of by now). but suggesting that without the pivot of a consonant maqam (which sigah baladi will color), sigah baladi cannot be called baladi on its own, rather plain sigah, is something I cannot agree with. a baladi tricord is not the same as a sigah tricord. yes, the intervals are the same; but sigah resolves on a quarter note, baladi a whole note. that makes for worlds apart!!

every cited example weíve brought to attention thus fur (the myriad of allusions to abdel wahab n oum kalsoum) has one maqam modulating to sigah baladi, and sigah baladi alone. In no one of those instances is sigah baladi Ďcoloringí another maqam. there are whole portions of oum kalsoumís performances exclusive to it, with no modulation outside of baladiís parameters..

yes, a singer or instrumentalistís authoritative command of maqam is manifest the more they can modulate to and from a maqam to baladi; in and out, in and out, as najib explicated very thoroughly with the acute coordination needed. but this craft is not compulsory as in the very oum kalsoum examples weíve mentioned. if one was to perform a piece in sigah baladi start to finish, I agree, it will lose some of its integrity as the Ďmodulatoryí maqam. but that is what makes this shawa piece so intriguing. which brings me to shawaís piece itself.

I donít want to speak for Najib, but I donít believe thatís what he meant, and it wasnít what I meant. The point I was making was: Sikah baladi sounds basically the same as sikah... so if you want to play a piece, or an taqsim primarily in sikah, why go through the trouble of playing sikah starting on a whole note (sikah baladi) as that is much harder for instrumentalists, as opposed to just starting it on the quarter tone? And I donít think anyone would say that sikah baladi is only ever used as ďcoloringĒ as you pointed out Oum Kalthoum and others have entire sections in purely sikah baladi. The question is would they start the song like that?




.


Now, there is A LOT OF TRUTH and a wealth of things to be said on your point of the difference between notating on paper one way, and vocally/instrumentally executing the notes a different way (in your mention of medieval music). even if you intended it as a point in passing, it is a huge huge deal, which carries implications from egypt, to iraq, to iran, to turkey, and everything in between. It is a point I donít want to leave un-expounded.

The methodical standardization of arabic scales began with the 3 arch-theoreticians Ibn Sina (11th century), Al Farabi (who followed Ibn Sinaís schematic), and the most influential, the great Safi Al Din (13th century). all three schools espoused the pythagorean system of tuning every perfect fifth interval (the span of 3 and half intervals) with a frequency ratio of 3:2 (an interval of 701.955c). pythagorasí (12 note) scale makes major leaps compared to our current scale (which Iím sure youíre aware of jenni). example: using a scale D, E, F, G, A, B C, the pythagorus scale leaps from D to A and so on. D his 1st note and A his 2nd note (technically his E).
The 3 aforementioned mathematicians broke down pythagorusí scale devising intervals for the potential notes pythagoras skips over; in between the D & A (D, E, F, G, A). ptolemy & didymus of rome did the same while revising pythagorasí comma (forming the system of Ďjustí intonation), but thatís an unrelated topic. the result is one whole interval/major 2nd/pythagorean ditone is equal to 203.91cents. one whole note is broken down into 3 components.
-2 limmas. 1 limma = 90.225cents (180.45c aggregate)
-1 comma = 23.46cents
this tuning was the foundation for all modal scales posited by these theoreticians.
there was a point before Safi Al Din, where although limma-limma-coma was the standard, multiple methods of flattening the duqah and sigah notes inconsistent with limma & comma measures were prevalent. chief among them was mansour zalzal n al farabi. Safi Al Din did away with all the alternatives and instituted the canon of flattening a note by an exact comma (23.46c), or a comma + limma (113.685c). or sharpening a note by an exact limma, or a limma + comma. His system along with his adoption of dividing a scale between 2 tetrachords was promulgated all through the arab world and became the foundation for all maqamat which would evolve in the centuries to follow.

the most predominant break from Safi Al Din, is the turkish system. which took on the tweaked pythagorean scale of ptolemy. but their system is not exact to ptolemyís. one whole note is divided into 9 commas of 21.46c each, with a whole interval equating 193.155c. if weíre splitting hairs, thereís a minute difference between the 21.46c turkish comma and the authentic 21.51c ptolemaic comma. ridiculously meaningless.. itís between the pythagorean and ptolemaic tunings the medieval european pieces you were referring to are founded on (the exclusive move to equal temperament didn't occur in europe until the 18th century). notated with the same nomenclature but utilizing different frequencies. Ďloweringí notes isnít an arbitrary or capricious practice, subject to the composers whim. the intervals are finite indeed.
-we will note, that with the turkish adoption of european notation (solfeig and staff notation), the turkish major second has evolved to a 200c interval, with its 9th intervals at 22.2cents. still a meaningless difference.

the persians retained safi al dinís measurements in the vocal tradition. bizarrely their prime instruments, the tar & setar, are tuned to a 203.91c whole interval (consistent with safi al din), but the semitones in between donít align with limma & comma. the frets are movable on the tar, and my guess where this inconsistency emerged from. the pitch difference between the vocalist and tar, in turn of the century recordings especially, is irritatingly noticeable.. but these gaps solidified during the 20th century coming closer to the tarís tuning, unfortunately abandoning the vocal tradition. (the decline of the persian tradition is a worthy topic to discuss, but not here).

when it comes to the levant, stark differences emerged over the centuries. depending on the geographic area, bayati could be intonated one way or slightly different etc. the sigah note in rast, in bayati, in sigah were all flattened to different degrees. but defined degrees nonetheless. these differences became part of the venerated and illustrious oral tradition.

No, to be honest I had no idea about any of that, but thanks for the history. What I use is my ears, which I have a pretty good pair of :)

I donít think youíve offended anyone. You seem intelligent and relatively knowledgeable on the subject, both theoretically and historically speaking. But quite frankly, and please donít take this badly, I believe your ears are mistaken. The fact that five of us agree that this is maqam jiharka should say something (especially on such an exclusive forum as this), but I know majority doesnít always = right, so what I have made here is a few sound samples compiling/comparing the Salman and Shawwa taqasim to better express myself.


The mp3s didn't upload in the correct order, but it's preferable to listen in the order discussed below...

"Jiharka rast comparison" is a comparison of the beginning of Salmanís taqsim and the part at 2:30 which you think is rast. What I did was take part of the beginning which is obviously in rast, then part of the jiharka at 2:30 but put it an octave lower for comparing. Then I repeat part of each but slower which makes it VERY obvious that the fourth note of the scale is different at 2:30 (lower) from that of the beginning. If you have a piano, try playing a perfect fourth while listening to 2:30; it will clash. However, one can play a fourth with a typical rast without it clashing. So, either 2:30 is rast with a lowered fourth, (which Iíve never heard of before), or jiharka which I am convinced by now sometimes/often lowers the 3rd AND 4th notes, just as Ovide confirmed to me earlier.

"Jiharka compilation" is the ďjiharkaĒ bit of Salmanís taqsim (at 2:30) transposed to be at the same pitch as Shawwaís, followed by part of the latter. Whatever you want to call this maqam, these bits, as far as I can tell, are in the same one, with maybe Shawwaís fourth being ever-so-slightly higher, but that's probably also due to the difference in instrumental timbre.

"Sikah baladi compilation" is the maqam played up and down on a buzuq (also transposed to match Shawwaís pitch) followed by a sikah baladi part of Shawwaís taqsim. Although the buzuq is slightly more ďhijaz-yĒ sounding, hopefully we can at least agree on this one.

Last but not least, "Shawwa analysis" is part of his taqsim broken up into 5 parts (by short silent gaps). The first two parts are an example of ďsikah baladi coloring,Ē because he lowers only one note toward the end of the segment and even pauses at it for emphasis. It is precisely at second 8 in this recording, (originally the part I mentioned at 26). Then I've repeated that small fragment for my own emphasis - I advise you to listen to that again and again until you can hear that the note at 8 (or 26) is lowered but is NOT KEPT! This is why we call it "coloring" and not a "modulation."
The third part is in jiharka. The fourth part is in sikah baladi and this time it is somewhat of a modulation (definitely more than the first part) but goes right back after a few seconds; the fifth part is again in jiharka.
My question to you is, how would you analyze this last recording in terms of maqamat, (as I'm already sure you disagree with me)? Can we at least agree that he changes maqamat a total of four times (or five if you want to count the "coloring")? Can you hear the changes or would you classify all of this in one maqam?

√»ś ŕŠ«Ń
18-02-2012, 14:43
A few quick remarks:
I've been following this technical discussion all along with the firm decision no to intervene therein simply because I lack the required knowledge to do so, but also because, from the common listener point of view, I had no doubt about the validity of my initial statement. You can develop all sorts of "scientific" demonstrations, you'll never convince me that Sami is playing sikah baladi from second 0 in this recording, and if he is not, this taqsim cannot be called a sikah baladi taqsim. Something that intrigued me in your technical developments, though, and this is a genuine interrogation. You seem all the three of you (Alfleila, Jenni and Najib) to agree on the fact that the rukuz (fundamental?) of sikah baladi is on sol, right? What I thought I have always known by hearsay is that it is rather on fa. I think it may also happen to have it on do, but not on sol or re. This is at least what I heard from professional musicians and this is how it appeared whenever I was trying to reproduce it on 'ud (I don't play 'ud, but I can reproduce correctly and more or less easily whatever melody I hear). This would seem to make all the more sense as gaharkah too is on fa and since it is so readily confused with gaharkah. If you can clarify this point, that would be helpful for me even if it doesn't resolve the difference of opinions here.
I haven't checked Jenni's compilation. But I decided to revisit the question by listening once more, four weeks after my first listening and my initial post and here are my personal findings. I used windows media player to play the original file as uploaded by Alfleila.
From the beginning (second 4) up to second 34, Sami is playing nothing else than gaharka (although I think I spotted a very slight hint at rast in second 32 right before the first move to sikah baladi) . The first modulation in sikah baladi starts at second 34 and goes on until second 40 where he reverts back to gaharkah. Then, we have another modulation in sikah baladi from second 51 to 56, after which he goes back to gaharkah again up to min 1' 11", and then back to sikah baladi for a very short while (no more than a glimpse this time) and so forth (further sikah baladi parts in 1' 36-45"; 1' 58"-2' 01"...etc).
By the way, concerning gaharkah and rast, these two seemed to be easily confounded in both the practice and the jargon of the nahdha period so that have pieces dubbed as gaharkah ones where the rukuz is on fa, the gaharkah "ethos" is clearly there, and, yet, rast is at least as much present right from the beginning. A good example of this is dawr 'ala ruhi 'ana-l-gani that you can check in 'abdi-l-hay Hilmi and Salah 'abdi-l-hay as well as Saliba Al-qatrib versions. This ambivalence is no longer present in later compositions like lissah fakir, where gaharkah has no longer the faintest trace of rast and sounds like a mere transposition of 'agam.
I will never insist enough that these considerations are merely based on empirical auditive observation and lack any scientific ground.

jenni
18-02-2012, 17:56
A few quick remarks:
I've been following this technical discussion all along with the firm decision no to intervene therein simply because I lack the required knowledge to do so, but also because, from the common listener point of view, I had no doubt about the validity of my initial statement. You can develop all sorts of "scientific" demonstrations, you'll never convince me that Sami is playing sikah baladi from second 0 in this recording, and if he is not, this taqsim cannot be called a sikah baladi taqsim. Something that intrigued me in your technical developments, though, and this is a genuine interrogation. You seem all the three of you (Alfleila, Jenni and Najib) to agree on the fact that the rukuz (fundamental?) of sikah baladi is on sol, right? What I thought I have always known by hearsay is that it is rather on fa. I think it may also happen to have it on do, but not on sol or re. This is at least what I heard from professional musicians and this is how it appeared whenever I was trying to reproduce it on 'ud (I don't play 'ud, but I can reproduce correctly and more or less easily whatever melody I hear). This would seem to make all the more sense as gaharkah too is on fa and since it is so readily confused with gaharkah. If you can clarify this point, that would be helpful for me even if it doesn't resolve the difference of opinions here.
I haven't checked Jenni's compilation. But I decided to revisit the question by listening once more, four weeks after my first listening and my initial post and here are my personal findings. I used windows media player to play the original file as uploaded by Alfleila.
From the beginning (second 4) up to second 34, Sami is playing nothing else than gaharka (although I think I spotted a very slight hint at rast in second 32 right before the first move to sikah baladi) . The first modulation in sikah baladi starts at second 34 and goes on until second 40 where he reverts back to gaharkah. Then, we have another modulation in sikah baladi from second 51 to 56, after which he goes back to gaharkah again up to min 1' 11", and then back to sikah baladi for a very short while (no more than a glimpse this time) and so forth (further sikah baladi parts in 1' 36-45"; 1' 58"-2' 01"...etc).
By the way, concerning gaharkah and rast, these two seemed to be easily confounded in both the practice and the jargon of the nahdha period so that have pieces dubbed as gaharkah ones where the rukuz is on fa, the gaharkah "ethos" is clearly there, and, yet, rast is at least as much present right from the beginning. A good example of this is dawr 'ala ruhi 'ana-l-gani that you can check in 'abdi-l-hay Hilmi and Salah 'abdi-l-hay as well as Saliba Al-qatrib versions. This ambivalence is no longer present in later compositions like lissah fakir, where gaharkah has no longer the faintest trace of rast and sounds like a mere transposition of 'agam.
I will never insist enough that these considerations are merely based on empirical auditive observation and lack any scientific ground.

Mohsen,
Thank you for your intervention, it is most welcome :)
I'm not sure that I mentioned anything about "sol" or "fa"; as I don't have "perfect pitch" I cannot tell just from listening what the note name of the qarar is... but I can hear what the qarar relative to the surrounding notes, and I can hear clearly the intervals that follow it, which is how I go from simply hearing something to transferring it into a maqam... I know some people simply go by "feeling" which is the point I am trying to get at, and I notice myself more instinctively knowing which maqamat I'm hearing as time goes by.
This probably complicates things even more, but according to the piano what we actually hear is shawwa is starting on a "fa#"... so the instruments could be either tuned one half step higher in which case he'd technically be playing "fa" or tuned one half step lower in which case he'd technically be playing "sol" (I think- I don't know the standard for tuning of arabic instruments... in old western music instruments are often transposed and what we are reading on the sheet music isn't what we are actually hearing... for example on a harpsichord you can shift the keyboard and for the player it may look and feel like "fa" when in fact we are hearing "fa#" ). I think knowing which note he's playing from would be helpful to prove a point, however being able to hear the intervals between the notes is much more constructive imo.

If you listen to the final sample ("shawwa analysis") you'll hear that you basically analyzed the same bit of the taqsim as I did, and in almost the same exact way which I am very happy about (save for, I mentioned at second 26 a ONE note change that implies sikah baladi but that's why I emphasize that it is coloring not a modulation as the other longer instances might be considered, and I didn't mention the rast part you speak of - I will try to hear that).
Speaking of rast and jiharka, that is why I made "jiharka rast comparison," because although jiharka's first three notes in both this taqsim and in the salman taqsim from which this thread started, there is a definite difference and that is the interval between the 3rd and 4th note in jiharka are closer together, keeping it sounding like the 3rd note isn't a quarter tone (even though it really is, despite the musical charts which would have you read it differently) and this I think is the jiharka "ethos" you speak of. I can understand why this is very confusing, as it was initially in the salman taqsim very confusing for my ears, and I would have never guessed that maqam had somewhat not told me!!! But after seeing your analysis of shawwa's taqsim I am entirely convinced of my decision.

Alf leila, please listen to the recordings as carefully as possible while keeping in mind the differences I've highlighted - I really think they will help us find some common ground here!

Najib
20-02-2012, 21:06
Alfleyla, you can argue with me anytime, but I would never ever argue with Mohsen's ear. I've known the man for years now and I wouldn't have learnt that there was something called psendid or raml if it wasn't for this amazingly musical man.

Also we are not going to dwell on the history and roots of the music. We are here concerned with the nomenclature that was started in the nahda ear. A nomenclature that is mainly ear-traditional. I can't go back to the roots of how this music evolved. Simple life is too short.


Therefore the makamic "sair" "trip" of what Shawwa is doing is superbly described by Mohsen.

I just need to say that the example itself is probably complicated due to the virtuosic power of Shawwa.

So let me try to simplify my thoughts:

1- Mathematically you can modulate/transpose any makam on any note
2- "Baladi" definitely means a variation on something that wasn't "Baladi" that precedes it. You will never ever have a full end to end piece in Sikah baladi. In this case you will have a piece of Sikah. (Yes the musician might be mad enough not to play it on a half bemol note but on any note he likes!) However this is never the case. It's always a modulation from something that precedes and what precedes is a different makam. It's that modulation that shows the musical muscles.

Now the problem is that this examp

Najib
20-02-2012, 21:18
Also a few points on your long essay AlfLeila.

What we mean by colouring is that you have a makam A you transition shortly to makam B and then you transition back to makam A. How short is shortly? Remember this is tarab so it's up to the mutrib/musician!

No you got me wrong Sikah Baladi is just moving from Makam A to Sikah Baladi Colouring (for a short period) and then moving back to makam A.

Your half flat vs single note it's all in your head! (literally) If you leave "frequency measuring" out. You can imagine any note being another note. It's been there since ages (Byzantine music is full of that - it's called Phthora - spoiler).

Leaving Sikah Baladi aside, there is a wonderful Azan Rast-Bayat by Sheikh Ali Mahmoud on this forum that does exactly that. Look it up and you'll get what I'm saying about one note becoming another.

In this wonderful Azan. The Sheikh starts on Gharka. Whilst going down the Gharaka note FA becomes Sol and he goes down in a Bayati Tetrachord Sol->Fa->Mi->Re

so what he does is:

Rast___Bayat

Do
Si
La
Sol
Fa___Sol
______Fa
______Mi
______Re

AlfLeila
22-02-2012, 05:52
hi najib,
i was going to leave this topic be and just move on. i think myself effusively rude in constant retort through this thread. its unbearably uncomfortable. i would've been content to bite my tongue and not post anything had everyone not been so unyielding in having me capitualate to the call of jiharkah.
but in deference to yourself, i cannot be so rude as to ignore your post, so i'm replying. but begging you not to press me further on this topic.x

to recap where we left off, i stand firm on this piece, clear as day, sigah baladi start to finish. F, Gd, Ad, Bb etc. i agree sigah baladi is not a mode intended for complete pieces, but shawa's cause here is to demonstrate his viruosity.

i'm not totally clear on your point of 'psendid', or what i'm taking to mean as an illusion of one note over the other. but i dont think this is a matter of shawa pulling a fast one over his listeners. the notes are there..

as for ali mahmoud's azan, i cant download mp3s to my phone. but i have an azan that fits your above profile (if its indeed the same azan we're talking about). the maqam is arazbar.
opening rast on jiharkah, and descending to bayat in its place, duqah. as such, the 2 ajnas are overlapping with jiharkah and nawa. the fault of some is to hover around the nawa note before resolving bayat, to give them some grounding to avoid accidentally resolving bayat on rast (essentially forming husseini on rast). but ali mahmoud is seamless. perfect.x
xi'm not sure where this 'psendid' comes to play. his sayir is certainly trackable (as with any arazbar piece). but again, i didnt fully grasp your explanation.

back to this taqsim. jenni made it clear that something in these notes is askew juxtaposed to the western scale. the notes are 'slightly' lowered. and compared to salman's taqsim, calling that portion of salman's taqsim jiharkah. hence i counter, there is no jiharkah tetrachord to speak of. salman touches the note and goes back down into rast. he didnt touch the note and go up Bb-ajam.. indubitably he is in rast. and the 'lowered notes' here are actual quarter tones of rast. i cant fathom how this is even debatable.
again i explain jins ajam, appearing on c-rast, , on f-jiharkah, in a jiharkah scale, or zanjiran scale etc is intonated the same as a major scale tetrachord in mashreqi n iraqi (khalwati, taher, rashdi etc) traditions. based on every jiharkah piece i've ever heard.. unless shawa's ajam is lower 1 turkish comma or uses a persian 90c limma, which i dont think anyone will argue the case to be here (i hope).
and to sabah fakhri's anta sultan, to reiterate is a matter of timbre. you will find the same issue with his voice singing zurouni qulli sana, but i dont think anyone will call that anything other than ajam ushairan (i hope!)

so to jenni, if you don't want to call shawa's taqsim baladi, with flattened notes (by any degree) cannot be called jiharkah either. you must call it soemthing else.
also btw, shawa opens F not F#.x
with everything said, i cannot force anyone's ear to hear what i hear and vice versa.

that's all i have to say on this topic. i have no issue if the thread continues without me, but i'm calling it quits here :)

hi mohsen,
to stear clear of re-addressing this specific taqsim.. sigah baladi as a mode can be started on any whole or semi tone. bringing the element of sigah in a maqam deficient of quarter pitches. so simply, it has no conventional tonic.

i cant speak for musicians current or past who've made a rule of introducing baladi in their pieces strictly on rast or nawa etc. i've many a recording that suggest the opposite.

regarding 'alla rouhi ana'l ghani', i wouldnt view it as anything but rast..x

Najib
22-02-2012, 15:40
We're going to have to agree to disagree and leave it there I'm afraid

jenni
23-02-2012, 20:24
We're going to have to agree to disagree and leave it there I'm afraid

That is unfortunate...I was sure that my recordings would do the trick! Oh well, hopefully some other confused ear will find them helpful ;)

Najib
24-02-2012, 00:17
Nooo I'm not disagreeing with you Jenni, I'm disagreeing with Alf Leyla.

What we said about this piece absolutely stands - It's Gharakah with some Sikah Baladi colouring. Alf Leyla doesn't have a leg to stand on in this argument. Neither, me, you, Ovide, or Mohsen could convince him, that's his problem.

We use the trained ear in this forum before anything else. This is the whole ethos of Nahdah music. I have now edited the title of this post to reflect the correction.

I challenge anyone (not just AlfLeyla) to give me a piece that is end 2 end Sikah Baladi. Simply there isn't it's not a makam it's a tirchord/tetrachord variation. Sikah on the other hand is a full makam.

jenni
24-02-2012, 00:25
Nooo I'm not disagreeing with you Jenni, I'm disagreeing with Alf Leyla.

What we said about this piece absolutely stands - It's Gharakah with some Sikah Baladi colouring. Alf Leyla doesn't have a leg to stand on in this argument. Neither, me, you, or Mohsen could convince him, that's his problem.

We used the trained ear in this forum before anything else.

I challenge anyone (not just AlfLeyla) to give me a piece that is end 2 end Sikah Baladi. Simply there isn't it's not a makam it's a variation. Sikah is a makam.

I know you weren't disagreeing with me!! What made you think that? I was just being a bit sly...maybe that was inappropriate of me - if so I'm sorry! It's just that I put so much effort into trying to find an objective way to explain this over the internet, and it proved to be futile. So I was just making a small joke because I believe (and in fact know) that Alfleila's ear is "confused" (sorry, I'm not saying this to be mean... it's just the truth) and I would like it so much if mine and others' efforts can be useful in some way.
IMO this thread shouldn't have ended up in an "agreeing to disagree" situation because this is not some philosophical subjective matter and it's really a shame.... but I guess we have no choice :(

Najib
24-02-2012, 14:07
that's fine all contributions were useful :-)

Unfortunately the discussion was turning into everyone is seeing the colour black, yet we were going to discuss technically what are the spectrum characteristics of the colour blue! Therefore there is no point in continuing

jenni
24-02-2012, 18:28
that's fine all contributions were useful :-)

Unfortunately the discussion was turning into everyone is seeing the colour black, yet we were going to discuss technically what are the spectrum characteristics of the colour blue! Therefore there is no point in continuing


I stand firm in my belief that one can learn to hear maqamat properly, whereas if someone is colorblind there is really nothing you can do about it. However, I really do love the comparison and it is probably the most accurate metaphor for what went on here.