journal of interdisciplinary music studies

fall 2007, volume 1, issue 2, art. #071203, pp. 43-61

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music:

Abjad Scale & 24-Tone Pythagorean Tuning 53 Equal Division of the Octave as a Common Grid
Trk Makam Mziinde Perde Notasyonlarnn Karlatrmal Bir Deerlendirmesi:
Ebced Dizisi ve Gayri Msavi 24 Perdeli Taksimat Oktavn 53 Eite Dilimlenmesiyle Elde Edilen Ortak Bir Izgara

Ozan Yarman
Department of Musicology, Istanbul Technical University Abstract. In the Middle East, Abjad notation has been available since the day of Al-Kindi (9th century). However, Abjad was never used except as a theoretical tool. A handful of extant musical examples show that Abjad did not appeal to the general body of composers and executants throughout the ages, but was confined to treatises as a means of explaining and demonstrating the ability to notate pitches. This article features a comparative evaluation, apparently for the first time, of two historical notations in Turkish makam music based on Abjad. These are, Safi al-din Urmavis 17-tone Pythagorean tuning (13th century) and Abd al-Baki Nasir Dedes attribution of perde (tone/fret) names to the same (19th century). The juxtaposition of Abjad Scale side by side with the current theory of Turkish makam music known today as ArelEzgi-Uzdilek (AEU) proves that the latter is simply an extension of Urmavis archetype. This emphasis constitutes one of our contributions. Overall, 53 equal divisions of the octave is found to embrace the Abjad Scale with less than a cent error, although this resolution has never been fully utilized in Turkish makam music. zet. Ebced notalama sistemi, Al-Kindi'nin yaad dnemden (9.yy) beri Ortadou'da bilinmektedir. Ancak, Ebced, kuramsal bir ara olmann dnda hi kullanlmamtr. Gnmze ulaan snrl sayda mziksel rnekten grmek mmkndr ki, Ebced, alar boyunca bestekarlarn ve icraclarn geneline hitap etmemi, edvar/nazariyat kitaplarnda perdeleri aklama ve simgeleme yolu olarak kalmtr. Bu makale, grld kadaryla ilk kez olarak, Ebced'e dayal tarihi iki Trk makam mzii notasnn karlatrmal deerlendirmesini iermektedir. Bunlar, Safiyddin Urmevi'nin 17-sesli Pithagorsal dzeni (13. yy) ve Abdlbaki Nasr Dede'nin ona perde isimleri verdii kurgudur (19. yy). Bugn Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek olarak bilinen yrrlkteki Trk makam mzii kuram ile Ebced dizisi yan yana konduunda, ilkinin Urmevi tarafndan gelitirilen kk-modelin devam olduu grlr. Bu olgunun vurgulanmas, bizim bir katkmzdr. Son toplamda, Oktavn 53 eit paraya blnmesi, Ebced dizisini bir sentin altnda hata ile sarmalamaktadr. Ancak, bu znrlk Trk makam mziinde btnyle uygulanmamaktadr.

Keywords: Abjad scale, Pythagorean tuning, Arel- Anahtar kelimeler: Ebced dizisi, Pithagorsal dzen, Ezgi-Uzdilek System, 53 equal divisions of the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek Sistemi, 53-ton eit taksimat octave

Correspondence: Ozan Yarman, Department of Musicology, Turkish Music State Conservatory, Istanbul Technical University, Maka Campus/Beikta, stanbul, Turkey phone (mobile): +372 522 6886; fax: +372 737 5389; e-mail: [email protected]

44

O. Yarman

1 Introduction
This study investigates the commonalities between the historical Abjad scale and the 24-tone Pythagorean Model currently in use in Trkiye. Abjad, which is the Arabic shorthand for ABCD, was initially a guide to learning the Arabic alphabet and pronounciation of letters by rote, yet, gradually developed into numerology and a method of calculating dates (Ekmekiolu 1992, 16-33; Tura 1982 (1998), 178) as seen below in Table 1.
Table 1. Arabic Letters vs Numbers

Abu Yusuf Yaqub ibn Ishaq Al-Kindi, premier Abbasid philosopher, who lived ca.800-873 C.E. (El-Ehwany 1961), was the first to utilize Abjad as a pitch notation (Turabi 1996). Centuries later, Abbasid scholar Safi al-din Abd al-mumin Urmavi (1216-1294) revived Al-Kindis Abjad and revised it to notate his unique 17-tone Pythagorean scale (Uygun 1999; elik 2004). Abd al-Qadir Meragi (ca.1360-1435) also employed Urmavis scale in his tractates (Bardak 1986). Nur al-din Abd arRahman Djami (1414-1492) copied his predecessor (Djami ca.1450 (1965)), after whom, a quadricentennial epoch deserving to be titled the Dark Ages of makam theory prevailed during which time mathematical calculation of pitches lapsed. By the end of the 18th century, Abd al-Baki Nasir Dede (1765-1821) introduced a modified Abjad notation (IRCICA 2003: 130-4) just decades before the awakening in musical arithmetics took place. By 1910, Rauf Yekta conceived on staff a 24-tone Pythagorean tuning that was none other than the continuation of Urmavis scale (Yekta 1922: 57-9). Later on, Yektas contribution was revamped by his peers Saadettin Arel, Suphi Ezgi, and Murat Uzdilek, and has been taught since in Turkish Music conservatories under the name of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek (ztuna 1969: 45-61, 205-9). Because of the excellent proximity of either 24-tone model to the related tones of 53-equal divisions of the octave, the 9 commas per whole tone; 53 commas per octave methodology is unanimously accepted in Turkish makam music parlance and education. In this article, we are going to compare Safi al-din Urmavis 17-tone scale (13th century), Abd al-Baki Nasir Dedes Abjad notation (19th century), and the 24-tone Pythagorean Model in force today. Our conclusion will be that the latter is simply an extension of the former, all of which can be represented with less than one cent error in 53-tone equal temperament, although, observedly, this resolution is not implemented as a whole on any actual instrument of Makam Music.

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music

45

2 Al-Kindis Ud Fretting and Abjad Notation

Muslim philosopher Al-Kindi was the first to make use of Abjad to denote finger positions on the ud. Though he mentioned Greek tetrachordal genera involving the division of the whole-tone into quarters, his 12-note approach is purely Pythagorean (Turabi 1996: 88-92), and is the precursor to Urmavis scale, as shown in Figure 2 and Table 2.

Figure 2. Al-Kindis Ud Fretting Table 2. Al-Kindis Ud Fingering and Abjad Notation1

For the sake of simplification, I have chosen not to burden the reader with needless Arabic appellatives for ud strings and frets.

46

O. Yarman

3 Urmavis 17-Tone Scale

Late Abbasid scholar Safi al-din Abd al-mumin Urmavi proposed for the first time in history a unique 17-tone scale reminiscent of Al-Kindis, which he notated using Abjad (Uygun 1999; elik 2004). He constructed it via a concatenation of 4 pure fifths up and 12 fifths down from an assumed tone of origin (5 additional fifths down compared to Al-Kindi), as shown in Table 3 and Figure 3.

Table 3. Chain of Fifths Making Urmavis 17-tone Scale

Fifths 34 : 24 33 : 23 32 : 22 3:2 0 2:3 22 : 32 2 :3 2 :3
4 3 3 4

Frequency Ratios 81/16 27/8 9/4 3/2 1/1 2/3 4/9 8/27 16/81 32/243 64/729 128/2187 256/6561 512/19683 1024/59049 2048/177147 4096/531441

Octave Normalization 7. 14. 4. 11. 1. 8. 15. 5. 12. 2. 9. 16. 6. 13. 3. 10. 17. 81/64 27/16 9/8 3/2 1/1 4/3 16/9 32/27 128/81 256/243 1024/729 4096/2187 8192/6561 32768/19683 65536/59049 262144/177147 1048576/531441

Classic Interval Names Pythagorean major third Pythagorean major sixth major whole tone perfect fifth (tone of origin perfect prime) perfect fourth Pythagorean minor seventh Pythagorean minor third Pythagorean minor sixth limma, Pythagorean minor second Pythagorean diminished fifth Pythagorean diminished octave Pythagorean diminished fourth Pythagorean diminished seventh Pythagorean diminished third Pythagorean diminished sixth Pythagorean diminished ninth

25 : 35 26 : 36 2 :3 2 :3
8 7 7 8

29 : 39 210 : 310 2 :3 2 :3
12 11 11 12

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music

47

Figure 3. Urmavis 17-tone Pythagorean System

48

O. Yarman

Comparison of Urmavis Abjad Scale with Nasr Dedes Usage

The Abjad Scale of Urmavi following the pattern originally spanned two octaves. Abd al-Baki Nasir Dede extended the gamut by a whole tone and labelled its perdes (Baer (Aksu) 1996: 39-42) as seen in Table 4.
Table 4. Complete Abjad Notation of Perdes 2

Perdes expressed in bold are diatonic naturals.

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music Table 4. Complete Abjad Notation of Perdes Continued

49

The octave complement of zirgule does not exist in Nasir Dede, and is therefore skipped.

50

O. Yarman

In Nasir Dede, Pes (bass) signifies pitches an octave low, and tiz (treble) signifies pitches an octave high. The octave complement of perde zirgule does not exist. The letter ayn is employed for degrees 18 and 28 instead of Urmavis y. Although, Nasir Dede also notated makam music perdes in Abjad, the sheik did not specify any ratios. His approach is compatible with the flexible nature of his instrument, the ney, which can produce subtle nuances of pitch at different angles of insufflation.

5 Comparison of the 24-Tone Pythagorean Model with the Abjad Scale

Compared to Urmavis 17-tone scale, the 24-tone Pythagorean tuning in effect in Turkish makam music known as Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek is assembled within the octave via the affixture to the assumed tone of origin (kaba argah) of 11 pure fifths upward, and 12 downward, as outlined in Table 5.

Table 5. Generation of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek by a Chain of Pure Fifths

Fifths 3 :2 39 : 29 38 : 28 37 : 27 36 : 26 3 :2
5 5 11 11

Frequency Ratios 177147/2048 59049/1024 19683/512 6561/256 2187/128 729/64 243/32 81/16 27/8 9/4 3/2 1/1 2/3 4/9 8/27 16/81 32/243 64/729 128/2187 256/6561 512/19683 1024/59049 2048/177147 4096/531441

Octave Normalization 10. 20. 6. 16. 2. 12. 22. 8. 18. 4. 14. 0. 9. 19. 5. 15. 1. 11. 21. 7. 17. 3. 13. 23. 177147/131072 59049/32768 19683/16384 6561/4096 2187/2048 729/512 243/128 81/64 27/16 9/8 3/2 1/1 4/3 16/9 32/27 128/81 256/243 1024/729 4096/2187 8192/6561 32768/19683 65536/59049 262144/177147 1048576/531441

Classic Interval Names Pythagorean augmented third Pythagorean augmented sixth Pythagorean augmented second Pythagorean augmented fifth apotome Pythagorean tritone Pythagorean major seventh Pythagorean major third Pythagorean major sixth major whole tone perfect fifth (tone of origin perfect prime) perfect fourth Pythagorean minor seventh Pythagorean minor third Pythagorean minor sixth limma, Pythagorean minor second Pythagorean diminished fifth Pythagorean diminished octave Pythagorean diminished fourth Pythagorean diminished seventh Pythagorean diminished third Pythagorean diminished sixth Pythagorean diminished ninth

310 : 210

34 : 24 33 : 23 32 : 22 3:2 0 2:3 22 : 32 23 : 33 24 : 34 2 :3
5 5

26 : 36 27 : 37 28 : 38 29 : 39 210 : 310 2 :3
11 11

212 : 312

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music

51

The Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek System (Ezgi 1933, 8-29; zkan 2006, 45-8), with which traditional perdes of Turkish makam music are explained today, is enclosed in Table 6.

Table 6. Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek System

Pitch 0: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: Frequency Ratios 1/1 256/243 2187/2048 65536/59049 9/8 32/27 19683/16384 8192/6561 81/64 4/3 177147/131072 1024/729 729/512 262144/177147 3/2 128/81 6561/4096 32768/19683 27/16 16/9 59049/32768 4096/2187 243/128 1048576/531441 2/1 Cents 0.000 90.225 113.685 180.450 203.910 294.135 317.595 384.360 407.820 498.045 521.505 588.270 611.730 678.495 701.955 792.180 815.640 882.405 905.865 996.090 1019.550 1086.315 1109.775 1176.540 1200.000 Classic Interval Names (tone of origin perfect prime) limma,Pythagorean minor 2nd apotome Pythagorean diminished 3rd major whole tone Pythagorean minor 3rd Pythagorean augmented 2nd Pythagorean diminished 4th Pythagorean major 3rd perfect 4th Pythagorean augmented 3rd Pythagorean diminished 5th Pythagorean tritone Pythagorean diminished 6th perfect 5th Pythagorean minor 6th Pythagorean augmented 5th Pythagorean diminished 7th Pythagorean major 6th Pythagorean minor 7th Pythagorean augmented 6th Pythagorean diminished 8th Pythagorean major 7th Pythagorean diminished 9th octave I. Octave Perdes KABA RGH Kaba Nm Hicz Kaba Hicz Kaba Dik Hicz YEGH Kaba Nm Hisr Kaba Hisr Kaba Dik Hisr HSEYN ARN ACEM ARN Dik Acem Arn Irak Gevet Dik Gevet RST Nm Zirgle Zirgle Dik Zirgle DGH Krd Dik Krd Segh BSELK Dik Bselik RGH

52

O. Yarman

Table 6. Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek System Continued

Pitch 24: 25: 26: 27: 28: 29: 39: 31: 32: 33: 34: 35: 36: 37: 38: 39: 40: 41: 42: 43: 44: 45: 46: 47: 48: Frequency Ratios 2/1 512/243 2187/1024 131072/59049 9/4 64/27 19683/8192 16384/6561 81/32 8/3 177147/65536 2048/729 729/256 524288/177147 3/1 256/81 6561/2048 65536/19683 27/8 32/9 59049/16384 8192/2187 243/64 2097152/531441 4/1 Cents 1200.000 1290.225 1313.685 1380.450 1403.910 1494.135 1517.595 1584.360 1607.820 1698.045 1721.505 1788.270 1811.730 1878.495 1901.955 1992.180 2015.640 2082.405 2105.865 2196.090 2219.550 2286.315 2309.775 2376.540 2400.000 Classic Interval Names octave Pythagorean minor 9th apotome+octave Pythagorean diminished 10th major ninth Pythagorean minor 10th Pythagorean augmented 9th Pythagorean diminished 11th Pythagorean major 10th perfect 11th Pythagorean augmented 10th Pythagorean diminished 12th Pythagorean tritone+octave Pythagorean diminished 13th perfect 12th Pythagorean minor 13th Pythagorean augmented 12th Pythagorean diminished 14th Pythagorean major 13th Pythagorean minor 14th Pythagorean augmented 13th Pythagorean diminished 15th Pythagorean major 14th Pythagorean diminished 16th two octaves II. Octave Perdes RGH Nm Hicz Hicz Dik Hicz NEV 3 Nm Hisr Hisr Dik Hisr HSEYN ACEM Dik Acem Evi Mhr Dik Mhr GERDNYE Nm ehnz ehnz Dik ehnz MUHAYYER Snble Dik Snble Tz Segh TZ BSELK Tz Dik Bselik TZ RGH 4

3 4

Taken as 440 cps, although notated as d. Further extending until 6/1 from Tz Nm Hicz to TZ GERDNYE according to Ezgi.

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music

53

The habitual notation for this tuning is provided in Figure 4 below:

Figure 4. Notation of the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek System

54

O. Yarman

It is little perceived in Trkiye, that Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek is actually a modification of Rauf Yektas original 24-tone Pythagorean tuning beginning on yegah (D) instead of the dronish and cumbersome to produce kaba argah (C) (Yekta 1922, 58-9, 88-9), in which case the above-mentioned frequency ratios (hence, perdes) are shifted down by a major whole tone and normalized (viz., reduced & sorted) within an octave or, in other words, regenerated via the chain of 14 pure fifths down and 9 up from the new tone of origin (yegah), as shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Generation of Yekta-24 by a Chain of Pure Fifths
Fifths 39 : 29 38 : 28 37 : 27 3 :2
6 6

Frequency Ratios 19683/512 6561/256 2187/128 729/64 243/32 81/16 27/8 9/4 3/2 1/1 2/3 4/9 8/27 16/81 32/243 64/729 128/2187 256/6561 512/19683

Octave Normalization 6. 16. 2. 12. 22. 8. 18. 4. 14. 0. 10. 20. 5. 15. 1. 11. 21. 7. 17. 3. 13. 23. 9. 19. 19683/16384 6561/4096 2187/2048 729/512 243/128 81/64 27/16 9/8 3/2 1/1 4/3 16/9 32/27 128/81 256/243 1024/729 4096/2187 8192/6561 32768/19683 65536/59049 262144/177147 1048576/531441 2097152/1594323 8388608/4782969

Classic Interval Names Pythagorean augmented second Pythagorean augmented fifth apotome Pythagorean tritone Pythagorean major seventh Pythagorean major third Pythagorean major sixth major whole tone perfect fifth (tone of origin perfect prime) perfect fourth Pythagorean minor seventh Pythagorean minor third Pythagorean minor sixth limma, Pythagorean minor second Pythagorean diminished fifth Pythagorean diminished octave Pythagorean diminished fourth Pythagorean diminished seventh Pythagorean diminished third Pythagorean diminished sixth Pythagorean diminished ninth Pythagorean double dim. fifth Pythagorean double dim. octave

35 : 25 34 : 24 33 : 23 32 : 22 3:2 0 2:3 22 : 32 23 : 33 2 :3
4 4

25 : 35 26 : 36 27 : 37 28 : 38 29 : 39 2 :3
10 10

1024/59049 2048/177147 4096/531441 8192/1594323 16384/4782969

211 : 311 212 : 312 213 : 313 214 : 314

Yektas staff notation for this 24-tone tuning where he treats F-sharp on the 7th degree (arak) as F-natural (thus, turning Fb-C into a perfect fifth) at the expense and forfeiture of international legibility is delineated in Figure 5. Following this, a comparison of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek with Yekta-24, and another between Arel-EzgiUzdilek and Abjad Scale may be seen further in Tables 8 and 9 below. Our first comparison demonstrates the relatedness of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek to Yekta-24; with the only substantial difference being the tone of origin (kaba argah vs yegah). The second comparison shows, that the 24-tone Pythagorean Model is none other than an extension of Urmavis 17-tone Abjad Scale.

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music

55

Figure 5. Notation of Yekta-24

56

O. Yarman

Table 8. Comparison of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek & Yekta-24

AEU Ratios 0: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 24: 1/1 256/243 2187/2048 65536/59049 9/8 32/27 19683/16384 8192/6561 81/64 4/3 177147/131072 1024/729 729/512 262144/177147 3/2 128/81 6561/4096 32768/19683 27/16 16/9 59049/32768 4096/2187 243/128 2/1 Cents 0.000 90.225 113.685 180.450 203.910 294.135 317.595 384.360 498.045 521.505 588.270 611.730 678.495 701.955 792.180 815.640 882.405 905.865 996.090 1019.550 1086.315 1109.775 1200.000 Perdes KABA RGH Kaba Nm Hicz Kaba Hicz Kaba Dik Hicz YEGH Kaba Nm Hisr Kaba Hisr Kaba Dik Hisr ACEM ARN Dik Acem Arn Irak Gevet Dik Gevet RST Nm Zirgle Zirgle Dik Zirgle DGH Krd Dik Krd Segh BSELK Dik Bselik RGH 0: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: 1/1 256/243 2187/2048 65536/59049 9/8 32/27 19683/16384 8192/6561 81/64 4/3 1024/729 729/512 262144/177147 3/2 128/81 6561/4096 32768/19683 27/16 16/9 4096/2187 243/128 2/1 0.000 90.225 113.685 180.450 294.135 317.595 384.360 407.820 498.045 588.270 611.730 678.495 701.955 792.180 815.640 882.405 905.865 996.090 1086.315 1109.775 1200.000 YEGH Nim Pest Hisar Pest Hisar Dik Pest Hisar Acemairan Dik Acemairan ARAK Gevet Dik Gevet RAST Nim Zengle Zengle Dik Zengle DGH Krd Dik Krd SEGH Puselik Dik Puselik ARGH Nim Hicaz Hicaz Dik Hicaz NEVA Yekta-24 Ratios Cents Perdes

407.820 HSEYN.ARN

203.910 HSEYNARAN

2097152/1594323 474.585

23: 1048576/531441 1176.540

19: 8388608/4782969 972.630

1048576/531441 1176.540

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music

57

Table 9. Comparison of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek & Abjad Scale

AEU Ratios 0: 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: 1/1 256/243 2187/2048 65536/59049 9/8 32/27 19683/16384 8192/6561 81/64 4/3 177147/131072 1024/729 729/512 262144/177147 3/2 128/81 6561/4096 32768/19683 27/16 16/9 59049/32768 4096/2187 243/128 1048576/531441 2/1 Cents 0.000 90.225 113.685 180.450 203.910 294.135 317.595 384.360 407.820 498.045 521.505 588.270 611.730 678.495 701.955 792.180 815.640 882.405 905.865 996.090 1019.550 1086.315 1109.775 1176.540 1200.000 Perdes KABA RGH Kaba Nm Hicz Kaba Hicz Kaba Dik Hicz YEGH Kaba Nm Hisr Kaba Hisr Kaba Dik Hisr HSEYN.ARN ACEM ARN Dik Acem Arn Irak Gevet Dik Gevet RST Nm Zirgle Zirgle Dik Zirgle DGH Krd Dik Krd Segh BSELK Dik Bselik RGH 14: 15: 16: 17: 16/9 4096/2187 996.090 1086.315 ARGH Sb Hicz NEVA 12: 13: 32768/19683 27/16 882.405 905.865 SEGH Bselik 9: 10: 11: 262144/177147 3/2 128/81 678.495 701.955 792.180 Zirgle DGH Krd/Nihvend 7: 8: 4/3 1024/729 498.045 588.270 RAST ri 5: 6: 8192/6561 81/64 384.360 407.820 ARAK Gevet 2: 3: 4: 65536/59049 9/8 32/27 180.450 203.910 294.135 Pest Hisar (HSEYN) ARAN Acem Airan 0: 1: 1/1 256/243 0.000 90.225 YEGH Pest Beyati Abjad Ratios Cents Perdes

1048576/531441 1176.540 2/1 1200.000

58

O. Yarman

6 Approximation by 53-Tone Equal Temperament

Because of the excellent proximity of either 24-tone model to the related tones of 53equal divisions of the octave, the 9 commas per whole tone; 53 commas per octave methodology is unanimously accepted in Turkish makam music parlance and education. A stereotypical schema pertaining to the Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek division of the whole tone is reproduced in Figure 6 (zkan 2006: 46).

Figure 6. Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek Division of the Whole Tone into 9 commas 5

The frequency ratios of and intervals between these accidentals including their counterparts in Yekta-24 and equivalents in 53 equal divisions of the octave are projected onto Table 10.
Table 10. Exposition of the Fa-Sol Division in Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek & Yekta-24

Depiction reproduced from p. 46 of the reference to this figure. The correct range, however, should have been Fa-Sol. Each comma is Holdrian, i.e., ~22.642 cents wide, hence, one step of 53 equal divisions of the octave which is a decent approximation with less than a cent error to the Pythagorean comma (difference of a stack of 12 pure fifths from 7 octaves) expressed as 312 : 219 = 531441:524288 and equalling 23.46 cents.

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music

59

How well 53-tone equal temperament embodies both Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek and Yekta24 (and therefore the Abjad Scale) to the point of doing away with either may be seen in Table 11.

Table 11. Approximation of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek & Yekta-24 by 53-tET

AEU Ratios (Abjad Scale in bold) 0: 1/1 1: 256/243 2: 2187/2048 3: 65536/59049 4: 9/8 5: 32/27 6: 19683/16384 7: 8192/6561 8: 81/64 9: 10: 11: 12: 13: 14: 15: 16: 17: 18: 19: 4/3 177147/131072 1024/729 729/512 262144/177147 3/2 128/81 6561/4096 32768/19683 27/16 16/9 Cents 0.000 90.225 113.685 180.450 203.910 294.135 317.595 384.360 407.820 498.045 521.505 588.270 611.730 678.495 701.955 792.180 815.640 882.405 905.865 996.090 1019.550 1086.315 1109.775 1176.540 1200.000 Yekta-24 Ratios (Abjad Scale in bold) 0: 1/1 1: 256/243 2: 2187/2048 3: 65536/59049 4: 9/8 5: 32/27 6: 19683/16384 7: 8192/6561 8: 81/64 9: 2097152/1594323 10: 4/3 Cents 0.000 90.225 113.685 180.450 203.910 294.135 317.595 384.360 407.820 474.585 498.045 588.270 611.730 678.495 701.955 792.180 815.640 882.405 905.865 972.630 996.090 1086.315 1109.775 1176.540 1200.000 53-tET Aprx. 0: 0.000 4: 90.566 5: 113.208 8: 181.132 9: 203.774 13: 294.340 14: 316.981 17: 384.906 18: 407.547 21: 475.472 22: 498.113 23: 520.755 26: 588.679 27: 611.321 30: 679.245 31: 701.887 35: 792.453 36: 815.094 39: 883.019 40: 905.660 43: 973.585 44: 996.226 45:1018.868 48:1086.792 49:1109.434 52:1177.358 53:1200.000 Diff. 0 0.341 -0.4775 0.6821 -0.1364 0.2046 -0.6139 0.5457 -0.2728 0.8867 0.0682 -0.7503 0.4093 -0.4093 0.7503 -0.0682 0.2728 -0.5457 0.6139 -0.2046 0.9549 0.1364 -0.6821 0.4775 -0.341 0.8185 0

11: 1024/729 12: 729/512 13: 262144/177147 14: 3/2 15: 128/81 16: 6561/4096 17: 32768/19683 18: 27/16 19: 8388608/4782969 20: 21: 22: 23: 24: 16/9 4096/2187 243/128 1048576/531441 2/1

20: 59049/32768 21: 4096/2187 22: 243/128 23: 1048576/531441 24: 2/1

(Average absolute difference: 0.4486 cents, Highest absolute difference: 0.9549 cents)

60

O. Yarman

7 Conclusions
In this article, we have reviewed Al-Kindis ud fretting and Abjad notation, and have comparatively evaluated, seemingly for the first time, two historical notations in Turkish makam music based on the Abjad numerical system. Of particular interest is Urmavis 17-tone Abjad Scale spanning two octaves whose precursor was Al-Kindis tuning. Upon it, Nasir Dede ascribed traditional perde names recognized today. However, the handful of extant musical examples written in Abjad prove its lack of popularity among composers and executants throughout the ages. As expected, Abjad is no longer in use today. Next, we compared the theory in effect in Trkiye known as Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek with Yekta-24 and showed that both were essentially the same, and showed that the 24-tone Pythagorean Model was simply an extension of the 17-tone Abjad Scale. Finally, we demonstrated that 53 equal divisions of the octave was a common grid embracing the said tunings with less than a cent error. On close scrutiny, a gross asymmetry in the deployment of Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek accidentals catches the eye, and F# (4 commas sharp) not being the same distance from F as Gb (5 commas flat) is from G, to say nothing of Fx and Gbb not being double at all, leaves something to be desired. In retrospect, Yektas symbols may be found to be less disproportionate by comparison particularly if the Fa-Sol region is notated properly as shown in Table 10. Even so, Yekta-24 is handicapped due to diatonic naturals not being the product of an uninterrupted cycle of fifths 6, a feature Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek flaunts despite its lack of credentials for a Pythagorean C-major scale running from kaba argah to argah as the basis of Turkish Music theory (Levendolu 2003: 181-93; Aksoy 2003: 174-5). Yekta-24 is further dysfunctional, in that the order of sharps and flats in the chain is not faithful to Western idiom. Arel-Ezgi-Uzdilek is likewise encumbered in the sharps sector. It is not surprising, therefore, that the resources of 53-tone equal temperament, particularly in regard to transpositions and polyphony, are not fully utilized in Turkish makam music. Hence, 53 equal divisions of the octave far from being wholly implemented on any acoustic instrument of makam music serves rather theoretical interests, especially when delineating customary melodic inflexions during practice.

Since, in the series C-G-D-A-E-B-F#, the interval between E-B (262144:177147) is a wolf fifth of 678.5 cents, and B-F# is found at the other end of the chain 8-9 fifths below C.

A Comparative Evaluation of Pitch Notations in Turkish Makam Music

61

References
Aksoy, B. 2003. Avrupal Gezginlerin Gzyle Osmanllarda Muski. 2nd rev. ed. Istanbul, Pan Yaynclk. Bardak, M. 1986. Maragal Abdlkadir. Istanbul, Pan Yaynclk. Baer (Aksu), F. A. 1996. Trk Msksinde Abdlbki Nsr Dede (1765-1821). n.p., Doctorate Dissertation, Social Sciences Institute, Marmara University [Trkiye], T03783 Ref 780.956/B298 1996 k.1. elik, A. E. 2004. Safiyddin Abdlmmin Urmevinin Ses Sistemi Teorisine Matematiksel Bir Yaklam. Mzik ve Bilim Dergisi, September 2004, nr. 2. On the Internet: http://www.muzikbilim.com/2e_2004/celik_ae.html. Djami, A. ca.1450. Treatise on Music. [Orig. transl. (from Persian) A. N. Boldyrev & Victor M. Belyayev, ed.] Transl. (from Russian) I. Darreg (1965). Tashkent, Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the Uzdek Socialist Soviet Republic. Ekmekiolu, S. E. 1992. Trk Mziinde Gemiten Gnmze Nota Yaynlar. n.p., Masters Thesis, Social Sciences Institute, Istanbul Technical University [Trkiye], Gz UZ74 EKM. El-Ehwany, A. F. 1961. Al-Kindi. In: Sharif, M. M., ed. A History of Muslim Philosophy With Short Accounts of Other Disciplines and the Modern Renaissance in the Muslim Lands (compilation of articles from the Pakistan Philosophical Congress). Vol. III. Delhi: Low Price Publications. Ezgi, S. Z. 1933. Nazar ve Amel Trk Msksi. Vol. I. Istanbul, Milli Mecmua Matbaas. IRCICA. 2003. History of Ottoman Literature of Science History of Music Literature During the Ottoman Period (4th in the series). Istanbul, Publication of the Research Centre for Islamic History, Art and Culture. Levendolu, O. N. 2003. Klasik Trk Mziinde Ana Dizi Tartmas ve argah Makam. Gazi Eitim Fakltesi Dergisi. Vol. XXIII, nr. 2. Ankara: Gazi niversitesi Yayn. zkan, . H. 2006. Trk Msksi Nazariyat ve Uslleri Kudm Velveleleri. 8th ed. Istanbul, tken Neriyat. ztuna, Y. 1969. Trk Musikisi Ansiklopedisi. Vol. II. Istanbul, T.C. Milli Eitim Basmevi. 1998. Tura, Y. 1982. Trk Msksi Nazariyatna Giri-Trk Msksi Ses Sistemi. In: Trk Msksinin Meseleleri. 1998. Istanbul: Pan Yaynclk. Turabi, A. H. 1996. El Kindnin Msk Risleleri. n.p., Masters Thesis, Social Sciences Institute, Marmara University [Trkiye], T03611 Ref 297.3/T929 1996 k.1. Uygun, M. N. 1999. Safiyddin Abdlmmin Urmev ve Kitbl Edvr. Istanbul, Kubbealt Neriyat. Yekta, R. 1922. Trk Musikisi. Transl. O. Nasuhiolu. Istanbul: Pan Yaynclk. 1986.