[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Turkish makam using

From: Adam Good
Subject: Re: Turkish makam using
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 00:02:38 -0400

On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 9:42 AM Hans Åberg <address@hidden> wrote:

> > On 23 Oct 2018, at 04:56, Adam Good <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> Does it sound lower in standard Turkish performance, that is, which does
> not refer to a MIDI? —

I just listened to some midi output. Assuming I did this correctly,
#(define-public EKSIK-IKI 5/20)
#(define-public EKSIK-UC 3/10)

...which would be 2.5k vs. 3k as far as I know, do sound strikingly
different from one another, surprisingly so. That's the mechanical part. In
practice of Turkish performance by the masters, they simply do what ussak
needs to do according to their ears and lots of that has to do with
glissando. Fairly impossible to notate and reproduce via synthesis.

> What does the Makam Uşşak MIDI sound now that you have proper E53 without
> that addition?

At least closer to what makam Ussak needs by the availability of 3
different segah pitches but of course not perfect. But this isn't a concern
to me.

> Also note that the file retunes around E12 C4, so its A4 will
> be slightly higher than 440 Hz.

True and weird! Any idea where that would put A4?

> Turkish notation does not have glyphs for all E53 notes, so you might fill
> them in with something, to get that instead of an error.

I'm fairly reluctant to add glyphs and in fact already added one for -18/53
because makam Huzzam needed it for the key signature. I'll come up with
better fixes by way of errors rather than shoot in the dark.

Also added -15/53 for the ussak si

> > 3. Many of the not so obvious \override KeySignature #'padding-pairs =
> #'(
> > are incomplete but these issues come up during weird transpositions. A
> bit
> > time consuming to test.
> The standard key signatures should now work, if you just find a suitable
> keyAlterationOrder. If you can, check with the unstable version.

Between the stable vs. dev versions I'm not finding inconsistent behavior
of key sig padding.

Check the attached for makamGlyphs definitions, note blanks as unneeded
placeholders for future errors. Is that acceptable?


Description: Binary data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]